184 
LANG U A G E. 
race is the only poet whofe force of genius was able to 
overcome the bars which the language threw in his way, 
and Succeed in lyric poetry. Were it not for the brilliancy 
of the thoughts, and the acutenefs of the remarks, which l'o 
eminently distinguish this author’s compositions, his Odes 
would long ere now have funk into utter oblivion. But 
fo conicious have all the Roman poets been of the unfit- 
liefs of their language for eafy dialogue, that fcarcely any 
of them, after Plautus and Terence, have attempted any 
dramatic compositions in that language. Nor have we 
any realon to regret that they neglefted this branch of 
poetry, as it is probable, if they had ever become fond of 
thefe, they would have been obliged to adopt fo many un¬ 
natural contrivances to render them agreeable, as would 
have prevented us (who of courfe would have confidered 
ourfelves as bound to follow them) from making that 
progrefs in the drama which fo particularly distinguishes the 
productions of modern times. 
We have obferved already, that the Latin tongue was a 
colluvies of all the languages Spoken by the vagrant people 
who compofed the firSt elements of that republic. The 
prevailing dialects were the Pelafgic or Hetrulcan, which 
we think were the fame ; and the Celtic, which was tlm 
aboriginal tongue of Italy. Hence the primary dialed of 
the Romans was compofed of difeordant materials, which 
in our opinion never acquired a natural and congenial 
union. Be that as it may, this motley mixture was cer¬ 
tainly the original dialed of the Romans. The Pelafgic 
or I-Ietrufcan part of it retained a Strong tincture of the 
oriental Style. The Celtic part Seems to have been preva¬ 
lent, fince we find that molt of the names of places, efpe- 
cially in the middle and .northern parts of Italy, are actu¬ 
ally of Celtic original. It is therefore clear that the ltyle 
of the firffc Romans was compofed of the languages above- 
mentioned. Who thofe firfi: Romans were, we believe it 
is impoflible to determine with any degree of certainty. 
The Roman historians afford us as little information upon 
that SubjeCt, as their etymologists do upon the origin of 
their language. Their moil celebrated writers upon this 
point wereiElius Gallus,Quintus Cornificius, Nonius Mar- 
cellus, Feltus, and fome others of lefs note. At the head 
of thefe we ought to place Terentius Varro, whom Cicero 
Styles the molt learned of all the Romans. From thefe 
writers we are to expeCt no light. Their etymologies are 
generally childifh and futile. Of the language of the moSt 
ancient Romans we can only reafon by analogy ; and by 
that rule we can discover nothing more than what we have 
advanced above. 
In the firSt place we may reft aflured that the dual 
number, the articles, the participle above-mentioned, the 
aorilts, and the whole middle voice, never appeared in the 
Latin tongue ;'and accordingly were not current in thofe 
languages from which it was copied, at leaft at the time 
when it was SarSt fabricated. Befides all this, many cir¬ 
cumstances concur to make it highly probable that, in the 
earlielt period of the language, very few inflexions were 
introduced, ift, When the Pelafgi left Greece, the Greek 
language itfelf was not fully polished, id, The Arcadi¬ 
ans were never thoroughly cultivated. They were a ruf- 
tic paftoral people, and little minded the refinements of a 
civilized Slate ; confequently the language they brought 
into Italy at that era muft have been of a coarl’e and irre¬ 
gular contexture. 3d, When the Theflalian Pelaigi ar¬ 
rived in Italy about the time of Deucalion, the Greek it¬ 
felf was rude and barbarous ; and, which is Still of more 
confequence, if we may credit Herodotus quoted in the 
former fedion, that people had never adopted the Hellenic 
tongue. Hence it appears, that the part of the Latin lan¬ 
guage derived from the Pelafgic or Hetrulcan (for thofe 
we believe to have been the fame) mult have taken a deep 
tindure from the oriental tongues. If we may judge of 
the Celtic of that age by that of the prefent, the Same 
charader mult likewise have distinguished its Structure. 
