The

In the department of flexion we find less radical changes. genitive was the first case to disappear. In general its functions were usurped by the preposition de. But for the possessive sense the dative was adopted, cf. HIC REQUIESCUNT MEMBRA AD DUOS FRATRES, in an inscription from Gaul. The accusative serves for the case after prepositions under all circumstances, and therefore even in places where the older language used the ablative, e.g. magister cum suos discentes in a Pompeian inscription. Nouns of the third declension with monosyllabic nominative, e. g. lens, stirps, ars, &c., form a dissyllabic nominative, e.g. lentis, stirpis, &c. The dividing line between masculine and neuter, at all times doubtful, is frequently broken down, especially in the singular, e.g. cubitum instead of cubitus, and there are converse cases. The absorption of the fourth declension by the second is almost complete. In the declension of the pronouns the genitives ipsuius, illuius, dat. ipsui, illui, fem. illaeius, illaei, are found in several inscriptions, but do not belong to the common language, since, as we have already said, they are not at home in the Iberian peninsula. On the other hand, all the Romance languages show that eo took the place of ego. The use of ille as personal pronoun, and also of ipse, and of both these forms as articles, dates from ancient times. We find a parallel to the weakening of these demonstratives in the amalgamation of the pronominal combinations to be found as early as Plautus with ecce, eccum, which results in new forms, e.g. ecceillé (O. Fr. cil, Mod. Fr. celui) or eccuille (Ital. quegli, Sp. aquel); ecceiste (Fr. ce- ()); eccuiste (Ital. questo, Sp. aqueste). In the verb-system, a characteristic change is the disappearance of the future and passive forms, the explanation of the phenomenon in both cases being psychological rather than formal. Popular language is not familiar with the future. and replaces it by the present-or, more strictly speaking, the vulgar person deals only with the present or the past. The case of the passive is similar. The transposition of active into passive is too complicated a process for the simple mind. The object of the action remains the object; when the subject of the action is not known, they resorted to the indefinite third person plural, e.g. vendun! casam is the popular mode of expressing domus venditur. And further, the perfect amatus sum was replaced by amatus fui, since fui was a perfect and could now take over the function of a present. For the moment, all other tenses and moods of the verb were preserved, only of the infinite forms, the gerundive, perfect infinitive and the two supines disappeared. Of the gerund nothing remained but the ablative. In compensation, however, we soon find a form habeo cantatum springing up beside cantavi in use as perfect, e.g. litteras scriptas habeo meant in the first instance, "I possess written letters," with nothing implied as to who wrote the letters; 'but later this usage is limited to cases where the owner is also the originator of the state of things expressed in the participle, and thus it attains to the force of a perfect.

There is little change in the formation of individual verb-forms. It is natural that the infinitives esse, velle, posse, being exceptional, should have been brought into line with all the rest. This was done by simply adding -re on to esse (Ital. essere, Fr. être), while the other two were constructed from the forms of the verb whose ending was accented, or from the perfect, e.g. volebam, potebam, volui, potui, gave rise to "volere, potere, on the analogy of docebam, docui, monebam, monui, nocebam, nocui, &c.; with infinitives, docere, monere, nocere, &c. (cf. Ital. volere, potere, Fr. vouloir, pouvoir, Sp. and Port. poder, Rum. vrea, putea). In other infinitives there is much confusion, especially as between -ère, and -ère verbs, noticed by the Latin grammarians themselves; we have evidence, too, that at an early stage the present forms in -io, iam led to a confusion of the ire and -ère conjugation, e.g. Plautus has morire (Ital. morire, Fr. mourir, Sp. morir. Rum. muri); Lucretius has cupire; Cato has fodire, &c. For the rest we may note as important that perfect-forms without -, such as -asti, -astis, -arunt, infected the first person singular, e.g. -ai instead of -avi. A new type in -idi arose on the model of vendidi, and then affected other verbs in -ndere, eg, descendidi (in Gellius), prendidi (in the grammarian Probus) and in general verbs of the third conjugation. But its spread was slow, so that it can scarcely be said to have been common to all the languages.

In the formation of words the popular language probably had far greater freedom than the written language. We find not only a marked preference for diminutives in -ulus and -ellus, but many other types are established, or new ones created. And as the chief ones

