In light of the ideological baggage of the Sabines and, by extension, of the Sabine glosses, we must ask whether it is necessarily the case that the Sabine glosses make up a linguistic unity. If not, we cannot speak of a ‘Sabine language’.
In order to ascertain whether or not the Sabine glosses show such unity that may indicate the possibility that they are from the same language, I will use the idea of linguistic compatibility throughout my discussions. The neo-grammarian regularity hypothesis states that sound-change is regular and exceptionless. When a word does not show such a sound- change, we may be dealing with one of the phenomena not included in the regularity hypothesis, e.g. metathesis or analogy, or the word may not have been in the language in question at the time of the change. On the face of it, lupus < PIE *lukw-os ‘wolf ’ and quis <
PIE *kwis ‘who’ are not linguistically compatible, as they show different treatments of PIE *kw.
This is resolved when we take into account that lupus shows the Sabellic treatment of *kw, and
is clearly a Sabellic loan.
Nevertheless, they are both Latin words, as they are both used in Latin. We know the retention of *kw (and *kw > k / _ u, o) is a Latin change as, in Latin, it is far more common
than the /p/ outcome. When it comes to glosses, we do not have such a criterion to use. In the absence of attestations in reliable epigraphy, the only thing that says that the Sabine glosses are Sabine is their glossings. By identifying what sound-changes the glosses have undergone, and whether there are any inconsistencies between them, we will be able to create a baseline which we can then apply to the glosses. In this way we can answer the question whether these words are linguistically compatible, and thus possibly from the same language. Only after this can we analyse the material for classification.
In order to keep the subjectivity of our material in mind, I will concentrate on two issues in particular. The first is the context of the glosses. Rather than only analysing the gloss itself or the sentence where it is given, I will consider its role in the author’s argument as well as considering alternative textual readings and editorial emendations. The second issue is the historical and ideological context in which these glosses were committed to paper. This gives
us an insight into any biases held by the author and his time. It will also allow us to factor in the relationship between Rome and the rest of Italy, and possible routes of linguistic information.
For this study, our sample should be as controlled as possible. Therefore I will only discuss words explicitly glossed as Sabine through the use of an ethnic (Sabini dicunt, in Sabinis), an adverb (sabine), a reference to language (e.g. lingua sabina) or a specific reference to geography (ager Sabinus). I will exclude vaguer references, such as words with associations to mythohistorical Sabine individuals, e.g. Titus Tatius and Numa, or words connected to geographical places smaller than the territory, such as cities and the area around them. I 145
will also exclude words with only tangential connection to the Sabines (e.g. eloqui and reloqui, Varro LL VI.57) and words of uncertain provenance, such as uefere and trefere found in Apuleius Minutianus (a Renaissance forgery or, according to Jocelyn, an attempt at a practical joke in manuscript form), τέστις ‘witness’ (glossed in a glossary of legal terms printed in 1606), or
stolones ‘shoots’ (CGL V.515.64, a tenth century glossary). I will not discuss any Latin words 146
identified by modern scholars as Sabine on formal grounds, e.g. lupus and lingua. I will not 147
discuss names of any kind, regardless of their glossing, unless they are directly connected to a glossed common noun. This is both due to restrictions of space and the fact that onomastic material is not ideal for the study of sound-changes and classification, as archaisms and loans are common. The Sabellic, Roman and Etruscan onomastic systems were in constant contact and have therefore influenced each other considerably.
This narrow scope leaves us with thirty-nine words, which are presented in Appendix I for reference. As these glosses are securely attested as Sabine by the ancients, we may avoid 148
circular arguments and cherry-picked material. It also avoids the methodological problems of
Examples of glosses listed as Sabine due to connection with mythical Sabines are τραβαία (Latin
145
trabea, a robe of state) (Lyd. Mens. I.19) (von Planta 1897:594. Conway 1897:36) and uerna ‘house-
slave’ (Festus 510L) (von Planta 1897:594; Bruno 1961:538).
