on the streets of Rome. Cicero informs us, on the authority of Cato’s
_Origines_, that at feasts and entertainments, it was usual for the guests
to celebrate the praises of their native heroes to the sound of the
flute(76). Valerius Maximus says, that the verses were sung by the older
guests, in order to excite the youth to emulation(77); and Varro, that
they were chaunted by ingenuous youths(78). The difference, however,
between the two authors, is easily reconciled. The former speaks of the
original composition of these ballads(79), while Varro, though the passage
is imperfect, seems to refer to a later period, when they were brought out
anew for the entertainment of the guests. Valerius talks of them as poems
or ballads of considerable extent. It was many generations, however,
before the age of Cato, that this practice existed; and by the time of
Cicero, these national and heroic productions, if they ever had been
reduced to writing, were no longer extant(80). This is all that can be
collected concerning these legends, from the ancient Roman writers, who
had evidently very imperfect notions and information on the subject.
Niebuhr, however, and M. Schlegel, seem as well acquainted with their
contents as we are with Chevy Chase, and talk as if these precious relics
were lying on their shelves, or as if they had been personally present at
the festivals where they were recited. They expressed, it seems, feelings
purely patriotic—they contained no inconsiderable admixture of the
marvellous—but even the propensity for what was incredible was exclusively
national in its character—and the Roman fablers indulged themselves in the
creation of no wonders, which did not redound in some measure to the
honour of their ancestors. They were founded on the oldest traditions
concerning the kings and heroes of the infant city, and the establishment
of the republican form of government. “The fabulous birth of Romulus,”
says Schlegel, “the rape of the Sabine women, the most poetical combat of
the Horatii and Curiatii, the pride of Tarquin, the misfortunes and death
of Lucretia, and the establishment of liberty by the elder Brutus—the
wonderful war with Porsenna, and steadfastness of Scævola, the banishment
of Coriolanus, the war which he kindled against his country, the
subsequent struggle of his feelings, and the final triumph of his
patriotism at the all-powerful intercession of his mother;—these and the
like circumstances, if they be examined from the proper point of view,
cannot fail to be considered as relics and fragments of the ancient heroic
traditions and heroic poems of the Romans(81).” Niebuhr, not contented
with insulated ballads, has imagined the existence of a grand and complete
Epopee, commencing with the accession of Tarquinius Priscus, and ending
with the battle of Regillus(82). This is a great deal more information
than Cicero or Varro could have afforded us on the subject.
However numerous or extensive these ballads may have been, they soon sunk
into oblivion; and in consequence of the overpowering influence of Greek
authors and manners, they never formed the groundwork of a polished system
of national poetry. The manifold witcheries of the Odyssey, and the
harmony of the noble Hexameter, made so entire a conquest of the fancy and
ears of the Romans, as to leave no room for an imitation, or even an
affectionate preservation, of the ancient poems of their country, and led
them, as we shall soon see, exclusively to adopt in their stead, the
thoughts, the recollections, and the poetry of the Greeks. Cicero, in his
_Tusculan Disputations_, mentions a poem by Appius Claudius Cæcus, who
flourished in the fifth century of Rome(83); but he does not say what was
the nature or subject of this production, except that it was Pythagorean;
and this is the solitary authentic notice transmitted to us of the
existence of any thing which can be supposed to have been a regular or
continued poem, during the first five centuries that elapsed from the
building of the city.
Since, then, we can discover, during this period, nothing but those feeble
dawings of dramatic, satiric, and heroic poetry, which never brightened to
a perfect day, the only history of Roman literature which can be given
during the long interval, consists in the progress and improvement of the
Latin language. In the course of these five centuries, it was extremely
variable, from two causes.—1st, Although their policy in this respect
afterwards changed, one of the great principles of aggrandizement among
the Romans in their early ages, was incorporating aliens, and admitting
them to the rights of citizens. Hence, there was a constant influx to Rome
of stranger tribes; and the dissonance within its walls was probably
greater than had yet been any where heard since the memorable confusion at
Babel.—2d, The Latin was merely a spoken language, or at least had not
received stability by literary composition—writing at that time being
confined, (in consequence of the want of materials for it,) to treaties,
or short columnar inscriptions. So remarkable was the fluctuation produced
by these causes, even during a very short period, that Polybius, speaking
of a treaty concluded between the Carthaginians and Romans in the 245th
Year of the City, during the Consulship of Publius Valerius and Marcus
Horatius, declares, that the language used in it was so different from the
Latin spoken in his time, that the most learned Romans could not explain
its text(84).
