=

L. 8: ni hipid, i. e. ne habeat: conf. ll. 11, 14, 17; also pru-hipid (25) = præhibeat, and pru-hipust (26) = præhibuerit. Post post is probably an error of the engraver for pod post, for pod = quod signifies quando in 1. 23; or we must omit the former post as an unmeaning interpolation. Post-esak = post-hac or post-eak: esak is the accus. neut. pl. of the pronoun esus, which we have also in the Eugubine Tables, the -k, -ke, being subjoined, as in the Latin hic hi-ce. This is a most instructive form, as bearing immediately on a difficulty which has long been felt in Latin etymology. The quantity of the last syllables of anteā, intereā, posteā, proptereā, seems at first sight irreconcilable with the supposition that these words are the prepositions ante, inter, &c., followed by the neut. accus. ea. And a comparison with post-hac, adversus hac (Fest. p. 246, 1. 8, &c.), might lead to the supposition that they are ablatives feminine, the regimen of the prepositions being changed, as is certainly the case in Umbrian. This is, at any rate, the opinion of Klenze (Phil. Abhandl. p. 45) and Müller (ad Fest. p. 247). Another philologer supposes that they may be deduced from the accus. eam, on the analogy of post-quam, ante-quam, &c. (Journal of Education, i. 106). But this opinion has nothing to support it. It is much more reasonable to suppose that the demonstrative pronoun, in Latin as in Oscan, being generally followed by the termination -ce, made its neut. pl. in -a-ce or -ac: we have an instance of this in the demonstrative hi-c, the neut. pl. of which is hæc, not ha-ce or ha. Now as this form has become ha-c in posthac, and as qua-ce has become quæ, we may understand that, as quæ-propter becomes quā-propter, so ante-ea-ce, or ante-eæc, might become ant'ea; and so of the others. At least, there is no other way of explaining the neuter forms quæ and hæc. Post-esa-k is therefore a synonym for post-hæc = post-hac. See below, Ch. X. § 4.

Pokapit (in the Cippus Abell. 1. 52, pukkapid) may be rendered quandocunque, and compared with the obsolete concapit, if this is equivalent to quocunque in Festus (p. 364, Müller): tignum junctum ædibus vineave, et concapit, ne solvito; where however a different interpretation may be given: see below, Ch. VI.

12. Fr. 7. The ablatives kastrid loufirud must mean prædio libero. In 1. 13 we have kastrous also contrasted to eituas, which must = pecunia, and so we have an opposition of land to money

in each case. Of the difference of form between kastrid and kastrous there is no explanation on the hypothesis that they are cases of the same noun. The former may be the ablative of a word analogous to campes-ter, seges-ter. The latter must be the accusative plural of a derivative from this under the form -us or Fis (New Crat. § 257). The forms μήτρως, μητρυιός, πάτρως, πατρῷος, sufficiently vindicate the addition of Fas to the affix t+r (New Crat. § 414), and the Umbrian kastruvuf, the accus. pl. of an adjective kastruvus, proves the existence of such an extension in the old Italian languages. With an ellipsis of ager the new adjective would become substantival, and this is apparently the case with kastrov-s, the accus. pl. of the apocopized kastrov. The root cas-, which occurs in the Latin cas-tus, casa, cas-trum, conveys the idea of inclosure, purity, and protection (New Crat. § 267). Consequently castris or castrous ager is an inclosed field like the old English "town." There is an unobserved connexion between castrum and prædium. The latter is derived from præs (præd = præ-vad), "a surety in moneymatters," and this noun includes vas, (vad-, "wad") the more general name for " a bail." The same term is also included in custos (custod-cast-vad-); and while this word combines the idea of surety with that of protection, præs combines the idea of surety with that of substitution; there is the same opposition between castrum or custodium the place of security, and prædium the property which represents a man's person. The form loufir for liber is justified by the old form læber = luber (Fest. p. 121); which is farther supported by the Greek ἐλεύθερος ; cf. ἔρυθρος with ruber, &c.

