Itala me rapuit crudeli funere tellus,
Dum foveo nimia sedulitate virum.
The complaint that “physicians were in vain” is of ancient date.[43]
Ussere ardentes intus mea viscera morbi,
Vincere quos medicæ non potuere manus.
Pliny has not preserved the name of the unhappy man whose monument declared TURBA MEDICORUM SE PERIISSE,[44] that he had died of a multitude of doctors. Nor do the surgeons escape reproach for their want of skill. MEDICI MALE MEMBRA SECARUNT; CORPORI QUOD SUPER EST TUMULUM TIBI FECI appears to be the address of a master to his gladiator, who, though mangled, had gained the victory, but lost his life from unskilful treatment of his wounds.[45]
Inscriptions are curious to the scholar, as a record of the changes which the Latin language underwent in successive ages. Manuscripts imperfectly answer this purpose, because transcribers were very apt, either from habit or a desire to render their labours more saleable, to change old forms for new, especially in orthography. Sepulcral inscriptions, being commonly the work of private individuals, represent more exactly the language of common life than public monuments. They serve the same purpose to the philologer, as provincial dialects, in which the old language of a country is often preserved, when obliterated in correct and fashionable speech. From the inscriptions in the tomb of the Scipios in the beginning of the third century, B.C., down to the establishment of Christianity, after which a cessation of Pagan formulæ gradually takes place, we have a succession of about six centuries. I will mention a few instances, collected from funeral inscriptions, which either throw light on the history of the Latin language, or illustrate that vulgar idiom and pronunciation, which has influenced the formation of the modern Italian.
The analogy of the Greek, and the form paterfamilias, would lead to the conclusion that the genitive of the first declension had been originally formed in s, next deprived of its final letter and becoming aï, and finally contracted into æ.[46] I have not observed in the sepulcral inscriptions any genitives of common nouns of this declension formed in s, but we find Faustines, Bellones, Midaes, as genitives of proper names, which, according to grammatical rule, would be formed in æ. The dative feminine in abus is allowed by grammarians in cases where ambiguity of sex would arise from the use of is, as in deabus, filiabus, libertabus; but we find it used in inscriptions where no such ambiguity exists, as in nymphabus, fatabus, and even horabus. What is more remarkable is the extension of this formation of the dative to the second declension, in such words as diibus and amicibus. Some departures from ordinary usage may, no doubt, be accounted for by the circumstance that in Italy, as in England, the Muse of the cemetery was an “unlettered Muse.” “Hic jacit”[47] in a Latin inscription no more proves that there was no distinction between the neuter and the active verb, than “here lays” in an English churchyard. Nor can we argue from such constructions as “cum quam bene vixi,” “ab ædem,” that cum and ab governed the accusative; or from such a concord as hunc collegium, that nouns in um were once masculine. But in many instances what seem at first only vulgar solecisms will be found to have a warrant in analogy. Dua as a neuter for duo[48] is called a barbarism by Quinctilian (1, 5, 15); yet he acknowledges that every one said duapondo, and that Messala maintained it to be correct. Evento for eventui, spirito for spiritui, show that the double mode of declension was not confined to domus. Solo for soli has the authority of Cato, who used soli for solius, and of Terence, who used solæ for the same case.[49] “Fatus suus” on a monument might seem a blunder, but malus fatus occurs in Petronius Arbiter (p. 270). We find in an inscription[50]
Diva, precor, Tellus alvo complectere sancta
Ossua quorum in hoc nomina sunt lapide.
and ossuarium, the vase which received the burnt bones, shows that ossua was a legitimate form. The use of carere with an accusative[51] (“Filios duos caruit:” “Dulcem carui lucem, cum te amisi ego conjunx”) has a parallel in Plautus. The usual construction of compos is with a genitive, but it is not a solecism, when L. Statius Diodorus inscribes a tablet to God, “Quod se precibus compotem fecisset;” for Livy (3, 35) uses it with an ablative. The use of susum for sursum explains the Latin sus (in susque deque) and the Italian su. Meses for menses, senu for sinu, laguna for lacuna, longitia (lunghezza) for longitudo, so for sum, all occurring in sepulcral inscriptions, show the inclination of the Latin language towards the Italian.
The Italian prefixes an i to a word which begins with s and a consonant, when it follows one ending with a consonant, as iscambio, iscoglio, ispirito; and we find in inscriptions iscribit, ispiritus.[52] “Poor letter H” was treated with the same barbarous caprice of old as now, being omitted where it should stand, and interpolated where it should not. Thus we meet with ora, ortulus, omo, ospitium, onestus; and on the other hand, hædiculus, helephantus, horiundus, hordini, Hosiris, and post hobitum. Those who omit the aspirate, however, are always more numerous than those who insert it; in Italy they ultimately gained the ascendancy, and it is banished in pronunciation from modern Italian, which follows in this respect the usage of the old Romans, who said ædos and ircos.[53] The frequent substitution of b for v on later monuments, bibi for vivi, bixit for vixit, lebo for levo, habe for ave, was caused by b being pronounced both in Greek and Latin with a slight aspiration,[54] whence we find Greek writers representing Varro by Βάῥῤων, and Flavius by Φλάβιος.