Online Encyclopedia
Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
IGUVIUM (mod. Gubbio, q.v.)
Online EncyclopediaEncyclopedia Home :: I27-INV
del.icio.us it!
|
See also:IGUVIUM (mod. See also:Gubbio, q.v.) , a See also:town of See also:Umbria, situated among the mountains, about 23 M. N.N.E. of Perusia and connected with it by a by-road, which joined the Via See also:Flaminia near the See also:temple of See also:Jupiter Appenninus, at the See also:modern Scheggia. It appears to have been an important See also:place in pre-See also:Roman times, both from its coins and from the celebrated tabulae Iguvinae (see below).
We find it in See also:possession of a treaty with See also:Rome, similar to that of the Camertes Umbri; and in 167 B.C. it was used as a place of safe custody for the Illyrian See also: A See also:bishop of Iguvium is mentioned as See also:early as A.D. 413. It was taken and destroyed by the Goths in 552, but rebuilt with the help of See also:Narses. The Umbrian town had three See also:gates only, and probably See also:lay on the steep See also:mountain See also:side as the See also:present town does, while the Roman See also:city lay in the See also:lower ground. Here is the See also:theatre, which, as an inscription records, was restored by Cn. Satrius See also:Rufus in the See also:time of See also:Augustus. The See also:diameter of the See also:orchestra is 76z ft. and of the whole 230 ft., so that it is a See also:building of considerable See also:size; the See also:stage is well preserved and so are parts of the See also:external arcades of the auditorium. Not far off are ruins probably of See also:ancient See also:baths, and the See also:concrete core of a large See also:tomb with a vaulted chamber within. (T.As.) Of Latin See also:inscriptions (C.I.L. xi. 5803-5926) found at Iguvium two or three are of Augustan date, but none seem to be earlier. A Latin inscription of Iguvium (C.I.L. xi. 5824) mentions a See also:priest whose functions are characteristic of the place " L. Veturius Rufio avispex extispecus, saccade's publicus et privatus."
The ancient town is chiefly celebrated for the famous Iguvinc (less correctly Eiegubine) Tables, which were discovered there in 1444, bought by the See also:municipality in 1456, and are still pre-served in the town See also: See also:Press, 1897). Language.—The See also:dialect in which this ancient set of liturgies is written is usually known as Umbrian, as it is the only See also:monument we possess of any length of the See also:tongue spoken in the Umbrian distri, t before it was latinized (see UMBRIA). The name, however, is certainly too wide, since an inscription from Tuder of, probably, the 3rd See also:century B.C. (R. S. Conway, The Italic Dialects, 352) shows a final -s and a medial -d-, both apparently preserved from the changes which befell these sounds, as we shall see, in the dialect of Iguvium. On the other See also:hand, inscriptions of Fulginia and Assisium (ibid. 354-355) agree very well, so far as they go, with Iguvine. It is especially necessary to make clear that the language known as Umbrian is that of a certain limited See also:area, which cannot yet be shown to have extended very far beyond the eastern See also:half of the See also:Tiber valley (from Interamna Nahartium to Urvinum Mataurense), be-cause the See also:term is often used by archaeologists with a far wider See also:connotation to include all the Italic, pre-Etruscan inhabitants of upper See also:Italy; See also:Professor Ridgeway, for instance, in his Early See also:Age of See also:Greece, frequently speaks of the Umbrians " as the See also:race to which belonged the See also:Villanova culture of the Early See also:Iron age. It is now one of the most urgent problems in the See also:history of Italy to determine the actual See also:historical relation (see further ROME: History, ad. init.) between the 'Op.8poi of, say, See also:Herodotus and the language of Iguvium, of which we may now offer some description, using the term Umbrian strictly in this sense. Under the headings LATIN LANGUAGE and OscA LINGUA there have been collected (I) the points which See also:separate all the Italic See also:languages from their nearest congeners, and (2) those which separate Osco-Umbrian from Latin. We have now to See also:notice (3) the points in which Umbrian has diverged from Oscan. The first of them ante-See also:dates by six or seven centuries the similar See also:change in the See