Of this changeable tongue, the earliest specimen extant, and which is
supposed to be as ancient as the time of Romulus, is the hymn chaunted by
the _Fratres Arvales_, the college of priests above-mentioned, who were
called _Fratres_, from the first members of the institution being the sons
of Acca Laurentia, the nurse of Romulus. This song was inscribed, during
the time of the Emperor Heliogabalus(85), on a stone, which was discovered
on opening the foundations of the Sacristy at St Peter’s, in the year
1778. It is in the following words:—
“Enos Lases juvate,
Neve luerve Marmar sinis incurrer in pleoris.
Satur fufere Mars: limen sali sta berber:
Semones alternei advocapit cunctos.
Enos Marmor juvate,
Triumpe! triumpe!”
These words have been thus interpreted by Herman: “Nos Lares juvate, neve
luem Mamuri sinis incurrere in plures. Satur fueris Mars: limen (_i. e._
postremum) sali sta vervex: Semones alterni jam duo capit cunctos. Nos
Mamuri juvato—Triumphe! Triumphe”(86)! There are just sixteen letters used
in the above inscription; and it appears from it, that at this early
period the letter _s_ was frequently used instead of _r_—that the final
_e_ was struck out, or rather, had not yet been added—the rich diphthong
_ei_ was employed instead of _i_, and the simple letter _p_, in words
where _f_ or _ph_ came afterwards to be substituted.
Of the _Carmen Saliare_, sung by the Salian priests, appointed under Numa,
for the protection of the _Ancilia_, or Sacred Shields, there remain only
a few words, which have been cited by Varro, who remarks in them, what has
already been noticed with regard to the Hymn of the _Fratres Arvales_,
that the letter _s_ often occurs in words where his contemporaries placed
_r_—as Melios, for melior—Plusima, for plurima—Asena, for arena—Janitos,
for janitor(87). The _Carmen Saliare_, however, can scarcely be taken as a
fair specimen of the state of the Roman language at the time it was
composed. Among the nations adjacent to Rome, there were Salian priests,
who had their hymns and solemn forms of invocation(88), which are said to
have been, in part at least, adopted by Numa(89). So that his _Carmen
Saliare_ probably approaches nearer to the Tuscan and Oscan dialects, than
the Latin language did, even at that early period of the monarchy.
The fragments of a few laws, attributed to Numa, have been preserved by
ancient jurisconsults and grammarians, and restored by Festus, with much
pains, to their proper orthography, which had not been sufficiently
attended to by those who first cited passages from this _Regiam
Majestatem_ of the Romans. One of these laws, as restored by him, is in
the following terms:—“Sei cuips hemonem lobsum dolo sciens mortei duit
pariceidad estod. sei im imprudens se dolo malod occisit pro capited
oceisei et nateis eiius endo concioned arietem subicitod,” which law may
be thus interpreted: “Si quis hominem liberum dolo sciens morti dederit
parricida esto: Si cum imprudens, sine dolo malo, occiderit, pro capite
occisi et natis ejus in concionem arietem subjicito.” A law, ascribed to
Servius Tullius, has been thus given by Festus:—“Sei parentem puer
verberit ast oloe plorasit, puer diveis parentum sacer esto—sei nurus
sacra diveis parentum esto,”—which means, “Si parentem puer verberet, at
ille ploraverit, puer divis parentum sacer esto; si nurus, sacra divis
parentum esto”(90).
