Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:26:41.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

British Latin: The Text, Interpretation and Language of the Bath Curse Tablets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

J.N. Adams
J.N. Adams
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Britain is now the main source of new Latin. Among British finds there are 130 curse tablets from the Sacred Spring at Bath, of roughly the second to fourth centuries A.D., some of them reasonably preserved, others fragmentary. These have recently been published by R.S.O. Tomlin, in a wide-ranging edition. An examination of Tomlin's elegant drawings of the tablets will make obvious to anyone the difficulty of reading the script, and Tomlin has done a remarkable job in elucidating the texts. He has also provided an extensive introduction, with a classification of formulae and linguistic phenomena, and a detailed commentary. The language of the tablets is of some interest. Various new usages make their appearance, and it is not fanciful to find the odd phenomenon which may have been characteristic particularly of British Latin. Here I offer a few new readings, some new interpretations, and a more extensive discussion of the Latinity than that attempted by Tomlin.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 23 , November 1992 , pp. 1 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © J.N. Adams 1992. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 In B. Cunliffe (ed.), The Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath, 2: The Finds from the Sacred Spring, Oxford Univ. Comm. Arch, monograph 16 (1988).

2 cf. TLL IX.2.923. 14ff.

3 cf. TLL IX.2.927.68ff., Löfstedt, E., Syntactica, Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins II (1956), 374f.Google Scholar

4 See G. Rohlfs, Romanische Sprachgeographie (1971), 76f., with Map 31, at 266.

5 On -que linking synonyms, opposites or the like, see Gonda, J., ‘The history and original function of the Indo-European particle KuE, especially in Greek and Latin’, Mnem. vii (1954), 187f., 190f. Note the following examples linking synonyms or opposites from a prayer quoted by Cato: Agr. 141.2, ‘Mars pater, te precor quaesoque’, ‘uti tu morbos uisos inuisosque, uiduertatem uastitudinemque, calamitates intemperiasque prohibessis defendas auerruncesque’, 141.3, ‘duisque bonam salutem ualetudinemque’, ‘lustrandi lustrique faciendi ergo’.Google Scholar

6 See further E. Löfstedt, Philologischer Kommentar zur Peregrinatio Aetheriae (1911), 183f.; J. Svennung, Untersuchungen zu Palladius und zur lateinischen Fach- und Volkssprache (1935), 543 n.; V. Väänänen, Introduction au latin vulgaire3 (1981), 222.

7 R.G. Collingwood and R.P. Wright, The Roman Inscriptions of Britain (1965).

8 Whereas Taylor, M.V. and Collingwood, R.G. correctly translate at JRS xvii (1927), 216, ‘let him who stole them…’; see too H.S. Versnel, ‘Beyond cursing: the appeal to justice in judicial prayers’, in C.A. Faraone and D. Obbink (eds.), Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion (1991), 86.Google Scholar

9 Published by Franz, L., JOAI xliv (1959), 69ff.; recently discussed by Versnel (see preceding note), 83.Google Scholar

10 So too Versnel, op. cit. (note 8), 86.

11 For this phraseology, cf. the defixio from Lydney Park (Gloucestershire) (CIL VII. 140, RIB 306): ‘Deuo Nodenti. Siluianus anilum perdedit’.Google Scholar

12 For the latter, see TLL VII.2.146.77ff.

13 Defixionum Tabellae (1904).

14 See S. Kiss, Les transformations de la structure syllabique en latin tardif (1972), 50.

15 Despite the reservations of Reynolds, J.M., Britannia xxi (1990), 381.Google Scholar

16 See TLL VI.3.3043.37ff.

17 Britannia xv (1984), 352. See REW, 4200, giving the meaning ‘Herberge’ and citing only Rum. ospet apart from σΦíτι. Domus was replaced in Vulgar Latin mainly by casa, which survives in most of the Romance speaking areas: see e.g. O. Bloch and W. von Wartburg, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue française 5 (1968), 384, s.v. maison, FEW II.1.452, III.135.Google Scholar

18 Note Pact. Leg. Sal. 55.4, ‘et qui ei … aut panem <dederit> aut hospitalem dederif.

19 REW 4198; FEW IV.496: = ‘house’ particularly in Occitan (cf. FEW IV.494).

20 See FEW VI.248, TLL VIII.325.15ff.

21 See J.B. Hofmann and A. Szantyr, Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik (1965), 331; R. Kühner and C. Stegmann, Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache: Satzlehre (3rd edn, rev. A. Thierfelder, 1955), 1, 183, Svennung, op. cit. (note 6), 511f.; Tränkle, H., Die Sprachkunst des Properz und die Tradition der lateinischen Dichtersprache, Hermes, Einzelschriften, Heft 15 (1960), 153f.Google Scholar

22 See V. Väänänen, Le latin vulgaire des inscriptions pompéiennes3 (1966), 70f.

23 See further TLL V.1.2241.81ff. (mainly inscriptions).

24 See OLD, s.v. adigo, 8, 9.

25 See in general Kühner and Stegmann, op. cit. (note 21), 1, 304f.; A. Ernout and F. Thomas, Syntaxe latine2 (1953), 36f., citing adigo.