Eloqui and reloqui are treated as Sabine glosses in Mommsen 1850:351; von Planta 1897:591;
146
Conway 1897:355; Collart 1954b:237. However, while they are used in fanis Sabinis (LL VI.57), Varro clearly thinks of these words as Latin, as they are part of a longer discussion of the verb loquor. Similarly, aggeres (Varro RR I.14.3), included by Negri 1992:253, is not strictly a gloss, but part of an explanation of the use of the word muri. Vefere and trafere are included in the list of Sabine glosses in von Planta 1897, and are cited as credible by Poccetti, Poli and Santini 2001:402, but already Mommsen 1850:358 saw them as suspicious. For the early recognition of Apuleius Minutianus as a forgery, see Jocelyn 1990:213-214. For the theory that the manuscript was never meant to be passed off as ancient, but was instead a joke, see Jocelyn 1990:217. Τέστις (Labbaeus 1606:120) is included in Mommsen 1850:355 and von Planta 1897:594, but is absent in more recent scholarship.
Palmer 1954:37; Bruno 1961:515.
147
This is a more constrained sample than the 112 glosses in Bruno 1961:544 and the 230 glosses
148
relying on the truth of the stories of Sabines in early Rome by not including glosses associated with e.g. Numa or words glossed only as being used by the antiqui (as Negri does). 149
The glosses will be discussed in chronological order in chapters two to five, with a section dedicated to each gloss. Fragments and testimonia will be discussed in the section corresponding to the author in whose work the passage has survived, as we must keep in mind the possible skewing of the passage when it is related. For the sake of clarity, references to the discussion will be provided in the section of the original author. When a gloss occurs in several writers’ work, it will be discussed in the section corresponding to the earliest attestation.
Chapter two will discuss Sabine glosses found in Varro’s De Lingua Latina (LL) and Res
Rusticae (RR). Chapter three is dedicated to the glosses found in Paulus-Festus, the 150
amalgamation of Festus’ epitome of Verrius Flaccus’ De Verborum Significatu (DVS) and the epitome of this text by Paul the Deacon (see §3.1.2 on the placement of this discussion within the thesis). The next two chapters will deal with glosses from other authors. Chapter four 151
will discuss glosses found in authors active during the Principate and the High Empire. 152
Chapter five will discuss glosses found in authors active during late antiquity. Chapter six 153
will place the Sabine glosses into a larger glossographic perspective and revisit the question of linguistic compatibility.
Throughout, I will give the glosses in the script in which they are printed. There is little reason to transcribe a supposedly Sabine word written in Greek script into Latin, as the Latin script is not more natural or native to the (presumed) language than the Greek.
Negri 1993:202; Negri 1996:213.
149
The glosses attested in Varro are sol (LL V.68), fircus (‘hircus’, LL V.97), fedus (‘haedus’, LL V.97),
150
†apruno porco por (LL V.97), lixula (LL V.107), similixula (LL V.107), lepesta (LL V.123), ciprus (LL V.159),
creper (LL VI.5), crepusculum (LL VI.5, VII.77), februm (LL VI.13), idus (LL VI.28), cascus (LL VII.28), catus
(LL VIII.46) and tebae (RR III.1.6).
The glosses attested in Paulus-Festus are alpus (Paulus ex F. 4L), ausum (Paulus ex F. 8L), curis ( Paulus
151
ex F. 43L), cumba (Paulus ex F. 56L), scensa (Festus 465L, Paulus ex F. 457L) and uesperna (‘cena’, Paulus ex F. 457L).
The glosses attested during the Principate and High Empire are πῖκος ( Strabo V.4.2), regia oliua
152
(Plin. HN XV.3.13), σπόριον (Plut. Quaest. Rom. 288F), nero (Suet. Tib. I) multa (Gell. NA XI.1.4), nerio (NA XII.22.7), fasena (Velius Longus GL VII.69.4-9).
The glosses attested in late antiquity are dira (Serv. ad Aen. III.235), herna (Serv. ad. Aen. VII.684),
153
hirpus (Serv. ad. Aen. XI.785), cupencus (Serv. ad Aen. XII.539), nar (DS ad. Aen. VII.517), terenus (Macrob. Sat. II.14), trimodiae (Pseudo-Acron ad Hor. Sat. I.1.53), tesqua (Pseudo-Acron ad Hor. Epist. I.14.19),