also:Romance languages (see ROMANCE LANGUAGES). (I) The palatalization of k and g before a following i or e, or consonant i as in licit (i.e. dicit) =See also:Lat. decet; muieto past part. passive (pronounced as though the i were an See also:English or See also:French j) beside See also:limb. imperative mugatu, Lat. mugire. (2) The loss of final-d, e.g. in the abl. sing. See also:fern. Umb. tota=Osc. toutad. (3) The change of d between vowels to a See also:sound akin to r, written by a See also:special See also:symbol q (1) in Umbrian alphabet and by RS in Latin alphabet, e.g. teda in Umbrian alphabet=dirsa in Latin alphabet (see below), " let him give," exactly See also:equivalent to Paelignian dida (See See also:PAELIGNI). (4) The change of -s- to -r- between vowels as in erom, " esse =Osc. ezum, and the gen. plur. fem. ending in -aru=Lat. -arum, Osc. -azum. To this there appear a See also:long See also:string of exceptions, e.g. See also:asa = Lat. ara. These are generally regarded as See also:mere archaisms, and unfortunately the See also:majority of them are in words of whose origin and meaning very little is known, so that (for all we can tell) in many the -s- may represent -ss- or -pa- as in osatu=Lat. operato, cf. Osc. opsaom. (5) The change of final -ns to -f as in the See also:ace. plur. masc. vitluf = Lat. vitulos. (6) In the latest stage of the dialect (see below) the change of final -s to -r, as in abl. plur. arver, arviis, i.e. " arvorum frugibus." (7) The decay of all diphthongs; ai, oi, ei all become a monophthong variously written e and i (rarely (i), as in the dat. sing. fern. tote, " civitati "; dat. sing. masc. pople, " populo "; loc. sing. masc. onse (from *om(e)sei), " in umero." So au, eu, ou all become o, as in ote=Osc. auti, Lat. See also:aut. (8) The change of initial 1 to v, as in vatic =Lat. lavito. Owing to the See also:peculiar See also:character of the Tables no grammatical statement about Umbrian is See also:free from difficulty; and these See also:bare outlines of its phonology must be supplemented by reference to the lucid discussion in C. D. See also:Buck's Oscan and Umbrian See also:Grammar (See also:Boston, 1904), or to the earlier and admirably See also:complete Oskischxmbrische Grammatik of R. von Planta (See also:Strassburg, 1892-1897), Some of the most important questions are discussed by R. S. Conway in The Italic Dialects, vol. ii. p. 495 seq. See also:Save for the consequences of these phonetic changes, Umbrian See also:morphology and syntax exhibit no divergence from Oscan that need be mentioned here, save perhaps two peculiar perfect-formations with -1- and -nri-; as in ampelust, fut. perf. impenderit," combifianciust, nuntiaverit " (or the like). Full accounts of the See also:accidence and syntax, so far as it is represented in the inscriptions, will be found in the grammars of Buck and von Planta already mentioned, and in the second See also:volume of Conway, op. cit. See also:Chronology. (I.) The Relative Dates of the Tables.—At least four periods in the history of the dialect can be distinguished in the records we have See also:left to us, by the help of the successive changes (a) in alphabet and (b) in language, which the Tables exhibit. Of these only the outstanding features can be mentioned here; for a See also:fuller discussion the reader must be referred to The Italic Dialects, pp. 400 sqq. (a) Changes in Alphabet.—Observe first that Tables I., II., III. and IV., and the first two inscriptions of V. are in Umbrian character; the Latin alphabet is used in the Claverniur See also:paragraph (V. iii.), and the whole of VI. (a and b) and VII. (a and b). What we may See also:call the normal Umbrian alphabet (in which e.g. Table I. a is written) consists of the following signs, the See also:writing being always from right to left : A a, 8 b, 9 d (i.e. a sound akin to r derived from d), 3e, 7 v, 4 z, 0 h, I i, tt k and g, 41, k+-1 m, H e, 1 P, a r, 8 s, X t and d, V u and o, 8 f, d s (i.e. a voiceless palatal consonant.) In the Latin alphabet, in which Tables VI. and VII. and the third inscription of Table V. are written, d is represented by RS, g by G, but k by C, d by D, t by T, v and u by V but o by 0, 3 by S, though the diacritic is often omitted. The interpunct is See also:double with the Umbrian alphabet, single and medial with the Latin. Tables VI. and VII., then, and V. iii., were written later than the See also:rest. But even in the earlier See also:group certain See