L. 10: pod valemom toutikom tadait ezum nep fepakid pod pis dat, i. e. [si quis fecit] quod salutem publicam tardet ex iis, neque fecit, quod quis dat [faciendum]. Tadait appears to contain the root of tædet, which is connected in sense and etymology with tardus; the r is only an assimilation to the d. Similarly we have: "pigere interdum pro tardari," Festus, p. 213, Müller. Fepakid is only an error for fefakid, like

docud for dolud in the next line. We see from this and the conjunctive fefakust, which follows, that the Oscans formed the preterite of facio by reduplication, and not by lengthening the root-syllable (New Crat. § 377).

The passage from 1. 11 to the end of the paragraph may be

supplied and explained as follows: suæ pis contrud eseik fefakust, auti komono hip[ust], [molto] [etan]to estud n. ℗ D., in suæ pis ionk fortis meddis moltaum herest ampert mi[nstreis ae]teis eituas moltas moltaum likitud: i. e. si quis adversus hæc fecerit, aut com-unum (i. e. agrum publicum) habuerit (i. e. possederit), multa tanta esto numi ciɔ.ciɔ, inde si quis eum validus magistratus multare voluerit usque ad minores partes pecuniæ multas multare liceto. It is easy to restore

molto etanto from 1. 26 infra. Multa tanta refers to what has preceded, like the siremps lex esto of the Roman laws. The sum is denoted by the numeral sign, which was subsequently represented by co, just as II.s. became H. S. Fortis meddix = validus magistratus (see Festus, p. 84, s. v. forctes), in other words, "a magistrate of sufficient authority." Molta-um is the old infinitive of multo. Herest is the perf. subj. of a verb hero, "to choose" or "take" (root hir, “a band," Sanscr. hri), which occurs in the Umbrian Tables with a slight variety of meaning. In the Latin Bantine Table (1.7) we have quei volet magistratus in a parallel clause. That ampert is a preposition is clear, and it is also obvious that it denotes extension; but that it is to be referred to dupi Tepí, as Grotefend proposes, is not so manifest. I should rather think that pert is a termination here, as in petiro-pert (1. 15); and if so, it qualifies the prepos. am, corresponding to the German um, which is also used with qualifying terminations, whether prepositional or otherwise: compare the Latin ad-versus, in-usque, &c.; and as petiropert signifies usque ad quatuor and pert viam (Cipp. Abellan. 1. 33) = usque ad viam, we may render am-pert by inusque or usque ad. Minstreis ateis is supplied from 11. 18, 27. The word minis-ter is the correlative of magis-ter; and as magistri or magistratus were the higher public functionaries, so ministri were those who did the state service in a subordinate capacity-lictores, viatores, and such like. Here minister is a general adjective corresponding to minor. The phrase ampert minstreis aeteis eituas occurs again in 1. 18, and may be explained by the Latin inscription on this table, where we find 1. 10: dum minoris partis familias taxat. If this is the true interpretation, aetis signifies "a part," and is connected with the root vid- in vidua, di-vido, with the Etruscan itus, Sabine idus (Varro, L. L. VI. § 28), just as Achivus is related to 'Axaiós,

æquus to in-iquus, &c. For the relation between vid- and idsee New Crat. § 116, where the principle was first indicated. Klenze takes eituas for istas; and Grotefend translates it ærarii. It is nearly certain that eitua = pecunia; if so, the word may be derived from as; in which case we shall have a[s]tuus by the side of as-timus (preserved in as-timo: see below, Ch. VII. § 5), just as we have both ædi-tuus and adi-timus (Festus, p. 13).