we must mention the post-verbalia (nouns constructed out of verbs). Thus pugnare, being itself derived from pugnum, then produces pugna (on the pattern of planta, plantare), and these formations soon became extremely common, and not only in a- verbs, but also in ère-verbs, cf. in particular dolus, "grief" (not to be confused with the ancient dolus," craft "), C.I.L. x. 4510 (Rum. dor, Ital. duolo, Fr. deuil, Sp. duelo). As examples of other types we have -ura beside or, which we can trace back to ardura, a contamination of ardor and arsura, which extended to fervura; also to strictura beside strictus; directura beside directus, when the old participles had separated both in form and in meaning from the verbal-system and had become adjectives, whose I was felt to be part of the stem. Another feature of the verb is the gradual retreat of old simple formations in favour of derivatives from the participle, e.g. cantare, adjutare, ausare, &c., in place of canere, adjuvare, audere; then for denominatives -icare and the Gr. -izare (Ital. -eggiare, Fr. -oyer, Sp. -ear) which, coming in with Christianity, was soon added on to Latin stems, e.g. (in Fulgentius) citherizantium aut tibizantium. Among points of syntax we may single out the replacing of infinitival sentences (following verbs of feeling, seeing, hearing, wishing) by clauses with ut, quod or quia, whence Ital. che, Fr. que. The latter particle spread most rapidly, and soon took precedence over the other conjunctions, not only in the cases just mentioned, but in introducing object-, subject-and final-clauses. relations of the common and the literary language. So much of It is in the vocabulary that it is most difficult to define the the Latin vocabulary as appears over the whole Romance area comes of course from the everyday language which was used from the mouth of the Ebro to that of the Danube, but it is by no means all. It is more interesting to inquire whether anything can be reconstructed from Romance, and, if so, how much? The exist Fr. aider, Sp. ayudar, Rum, aiuta) and appearing in all the Romance ence of a form aiutare, for example, mentioned above (Ital. ajutare, languages, is indisputable. Between Fr. grolle ("crow"), Lyon. grola, Gascon. agraulo, Tirol. grolo, and (with change of gender) is so close that one is led to assume a common basis for all these Apul. raulu, Rum. graur, the connexion, both in form and meaning, words. such a word goes back to Latin, though remembering that it was This basis is graulus, -a, and it is safe to assume that Port. achar, Gris. aflár, Dalm. afluár, " to find," all point to afflare, not found in the western regions. Rum. aflá, Sic. asciari, Sp. hallar, and in this case, too, the change in meaning may be safely ascribed to Latin, only in this case Gaul is not included. Rum. ariță, also "wing," and in Sp. also the wickerwork on both sides of Fr. aube, Prov. aubo, Sp. alabe," paddle-board," in Rum. meaning a vehicle," in Port. "the wing of a parapet," point to a form *alapa, which meant "wing" and which must have belonged to the vulgar language, even though no trace of it survives in Italy. Many other points could be enumerated, but problems are involved which have as yet hardly been taken up.1

In dealing with the division of this common language into a view to be considered. Before we can touch upon these, we must number of individual languages there are still further points of first take a general survey of these languages. There are altogether nine-Rumanian, Dalmatian, Sardinian, Italian, Raeto-Romanic, French, Provençal, Spanish and Portuguese. Of these nine languages, Dalmatian is now extinct, and even what we learn of it from the ancients is very meagre. On the one hand, Ragusa and the plains of Dalmatia never attained the degree of independence in literature which would have brought about a floruit in the language such as Provençal has to show. Neither, on the other hand, was its political independence stable enough, nor was it sufficiently

remote to escape intercourse with the rest of the world, like the Raeto-Romanic dialects. The hordes of Slavs pressing forward Romanic civilization, first in the country and then in the towns. from the inner regions of the hinterland soon put an end to the And when the Venetians, who were, both in point of culture and of commerce and of politics, on a higher level, regained their power cities, the result was of course all in favour of the Venetian dialect. over the Dalmatians by occasional conquests, chiefly over the On the island of Veglia alone there were still living about the middle The last of these is now dead. Our approximate notions of this of the 19th century a few people who still spoke Old Dalmatian. language are gleaned from the speech of these natives of Veglia, from the Romance elements in the Servo-Croatian dialect of from a few more ancient notes, place-names, proper names and Ragusa. We may begin by reducing these nine languages to groups-Dacian, Dalmatian, Sardinian, Italic, Raetic, Gallic and Iberian. The most striking peculiarity of the first three of these groups is the absence of Germanic words in the vocabulary. general" Average-Latin" before the beginning of the more decided In other words, they were withdrawn from the influence of the permeation of Latin by Germanic elements. signs of their antiquity. In Central Sardinian e before e, i, and

seven

There are other

1 Cf. G. Gröber, Archiv. f. lat. Lexicographie, i. 204 ff. Cf. M. G. Bartoli, "Das Dalmatische" (1906), (Schriften der Balkan-Kommission der K. Akademie der Wissenschaften, linguistische Abteilung, Bd. iv. and v.)..

in Dalmatian e before e are always preserved as velars, and in south Sardinian and in Rumanian the palatalization is more recent, and secondary. The preservation of the tenues between vowels as breathed fortes is peculiar to Rumano-Dalmatian, but as north Sardinian used breathed lenes in their place, while the dialect of Nuoro, in Sardinia, preserved the fortes, we have every ground for assuming that central and south Sardinia also possessed either fortes or lenes in earlier times. Moreover, south Italy, Sicily and a large part of central Italy as far as the Apennines replace the old Latin tenues either with breathed fortes or breathed lenes, in marked contrast to the regions of the Po, to Gallic and the Iberian group. All these phenomena may perhaps be explained in conjunction with two historical events. By the abandonment of the province of Dacia (in A.D. 270), Rumanían lost its close touch with the languages of nearest affinity; and the division of the empire under Diocletian and Constantine necessarily entailed a linguístic division. At that epoch the linguistic conditions were roughly as follows:

The principal changes in the vowel-system, especially the development of qualitative beside quantitative variations, had been accomplished, but there was still a difference between and e, й and §. | The old future had disappeared, and no tendency to produce a substitute had as yet appeared. The Latin pluperfect subjunctive still maintained its old usage, probably also the imperfect subjunctive and the future perfect. In declensions the type membrum, -a, had begun to spread; but corpus, -ora, was still in existence. Sardinia seems to have been, perhaps owing to its isolation, the first to have detached itself from this group. For it was not content with differentiating and, but it also retains -s, whereas the East-Rumanian and an Italian group suppressed -s, and in consequence also the difference between the nominative and the accusative singular. This and the levelling of neuters in us and masculines in -u made it possible for the types membra and corpora to spread at the expense of the type loci-a possibility of which South Italian and Rumanian made the fullest use. On the given basis the various languages carried on their various developments, influenced partly by contiguity of other idioms, partly by causes unknown to us. Among neighbouring idioms, Greek had by right of its degree of civilization and its political power great influence in giving Rumanian and South Italian a similar direction, and that at a time when every trace of a geographical connexion between these two language-groups had long vanished. Thus, the replacing of the construction I will come "by "I will that I come" took its rise in Greece and was passed on to Rumania and Apulia. The rise of the new future voiu căntá, "I will sing," in Rumanian is probably due to Greek influence. In Latin itself both ille caballus and caballus ille are found, the position depending on the accentual conditions of the sentence. Then the loss of s made room for the form caball[] ille with a victory for the inverted order. In Rumania alone this was the actual process, under the influence of the surrounding speechIllyrian or Bulgarian, or perhaps independently of them, in this latter case serving as prototype to these languages. Dalmatian and South Italian, on the other hand, were so closely connected with the languages that preserved s and therefore prefixed the article that in this particular they separated from Rumanian. This is not the place to show how the Rumanian vocabulary and the structure of words was permeated markedly by elements from Slav, less markedly by elements from Turkish, Mod. Greek and Hungarian, which gave the language an alien appearance in point of vocabulary.

In its consonants, and, as far as one can judge, in its morphology, Dalmatian has preserved the stamp of antiquity. But in its vowelsystem there are marked changes, especially in the substitution of diphthongs for close vowels, e.g. changing a to e, u through the u stage to oi, i to ei, o to au, e to ai. Diphthongs such as they appear also in Istrian and Abruzzian, so that we must presuppose some sort of connexion.

It may be that Sardinian took another course of development because (A.D. 458) the island was rent from Rome and incorporated in the African empire of Genseric, king of the Vandals. Therefore the sympathies of Sardinia were alienated from Italy, and turned on the one hand towards Africa (and unfortunately we have no information as to the "latinity "of this region), on the other towards the Iberian peninsula. These conditions lasted for a while, but later we find Genoa and Pisa fighting at intervals for supremacy in Sardinia, their organization being in many points identical with that of the island. On the whole, this new combination has not materially affected the language, especially in Logodoro. The vowel system (of great antiquity), as well as the velar pronunciation of c before e, i, remained unchanged, neither did they get as far as to adopt the future-forms current on the mainland; on the contrary, the Sardinians arrived independently and later at their usage of depo cantare or haia a cantar. But the use of ipse as an article in Sardinia, Mallorca, and in the earliest times also in the CatalanianGascon area, clearly proves the linguistic connexion which for a time covered this area, and we may also see some connexion in the fact that the lenes became voiced between vowels. On the whole, and in spite of everything, Sardinian is the most archaic of the

Romance languages. Owing to its retaining s, it has failed to extend the membra-lempora types of formation, indeed it has almost rejected them entirely. It has retained the imperfect subjunctive to this day, and as a corollary it has lost the pluperfect of that mood. And though every Romance language has a number of Latin words that are not common to the rest, yet in this language the number of these ära. Aeyóueva is greater than in others, and it is noteworthy that these have here survived such common expressions as domo, house," mannu, great,' with other examples.

The East-Rumanian group (coupled with Sardinia) finds its counterpart in the great group based upon the Latinity of Gaul the Iberian peninsula, and north Italy. This group contains a considerable number of fundamental peculiarities in phonology, morphology and vocabulary which prima facie lead us to assume a fairly long period of contact.

The chief of these peculiarities is the final change of the vowe!system, i.e. the loss of the distinction between è and i, between ở and ; then the change of breathed plosives and fricatives between vowels into voiced plosives and fricatives respectively; the use of the pluperfect subjunctive instead of the lost imperfect subjunctive (Itaf. cantasse, Fr. que je chantasse, Sp. cantase, Port. cantasse), the formation of a new future from the infinitive of the verb and the present, or (as the case may be) the imperfect or perfect of habere, e.g. Ital. canterò, canterei, Fr. je chanterai, chanterais, Sp. cantaré, cantaria. If it is safe to assume that this latter formation had its origin in places where we find it most firmly rooted, we are led to assign it to the north of France. For it is only there that both elements in the formation are inseparably connected from the beginning of our record. In the old Provençal the two constituent parts are still separable; in the oldest Spanish and Portuguese their position is not fixed (i.e. the auxiliary may follow or precede the verb). In north Italy we frequently find the form aurò cantare instead of cantarò, obviously because this formation is not properly acclimatized. But at any rate it is clear that the change of function from cantare habeo to cantabo belongs to the time when the three great groups were still in close contact, and the evidence of the Latin texts falls into line with this view, showing this construction well established from the second half of the 4th century. In the vocabulary we must note, among other things, the introduction of Germanic words, e.g. elmo, Fr. heaume, Sp. yelmo, "helmet "; harpa, "harp," Ital. arpa, Fr. harpe, Sp. and Port. arpa; medus, "meed," which is found in Antimus and Isidore, but disappears later (cf. O. Fr. mies, "meed "); waidanian, Ital. guadagnare, Fr. gagner, Sp. guadañar, and many more.

The further steps in the process of differentiation were conditioned by the breaking up of the Roman empire by the great migrations. The establishment of the rule of the Franks in north Gaul, of the Visigoths in south Gaul and the Iberian peninsula, loosened old ties, created new nations and in consequence new and independent groups of languages.

