204 R O M A 
• 
plete dissolution it has undergone. The increase of popu¬ 
lation, the dismemberment of states, and the establish¬ 
ment of popular rights, annihilated a language 1 which, if 
our theory be true, was nearly confined to kings, nobles, 
and their immediate dependents. It is only in one part of 
the continent that the Roman language has remained as part 
of the popular dialect. This is in Rhcetia, where Mr. 
Planta (Phil. Trans, v. 66.) found a tribe of people still 
speaking what they called Romansh, and near them another 
race conversing in Ladin. Both these languages were, ac¬ 
cording to his researches, very early offsets from the Latin, 
modified by a Celtic construction. This learned author 
traces the general diffusion of this tongue through other parts 
of Gaul, but not with sufficient exactness to establish it as a 
general and universal language of France. The Latin cer¬ 
tainly assimilated itself far more intimately with the French 
and Spanish than with the Saxon, or any of the more 
northern languages, but the final dissolution of the romance 
tongue can be accounted for on no other supposition than 
that it was confined to courts and their dependents. Of 
this fact the evidence is sufficiently clear as far as regards 
our own country. With respect to the continent, it is 
not so apparent, and Mr. Planta accordingly infers, that 
“ There are incontestible proofs that this language was 
once universal all over France; and that this, and not im¬ 
mediately the Latin, hath been the parent of the Provencal, 
and afterwards of the modern French, the Italian, and the 
Spanish. The oath taken by Lewis the Germanic, in the 
year 842, in confirmation of an alliance between him and 
Charles the Bold, his brother, is a decisive proof of the 
general use of the Romance by the whole French nation at 
that time, and of their little knowledge of the Teutonic, 
which, being the native tongue of Lewis, would certainly 
have been used by him in this oath, had it been understood 
by the French to whom he addressed himself. But Nithan- 
dus, a contemporary writer and near relation to the con¬ 
tracting parties, informs us that Lewis took the oath in the 
Romance language, in order that it might be understood by 
the French nobility who were the subjects of Charles; and 
that they, in their turn, entered into reciprocal engagements 
in their own language which the same author again de¬ 
clares to have been the Romance, and not the Teutonic; 
although one would imagine, had they at all understood 
this latter tongue, they could not but have used it upon this 
occasion, in return for the condescension of Lewis." 
It is obvious, that we are presented here with no proof 
that the language in question was universal. That it was 
the fashionable and prevalent language of the barons, and 
just such as would result from their ignorant modifications of 
that Latin in which they had been taught Christianity, is 
evident. But that the peasantry, who are the bulk of all rude 
nations, had adopted it, is not apparent. Conquered na¬ 
tions rarely imbibe the language of their conquerors. The 
proportion of the conquered to their rulers is always so great, 
that a return (or at least a close approximation) to the abo¬ 
riginal language is sure to occur. That the oath of Lewis, 
and the reply of the nobles, had not, of necessity, any con¬ 
nection with the language of the vulgar is shewn by what is 
mentioned in the same paper with regard to England, 
namely, that the Romance was, under Edward the Con¬ 
fessor, “ not only used at court, but frequently at the bar, 
and even sometimes in the pulpit.” Yet, in this instance, no 
one believes that Romance was the language of the Britons. 
But a second difficulty occurs to the hypothesis, that the 
Romance was a prevalent and popular language. Mabillon 
tells us, that in the eighth century a Spaniard, conversing 
with a foreign monk, was able to understand him, because 
he was an Italian; Planta heard of two Catalonians who 
travelled over the Alps and found the Orisons (the inhabit¬ 
ants of Rhcetia before referred to,) speaking nearly the same 
tongue as their own. The assizes, or laws of Jerusalem, 
written at the time of Godfrey de Bouillon, are also in 
Romance; and Du Cange says, that this language was known 
in Scotland. Surely this general diffusion of the language 
shews, that it could not be popularly spoken. That it 
n c e: 
was the language of courtiers and barons, easily adapting 
itself to the interpolations of the speaker, and forming a 
general means of communication between the rulers and the 
more enlightened subjects of different countries, may, we 
think, fairly be admitted. At the same time it must be 
granted, that the subject is difficult of investigation; for 
there is reason to think, that all the more northern nations 
applied the term Romance to the language of their southern 
neighbours. Thus Giraldus Cambrensis applied the word to 
the English: speaking of the Frith of Forth, he says, 
“ Scoti.ce vocata est Froth, Brit tan ice (Welsh) Weird; Ro- 
mane vero Scotte Watre." And, indeed, it was often 
applied in very loose fashion. 