26 See TLL VIII.129.84ff., esp. 130.16ff., of violence, though with no precise parallels; perhaps roughly = ‘cruel, violent'.

27 See Kühner and Stegmann, op. cit. (note 21), 1, 305, Ernout and Thomas, op. cit. (note 25), 37, Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary, s.v. adigo, IIB.

28 See TLL VIII.590.77ff.

29 See TLL, ‘de teste intercedente in iure iurando’.

30 P. Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Liber Primus (1971).

31 R.|Cavenaile (ed.), Corpus Papyrorum Latinarum (1958).

32 ‘AE 1963.182 (Sacidava): new readings and interpretation’, ZPE xxxiii (1979), 161–7.Google Scholar

33 M. Leumann, Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre6 (1977), 46, 135.

14 See K.H. Jackson, Language and History in Early Britain (1953), 365ff.; there is, however, no reason to think that the phenomenon was peculiarly British; cf. C. Smith, ‘Vulgar Latin in Roman Britain: epigraphic and other evidence’, ANRW 29.2, 940.

35 Full discussion in Löfstedt, op. cit. (note 3), II, 464ft.; idem, Late Latin (1959), 74f.

36 Nor does ἔθνōζ seem to occur as a var. lect. in the Greek of Matth. 18.17.

37 See J. Wackernagel, Vorlesungen über Syntax I2 (1926), 90.

38 Wackernagel, loc. cit.

39 I owe this information to my colleague Dr P.S. Alexander.

40 See Jastrow, M., A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature I (1903), 220b.Google Scholar

41 Nevertheless the parallelism is so neat and the use of gens so odd by Latin standards that one is tempted to speculate about ways in which Hebrew usage might have influenced (indirectly?) Christian Latin. Could it be, for example, that in the speech of Greek-speaking Jews with a smattering of Hebrew, goi influenced ἔθνōζ, and then ἔθνōζ influenced gens in Jewish-Christian circles? A restricted use of Hebrew among Greek- or Latin-speaking Jews at Rome and elsewhere in the Diaspora in special circumstances is conceivable: see H. Solin, ‘Juden und Syrer im westlichen Teil der römischen Welt. Eine ethnisch-demographische Studie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der sprachlichen Züstande’, ANRW 29.2, 710. Note the phylactery from the Roman period containing a good deal of Hebrew written in Greek characters which was found in Caernavon in the early nineteenth century (text at RIB 436).

42 See W.S. Allen, Vox Latina (1965), 33f.

43 See further C. Battisti, Avviamento allo studio del latino volgare (1949), 166f.

44 See Adams, J.N., ‘The Latinity of C. Novius Eunus', ZPE lxxxii (1990), 231.Google Scholar

45 See further Adams, J.N., The Vulgar Latin of the Letters of Claudius Terentianus (Mich, P.. VIII, 467–72) (1977), 13f.Google Scholar

46 See Jackson, , The Vulgar Latin of the Letters of Claudius Terentianus (note 34), 280f.; H. Lewis, Yr Elfen Ladin yn yr laith Gymraeg (1943), 3Google Scholar; Campanile, E., ‘Valutazione del latino di Britannia’, SSL ix (1969), 103.Google Scholar

47 ANRW, 29.2, 900.

48 Described by Väänänen, op. cit. (note 22), 69 as cases of ‘lapsus’.

49 Note also Heculie in the inscription re-edited by P. Brennan (cited above, n. 32) and supestite at Audollent no. 284.18, 22.

50 On this type of ambiguity, see e.g. E.C. Woodcock, A New Latin Syntax (1959), 24f., citing the example quoted here.

51 See further Ernout and Thomas, op. cit. (note 25), 180; Kühner and Stegmann, op. cit (note 21), 1, 598f.

52 See TLL VII.737.53ff., ‘plur. de uno’.

53 See in general Å. Josephson, Casae Litterarum: Studien zum Corpus Agrimensorum Romanorum (1950), 286ff.; B. Löfstedt, Studien über die Sprache der langobardischen Gesetze (1961), 307ff.; E. Zellmer, Die lateinischen Wörter auf -ura 2 (1976), esp. 156ff. (an alphabetical list).

54 Details in Zellmer, op. cit. (note 53), 106, and in the alphabetical list.

55 See TLL VI.1.1266.80f.

56 See Löfstedt, op. cit. (note 53), 106.

57 idem.

58 For examples, see especially Prinz, O. (ed.), Mittellateinisches Wörterbuch 1 (1967), 1376.Google Scholar

59 REW, 961.

60 See also Uhlenbeck, C.C., ‘Etymologisches’, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur xix (1894), 329.Google Scholar

61 See Eckhardt, K.A. (ed.), Pactus Legis Salicae, in MGH, Legum Sectio I, t. IV, pars I (1962), index p. 315, s.v., with the glossary as cited there. The first part of the compound is the Germanic saca (‘Prozess’: FEW XV.70).Google Scholar

62 FEW XV.70 (also 1, 254f.), Uhlenbeck, loc. cit. (note 60); C.D. Buck, A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages (1949), 81.