From the date of these _Leges Regiæ_, no specimen of the Latin language is
now extant, till we come down to the Twelve Tables, enacted in the
commencement of the fourth century of Rome. These celebrated institutions
have descended to us in mutilated fragments, and their orthography has
probably been in some respects modernised: yet they bear stronger marks of
antiquity than the above-recited law of Servius Tullius, or even than
those of Numa. The Latin writers themselves by whom they are quoted did
not very well understand them, owing to the change which had taken place
in the language. Accordingly, Cicero, and the early grammarians who cite
them, have attempted rather to give the meaning than the precise words of
the Decemvirs. Terrasson has endeavoured to bring them back to the old
Oscan language, in which he supposes them to have been originally written;
but his emendations are in a great measure conjectural, and his attempt is
one of more promise than fulfilment. On the whole, they have been so much
corrupted by modernising them, and by subsequent attempts to restore them
to the ancient readings, that they cannot be implicitly relied on as
specimens of the Roman language during the period in which they were
promulgated. The laws themselves are very concise, and free from that
tautology, which seems the characteristic of the enactments of nations
farther advanced in refinement. The first law is, “S’ in jus vocat queat,”
which is extremely elliptical in its expression, and means, “Si quis
aliquem in jus vocet, vocatus eat.” In some respects the language of the
_Leges Regiæ_, and twelve tables, possesses a richness of sound, which we
do not find in more modern Latin, particularly in the use of the diphthong
_ai_ for _æ_, as vitai for vitæ, and of the diphthong _ei_ for _i_, as sei
for si. Horace might perhaps be well entitled to ridicule the person,
“Sic fautor veterum, ut tabulas peccare vetantes,
Quæ bisquinque viri sanxerunt, fœdera regum
Vel Gabiis, vel cum rigidis æquata Sabinis,
Pontificum libros, annosa volumina vatum,
Dictitet Albano Musas in monte loquutas:”
Yet he would have done well to have considered, if, amid the manifold
improvements of the Augustan poets, they had judged right in rejecting
those rich and sonorous diphthongs of the _tabulæ peccare vetantes_, which
still sound with such strength and majesty in the lines of Lucretius.
There is scarcely a vestige of the Latin language remaining during the two
centuries which succeeded the enactment of the twelve tables. At the end
of that long period, and during the first Punic war, a celebrated
inscription, which is still extant, recorded the naval victory obtained by
the Consul Duillius, in 492, over the Carthaginians. The column on which
it was engraved, and which became so famous by the title of the _Columna
Rostrata_, was, as Livy(91) informs us, struck down by lightning during
the interval between the second and third Punic wars. It remained buried
among the ruins of Rome, till, at length, in 1565, its base, which
contained the inscription, was dug up in the vicinity of the Capitol. So
much, however, was it defaced, that many of the letters were illegible.
These have been restored in the following manner by the conjectures of the
learned:
“C. D(92). exemet leciones maximosque magistratus _no_vem castreis
exfociunt. Macel_lam_ _pu_cnandod cepet enque eodem macis_tratu_ rem
navebos marid consol primos _ceset_ clasesque navales primos ornavit
cumque eis navebos claseis pœnicas om_nes_ sumas copias Cartaciniensis
præesente _d_ictatored olorum in altod marid puc_nandod_ _vicit_
trigintaque na_veis_ _cepet_ cum socieis septe_m_ triremosque naveis XX
captum numei DCC. captom æs navaled prædad poplom(93).”
In modern Latin the above inscription would run thus.—“Caius Duillius
exemit: legiones, maximusque magistratus novem castris effugiunt. Macellam
pugnando cepit; inque eodem magistratu, rem navibus mari Consul primus
gessit, classesque navales primus ornavit; cumque iis navibus classes
Punicas omnes summas copias Carthaginienses, præsente dictatore illorum,
in alto mari pugnando vicit: Trigintaque naves cepit cum sociis septem,
triremosque naves decem. Captum nummi, captum æs navali præda, populo
donavit.”
There are also extant two inscriptions, which were engraved on the
tombstones of Lucius Scipio Barbatus and his son Lucius Scipio, of which
the former was somewhat prior, and the latter a year subsequent to the
date of the Duillian inscription. The epitaph on Barbatus was discovered
in 1780, in the vault of the Scipian family, between the Via Appia and Via
Latina. Mr Hobhouse informs us that it is inscribed on a handsome but
plain sarcophagus, and he adds, “that the eloquent simple inscription
becomes the virtues and fellow-countrymen of the deceased, and instructs
us more than a chapter of Livy in the style and language of the Republican
Romans”(94):—
“Cornelius Lucius Scipio Barbatus Gnaivod patre prognatus fortis vir
sapiensque quoius forma virtutei parisuma fuit. Consol Censor Aidilis quei
fuit apud vos Taurasia Cisauna Samnio cepit subicit omne Loucana
opsidesque abdoucit.”