The Iberian group was marked primarily by a striking simplicity in its flexions. The three-case system was given up at an early stage, even in prehistoric times, and has left no traces whatever. Owing to the preservation of -s the type membra was doomed to perish, and thus we find, from the beginning of our record and therefore presumably soon after the great cleavage took place, the prevalence in nouns of the following simple rule: sing. He -o, -a; plur. -es, -os, -as. The loss of the dative may have some connexion with the fact that the form illui for the 3rd personal pronoun had not yet established itself; and the desire for uniformity may have ousted the nominative of o- stems. There are analogies in the conjugation. The pluperfect indicative was preserved, and even (largely) with a Latin significance, but in the region of flexion much simplification took place, e.g. uniformity of accentuation in the three conjugations, marked reduction of the s- perfect and u- perfect forms and a great reduction in the number of u- participles.

The vocabulary is characterized by certain archaisms, and still more by the fact that a series of common ideas are rendered by new words limited in use to the Iberian peninsula. Thus we have querer (quaerere) instead of velle; quedar (quietare) instead of manere; callar (deriv. uncertain) for tacere; hablar (fabulare), "to speak"; llegar (plicare), "to arrive "; dejar (?) instead of lacare, &c. Further, we may mention the preference of tenere to habere even for the formation of perfect-forms, of which examples are to be found in Orosius, and of magis to plus for expressing comparisons, for which also we may find examples in Latin authors or the Iberian peninsula. The influence of the Goths or Suevi and Vandals on the vocabulary is inconsiderable, and when we trace it it is not easy to explain; e.g. Galician laverca, "lark," is clearly from a western Gothic lawerka, but it is difficult to see why the name for this bird should have been supplied by the Germanic. To sum up, one may say that the Latin of Iberia was a self-contained language, at first showing little modification by influences from Iberian, or later by those from Germanic; further, that its development was slow, and that it aimed at simplicity.

At the present day there are three great groups, running almost

1 See Thielmann, in Archiv f. lat. Lexikogr. ii. 48 seq.

"

parallel from N.E. to S.W., e.g. Catalanian on the coast of the Mediterranean, akin to Provençal, Spanish in the centre, GalicianPortuguese on the Atlantic. From the historical point of view one part might be called Gothic-Romance, the other Suevo-Romance. But the national and linguistic history of the times and countries we are dealing with is still very obscure. The difference between the two idioms is chiefly one of phonetics, while in their morphology and vocabulary they do not greatly differ. Spanish may be described as a language which favours vowels at the expense of consonants, and which therefore shows, more than other Romance languages, a weakening even of initial consonants. It changes voiced stops first to fricatives, then to mere noises or burrs which finally disappear altogether, and s before a consonant or finally, becomes h (through a middle stage 3) and is finally lost. The preferential treatment of vowels, however, entailed not a single change except that è was changed to the diphthong ie, o to ue; all else were preserved, e.g. diez (decem), tiempo (lempus), bueno (bonus), fuerte fortis); but haver (habere), lid (lite), corona (corona), humo fumus). The weakness of the initial sound is shown in enero (januaruis), hazer (facere), llamar (clamare with a transitional clyamar), llaga (plaga), &c. The written language has no sign for voiced plosives between vowels, but -atho or -ao is spread over nearly the whole region.

In

In contrast to Spanish, Portuguese has a strong pronunciation of initial sounds, and so does not go beyond janeiro, fazer, and changes cl (with transitional form cly, ky), and also pl (via ply, py) to ch, e.g. chamar, chaga. On the other hand, it has a careless articulation of vowels and consonants, and consequently no diphthongs. The unaccented vowels are weakened, as finals almost to vanishing point. It shows further a fusion of nasals with the preceding vowel, so as to form a nasal vowel, and this new nasality takes the colour of the preceding vowel, e.g. vina becomes vinho, but una becomes uma, otherwise before a vowel the nasal finally disappears; cheio and cheia, from plenus, plena. Similarly was lost between vowels, e.g. ceo (caelum); before consonants it became I, or u, e.g. outro (alteru), caido (calidu). Voiced plosives have a weak pronunciation between vowels, and these are sometimes made fricatives. relation to the somewhat careless articulation we note a marked reaction on accented vowels by the final vowel (e.g. novo has a close vowel, nova an open one), and also by the following consonants: velarizes, s palatalizes preceding sounds, hence estas pronounced istas, "thou art," with reduced i, but devedor (debitor), "debtor," with reduced e. Lastly, the division between words is not sharp-the interaction of initial sounds and finals being very striking. Devedor has a plosive d, a devedor has a fricative; istas has a breathed -s, but istas nos ceus, "thou art in heaven," has a voiced -s; seja, be," ," has a reduced a; o nome is pronounced u nome, but seja o nome is pronounced sej o nome, with an open o from a+o, &c. The separation of Gaul took place likewise in the second half of the 5th century, when the Visigoths had settled down in the south, the Burgundians in the east, and the Franks in the north. The type of language that was evolved here is distinct from Spanish primarily and principally in the loss of final vowels except a, or, when the formation of the word was incompatible with this loss, in a weakening to e. On the other hand, the declension is strongly conservative. Nowhere are the old case-endings so clearly preserved as in this region, e.g. reis, "king," but la rei fille (regi filia), "the king's daughter "; veit le rei, "videt regem"; dunet le rei," donat (dal) regi"; these are the modes of expression, and they last till far into the literary period. But at an early stage there was a breach between the Franks of the north and the Burgundians of the east on the one hand, and the Visigoths of the south on the other. For while the latter (the Visigoths) retained the old system of accented vowels, the former changed è to a diphthong ie, & became uo, ue, and moreover è and i became ei, ō and й became ou; a was changed to a, assuming that these vowels were long in accordance with the later Latin pronunciation, e.g. nepote pede nevout piet nebot pe

mola muele mola

Lat. debere pratu North Fr. deveir pret South Fr. dever prat The northern group, moreover, weakened the consonants still further. D and g, secondary consonants from and c, disappear like the primary ones, and thus pratellus becomes preau, S. Fr. pradel; advocatus becomes avoué, S. Fr. avogat; a secondary (from 6) becomes v, as we see by the form which replaces nepos above. If we are right in ascribing this to the effort to stress the accented vowel at the expense of the other constituents of the word, we may take this to be connected with the weakening of a where final, and between two accented syllables, e.g. N. Fr. aime from amal, as against S. Fr. ama; or in one case armëure (Mod. Fr. armure), in the other armadura, from armatura.

