(Vol. iv., pp. 383. 454.)
It would greatly assist the elucidation of this word, if the earliest
instances extant of its use, in a chronological sense, could be
ascertained.
The dictionary of Facciolatus goes no further back than Isidorus the
younger, at the end of the sixth century; who perhaps was the first who
gave to era the meaning of a cursus of years: before his time, as well
as afterwards, it is certain that era was a synonyme of annus.
In recording dates, the Spanish account made no use of _annus_ either
expressed or understood--_era_ was an independent word, having numerals
in concord with itself: thus it was prima era, secunda era, tertia era,
&c. Spelman therefore had sufficient reason to contend that the origin
of _era_ might be Gothic and not Roman, and that it is but a variation
of our own word _year_. He says that Isidorus, when dating from the
Roman epoch, used the Roman word, but that when dating from the Gothic
epoch, he conformed to the idiom of the Goths, "apud quos," he adds,
"eram annum significasse ex eo liqueat, quod prisci Saxones (quibus
magna Gothis sermonis affinitas) annum '{Ȝear}' dicebant--Angli hodie
'year'--Belgi 'iaer.'"
The absence of the diphthong in era is attributed by Facciolatus to the
barbarism of the age; but it is at least equally probable that the
diphthong never did really belong to era, but that its claim to it
originated in the fanciful derivation from æs, as imagined by
Isidorus--or rather from es, as he would spell it, the real corruption
being in the latter word: thus, when the diphthong was restored to æs,
it would, as a matter of course, be also applied to its supposed
affinitive.
The Spaniards, who have the best right to the word, have never adopted
the diphthong. With them it is still era, and Scaliger asserts that
there is not in all Spain a single inscription in which the diphthong is
recognised. Alluding to Sepulveda, he says,--
"Mirum mihi visum hominem doctissimum ac præterea Hispanum, cum
tot monimenta extent in Hispania in quibus hujus rei memoria
sculpta est, ne unum vidisse--In illis, ut diximus, nunquam æra,
semper era, scriptum est."
The practical institution of the Spanish, or era account, was probably,
like the Dionysian, long subsequent to its nominal commencement; so that
an enquiry into its earliest known record would possess the additional
interest of determining whether such were the case or not.
Censorinus, in his comparative enumeration of the various accounts of
years--the Julian--the Augustan--the Olympiad--and the Palilian, makes
no mention of the Era, which he would scarcely have omitted, had it been
then in existence and of imperial institution. Between his time,
therefore, which was towards the middle of the third century, and that
of Isidorus, the practice of computation by eras most probably arose.
As for its institution by Cæsar Augustus, which rests on the authority
of Isidorus; that suggestion, even if free from anachronism, had
probably no better foundation than an accidental similitude in sound,
and a wish to compliment the bishop of CÆSARAUGUSTA, to whom the epistle
containing it was addressed by him of Hispalis. The latter appears to
have dealt largely in conjecture in framing his Origines--as, for
example, in hora,--
"Hora enim finis est temporis sic et oræ, sunt fines maris,
fluminorum, et vestimentorum"--
an analogy which reminds one of the cockney--hedge from edge, because it
_edges_ the field.
With respect to the initial-letter method of derivation, of which, in
the case of era, there are three or four different versions, something
has been already said upon that subject, with reference to the alleged
derivation of N. E. W. S. in the first volume of "N. & Q." Scaliger
called such suggestions puerile and ridiculous, and doubtless they are
little better; his castigation of Sepulveda's version was so complete
that it may well serve for its modern imitations.
The original meaning of era has been, like our own word _day_, expanded
into a period of indefinite duration; in that sense it is particularly
useful as a general denomination for a running account of years. It is
an elegant and convenient expression, and its service to chronological
and historical language could be ill dispensed with--it has, moreover,
the prescription of long usage in its favour.
But a modern and far more indefensible attempt has been made in the
opposite extreme, to deprive era of all duration, and to restrict its
meaning to that of a mere initial point--such a meaning, already well
supplied by the word epoch, is, in the case of era, opposed alike to
reason, analogy, usefulness, and usage.