From thefe circumstances, we think it appears that the 
^sarlieft language of the Romans was very little diversified 
.1 
with inflexions. It nearly refembied the oriental exem¬ 
plar, and confequently differed widely from the modem 
Latin. The etfedt of this was, that the modern Romans 
could not understand the language of their early progeni¬ 
tors. Polybius, fpeaking of" the earlieSt treaty between 
the Romans and Carthaginians, makes the following ob- 
fervation : “Believe me" (Says he), the Roman language 
has undergone fo many changes Since that time to the pre¬ 
fent, that even thofe who are molt deeply lkilled in the 
fcience of antiquities cannot understand the words of that 
treaty but with the greatest difficulty.” Lib. iii. This 
treaty, according to the fame historian, was concluded in 
the conSulShip ot Lucius Junius Brutus and Marcus Vale¬ 
rius, twenty-eight years before Xerxes made his defeent 
upon Greece. B.C. 509. 
After the Romans became acquainted with the .Aiolian 
Greeks, who gradually Seized upon both coafts of Italy to¬ 
wards the fouth, which they called Magna Grcecia, they 
began to affed a Grecian air, and to torture their language 
into that ioreign contexture. It appears, however, that 
at firlt the Grecian garb Sat rather awkwardly, and leveral 
marks of violence were eaiily discerned. The molt anci¬ 
ent fpecimen of this kind that we can recollect confilts of 
the remains of the Twelve Tables. Here every thing is 
rude and of a clumfy calt; for, though by this time confi- 
derable progrefs had been made in refinement, and the 
language of Rome had begun to appear in a Grecian uni¬ 
form, Still thofe changes were not altogether natural. Soon 
after appeared Marcus Fabius Pittor and Sifenna; histori¬ 
ans often quoted by Livy, but whofe works are long fince 
loit. The FaSti Capitolini are often mentioned; but they 
too perished in the burning of the Capitol during the ci¬ 
vil wars between Marius and Sylla. Had thofe monu¬ 
ments efcaped the ravages of time, we Should have been 
able to mark the progrefs of t.he Latin tongue from Stage 
to Stage, and to afeertain with the greatest accuracy its 
gradual configuration in the courfe of its progrefs towards 
the Grecian Standard. We mult therefore leave the Latin 
tongue during thofe periods rude and barbarous, and de- 
feend to others better known and more characteristically 
marked. Thofe commenced after that 
Grsecia capta ferum vidorem cepit, et artes 
Intulit agrelti Latio. 
In this period we find Ennius, who wrote a Roman history 
in hexameter verfe in eighteen books, which he called 
Annals-, moSt part of which is now loft. He lilcewife tranf- 
lated Euhemerus de Origine Deorum-, a work often mentioned 
by the Christian fathers in their difputes with the Pagans. 
It is fometimes quoted by Cicero. Then followed Caius 
Lucilius the famous fatirift, and a number of other wri¬ 
ters, Such as Accius, Valerius, Edittius, Alpinus, &c. 
whofe fragments were published by the Stephens, Paris, 
1564. All thefe imitated the writers of Greece, or trans¬ 
lated from them. By their perfeverance and adive exer¬ 
tions the lpirit of thefe authors was transfufed into the 
Latin tongue, and its Structure accommodated to the Gre¬ 
cian plan. 
Plautus and Terence, by translating the comedies of 
Menander and Diphilus into their own language, taught 
the Latin mufes to fpeak Attic Greek. To lpeak that 
language was then reckoned polite, as it is now with us 
to talk French. Greek tutors were retained in every re¬ 
putable family; and many Romans of the firSt rank were 
equally qualified to fpeak or write both in Greek and La¬ 
tin. The original jargon of Latium was now become obso¬ 
lete and unintelligible; and Cato the Elder condefcended 
to learn Greek at eighty years of age. 
To pretend to enumerate the various, and we may add 
inimitable, examples of the Auguftan or golden age of 
the Roman tongue, would be an infult to the understand¬ 
ing of our readers. This golden age, however, was very 
Short. According to the moft judicious critics, it com¬ 
menced with the era of Cicero’s oratorical productions, 
and terminated with the reign of Tiberius, or perhaps it 