Parallel to the preservation of -s on the one hand, and the close following of the old flexions on the other, we find the type membra preserved at first, though not spreading, whereas the tempora-type is abandoned. In the verb the variety in Latin perfect forms is still fairly well preserved, though there is a distinct extension of the u-perfect and the dedi-perfect. As we might expect, the vocabulary seems to be strongly coloured by Germanic elements of Frankish, Burgundian and Gothic origin.

The Raetic dialects, in their prehistoric phase, are less clear than others. Their contact, at an age nearing the Carolingian, with the French of the south-east in Valais seems to have caused a similar process of growth, especially as they change e and o into the diphthongs ei and ou, leaving at the same time the consonants more intact. At an early stage the inroads of the migrating nations cut off Raetia from the Po valley, and the pressure of the German tribes severed its union with the Romance-speaking nations of the west. Thus isolated it was free to follow its own course. This language also preserved at first the three cases and the type membra, the latter being developed later freely in use as a collective plural. But its further development was checked by the Lombards and Venetians.

But the most difficult problems are those that arise in Italy. Though one may say generally that the dialects of the region of the Po, and those of Liguria, belong to the types of north and western Romance, that is to say that the breathed plosives between vowels became voiced, yet they approach the typically Italian groups by their loss of -s. This means that when the whole Italian peninsula was separated from Gaul as well as from Iberia (after the close of the 5th century) and became again one homogeneous whole, the forms without s found their way into the north of Italy only slowly so that s has remained in the west, i.e. in Piedmont, in monosyllabic words to this day, e.g. as, "thou hast," ses, thou art": the same rule prevailed in older times in the east, in Venice, and there the s was also preserved (in questions) in polysyllabic words, e.g. venis-tu, "comest thou?"; and the old form maintained itself in Milanese in the single form sistu, "art thou? To the loss of s we trace the extinction of declensions, but as its action began to take effect later, the membra-type gained little footing, the tempora-type none at all. In the vocabulary the Lombard elements are numerous, extending, like the supremacy of the Lombards, over the whole peninsula. It may be that s was lost under the influence of central Italy acting on the north. If so, we may surmise that a similar influence has changed cl, pl, and fl to chi, pi, fi (chiamare, pianta, fiamma). For it is precisely this point that differentiates both the Raetic dialects and Provençal from the contiguous Italian dialects, and the change certainly took place only after the latter were completely detached. On the other hand the Italian vocabulary has been strongly influenced by the north, especially in Tuscany.

The rise and development of the Romance languages, in its large outline, appeals to the imagination as a vast historical phenomenon closely bound up with the fate of nations. One other element must not be overlooked on which we have touched more than once in the above sketch, for it bears so directly on the Romance vocabulary as to deserve the tribute of a general survey: this is the Germanic.

When mercenaries of Germanic origin pervaded the Roman armies, Germanic words found their way first into the language of the camp, and thence into the vulgar language generally. And at that stage perhaps many words may actually have been imported which were, partly at any rate, lost again later. Roman and Greek authors admit a considerable number of Germanic words, including terms belonging to warfare, e.g. bandum, 46 standard,' used by Procopius, which still continues in the form of O. Fr. ban, Ital. bandiera, Sp. bandera, &c. Brutis, bride," "daughter-in-law," which occurs frequently in inscriptions, may date from the period of camp life, but for the rest it is retained only in Fr. bru, and in Friuli and Dalmatia. On the other hand, companio is clearly a Latinization of Gothic ga-hlaifa, the meaning of which carries us back to the same sphere. Other old words express ideas of culture, or names of animals which the Romans learned to know in the German-speaking north, e.g. ganta, "wild goose (in Pliny), O. Fr. gante, Prov. ganta; or laxo, "badger," Ital. tassone, Fr. laisson, Sp. tejon. But the impression made was not pronounced until the age of the Germanic invasions, and then we find a great variety in the various Romance countries. In Italy we have two invasions to consider-by the Goths, and by the Lombards. But the destruction of the rule of the Lombards by Charlemagne, and the introduction of Frankish elements consequent upon it, should not be considered under the same head, since these Franks may themselves have been a Romance-speaking tribe. Goths as well as Lombards have left a trail as noticeable in the language as elsewhere. Thus we find in several instances some uncertainty as between b and p as an initial sound in Italian words borrowed from Germanic, e.g. banca and panca, balla and palla, the forms with b being Gothic, those with Lombardic. Or again recare, to bring up," goes back to Gothic rikan, "heap up,' "collect ; ricco, rich,' to Lomb. rihhi, &c. Whereas the vocabulary shows impartially an impress of both nationalities, the Lombards have left their stamp unmistakably on the proper names. Speaking generally, Italy as well as the other Romance countries follows the rule that medieval names of persons are either "Christian" (in the strict sense) and therefore of Hebrew or Graeco-Roman origin, or on the other hand Germanic. Roman names that are not also Christian seem to have survived only in south Italy in any great number, while on the contrary the Germanic are not represented at all in Dalmatia. One of the characteristics

