MISCELLANEOUS ESSAYS. 



445 



gance of diction, and for the pur- 

 pose of juridical eloquence, an es- 

 sential requisite for a Roman ci- 

 tizen. 



We know that the Latin lan- 

 guage in Upper Italy and in Gaul 

 superseded the Gallic, and in Eng- 

 land the British language ; how 

 much the more would it have ex- 

 pelled a totally different language 

 from its original seat if it had there 

 taken its rise ? 



The celebrated marquis MafFei was 

 of opinion that the Italian tongue 

 owed its real origin and gradual 

 formation exclusively to the pro- 

 gressive deviation from the gram- 

 matical correctness of the Latin lan- 

 guage, interruptedly continuing for 

 several centuries. He, at the same 

 time, denies that the invasions of 

 barbarous nations had contributed 

 any thing towards it ; assertingthat 

 if this had been the case, it would 

 have produced a language totally 

 different from that of Italy. But 

 MafFei, in this supposition, is under 

 a manifest mistake ; foranyonewho 

 has only a slight knowledge of both 

 languages, will easily observe that 

 the Italian language differs from 

 that of the Romans not only in the 

 most striking deviation from the 

 rules of the latter, but also in an 

 infinite number of foreign words 

 and phrases. 



This opinion is generally adopted 

 by the learned ; but I can find it no 

 where so clearly illustrated as I 

 wish, and therefore shall attempt to 

 inquire how far this opinion is ten- 

 able. 



While eloquence was essentially 

 necessary for a Roman citizen, the 

 Romans could not but be animated 

 with an universal desire of acquiring 

 purity and elegance of diction. — 

 But when the loss of civil liberty 



occasioned a total neglect of elo- 

 quence, no great attention was paid 

 to elegance in writing the Latin 

 language. The classic authors were 

 neglected, and learning was left to 

 necessitous foreigners. These pre- 

 sumed to be more learned and witty 

 than Cicero, Virgil, and Horace ; 

 and took all possible pains to render 

 the style and language of these great 

 men contemptible. 



None of all these corrupters of 

 the Latin language were worse than 

 the Greeks, who — we will not de- 

 cide whether it was owing to their 

 being more pliant, or superior to 

 the Romans in point of learning, 

 met with a very favourable recep- 

 tion at the imperial court, and in 

 the palaces of the great. This at- 

 tracted a numerous crowd of Greek 

 rhetoricians, philosophers, and so- 

 phists to Rome, and the Greek lan- 

 guage was generally adopted by the 

 great, and all those that were de- 

 sirous of being thought people of 

 good taste. It was a disgrace not 

 to know the Greek language ; and 

 many a Roman, though little ac- 

 quainted with it, listened to the de- 

 clamations of the Greek sophists 

 with the loudest tokens of applause. 

 The principal object which these 

 infatuated talkers strove to attain, 

 was to sound their fame on the de- 

 preciation of the Latin language 

 and learning. Those that know 

 what injury the German language 

 sustained, in the beginning of the 

 present century, from the contempt 

 with which it was branded by the 

 French and their silly admirers in 

 Germany, will easily be able to cal- 

 culate what injury the Latin lan- 

 guage must have suffered from the 

 scorn with which it was treated by 

 the Greeks and their servile admi- 

 rers. This contempt caused the 