Of all the languages at present in existence, the nearest to 
the old Roman is certainly the French, and afterwards comes 
the Spanish. The great coincidence between the old French 
and the Roman, and again betwixt the latter and the Latin, 
may be seen by the followung copies of the oath of Louis 
the Germanic before adverted to. 
Romance. —Pro Deu amar, et pro Christian poblo, et 
nostro commun salvament, d’ist di en avant, in quant Deus 
savir et podir me dunat, si salvarai io cist meon fradre Karlo, 
et in adjudah ir in cadhuna cosa, si cum om per droit son 
fardre salvar dist, in o quod il me altresi fazit; et al Ludher 
nul placid namquam prindrai qui meon vol cist meon fradre 
Karle in damno sit. 
French of the \2th century. —Por Deu amor, et por 
Christian pople, et nostre commun salvament de ste di en 
avant en quant Deu saveir et poir me donne, si salvarai je 
cist mon frere Karle et en adjude serai en cascune cose, si 
cum om per dreict son frere salver dist, en o qui il me altresi 
fascet; et a Lothaire nul placid nonques prendrai qui par 
mon voil a cist mon frere Karle en dam seit. 
Latins —Pro Dei amore, et pro Christiano populo et nos¬ 
tro communi salvamento, de ista die in abante, in quantum 
Deus sapere et posse mihi donat, sic salvabo ego eccistum 
meum fratrem Karlum, et in adjutum ero, in quaque una 
causa, sic quomodo homo per directum suam fratrem salvere 
debet, in hoc quod file mihi alterum sic faceret; et ab Lo¬ 
thario nullum placitum numquam prehendam quod meo 
voile eccisti meo fratri Karlo in damno sit. 
By a natural and easy transition, the word which at 
first only applied to the language in which these compo¬ 
sitions were most commonly composed, became used to 
designate the compositions themselves. The long reign of 
the minstrels, the liberal rewards that were showered on 
them, and their probable origin, has been fully entered into 
in the article Poetry. The change that converted the 
minstrel effusions of these bards into the prose romance, 
was gradual. To trace its causes would, if we had leisure, 
prove no doubt highly amusing. Being confined by our 
limits, we must content ourselves with throwing out the 
conjecture, that the introduction of prose yvas not owing 
(as has been asserted) either to barrenness of invention, 
on the part of the minstrels, or to any satiety on the part of 
their patrons, either of their works or manners; but it arose 
from an avidity for adventure so natural to all who delight 
in works of fiction : ar. appetite for marvellous stories too 
impatient to regard the style in which they were conveyed. 
The ornaments of verse and its accompanying music were so 
rude and monotonous, that the ear easily forgave their omis¬ 
sion in the more ardent pursuit of the narratives they embo¬ 
died. Prose, likewise, is even in the hands of the unskilful, far 
more capable of deluding its readers into a belief of its reality, 
than the most exquisite verse; it is the language of actual life, 
and admits of all that minute description of time, place, dress, 
person, and circumstances, which constitutes the most effec¬ 
tual method of clothing falsehood with the semblance of 
truth. How essential the early romancers held this point is 
declared by the reiterated assertions with which they com¬ 
menced every narrative, that it was a true history; that it was 
gained from the original work of some renowned and vera¬ 
cious ancient writer, and the like. Thus the author or trans¬ 
lator (as he would be thought) of “ La tres elegante, deli- 
cieux, melliflue et tres plaisante liystoire du tres noble- roi 
Perceforest" 