510

or

And lastly, France possesses the largest number of Germanic elements in its vocabulary, Gothic in the south, Frankish in the north (though it is often impossible to ascertain to which class they belong). But beside these there are many Old High German words, and again Anglo-Saxon and northern ones, more particularly those connected with shipping and the sea. These Germanic elements cover nearly all branches of human activity. Thus bât, Fr. bâtir," to build," from "bastyan, "to bind together with bast,' "to plait"; hourder," to cover with boards," from hurdi," hurdle": maçon," the mason," in Isidore makjo (Frankish rather than Gothic) refer to house-building; guâcher from waskyan, broder from brusdan, point to the occupations of women, and danser from dinsan and O. Fr. treschier," to dance," from treskan," to thresh," to their amusements. Women's work is probably denoted further in rouir, rotjan, and E. Frank. naisier, natjan, "to net": the same remark applies to the dyeing of cloths (Fr. touaille, Engl. "towel," from thwahila), and ribbons (bande from binda). with guède, woad," and other colouring matters, whence we have, e.g., brun, bleu, blond, blanc.

But while the vocabulary has had its accessions drawn from various races, the proper names show the same rules as in Italian, i.e. Frankish gains the sole supremacy. We find, it must be admitted, some Gothic names in -mir in the south early in the middle ages, but they were not maintained as late as the Romance period, such was the influence of the victorious northern race. Even after political and literary independence had enabled the individual Romance languages to grow as separate units on their own basis, they retained their interconnexion and were open to mutual influence. But this influence is only partial, ie. it affects nothing but the vocabulary, and has a certain relation to various tendencies in the developments of civilization. And under this head the most important point is the really enormous influence which France (both south and north) has exercised on all the Romance countries, just as she has on the Germanic-an influence which has hitherto not been duly recognized. The first traces go back to the invasions of Charlemagne already mentioned. To instance only one, we have schiavino, justice, alderman," which cannot be derived directly from the Germanic, as is shown by the v. The second important period is the age of chivalry and the literary tendencies centring round it. A word like budriere, "baldric," is derived from Fr. baudrier, not directly from Germanic Balderich; Ital. banda goes back to O. Fr. bande, and this again to binda; Ital. giallo is not from galbinus but from O. Fr. jalne (Mod. Fr. jaune), derived from that word, &c. But it seems that in one of the prehistoric periods the Tuscan vocabulary was strongly affected by that of the Gallo-Romanic. Whereas in the Iberian peninsula, in Sardinia, in south Italy, Rumania and Rhaetia dies survives, in O. Fr. di has been almost completely ousted by jour, but in Tuscan and the Italian literary language we find giorno and di side by side. Thus trouver, Prov. trobar, spreading from France into Italy, drove the old afflare more and more back towards the south. The most recent layer was introduced during the reign of the house of Anjou chiefly in south Italy and Sicily, and kept its hold to the present day in spite of the Sicilian Vespers, e.g. Síc. vuccieri," butcher," from Fr. boucher.

The Iberian peninsula can likewise bear witness as to French influence, e.g. O. Sp. fonta, "shame," is not from Goth, haunitha, but from Fr. honte; O. Port. saluar not from Lat. salutare, but O. Fr. saluer. On the whole, Portuguese seems to possess more of these Gallicisms than Spanish, history supplying a simple explanation.

Italy too yielded its contributions, especially in the 15th and 16th centuries, many military terms (noble and ignoble), e.g. French carogne and canaille; poignard, " dagger," from Ital. pugnale, instead of O. Fr. poigniel; but also panache, "plume," from pennacchio, and many others that have become common property. But the influence of the Iberian peninsula on the contrary was not so strong as to be more than sporadic; the Sicilian and Neapolitan vocabularies alone are more closely akin to Spanish, and this is easily explained on the ground of their political and commercial relations. As to the Romance languages beyond Europe we have but little to say. There is a distinction to be made between Creole and genuine Romance. Belonging to the latter we have the French of Canada, the Spanish of Central and South America, the Portuguese of the Brazils. Speaking generally we may say that the particular languages retained the form of the language in the 16th and 17th centuries, that is to say that of the time of the immigration, and that they developed along the lines already established.

Thus in Mexican Spanish the loss of d, g, between vowels, of s before consonants and as a final, has been carried further than in the mother-country. There are no proved traces of any noticeable influence from the languages of the natives. LITERATURE.-The real founder of scientific Romance philology and linguistics is Friedrich Diez, in his Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen (3 vols., Bonn, 1836-42), and Etymologisches Wörterbuch der romanischen Sprachen (2 vols., 1852). All questions concerning Romance philology and the historic grammar of the different Romance languages are treated in G. Gröber's Grundriss der romanischen Philologie (2nd ed., Strassburg, 1906), and in W. Meyer-Lübke's Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen (4 vols., Leipzig, 1890-1900); Einführung in die romanische Sprachwissenschaft (2nd ed., Heidelberg, 1909). The principal magazines devoted to the subject are Zeilschrift für romanische Philologie (ed. Gröber; since 1877); Zeitschrift für neufranzösische Sprache und Literatur (ed. Behrens; since 1879); Romanische Forschungen (ed. Vollmöller; since 1885); Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen (since 1846); Romania (ed. G. Paris and P. Meyer; since 1812); Archivio glottologico italiano (ed. G. I. Ascoli; since 1873). The great development of Romanic philology after Diez is due principally to A. Tobler, G. Gröber, W. Förster and H. Suchier in Germany; A. Mussafia (d. 1905), H. Schuchardt in Austria; G. Paris (d. 1905), P. Meyer in France; G. I. Ascoli (d. 1907), and F. d'Ovidio in Italy. (W. M.-L.)