63 But on this gloss, see Lindsay, W.M., ALMA iv (1928), 42.Google Scholar

64 See A. Otto. Die Sprichwörter und sprichwörtlichen Redensarten der Römer (1890), 126.

65 ANRW 29.2, 933.

66 See Väänänen, op. cit. (note 6), 136.

67 See Svennung, op. cit. (note 6), 104 and n. 3 (extensive bibliography).

68 See TLL VII.2.1480.30ff.

69 See TLL V.1.1215.55ff.

70 See Hofmann and Szantyr, op. cit. (note 21), 449f.

71 See L.R. Palmer, Descriptive and Comparative Linguistics, a Critical Introduction (1972), 312.

72 See M. Bonnet, Le Latin de Grégoire de Tours (1890), 261 on the rough date of species = ‘article': found in Gaius etc.

73 See Adams, J.N., Glotta lxviii (1990), 236.Google Scholar

74 On this use of leuo, which parallels the development of tollo (‘lift, remove’ > ‘steal’), see Tomlin's note. The TLL has no separate category s.v. leuo for the meaning ‘steal’, but see VII.2.1235.58ff., quoting e.g. Greg. Tur., Hist. Franc. VI.45, p. 319.7, ‘hospiciola … spoliabant… leuantes pecora uel quicquid inuenire potuissent’, Lex Visig. 8.5.3 tit., ‘si porci… furto leuentur’ (also J.F. Niermeyer, Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus (1976), s.v., 15). Leuo in this sense does not seem to have Romance reflexes; it must have been a transitory colloquialism of the late period.

75 See Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru, A Dictionary of the Welsh Language II (1968–1987), 2145, s.v.Google Scholar

76 The same example is also cited by Niermeyer, op. cit. (note 74), 583: ps. -Fortun., Vita Medardi IV.1 I (Auct. Ant. IV.2, p. 69), ‘intempesta nocte… uineam… latro capiendus expetiet [= expetiit]’. Other medieval examples showing the new meaning can be found in Niermeyer. Note too Cap. Leg. Sal. add. 89 (MGH, Leg. Sect. 1, Tom. IV, Pars 1, p. 252), ‘si quis occulte de rem sibi furatam a quolibet latrone compositionem acceperit’.

77 Linde, P., ‘Die Stellung des Verbs in der lateinischen Prosa’, Glotta xii (1923), 153ff.Google Scholar; cf. Adams, J.N., The Text and Language of a Vulgar Latin Chronicle (Anonymus Valesianus II) BICS Supplement 36 (1976), 131f.Google Scholar

78 See Adams, op. cit. (note 45), 73f.; idem in A.K. Bowman and J.D. Thomas, Vindolanda: the Latin Writing-Tablets Britannia Monograph Series 4 (1983), 74.

79 See D. Wanner, The Development of Romance Clitic Pronouns from Latin to Old Romance (1987), e.g. 180; Adams, op. cit. (note 77), 131.

80 This brief list does not of course exhaust the range of misspellings found in the tablets: see Tomlin, pp. 74ff., index, p. 266.

81 See Adams, J.N., ZPE lxxxii (1990), 227ff.Google Scholar

82 The best discussion of which (Catullus onwards) is by A. Stefenelli, Die Volkssprache im Werk des Petron im Hinblick auf die romanischen Sprachen (1962), 79f. (> e.g. Olt. inbolare, OPr. enuolar, OCat. emblar, amblar).

83 For furo in the Salic Law (very frequent), see Eckhardt's index, op. cit. (note 61), p. 303; for inuolo, p. 306. Both furo and inuolare are reflected in Gallo-Romance (FEW III.882, IV.805).

84 See Tomlin, p. 64 on the distribution of inuolo in curse tablets.

85 Within the formulaic framework which was clearly established for curses in this area, words from other specialised registers sometimes creep in. The writer of 32 admitted a commercial term (species) to refer to his stolen textiles. More interestingly, the exclusively medical/veterinary technical term adsellare = ‘go to stool' (TLL 11.850.18ff.: no examples quoted from non-medical/veterinary works) appears in a curse at 41. Was the technical term more threatening?

86 See A.S. Gratwick, ‘Latinitas Britannica: was British Latin archaic?’, in N. Brooks (ed.), Latin and the Vernacular Languages in Early Medieval Britain (1982), 1–79.

87 Vindolanda, Inv. no. 86/470: see Bowman, A.K., Thomas, J.D. and Adams, J.N., ‘Two letters from Vindolanda’, Britannia xxi (1990), 33ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

88 See further e.g. quantocius (54.9), mafortium (61.5), argentiolos (8.1), with Tomlin's notes ad locc.

89 Amitto occurs once, perdo eight times. Amitto does not survive in Romance, but for perdo see REW 6403.

90 For inuolo as a juristic term of the Mcrovingian period, see FEW IV.805.

91 On the use of redimo in the Bath tablets, see Versnel, op. cit. (note 8), 86f.