also:variations appear. The latest See also:form of the Umbrian alphabet is that of Table V. i. and ii., where the abbreviated form of m (A) and the angular and undivided form of k (N not DI) are especially characteristic. Nearest to this is that of Tables III. and IV., which form a single document ; then that of I. (a) and (b) ; earliest would seem that of II. (a) and II. (b). In II. a, i8 and 24, we have the archaic See also:letter See also:san (M =s) of the abecedaria (E. S. See also:Roberts, Int. Gr. Epig. pp. 17 ff.), which appears in no other Italic nor in any Chalcidian inscription, though it survived longer in Etruscan and Venetic use. Against this may be set the use of 0 for See also:tin I. b 1, but this appears also in IV. 20 and should be called rather Etruscan than archaic. These characteristics of II. a and b would be in themselves too slight to prove an earlier date, but they have perhaps some See also:weight as See also:con-firming the See also:evidence of the language. (b) Changes in Language.—The evidence of date derived from changes in the language is more difficult to formulate, and the inquiry calls for the most diligent use of scientific method and See also:critical See also:judgment. Its intricacy lies in the character of the documents before us—religious formularies consisting partly of See also:matter established in usage long before they were written down in their present shape, partly of additions made at the time of writing. The best example of this is furnished by the expansion and modernisation of the subject-matter of Table I. into Tables VI. and VII. a. Hence we frequently meet with forms which had passed out of the language that was spoken at the time they were engraved, side by side with their equivalents in that language. We may distinguish four periods, as follows: 1. The first See also:period is represented, not by any complete table, but by the old unmodernised forms of Tables III. and IV., which show the See also:original guttural See also:plosives unpalatalized, e.g. kebu =Lat. cibum. 2. In the second period the gutturals have been palatalized, but there yet is no change of final s to r. This is represented by the rest of III. and IV. and by II. (a and b). 3. In the third period final s has everywhere become r. This appears in V. (i. and ii. and also iii.). Table I. is a copy or redraft made from older documents during this period. This is shown by the occasional See also:appearance of r instead of final s. 4. Soon after the dialect had reached its latest form, the Latin alphabet was adopted. Tables VI. and VII. a contain an See also:expanded form of the same liturgical direction as Table I. It is probable that further See also:research will amend this See also:classification in detail, but its See also:main lines are generally accepted. (II.) Actual Date of the Tables.—Only the leading points can be mentioned here. (i.) The Latin alphabet of the latest Tables resembles that of the Tabula Bantina, and might have been engraved at almost any time between 150 B.C. and 5o B.C. It is quite likely that the closer relations with Rome, which began after the Social War, led to the See also:adoption of the Latin alphabet. Hence we should infer that the Tables in Umbrian alphabet were at all events older than 90 B.C. (ii.) For an upper limit of date, in See also:default of definite evidence, it seems imprudent to go back beyond the 5thlcentury B.c., since neither in Rome nor See also:Campania have we any evidence of public written documents of any earlier century. When more is known of the earliest Etruscan inscriptions it may become possible to date the Iguvine Tables by their alphabetic peculiarities as compared with their See also:mother-alphabet, the Etruscan. The " Tuscan name " is denounced in the comprehensive curse of Table VI. b, 53-60, and we may infer that the town of Iguvium was independent but in fear of the Etruscans at the time when the curse was first composed. The See also:absence of all mention of either Gauls or See also:Romans seems to prove that this time was at least earlier than 400 B.c.; and the curse may have been composed long before it was written down. The See also:chief See also:sources in which further See also:information may be See also:sou ht have been already mentioned. (R. S. Additional information and CommentsThere are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML. Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide. |
|
|
[back] IGUANODON |
[next] IHP |