ROMAN DE LA ROSE, a French poem dating from the 13th century. The first part was written about 1230 by Guillaume de Lorris (q.v.), whose work formed the starting-point, about forty years later, for the more extensive section written by Jean de Meun (q.v.). Guillaume de Lorris wrote an allegory, possibly of an adventure of his own, which is an artistic and beautiful presentment of the love philosophy of the troubadours. In a dream the Lover visits a park to which he is admitted by Idleness. In the park he finds Pleasure, Delight, Cupid and other personages, and at length the Rose. Welcome grants him permission to kiss the Rose, but he is driven away by Danger, Shame, Scandal, and especially by Jealousy, who entrenches the Rose and imprisons Welcome, leaving the Lover disconsolate. The story, thus left incomplete by its inventor, was finished in 19,000 lines by Jean de Meun, who allows the Lover to win the Rose, but only after a long siege and much discourse from Reason, the Friend, Nature and Genius. In the second part, however, the story is entirely subsidiary to the display of the author's encyclopaedic knowledge, to picturesque and poetic digressions, and to violent satire in the manner of the fabliaux against the abuse of power, against women, against popular superstition, and against the celibacy of the clergy. The length of the work and its heterogeneous character proved no bar to its enormous popularity in the middle ages, attested by the 200 MSS. of it which have survived.

The Romaunt of the Rose was translated into English by Chaucer (see the prologue to the Legende of Good Women), but the English version of that, extending to about one-third of the whole work, which has come down to us (see an edition by Dr Max Kaluza, Chaucer Society, 1891), is generally admitted to be by another hand. For a list of books on the vexed question of the authorship of (Münster, 1905, 4th ed. p. 184). A Flemish version by Hein van the English translation see G. Körting, Grundriss der engl. Lit. Aken appeared during Jean de Meun's lifetime, and at the beginning of the 14th century a free imitation, in the form of a series of sonnets, Il Fiore, was written in Italian by the Tuscan poet Durante. Three editions of the Roman de la Rose were printed at Lyons between 1473 and 1490; two by Antoine Verard (Paris, 1490 ? and 1496 ?). by Jean du Pré (Paris, 1493 ?), by Nicholas Desprez for Jean Petit (Paris), by Michel le Noir (Paris, 1509 and 1519). In 1503 Jean Molinet produced a prose version. Marot altered and modernized the text (1526), and his corrections were followed in subsequent editions. Modern editions are by Méon (4 vols., 1813), by Francisque Michel (2 vols., 1864), by Croissandeau (pseudonym for Pierre Marteau), with a translation into modern French (Orleans, 5 vols., 1878-80), and a critical edition by E. Langlois, author of Origines et sources du Roman de la Rose (Paris, 1890). There is a modern English version by F. S. Ellis (Temple Classics, 3 vols., 1900).

ROMAN EMPIRE, LATER. The reign of Constantine the Great forms the most deep-reaching division in the history of Europe. The external continuity is not broken, but the principles which guided society in the Greek and Roman world are replaced by a new order of ideas. The emperor-worship, which expressed a belief in the ideal of the earthly empire of Rome, gives way to Christianity; this is the outward sign that

- Besides the adoption of Christianity, Constantine's reign is marked by an event only second in importance, the shifting of the centre of gravity of the Empire from the west to the east by making Byzantium a second capital, a second Rome. The foundation of Constantinople (q.v.) determined the subsequent history of the state; it established permanently the division between the eastern and western parts of the Empire -a principle already introduced-and soon exhibited, though not immediately, the preponderance of the eastern half. The eastern provinces were the richest and most resourceful, and only needed a Rome in their midst to proclaim this fact; and further, it was eastward that the Empire fronted, for here was the one great civilized state with which it was in constant antagonism. Byzantium was refounded on the model of Rome, had its own senate, and presently a praefectus urbi. But its character was different in two ways: it was Christian and it was Greek. From its foundation New Rome had a Christian stamp; it had no history as the capital of a pagan empire. There was, however, no intention of depressing Rome to a secondary rank in political importance; this was brought about by the force of circumstances.

The Christian Roman Empire, from the first to the last Constantine, endured for 1130 years, and during that long period, which witnessed the births of all the great modern nations of Europe, experienced many vicissitudes of decline and revival. In the 5th century it lost all its western provinces through the expansion of the Teutons; but in the 6th asserted something of its ancient power and won back some of its losses. In the 7th it was brought very low through the expansion of the Saracens and of the Slavs, but in consequence of internal reforms and prudent government in the 8th century was able before the end of the 9th to initiate a new brilliant period of power and conquest. From the middle of the 11th century a decline began; besides the perpetual dangers on the eastern and northern frontiers, the Empire was menaced by the political aggression of the Normans and the commercial aggression of Venice; then its capital was taken and its dominions dismembered by Franks and Venetians in 1204. It survived the blow for 250 years, as a shadow of its former self.

During this long life its chief political rôle was that of acting as a defender of Europe against the great powers of western Asia. While it had to resist a continuous succession of dangerous enemies on its northern frontier in Europe-German, Slavonic, Finnic and Tatar peoples-it always considered that its front was towards the east, and that its gravest task was to face the powers which successively inherited the dominion of Cyrus and Darius. From this point of view we might divide the external history of the Empire into four great periods, each marked by a struggle with a different Asiatic power: (1) with Persia, ending c. 630 with the triumph of Rome; (2) with the Saracens, who ceased to be formidable in the 11th century; (3) with the Seljuk Turks, in the 11th and 12th centuries; (4) with the Ottoman Turks, in which the Roman power went down.

