Page images
PDF
EPUB

Latin grew at last to be the vernacular tongue of the empire; but not without being much altered and disfigured by the phrases and expressions of the Celtic; so that it became a tongue which could hardly be called either Latin or Celtic, for in reality it was neither the one nor the other, but partook of both.

But the evil did not stop here. The barbarians came, and invaded both France and Spain. Now each of the tribes of these savages had an idiom of their own, though most probably all originating from the same mother tongue, the Teutonic language; and as each with its peculiar jargon concurred to alter and corrupt the language of the country which they had invaded, thus for a while, that is as long as they kept the possession of their respective dominions, there was, and indeed there must bave been a little difference in the language which was spoken in the north of Spain, and the other two which were spoken in the north and south of France. But as soon as Charlemague collected all those provinces under his empire, and extended his sway over France and Spain, this barbarism of language was abolished by degrees, and perfectly disappeared from the letters of his successors, in consequence of the schools which this monarch established, and in which the Latin language was again cultivated and taught. In this way the barbarous Latin was expelled from public transactions, but it was still preserved in the mouth of the nation, which had now changed its ancient language for this strange mixture of Celtic, Latin, Frankish, Ostrogothic, &c. And as the people had learned it merely by bearing it spoken, when they proceeeded to write it, they had no other resource than to adopt the method of spelling according to the mode in which they pronounced. In this way it soon lost the little resemblance it had hitherto retained of the two principal languages from which it had originated; especially if we consider that the Latin which the Romans imported into Gaul was in itself a corrupt language, such as it was spoken in the provinces, and consequently very different from that which was used in Rome by their best authors. It will not be difficult therefore to conceive how soon this corrupt jargon lost all possible resemblance to the pure Latin by this mixture of the Celtic, and much more of the idioms of the other barbarians.

Such is the origin of the langue Romance, which being the vernacular tongue of all the subjects of Charlemagne in the west of Europe, was spoken not only in France, but also in that portion of Spain over which this emperor had extended his dominions. But there is still some difference between this language and that which nearly three centuries after was employed by the Troubadours, and to which we have given, strictly speaking,

speaking, the name of langue Romance, or Provençal language. The reason of the difference is this.

As one fruit of his conquest in Germany, Charles brought over to France many of the Germans; so that the German was the very language of his court; and at this time we find in Gaul three different languages. One was the langue Romance common to all the people, another was the Latin taught in the schools, and still preserved in all public transactions; and the third was the Deutch or Tudesque language, which was spoken at court, as well as by the Germans whom business or pleasure brought into Gaul.

This difference of language was for some time a distinguishing characteristic of a German and a Frenchman, but in progress of time it gradually disappeared. The intercourse between these two nations produced friendship and intermarriages; these marriages brought inheritances, and the possession of land soon bound them into one and the same nation. And as the Germans were by no means the most numerous part of the community, they must have found themselves, as it were, scattered amongst the French. Now it may generally be supposed, that whenever two nations who speak two different languages are brought together to live in the same country, those who are the less in number will by degrees learn the language of the many, unless the few being more civilized should introduce amongst their new friends the arts of peace and the cultivation of letters. In that case the language of the few will by degrees become the language of the whole community. This is precisely what the Romans always did. Though less in number, but being more civilized, they so far allured the inhabitants of the country whom they had conquered, that in some measure they actually obliged their new subjects to learn the Latin language. But the Teodisque or, as some people call it, the Tudesque language at the time of Charlemagne was by no means to be compared with the langue Romance, and the Germans being rather more barbarous than the French, they had no means in their power to allure the inhabitants of Gaul to adopt their jargon in preference to the language which they possessed, and which was by far the superior. For this reason they were themselves obliged to learn the Provençal language, and a political circumstance hastened this event.

When under Charles the Bald, the division of Germany and France took place, it was permitted to the nobles of both these realms to follow, as they chose, either the emperor of Germany, or the king of France, according to the situation of their estates; without, however, giving up those which they possessed in the dominions of the monarch whom they aban

doned.

[ocr errors]

doned. In consequence of this permission, many noblemen of Gaul followed the party of Lotharius, and many German barons that of Charles the Bald. But as soon as the female descendants of Charlemagne succeeded to the throne of Germany, Italy, and France, that is about the end of the second race of the French kings, this reciprocal possession of land ceased also, and the Germans were obliged to relinquish either the land they had in Germany, or at least that which they held in France, and be satisfied only with the possession of those estates which they enjoyed under the monarch whom they had followed. The same happened to the French, who if they wished to adhere to the interest of their master, were also obliged to relinquish those estates which they had in Germany.

In this way the Germans being for ever excluded from their native country, settled in France, and thus they were obliged to learn the language of their new acquaintances. But in learning it they did precisely the same that the Gauls had done in learning Latin. They mixed phrases and expressions of their own idiom in the langue Romance, and thus the Deutch, Teodisque, or Tudesque, became another ingredient in the formation of the language of the inhabitants of France; and this is the language which properly and strictly speaking is called the langue Ro mance, which was spoken throughout France and great part of Spain, and which a very little time after through the means of the Troubadours, became almost the general language of all the polite scholars of Europe, and of all the countries into which the French carried their arms. William brought it into this country, where for some time it continued to be the language of the court and of the law; the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily received it from Robert and other Normans, who after having expelled the Moors took possession of those realms. By the means of the Crusades it reached Cyprus and Jerusalem, where it continued to the last to be the language of the court, of the church, and of the law; and there is reason to believe that it was imported, and for some time cultivated even in Constantinople during the reigns of the French emperors.

