Single *i̯ between vowels was lost very early in Latin (possibly at the Proto-Italic stage). Consequently, the sound represented by consonantal <i> between vowels was actually geminate /jj/ from various sources (Reference WeissWeiss 2020: 67–8). I have not been able to find any epigraphical examples of <ii> prior to the first century BC, and Reference WeissWeiss’ (2020: 68 fn. 64) statement that ‘[g]eminate spelling … is frequently encountered on inscriptions’ seems exaggerated. A search for ‘cuiius’, one of his two examples, on the whole of the EDCS, finds 13 examples, as opposed to 793 for ‘cuius’. The other is maiiorem (CIL 2.1964.3.10): a search for ‘maiior’ finds 12 examples, including derived names, beside 948 for ‘maior’.Footnote 1
The same infrequency applies specifically to the dated inscriptions from the first to fourth centuries AD. I searched for selected forms either mentioned by the grammarians or which appear in the corpora: there are 7 instances of Maiia to 336 of Maia (encompassing the month, divine name, and personal names), 2 of huiius to 192 of huius, 6 of Pompeiius and Pompeiianus to 914 of Pompeius and Pompeianus.Footnote 2
The writers on language often discuss use of <ii>; from Velius Longus, and especially Terentianus Maurus, there are some hints that it might still be in use in the second century AD, but implying that the single spelling is standard. Others do not give the impression that it is much in use in their own time:
He should know that even Cicero thought it good to write aiio and Maiia with geminated i …Footnote 3
et in plerisque Cicero uidetur auditu emensus scriptionem, qui et ‘Aiiace<m>’ et ‘Maiiam’ per duo ‘i[i]’ scribenda existimauit … unde illud <quod> pressius et plenius sonet per duo ‘i’ scribi oportere existimat, sic et ‘Troi <i> am’ et siqua talia sunt. inde crescit ista geminatio et incipit per tria ‘i’ scribi ‘coiiicit’, ut prima syllaba sit ‘coi’, sequentes duae ‘ii’ ‘cit’ … at qui ‘Troiam’ et ‘Maiam’ per unum ‘i’ scribunt, negant onerandam pluribus litteris scriptionem, cum sonus ipse sufficiat.
And in many instances Cicero seems to have corrected spelling to match sound; he thought that Aiax and Maia should be written Aiiax and Maiia, with two is … Hence he thinks that this more sustained and fuller sound ought to be written with two is, as in Troiia, and words of this sort. From this idea arises the gemination, and coiiicit begins to be spelt with three ‘i’s, as though consisting of a first syllable ‘coi’, followed by the double ‘ii’ and then ‘cit’ … But those who write Troia and Maia with a single ‘i’ say that writing ought not to be weighed down by too many letters, the sound itself being sufficient.
‘i’ geminum scribere nos iubent magistri …
Teachers order us to write i double …
uel gemella si locanda est, ut uidetur pluribus …
Or if a double spelling is to be used here, as many think …
sic enim scribi per geminatam litteram metri ratione desiderat, si quidem potestatem tuetur duplicis consonantis.
It (i.e. i) ought to be written with the letter doubled for metrical reasons, if one had an eye on its ability to act as a double consonant.
sibi autem ipsa subiungitur in his, ut ‘aiio, Troiia, G<r>aiius, Aiiax’.
It [i.e. i] is joined to itself in these words, as in aiio, Troiia, Graiius, Aiiax.
aut in i litteram solam loco consonantis positam, quam nonnulli geminant, ut aio te Aeacida, Romanus uincere posse …
But with regard to the letter i placed in a consonantal position, which some people double, as in aio te Aeacida, Romanus uincere posse …
Use of <ii> to represent intervocalic /jj/ is very uncommon in the corpora; for example in the Caecilius Jucundus tablets, in which the genre and location of the texts mean that eius, Pompeius, Pompeianus, and the month Maia appear frequently, there are 31 instances of <i> and none of <ii>, and in the Isola Sacra inscriptions, 29 instances of <i> in the words cuius, eius, huius, and in the names Cocceius, Manteiane, Maiorice, Septeius and Tonneius, but none of <ii>. Generally, therefore, I did not count instances of <i> . Where <ii> is used, this may be one of the times when an old-fashioned spelling corresponds to a spelling produced by a writer with lower education, since words like eius really did contain a double /jj/, which might be spelt <ii> simply by a writer who closely produced what they pronounced.
The Vindolanda tablets have a single example of <ii> in Coceịió (Tab. Vindol. 645). Either old-fashioned or substandard spelling is possible: the writer uses old-fashioned <ss> in fussá, but also has substandard features in Vindolande for Vindolandae ‘at Vindolanda’ and resscribere for rescrībere ‘to write back’. He writes the name Maior without <ii>. There are 4 instances in the curse tablets, across 3 different texts. Pompeiius appears in the undated Kropp 1.3.1/1 from Maruvium, eiius in Kropp 3.11/1, fourth century AD, from Britain, and huiius and eiius in Kropp 11.2.1/36 from Africa, perhaps the third century AD.
The brief text of Kropp 1.3.1/1 shows no other substandard or old-fashioned features. In the case of Kropp 3.11/1 a substandard spelling seems most likely: there are a number of others in the text, most notably, since they suggest particular attention to representing glides, puuer for puer [puwɛr] and puuella for puella [puwɛlla]: this is not part of the old-fashioned spelling tradition. There are also straightforward mistakes such as omitted and transposed letters. So I do not think that eiius here should be taken as an old-fashioned spelling. The same could be true for 11.2.1/36, although the writer here produces several spellings which presumably do not reflect his or her speech (initial <h> in hac, hora, hoc despite hypercorrect haera; final <m> in omn]ium, omnium twice, caelum, terram, Veram, de]tinentem, sempiternum, amorem, neminem, alium, quem, consummatum despite immobile for immōbilem; double <ll> in nulli despite coliga for colligā), so the likelihood of its being old-fashioned is higher; no other old-fashioned spellings are found, however.
Open access