recto, dilecto. Lat. cs becomes is: seis (s e x); or isc, x ( = Fr. ich,
ch) : seixo (s a x u m), luxo (l u x u m) ; or even ij: disse (d i x i).
Inflexion.—The Portuguese article, now reduced to the vocalic form o, a, os, as, was lo (exceptionally also el, which still survives in the expression El-Rei), la, los, las in the old language. Words ending in l in the singular lose the l in the plural (because it then becomes median, and so is dropped): sol (s o l e m), but soes (soles); those having do in the sing, form the plural either in des or in des according to the etymology : thus cao (c a n e m) makes edes, but racao makes racoes. As regards the pronoun, mention must be made of the non-etymological forms of the personal mint and of the feminine possessive minha, where the second n has been brought in by the initial nasal. Portuguese conjugation has more that is interesting. In the personal suffixes the forms of the 2nd pers. pl. in ades, edes, ides lost the d in the 15th century, and have now become ais, eis, is, through the intermediate forms aes, ees, eis. The form in des has persisted only in those verbs where it was protected by the consonants n or r preceding it: pondes, tendes, vindes, amardes, and also no doubt in some forms of the present of the imperative, where the therne has been reduced to an extraordinary degree by the disappearance of a consonant and the contraction of vowels: ides, credes, ledes, &c. Portuguese is the only Romance language which possesses a personal or conjugated infinitive: amar, amar-es, amar, amar-mos, amar-des, amar-em; e.g. antes de sair-mos, “before we go out.” Again, Portuguese alone has preserved the pluperfect in its original meaning, so that, for example, amara (a m a v e r a m) signifies not merely as elsewhere “I would love,” but also “I had loved.” The future perfect, retained as in Castilian, has lost its vowel of inflexion in the 1st and 3rd pers. sing, and consequently becomes liable to be confounded with the infinitive {amar, render, partir). Portuguese, though less frequently than Castilian, employs ter (t e n e r e) as an auxiliary, alongside of aver; and it also supplements the use of e s s e r e with s e d e r e, which furnished the subj. seja, the imperative se, sede, the gerundive sendo, the participle sido, and some other tenses in the old language. Among the peculiarities of Portuguese conjugation may be mentioned—(1) the assimilation of the 3rd pers. sing, to the 1st in strong perfects (houve, pude, quiz, fez), while Castilian has hube and hubo; (2) the imperfects punha, tinha, vinha (from por, ter and vir), which are accented on the radical in order to avoid the loss of the n (ponia would have made poia), and which substitute u and i for o and e in order to distinguish from the present subjunctive (ponha, tenha, venha).
Galician.—Almost all the phonetic features which distinguish Portuguese from Castilian are possessed by Gallego also. Portuguese and Galician even now are practically one language, and still more was this the case formerly : the identity of the two idioms would become still more obvious if the orthography employed by the Galicians were more strictly phonetic, and if certain transcriptions of sounds borrowed from the grammar of the official language (Castilian) did not veil the true pronunciation of the dialect. It is stated, for example, that Gallego does not possess nasal diphthongs; still it may be conceded once for all that such a word as p l a n u s, which in Galician is written sometimes chau and sometimes chan, cannot be very remote from the Portuguese nasal pronunciation chao. One of the most notable differences between normal Portuguese and Galician is the substitution of the surd spirant in place of the sonant spirant for the Lat. j before all vowels and g before e and i : xuez (j u d i c e m), Port, juiz; xunto (ji'nctu m), Port, junto; xente (g e n t e m), Port, gente. In conjugation the peculiarities of Gallego are more marked ; some find their explanation within the dialect itself, others seem to be due to Castilian influence. The 2nd persons plural have stili their old form ades, edes, ides, so that in this instance it would seem as if Gaftego had been arrested in its progress while Portuguese had gone on progressing; but it is to be observed that with these full forms the grammarians admit contracted forms as well: as (Port, ais), es (Port, eis), is (Port. is). The 1st pers. sing. of the perfect of conjugations in er and ir has come to be complicated by a nasal resonance similar to that which we find in the Portuguese mim; we have vendin, partin, instead of vendi, parti, and by analogy this form in in has extended itself also to the perfect of the conjugation in ar, and falin, gardin, for falei, gardei are found. The second persons of the same tense take the ending che, ches in the singular and chedes in the plural : falache or falaches (f a b u l a s t i), falachedes as well as faldstedes (fabulastis), bateche or batiche, pl. batestes or batechedes, &c. Ti (t i b i) having given che in Galician, we see that falasti has become falache by a phonetic process. The 3rd pers. sing, of strong perfect is not in e as in Portuguese (houve, pode), but in (houbo, puido, soubo, coubo, &c.) ; Castilian influence may be traceable here. If a contemporary grammarian, Saco Arce, is to be trusted, Gallego would form an absolute exception to the law of Spanish accentuation in the imperfect and pluperfect indicative: falabdmos, falabddes; bahdmos, baliddes; pididmos, pididdes; and falardmos, falarddes; baterdmos, baterddes; pidirdmos, pidirddes. The future perfect indicative and the imperfect subjunctive, on the other hand, would seem to be accented regularly : faldremos, faldsemos. The important question is worth further study in detail.
Bibliography.—On the general subject the most important works are F. Diez, Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen (5th ed., Bonn, 1882) and Etymologisches Wörterbuch der romanischen Sprachen (4th ed., Bonn, 1878) ; W. Meyer-Lübke, Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen (Leipzig, 1890–1894) ; G. Korting, Lateinisch-romunisches Worterbuch (Paderborn, 1890–1891). See also A. Carnoy, he Latin d’Espagne d'apres les inscriptions (2nd ed., Brussels, I906). (1) Catalan.—A. Morel-Fatio, “Das Catalanische,” in G. Grober’s Grundriss der romanischen Philologie (1888) ; E. Vogel, “Neucatalanische Studien,” in G. Korting’s Neuphilologische Sludien (Heft 5, 1886) ; M. Mila y Fontanals, De los Trovadores en Espana (Barcelona, 1861), and Estudios de lengua catalana (Barcelona, 1875); A. Mussafia’s introduction to Die catalanische metrische Version der sieben weisen Meister (Vienna, 1876); A. Nonell y Mas, Andlisis de la llènga catalana antiga comparada ab la moderna. (Manresa, 1895) ; J. P. Ballot y Torres, Gramatica y apologia de la llengua cathalana (Barcelona, 1815); A. de Bofarull, Estudios, sistema gramaticaly crestomatia de la lengua catalana (Barcelona, 1864); P. Fabra, Contribució á la gramatica de la llengua catalana (Barcelona, 1898). For the Catalan dialect of Sardinia see G. Morosi, “l’Odierno dialetto catalano di Alghero in Sardegna,” in the Miscellanea di filclogia dedicata alia memoria dei Prof. Caix e Canello (Florence, 1885), and F. Romoni, Sardismi (Sassan, 1887). (2) Castilian.