The above may be converted into modern Latin, as follows:
“C. L. Scipio Barbatus, Cneio patre prognatus, fortis vir sapiensque,
cujus forma virtuti par fuit. Consul, Censor, Ædilis qui fuit apud vos,
Taurasiam, Cisaunam, Samnio cepit; subjecit omnem Lucaniam obsidesque
abducit.” The other Scipian epitaph had been discovered long before the
above, on a slab which was found lying near the Porta Capena, having been
detached from the family vault. Though a good many years later as to the
date of its composition, the epitaph on the son bears marks of higher
antiquity than that on the father:—
“Honc oino ploirume consentiunt duonoro optumo fuise viro Lucium Scipione.
Filios Barbati Consol Censor Ædilis hec fuit. Hec cepit Corsica Aleriaque
urbe: dedit tempestatibus aide mereto;” which means, “Hunc unum plurimi
consentiunt Romæ bonorum optimum fuisse virum Lucium Scipionem. Filius
Barbati, Consul, Censor, Ædilis his fuit. Hic cepit Corsicam Aleriamque
urbem: dedit tempestatibus ædem merito”.
The celebrated Eugubian tables were so called from having been found at
Eugubium (Gubbio) a city in ancient Umbria, near the foot of the
Apennines, where they were dug up in 1444. When first discovered, they
were believed to be in the Egyptian language; but it was afterwards
observed that five of the seven tables were in the Etruscan character and
language, or rather in the Umbrian dialect of that tongue, and the other
two in Roman letters, though in a rustic jargon, between Latin and
Etruscan, with such mixture of each, as might be expected from an
increased intercourse of the nations, and the subjugation of the one by
the other.(95) The two tables in the Latin character were written towards
the close of the sixth century of Rome, and those in the Etruscan letters
a short while previous. So little, however, was the Etruscan language
fixed or understood, even in the middle of last century, when the Etruscan
rage was at its height in Italy, that Bonarota believed that those tables
contained treaties of the ancient Italian nations—Gori, an Oscan poem, and
Maffei, legal enactments, till Passerius at length discovered that they
consisted solely of ordinances for the performance of sacred rites and
religious ceremonies.(96)
On comparing the fragments of the _Leges Regiæ_ with the Duillian and
Scipian inscriptions, it does not appear that the Roman language, however
greatly it may have varied, had either improved or approached much nearer
to modern Latin in the fifth century than in the time of the kings. Short
and mutilated as these laws and inscriptions are, they still enable us to
draw many important conclusions with regard to the general state of the
language during the existence of the monarchy, and the first ages of the
republic. It has already been mentioned that the diphthong _ai_ was
employed where _ae_ came to be afterwards substituted, as aide for æde;
_ei_ instead of _i_, as castreis for castris; and _oi_ in place of _œ_, as
coilum for cœlum. The vowel _e_ is often introduced instead of _o_, as
hemo for homo, while, on the other hand, _o_ is sometimes used instead of
_e_, as vostrum for vestrum; and Scipio Africanus is said to have been the
first who always wrote the _e_ in such words(97). _U_ is frequently
changed into _o_, as honc for hunc, sometimes into _ou_, as abdoucit for
abducit, and sometimes to _oi_, as oino for uno. On the whole, it appears
that the vowels were in a great measure used indiscriminately, and often,
especially in inscriptions, they were altogether omitted, as bne for bene,
though sometimes, again, an _e_ final was added, as face for fac, dice for
dic. As to the consonants,—_b_ at the beginning of a word was _du_, as
duonorum for bonorum, and it was _p_ at the middle or end, as opsides for
obsides. The letter _g_ certainly does not appear in those earliest
specimens of the Latin language—the hymn of the _Fratres Arvales_, and
_Leges Regiæ_, where _c_ is used in its place. Plutarch says, that this
letter was utterly unknown at Rome during the space of five centuries, and
was first introduced by the grammarian Spurius Carvillius in the year
540(98). It occurs, however, in the epitaph of Scipio Barbatus, which was
written at least half a century before that date; and, what is remarkable,
it is there placed in a word where _c_ was previously and subsequently
employed, Gnaivo being written for Cnæo. The Letter _r_ was not, as has
been asserted, unknown to the ancient Romans, but it was chiefly used in
the beginning and end of words—_s_ being employed instead of it in the
middle, as lases for lares. Frequently the letters _m_ and _s_ were
omitted at the end of words, especially, for the sake of euphony, when the
