Old Latin, also known as Early, Archaic or Priscan Latin (Classical ), was the Latin language in the period roughly before 75 BC, i.e. before the age of Classical Latin. A member of the Italic languages, it descends from a common Proto-Italic language; Latino-Faliscan is a separate branch from Osco-Umbrian. All these languages may be relatively closely related to Venetic and possibly further to Celtic (see the Italo-Celtic hypothesis).
The use of "old", "early" and "archaic" has been standard in publications of Old Latin writings since at least the 18th century. The definition is not arbitrary, but the terms refer to spelling conventions and word forms not generally found in works written under the Roman Empire. This article presents some of the major differences.
The earliest known specimen of Latin seems to be on the Praeneste fibula. An analysis done in 2011 declared it to be genuine "beyond any reasonable doubt" and dating from the Orientalizing period, in the first half of the seventh century BC. Other Old Latin inscriptions dated to either the late Roman Kingdom or early Roman Republic include the Lapis Niger stone, the Duenos inscription on a kernos vase, and the Garigliano bowl of Bucchero type.
Philological constructs
Old-time language The concept of Old Latin (Prisca Latinitas) is as old as the concept of Classical Latin – both labels date to at least as early as the late Roman Republic. In that period Cicero, along with others, noted that the language he used every day, presumably upper-class city Latin, included lexical items and phrases that were heirlooms from a previous time, which he called verborum vetustas priscaDe Oratoribus, I.193. ("the old age/time of language"). In the classical period, Prisca Latinitas, Prisca Latina and other idioms using the adjective always meant these remnants of a previous language, which, in Roman philology, was taken to be much older than in fact it really was. Viri prisci, "former men", meant the population of Latium before the founding of Rome.
Four Latins of Isidore In the Late Latin period, when Classical Latin was behind them, Latin- and Greek-speaking grammarians were faced with multiple phases, or styles, within the language. Isidore of Seville ( 560–636) reports a classification scheme that had come into existence in or before his time: "the four Latins", (saying in his Etymologiae, "moreover, some people have said that there are four Latin languages"; "latinas autem linguas quattuor esse quidam dixerunt").Etymologiae, Book IX.1.6. These were:
Prisca, spoken before the founding of Rome, when Janus and Saturn ruled Latium, to which period Isidore dated the Carmen Saliare Latina, dated from the time of king Latinus, in which period he placed the laws of the Twelve Tables Romana, essentially the same as Classical Latin Mixta, "mixed" Classical Latin and Vulgar Latin, known today as Late Latin.
This scheme persisted with little change for some thousand years after Isidore.
Old Latin and Very Old Latin In 1874, John Wordsworth used this definition: "By Early Latin I understand Latin of the whole period of the Republic, which is separated very strikingly, both in tone and in outward form, from that of the Empire." However, the term "Old Latin," encompassing the whole of six centuries of pre-Classical Latin, includes vastly distinct stages of the language. Native speakers of Latin evidently felt as if the earliest phases of the Latin language were distinct from the later varieties of pre-classical Latin. Latin speakers of the empire had no reported trouble understanding much of Old Latin, except for the few texts that must date from the time of the kings, mainly songs. However, Polybius, a 2nd-century BCE Greek historian, writes that the text of the earliest treaty between Rome and Carthage, dated to around 508-507 BCE, was nearly incomprehensible to the Romans of his day, even after the "most intelligent men" had sought to decipher it.Polybius. The Histories. 3.22. Other ancient Roman authors commented upon the obscure nature of the , itself an archaic Latin text. For instance, Horace—a lyric poet of the 1st-century BCE—writes that whoever "cries up Numa’s Salian hymn" would " alone seem to understand what he knows as little of as I do."Horace. Epistulae. 2.1.86. Likewise, the 1st-century CE rhetorician Quintilian mentions "now forgotten ages" of Latin and states that the was, by his day, hardly understood by even the Salian priests.Quintilian. Institutio Oratoria. 1.6.40.
Michael Weiss, an Indo-Europeanist scholar, argues for a division between Old Latin and Very Old Latin, the split between which dates to around 330 BCE. According to Weiss, this date was chosen to match with the rhotacism of , which was a sound change that—besides significantly affecting the phonology of the language—was also recognized by the ancient Romans as a specific different between their contemporary language and that of archaic periods. Alternatively, the linguists James Clackson and Geoffrey Horrocks establish a distinction between "Archaic Latin," which ended at around 400 BCE, and "Old Latin," which denotes the rest of pre-Classical Latin. John Penney, a classicist who accepts this alternative model, argues that placing the dividing line at 400 BCE is convenient for scholarly discussion due to the severe dearth of evidence for Latin in the late 5th and early 4th centuries BCE. Even more specifically, the Latinist Béla Adamik dates the end of "Archaic Latin" at the last quarter of the 4th-century BCE, by which time the syncope of the 5th-century and the vowel weakening and rhotacism of the 4th-century had been completed, thus rendering the preceding centuries of Latin mutually unintelligible with the ensuing "Old Latin" era. Regarding the terminology, the name "Very Old Latin" has been criticized as somewhat awkward, though Weiss and de Vaan argue that the alternative name "Archaic Latin" creates unnecessary ambiguity, as the chronological distinction between the words "archaic" and "old" is not self-evident.