—Conde de la Vinaza, Biblioteca historica de la filologia castellana (Madrid, 1893); A. Bello, Gramatica de la lengua castellana (7th ed., with notes by R. J. Cuervo, Paris, 1902) ; R. J. Cuervo, Apuntaciones ritica ssobre el lenguaje bogotano (5th ed., Paris, 1907); G. Baist, “Die spanische Sprache,” in G. Grober’s Grundriss der romanischen Philologie; P. Förster, Spanische Sprachlehre (Berlin, 1880); E. Gorra, Lingua e letteratura spagnuola delle origini (Milan, 1898) ; R. Menendez Pidal, Manual elemental de gramatica historica espanola (Madrid, 1905) ; F. M. Josselyn, Études de phonétique espagnole (Paris, 1907) ; C. Michaelis, Studien zur romanischen Wortschöpfung (Leipzig, 1876); A. Keller, Historische Formenlehre der spanischen Sprache (Murrhardt, 1894); P. de Mugica, Gramática del castellano antiguo (Berlin, 1891) ; S. Padilla, Gramática histórica de la lengua castellana (Madrid, 1903); J. D. M. Ford, “The Old Spanish Sibilants” in Studies and Notes in Philology (Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., 1900). For Asturian, see A. de Rato y Hevia, Vocabulario de las palabras y frases que se hablan en Asturias (Madrid, 1891), and the Coleccion de poesias en dialecto asturiano (Oviedo, 1839); for Navarrese-Aragonese, see J. Borao, Diccionario de voces aragonesas (2nd ed., Saragossa, 1885); for Andalusian, the searching study of H. Schuchardt in the Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, vol. v.; and for Leonese, R. Menendez Pidal, “El Dialecto leones,” in the Revista de archivos, bibliotecas, y museos (Madrid, 1906). R. J, Cuervo’s Apuntaciones (noted above) is the leading authority on American Spanish. The following publications may be consulted, but with caution: L. Abeille, Idioma nacional de los Argentinos (Paris, 1900) ; D. Granada, Vocabulario rioplatense razonado (Montevideo, 1890) ; J. Fernandez Ferraz, Nahuatlismos de Costa Rica (San Jose, 1892) and C. Gagini, Diccionario de barbarismos de Costa Rica (San Jose, 1893); A. Membreno, Hondurenismps (Tegucigalpa, 1897). See also C. C. Marden, The Phonology of the Spanish Dialect of Mexico City (Baltimore, 1896) ; J. Sanchez Somoano, Modismos, locuciones y terminos mexicanos (Madrid, 1892), and F. Ramos i Duarte, Diccionario de niejicanismos (Mexico, 1895); J. de Arona, Diccionario de peruanismos (Lima, 1883); J. Calcafio, El Castellano en Venezuela (Caracas, 1897). (3) Portuguese.—J. Cornu, “Die portugiesische Sprache,” in G. Grober’s Grundriss der romanischen Philologie ; F. A. Coelho, Theoria da conjugacao em latim e portuguez (Lisbon, 1871), and Questoes da lingua portugueza (Oporto, 1874). For Galician, see A. Fernandez y Morales’s Ensayos poeticos de berceiano (Leon, 1861); M. R. Rodriguez, Apuntes gramaticales sobre el romance gallego de la crónica troyana (La Coruña, 1898), and Saco Arce, Gramática gallega (Lugo, 1868); for other dialectical varieties, see I. J. da Fonseca, Noções de philologia accomodadas á lingoa brasiliana (Rio de Janeiro, 1885); J. Leite de Vasconellos, Dialectos beires (Oporto, 1884), and Sur le dialecte portugais de Macao (Lisbon, 1892).
Important articles by many of the above writers, and by other philologists of note, will be found in Romania, the Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, the Revue des langues romanes, the Revista lusitana, the Revue hispanique, the Bulletin hispanique, Cultura espaňola and the Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen. (A. M.-Fa.; J. F.-K.)
Spanish Literature
The name Spanish in connexion with literature is now generally restricted to works in the Castilian tongue. In the present article it is taken in the wider sense as embracing the literary productions of the whole Iberian Peninsula, with the exceptions of Portugal and of Galicia, the latter of which, as regards language and literature, belongs to the Portuguese domain. Spanish literature thus considered falls into two divisions—Castilian and Catalan.
I. Castilian Literature.—Of the Castilian texts now extant none is of earlier date than the 12th century, and very probably none goes farther back than 1150. The text generally accepted as the oldest—the Mystery of the Magian Kings, as it is rather inappropriately designated by most historians of literature—is a fragment of a short semi-liturgical play meant to be acted