Medieval historians, concentrating their interest on the rising states of western Europe, often fail to recognize the position held by the later Empire and its European prestige. Up to the middle of the 11th century it was in actual strength the first power in Europe, except in the lifetime of Charles the Great, and under the Comneni it was still a power of the first rank. But its political strength does not express the fulness of its importance. As the heir of antiquity it was confessedly superior in civilization, and it was supreme in commerce. Throughout the whole period (to 1204) Constantinople was the first city in the world. The influence which the Empire exerted upon its neighbours, especially the Slavonic peoples, is the second great rôle which it fulfilled for Europe-a rôle on which perhaps the most speaking commentary is the doctrine that the Russian Tsar is the heir of the Roman Caesar,

a certain justification as descriptions, but the only strictly correct name is Roman (as recognized in the title of Gibbon's work). The continuity from Augustus to Constantine XI. is unbroken; the emperor was always the Roman emperor; his subjects were always Empire" expresses the fact that the state became predominantly Romans ('Pwμaîoi: hence Romaic-Modern Greek). "Greek Greek in character, owing to the loss, first of the Latin provinces, afterwards of Syria and Egypt; and from the middle of the 6th century Greek became the official language. "Lower Empire" (Later is preferable) marks the great actual distinction in character after his adoption of Christianity. between the development before Constantine (Haut-empire) and "Byzantine sums up in a word the unique Graeco-Roman civilization which was centred in New Rome. Eastern is a term of convenience, but it has been used in two senses, not to be confused. It has been used, loosely, to (from 395) when there were two lines of emperors, ruling formally designate the eastern half of the Empire during the 80 years or so as colleagues but practically independent, at Rome and Constantínople; but though there were two emperors, as often before, there was only one Empire. It has also been used, justifiably, to disCharles the Great (800), which also claimed to be the Roman tinguish the true Roman Empire from the new state founded by Empire; Eastern and Western Empire are from this date forward legitimate terms of distinction. But between the periods to which the legitimate and illegitimate uses of the term "Eastern Empire apply lies a period of more than 300 years, in which there was only one Empire in any sense of the word.

A chronological table of the dynasties will assist the reader of the historical sketch which follows.

Succession of Emperors arranged in Dynasties.

1. CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY.-A.D. 324-363.
Emperors (founder of dynasty, Constantius I., 305–306);
Constantine I. (306, sole emperor since), 324-337-
In west-Constantine II., 337-340; Constans, 337-350.
-In east-Constantius II., 337-

Sole emperors: Constantius II., 350-361; julian, 361–363.
INTER-DYNASTY.-Jovian, 363-364.
2. VALENTINIANEAN DYNASTY.-A.D. 364-392.
Emperors:

In west-Valentinian I., 364-375; Gratian, 367-383;
Valentinian II., 375-392.

In east-Valens, 365-378 (Theodosius I., 379–392).

3. THEODOSIAN DYNASTY.-A.D. 392-457.
Emperors: Theodosius I. (379), 392-395.

In east-Arcadius, 395-408; Theodosius II., 408-450;
Marcian, 450-457.

In west-Honorius, 395-423; Constantius III., 422;
Valentinian III., 425-455; (non-dynastic) Maximus;
455; Avitus, 455-456.

4. LEONINE DYNASTY.-A.D. 457-518.
Emperors:

In east-Leo I., 457-474; Leo II., 474; Zeno, 474-491;
Anastasius I., 491-518.

In west-non-dynastic, Majorian, 457-461; Severus,
461-465; (Leo I. sole emperor, 465-467); Anthemius,
467-472; Olybrius, 472; Glycerius, 473-474; Julius
Nepos, 474-480; (usurper, Romulus Augustulus, 475-
476).

5. JUSTINIANEAN DYNASTY.-A.D. 518-602. Emperors: Justin I., 518-527; Justinian I., 527-565; Justin II., 565-578; Tiberius II., 578-582; Maurice, 582-602.

INTER-DYNASTY.-Phocas, 602-610

6. HERACLIAN DYNASTY.-A.D. 610-711. Emperors: Heraclius, 610-641; Constantine III., 641; Heracleonas, 641-642; Constans II., 642-668; Constantine IV. (Pogonatus) 668-685; Justinian II. (Rhinotmetus), 685-695; (non-dynastic) Leontius,695698 and Tiberius III. (Apsimar), 698-705; Justinian II. (restored), 705-711.

II.

INTER-DYNASTY.-Philip Bardanes, 711-713; Anastasius II., 713-716; Theodosius III., 716-717.

7. ISAURIAN (SYRIAN) DYNASTY.-A.D. 717-802.

Emperors: Leo III., 717-740 (alias, 41); Constantine V. (Copronymus), 740-775; Leo IV. (Khazar), 775-780; Constantine VI., 780-797; Irene, 797-802,

INTER-DYNASTY.-Nicephorus I., 802-811; Stauracius (son of

Nicephorus), 811; Michael I. (Rhangabe, father-in-law of Stauracius), 811-813; Leo V. (Armenian), 813-820, 8. PHRYGIAN OR AMORIAN DYNASTY-A.D. 820-867. Emperors: Michael II. (Stammerer), 820-829; Theophilus, 829-842; Michael III. (Drunkard), 842-867.

9. MACEDONIAN DYNASTY.-A.D. 867-1057. Emperors: Basil I. (Macedonian), 867-886; Leo VI. (philosopher) and Alexander, 886-91a; Constantine VII.