Mr. Berington is so uncommonly concise on the formation of modern languages, that he hardly gives us a hint upon the subject. However, before we dismiss it altogether, we must object to another of his statements, in naming the thirteenth century as the epoch in which modern languages were formed. It is true, that in talking of the Latin language he appears to contradict himself and come over to our opinion, for he says;

"This language, therefore, continued to be the language of science and scientific men; nor was it before the twelfth century,

as

1

Still I

as seems generally agreed, that her eldest daughter, the Italian-
having acquired a copious and extensive phraseology-committed
her thoughts to writing, and assumed a new character.
am inclined to think, though no vestiges of such compositions may
remain, that, in the earliest infancy of every language, love has
found words, and reduced those words to some measure, more
expressive of affection, and more likely to attract the attention of
the object it admired." P. 336.

But yet, notwithstanding this confession, it is evident from the very division and different heads of the book, that he considers the thirteenth century as the favorite epoch. Now we have always imagined, that if we should be obliged to name a period from which to date the origin of modern languages, the end of the eleventh, or to the utmost the beginning of the twelfth century, would by far be the most reasonable. At that time the earliest records fix the first effusion of the Sicilian muse, who disdaining any longer to employ the Provençal language, like the Troubadours, wished in her own tongue to express the sentiments with which the Sicilian poets were animated by the sight, or by the cruelty" of the object they admired.”

However, the best part of all is, that Mr. Berington himself unawares confirms our opinion.

"Frederic II. who was educated in Sicily, and in 1218 raised to the imperial throne, was the patron of literature; and was himself extensively learned. His skill in languages, amongst which are reckoned the Italian, German, and French, is much celebrated by contemporary writers; and they tell us of the schools or academies which he founded; of the works which he procured to be translated from the Greek; and of the intellectual ardour which he every-where endeavoured to excite. His chancellor, the learned Peter de Vineis, was his fellow-labourer in the meritorious work. The court of Frederic, observes the historian, whom I willingly follow, appeared as a luminous theatre, on which the learned men met, whom his munificence attracted; whilst under the shade of royal protection, they pursued their various studies, and gave energy to the love of science. Among these were many Troubadours. Frederic afforded encouragement to their amusing arts; and was himself a poet, as he had cultivated the Italian, or rather the Sicilian, dialect, which was the language of his early youth." P. 346,

If then Frederic II. was raised to the throne in the year 1218, and among other languages was skilful in Italian, it is clear that the Italian must already have been a formed language. And if the thirteenth century according to Mr. Berington, is to be considered as the epoch of the formation of modern languages, then we must suppose this languageto have been formed

[ocr errors]

in about five and twenty years. Mr. Berington quotes Tiraboschi, and there was no need for it; for even without Tiraboschi we might have found out both the age in which Frederic lived and his skill in languages. For the question is not about those who cultivated the Italian language, but about the time in which this language was formed. And had Mr. Berington taken the trouble to quote the whole that Tiraboschi says on this subject, he would have found that the writer of the Storia della Letteratura Italiana, by no means agrees with the theory laid down in the History of the Middle Ages; on the contrary, he offers new arguments in favour of our opinions, in the long preface at the head of the third volume; in which he ex professo treats of the origin of the Italian language, and confutes Maffei Bembo and l'Aretino.

The best part of this whole book is that in which Mr. Berington having shewn, that "the station of the Roman bishops was singularly propitious for the accomplishment of dispelling the dreary chasm of ignorance and barbarism;" whether we consider "the abundance of wealth which was voluntarily bestowed, the influence which they actually enjoyed, or the superiority of talents which they possessed;" asks, why they performed so little, and thus he very properly resolves the question.

"The history of their pontificates will best solve the difficulty, And here I would not refer the reader to any distant periodthough in the progress of any period, sufficient light might be collected-but confine his view to that which is more immediate before him, I mean to the thirteenth century. At the commencement of this century, Innocent III. occupied the papal chair, and Boniface VIII. at its termination. In perusing the history of the lives of these prelates, he will discover-that though they were men of high endowments, and not indifferent to the cause of letters -other interests were nearer to their hearts, or at least, were of such overwhelming magnitude, and such urgent importance as necessarily to absorb the main powers of attention. To acquire ter ritory, and through it the more effectual means of aggrandisement; to extend the prerogative, and by its application, as occasion served, to exercise an unlimited controul over churchmen and to make even crowns bend to the sovereignty of the tiara, were concerns, compared with which those of literature would appear but as trifles light as air. That such were the views of Innocent was manifested by the series of his actions, though I have sufficiently remarked, that his time was often otherwise engaged.

"When, after a hundred years, seldom distinguished by any change of measures, Boniface was called to the helm, a papal his torian thus sums up the events of his pontificate: Casting his eye, says he, over the face of Christendom, and embracing its concerns,

he

1

« PreviousContinue »