L. 13: sua pis pru-meddiśud altrei castrous auti eituas zikolom dicust, izik komono ni hipid: i. e. si quis pro magistratu alii prædiaria aut pecunias in sicilicum (i. e. portionem) dicaverit, is comunum ne habeat. Prumeddisud seems to be much the same as prumedikatud, 1. 24. Pru stands for præ or pro:

1

8

so we have pruter (1. 16), pruhipid (1. 25), for præter, præhibeat. The ziculus, mentioned in this and other passages of the Table, seems to be the sicilicus (from seco), which was, in land-measuring, of the juger, or six hundred square feet (Columella, V. 1. 9) in general it expressed subdivision, and was of the as, or of the semuncia in money-reckoning (Fest. p. 366: Sicilicum dictum quod semunciam secet; Labb. Gloss.: Sicilicum, TÉTаPTOV OvyKías; Böckh, Metrolog. Untersuchung. p. 160), and also of the quinaria (Frontin. de Aquad. c. 28), and of the hora (Plin. XVIII. 32).

urust sipus p. d. Klenze joins optou

L. 14: ne pon op toutad petirupert m. The first words here are very obscure. tad, which he translates propterea. Mommsen translates op toutad "a populo." Petirupert seems to coincide with the Umbrian petur-pursus (Eug. Tab. VI. b. 11), i. e. usque ad quatuor: see on 1. 12. Urust is the perf. subj. of urvo s. urbo = aratro definio, circumdo (Fest. p. 375; Pomponius, L. 239, § 6, de Verb. Signif.), whence urbs, and perhaps orbis. Sipus p. d. m., "knowingly and with evil design." Sipus = sibus, for which see Fest. p. 336.

=

L. 15: petiro-pert neip mais pomtis=usque ad quatuor neque plus quinque. It is known that the Samnite proper name Pontius corresponds to the Latin Quintius (see New Crat. § 161). Ibid. kom preivatud aktud = cum privato actu. Fest. p. 17: "Actus in geometria minorem partem jugeri, id est centumviginti pedum." Niebuhr, Hist. of Rom. II. append. i. ad not. 29: "The jugerum, as the very name implies, was a double measure; and the real unit in the Roman land-measure

was the actus, containing 14,400 square feet, that is, a square of which each side was 120 feet."

L. 16: pruter pam=præter-quam.

LL. 18, sqq.: pon kenstur Bansæ tautam kensazet pis keus Bantins fust kensamur esuf in eituam poizad ligud aisk kenstur kensaum anget uzet aut suæ pis kenstomen nei kebnust dolud mallud in eizeik vinkter esuf comenei lamatir prmeddixud toutad præsentid perum dolum mallum in amirikatud allo famelo in ei sivom paei eizeis fust pae ancensto fust toutiko estud. The first words are tolerably clear: Quum censor (here censitor) Bantiæ civitatem censassit, quis civis Bantinus fuerit. The letter z represents the combination ss, as has been shown above by a comparison of oßpula, obrussa, &c. The form keus for civis is etymologically interesting. It proves that -vis is the termination of the Latin word: consequently ke-us, ci-vis, is composed of the root ke (keî-μai, &c.), and the pronominal affix -vi-s, -u-s (see New Cratylus, § 257), and the word means "a squatter," or generally "an inhabitant;" compare Onres, insassen, &c. (Buttmann, Lexil. II. 111, note). The word kensamur, if it is one word, is hardly intelligible. Grotefend understands it as the passive participle kensamus for kensamnus or censendus; but although the participial termination mn is often reduced to n, I know no instance in which it is represented by m only. As we must expect here a passive imperative, it seems most reasonable to conclude that kensamur is a corruption for kensatur = censetor. A different explanation, but to the same effect, has been proposed by Curtius (Zeitschr. f. d. Alterthw. 1849, p. 346). It is remarkable that the verb is conjugated in -ao, and not like its Latin equivalent in -eo. The conjugation seems to be censo, -as, -ui, -āum, -itus, like In the next words we have a form uzet, which seems to be a parallel to anget; and this, as is shown above, means adiget. But it would be difficult to explain such a form as uso. Aufrecht (Zeitschr. f. Vergl. Sprf. I. 189), reads angetuxet as one word, which, however, he does not explain. Now -tuset occurs in the Cippus Abellanus, 11. 16—39, as an affix to verb-forms: pruf-tuset, tribarakat-tuset; and even in Etruscan: hareu-tuse (Cipp. Perus. 24); and I should explain these agglutinate words as parallel to the Latin venum-do, cre-do, considering tu as

veto.