their age has not been ascertained. Grotefend, however/sup-
poses one sef to belong to the third century óf Rome, and anoth er
to thé feixth. The inscriptions have been carefully* collated, and
fortunately present so many coincidences, whö le passages.»èf inscriptions
written in one character consisting of tljie samö'words
as those written in the other/afe to have afforded an opportunity
of elrièidatïrig thepeculiarities otóótb’, andofasceirtaining facts
of great interest ju regard to the Umbrian language,'and its*reflation
to‘ other Italian dialects", ^ e s e results are admirably
expressed by Professor Otfried Muller. He observes that the
Italian antiquarians who supposed the Umbrian.idiom tb havé
been nearly allied to the Etruscan, or oven took the Iguvine
inscriptions as specimens of the Tuscan language, were greatly
mistaken.* The orthographical systems of the two languages
differed widely'. The Tuscan has no mute consonants of the soft
or middie~ëlass; only tenueä and aspiratek* The Umbrian has
the soft mutes, and scarcely any trace of uspiratek The whole
aspect and construction of words differ. THeTJmbrianabounds
with, vowels; the Tuscan appears to h a \^ -'|epn'iöf harsh and
rough pronunciation, abounding with aspirates and double ggeé-
. sonants, and having few vowels.- The
terminate in r and the Tuscan in s, and Müller'says that»he Can
from this circumstance pronounce, without hesitation7 an inscription
discovered at Falerii to be Umbrian and not Tuscan.'!'
The comparison of these languages’ is, howevcp ra sH |f very
defective in evidence, since but a small number o f words have
been ascertained in genuine Etruscan inscriptions which have
been identified with the words of the Iguvine tables. Afnuch
nearer relation is discoverable between the Umbrian and Latin
languages. The Umbrian resembles Latin iri the whole sy stem
of sounds and letters, and the analogy is by no means confined
5 to the un-greek or barbaric part of the Latin language. The
name of Jupiter is written frequently in the Tusco-Umbrian
•inscriptions Jufe, Jufe patre, Jup ater; and it is very remarkable
that an epithet Krapufi or Grabovi,| connected frequently
* Even Lanzisays, “ H loro dialetto ê vicinissiraó ad Etrusco.” (Saggio, tom. iii.
i p. 638.) .
+ The words are. “ Lerpirior santir, pior duirfor forfer dertier dieri* votir rater
vèf narata vef poni sirtir.” ” ' ‘',L ^ * * %■ Krapufi in the Tusco-Umbrian tables, corresponds with Grabovi in the Uatmowith
the name Jufê'br Jove, appalently in a sort of litany, is
also joined in manf-instances with Di'ofDei. From this it is
scarcely’doubtful, that as Zsuc and Aioq are obly variations of
*||ise in t:he' Same 'wmcf’and Ju p iter arid Dialis ar&'cörinêcted
in Latiriffco' Jufeahd D ^ r e l¥^Bea^^TOè>, Umbrian. Of the
other gods' öf Latium only the'name of Mark ié found in these
Umbrian rrecords; itm | writteri Marte/ M a rtij’ The’ "other
names of OT^epïtïiëts whicl# occur fo|j§the'r in thè fourth
tablej Ttebe Jufie, Marte Krapufi, PM^e’ S'a'si/ Fuphiunë Kra-
Te’phre Jüfie, Marti Hurlfe; Hunte 'Serphi, Sèrph’e Marti,
•perphie- "Serphe M a rrip |ïn d ic a ti,^ n th e ''opinion óf Otfriea
Muller, that the' Umbrian superstition hdd hssuirfed a differént
devcl^ement/and th ä f the’first'efemènts only werè commöh tó
p 'ä n a fh at of Rome / *The SabiriégÓd.SöwcW seems' to;bê named
in Umbrian Sanfsie^ and ïrïtShê'wöxds‘ 'piquiërlMartier,' wè
may cd^fectufefrrie woodpecker of Mars vfenferated by the S'a-
ifinel, and accordin^ito Dioi^ysiifs likewiseMy the ancierit Aborigines.
So!mevnames o f numbers appear'to have been 'made
but with sufficïCTifbvicleiicei'as tu fa o r diiva for duo, and triia
•for tria. Eire Jeempto rëjriëslmt the'Greel.'trepoc and Latin
Miter; ter tie 'indicates the ordinal . numbers t o ‘have’been
foimed as in Latin. Petur to be quatuor, as iii Oscan.
I f thesiS numerals and names of gods are rightly interpreted
‘we obtain next the names' of victims ; for iri frequently recurring
serif ênces the words coming before the names of gods joined
with the term for three, may be inferred with great'probability
to indicate victims ; and the very‘words used, buph, ß tlu p h ,
siph, dphruph, purca, appear to be the usual Umbrian modification
of bos, vitulus, sus, aper, pored'.- N ow if the Latin
Umbrian. . ^ must be observed, that in consequence of .the total want of soft or
middle'mute consonants in the Etruscan alphabet, aswéll as of the vowel o,’the
orthography of the Iguvine tables, written in Etruscan letters, which may be termed
the Tusco-Umbrian tables, has a very different appearance from that of the two
Latino-Umbrian tables. The following specimen will point out the nature of the
difference:
T u sc o - U m b r ia n : Fukukum iufiu pune ufeph phurphath.
Z,atin o -Ü rtib ria n : Vocucom ioviu ponne ovi furfant.
The term Tusco-Umbrian distinguishes the inscriptions in the Umbrian language
written in Tuscan letters, and Latino-Umbrian those in the same language expressed
in Latin letters.
Q 2