following word began with a consonant—thus we have Aleria cepit, for
Aleriam cepit. The ancient Romans were equally careful to avoid a hiatus
of vowels, and hence they wrote sin in place of si in. Double consonants
were never seen till the time of Ennius(99); and we accordingly find in
the old inscriptions sumas for summas: _er_ was added to the infinitive
passive, as darier for dari, and _d_ was subjoined to words ending with a
vowel, as in altod, marid, pucnandod. It likewise appears that the Romans
were for a long period unacquainted with the use of aspirates, and were
destitute of the _phi_ and _chi_ sounds of the Greek alphabet. Hence they
wrote triumpe for triumphe, and pulcer for pulcher(100). We also meet with
a good many words, particularly substantives, which afterwards became
altogether obsolete, and some are applied in a sense different from that
in which they were subsequently used. Finally, a difference in the
conjugation of the same verb, and a want of inflection in nouns,
particularly proper names of countries or cities, where the nominative
frequently occurs instead of the accusative, show the unsettled state of
the language at that early period(101).
It is unnecessary to prosecute farther the history of Roman inscriptions,
since, immediately after the erection of the Duillian column in 494, Latin
became a written literary language; and although the diphthongs _ai_ and
_ei_ were retained for more than a century longer, most of the other
archaisms were totally rejected, and the language was so enriched by a
more copious admixture of the Greek, that, while always inferior to that
tongue, in ease, precision, perspicuity, and copiousness, it came at
length to rival it in dignity of enunciation, and in that lofty accent
which harmonized so well with the elevated character of the people by whom
it was uttered.
This sudden improvement in language, as well as the equally sudden
revolution in taste and literature by which it was accompanied, must be
entirely and exclusively attributed to the conquest of Magna Græcia, and
the intercourse opened to the Romans with the Greek colonies of Sicily.
Their minds were, no doubt, in some measure prepared, during the five
centuries which had followed the foundation of the city, for receiving the
seeds of learning. The very existence of social life for so long a period
must have in some degree reclaimed them from their native barbarism. Freed
from hourly alarms excited by the attacks of foes whose territories
reached almost to the gates of the city, it was now possible for them to
enjoy those pleasures which can only be relished in tranquillity; but
their genius, I believe, would have remained unproductive and cold for
half a millennium longer, had it not been kindled by contact with a more
polished and animated nation, whose compositions could not be read without
enthusiasm, or imitated without advantage.
However uncertain may be the story concerning the arrival of Œnotrus in
the south of Italy, the passage of the Pelasgi from Epirus to the Po,
seventeen generations before the Trojan war, or the settlement of the
Arcadian Evander in Latium, there can be no doubt, that, about the
commencement of the Roman æra, the dissensions of the reigning families of
Greece, the commotions which pervaded its realms, the suggestions of
oracles, the uncertain tenure of landed property, the restless spirit of
adventure, and seasons of famine, all co-operated in producing an
emigration of numerous tribes, chiefly Dorians and Achæans of
Peloponnesus, who founded colonies on the coasts of Asia, the Ægean
islands, and Italy. In this latter country, (which seems in all ages to
have been the resort and refuse of a redundant or unfortunate population,)
the Greek strangers first settled in a southern district, then known by
the ancient name of Iapygia, and since denominated Calabria. Serenity of
climate, joined to the vigour of laws, simplicity of manners, and the
energy peculiar to every rising community, soon procured these colonies an
enviable increase of prosperity and power. They gradually drove the native
inhabitants to the interior of the country, and formed a political state,
which assumed the magnificent name of Magna Græcia—an appellation which
was by degrees applied to the whole coast which bounds the bay of
Tarentum. On that shore, about half a century after the foundation of
Rome, arose the flourishing and philosophic town of Crotona, and the
voluptuous city of Sybaris. These were the consolidated possessions of the
Grecian colonies; but they had also scattered seats all along the western
coast of the territory which now forms the kingdom of Naples.