The philologist Michiel de Vaan adopts the same terminology as Weiss, utilizing "Very Old Latin" and "Old Latin," though he places the end of the "Very Old Latin" period at 240 BCE. This same date is also supported the Indo-Europeanist Gerhard Meiser, who distinguished between "Early Latin" () and "Old Latin" (). According to this model, the first period lasts from the 7th or 6th centuries to 240 BCE, with that specific date chosen to represent the completion of Livius Andronicus's first drama and consequently the beginning of attested Latin literature. The second phase lasts from 240 BCE to the first half of the 1st-century BCE, with Classical Latin beginning at 81 BCE, when Cicero began writing. This particular model is popular amongst German scholarship, though it has been criticized for segmenting Latin chronology on the basis of particular authors rather than linguistic differences. Moreover, adopting a date of 240 BCE necessitates that the elogium of Scipio Barbatus, which dates to 260 BCE, be assigned to the Very Old Latin period, despite being closer in language to Old Latin texts than extremely archaic Latin inscriptions such as the Forum inscription.
There is no sharp distinction between Old Latin, as it was spoken for most of the Republic, and Classical Latin, but the earlier grades into the latter. The end of the republic was too late a termination for compilers after Wordsworth; Charles Edwin Bennett said, Early Latin' is necessarily a somewhat vague term... Bell, De locativi in prisca Latinitate vi et usu, Breslau, 1889, sets the later limit at 75 BC. A definite date is really impossible, since archaic Latin does not terminate abruptly, but continues even down to imperial times." Bennett's own date of 100 BC did not prevail; rather Bell's 75 BC became the standard as expressed in the four-volume Loeb Library and other major compendia. Over the 377 years from 452 to 75 BC, Old Latin evolved from texts partially comprehensible by classicists with study to being easily read by scholars.
Corpus
Old Latin authored works began in the 3rd century BC. These are complete or nearly complete works under their own name surviving as manuscripts copied from other manuscripts in whatever script was current at the time. There are also fragments of works quoted in other authors.
Many texts placed by various methods (painting, engraving, embossing) on their original media survive just as they were except for the ravages of time. Some of these were copied from other inscriptions. No inscription can be older than the introduction of the Greek alphabet into Italy but none survive from that early date. The imprecision of archaeological dating makes it impossible to assign a year to any one inscription, but the earliest survivals are probably from the 6th century BC. Some texts, however, that survive as fragments in the works of classical authors, had to have been composed earlier than the republic, in the time of the monarchy. These are listed below. Some authors, especially in recent texts, refer to the oldest Latin documents (7th–4th c. BCE) as Very Old Latin (VOL).
Fragments and inscriptions Notable Old Latin fragments with estimated dates include:
The Carmen Saliare (chant put forward in classical times as having been sung by the Salian brotherhood formed by Numa Pompilius, approximate date 700 BC) The Praeneste fibula (date from first half of the seventh century BC.) The Tita Vendia vase (–600 BC) The Forum inscription (see illustration, under the monarchy) The Duenos inscription () The Castor-Pollux dedication () The Garigliano Bowl () The Corcolle Altar fragments () The Lapis Satricanus (early 5th century BC) The preserved fragments of the laws of the Twelve Tables (traditionally, 449 BC, attested much later) The Tibur pedestal () The Scipionum Elogia Epitaph of Lucius Cornelius Scipio Barbatus (consul 298 BC) Epitaph of Lucius Cornelius Scipio (consul 259 BC) Epitaph of Publius Cornelius Scipio P.f. P.n. Africanus (died about 170 BC) The Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum XI 4766 (3rd century BC) The (186 BC) The Vase Inscription from Ardea The Carmen Arvale Altar to the Unknown Divinity (92 BC)
Literary authors Lucius Livius Andronicus (), translator, founder of Roman drama Gnaeus Naevius (–201 BC), dramatist, epic poet Titus Maccius Plautus (–184 BC), dramatist, composer of comedies Quintus Ennius (239 – ), poet Marcus Pacuvius (–130 BC), tragic dramatist, poet Statius Caecilius (220 – 168/166 BC), comic dramatist Publius Terentius Afer (195/185 – 159 BC), comic dramatist Marcus Porcius Cato (234–149 BC), orator, historian, topical writer Lucius Accius (170 – ), tragic dramatist, philologist Gaius Lucilius ( – 103/102 BC), satirist Quintus Lutatius Catulus (2nd century BC), public officer, epigrammatist Aulus Furius Antias (2nd century BC), poet Gaius Julius Caesar Strabo Vopiscus (130–87 BC), public officer, tragic dramatist Lucius Pomponius Bononiensis (2nd century BC), comic dramatist, satirist Lucius Cassius Hemina (2nd century BC), historian Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi (2nd century BC), historian Manius Manilius (2nd century BC), public officer, jurist Lucius Coelius Antipater (2nd century BC), jurist, historian Publius Sempronius Asellio (158 BC – after 91 BC), military officer, historian Gaius Sempronius Tuditanus (2nd century BC), jurist Lucius Afranius (2nd and 1st centuries BC), comic dramatist Titus Albucius (2nd and 1st centuries BC), orator Publius Rutilius Rufus (158 BC – after 78 BC), jurist Lucius Aelius Stilo Praeconinus (154–74 BC), philologist Quintus Claudius Quadrigarius (2nd and 1st centuries BC), historian Valerius Antias (2nd and 1st centuries BC), historian Lucius Cornelius Sisenna (121–67 BC), soldier, historian Quintus Cornificius (2nd and 1st centuries BC), rhetorician
Script