[408] Pro Archiâ, § 10. It should be noted especially, that Cicero makes them natives of Córdova,—“Cordubæ natis poetis.”
[409] Some excellent and closely condensed remarks on this subject may be found in the Introduction to Amédée Thierry’s “Histoire de la Gaule sous l’Administration Romaine,” 8vo, 1840, Tom. I. pp. 211-218; a work which leaves little to be desired, as far as it goes.
[410] Of Roman writers in Spain, the accounts are abundant. The first book, however, of Antonio’s “Bibliotheca Vetus” is sufficient. But, after all that has been written, it has always seemed singular to me that Horace should have used exactly the word peritus, when intending specifically to characterize the Spaniards of his time, (II. Od. xx. 19,) unless peritus is used with reference to its relations with experior, rather than in its usual sense of learned. Sir James Mackintosh, speaking of the Latin writers produced by Spain, says they were “the most famous of their age.” Hist. Eng., Vol. I. p. 21, London, 1830.
[411] The story told by Aulus Gellius, (NN. AA., Lib. XIX. c. 9,) about Antoninus Julianus, a Spaniard, who exercised the profession of a rhetorician at Rome, shows pleasantly that there was no Spanish language at that time (circa A. D. 200) except the Latin; for when the “Greci plusculi” at table reproached Antoninus with the poverty of Latin literature, they reproached him as one who was a party concerned, and he defended himself just as a Roman would have done, by quotations from the Latin poets. His patriotism was evidently Roman, and the patria lingua which he vindicated was the Latin.
[412] In the beautiful fragment of a History of England by Sir J. Mackintosh, he says, ut supra, with that spirit of acute and philosophical generalization for which he was so remarkable: “The ordinary policy of Rome was to confine the barbarians within their mountains.” The striking poem in Basque, given by W. von Humboldt, (Mithridates, Band IV. p. 354,) shows the same fact in relation to Biscay.
[413] Depping, Tom. II. pp. 118, etc. But those who wish to see how absurdly even grave historians can write on the gravest subjects may find all sorts of inconsistencies, on the early history of Christianity in Spain, in the fourth book of Mariana, as well as in most of the other national writers who have occasion to touch upon it.
[414] On the subject of early Christianity in Spain, the third chapter of the fourth book of Depping contains enough for all but those who wish to make the subject a separate and especial study. Such persons will naturally look to Florez and Risco, “España Sagrada,” and their authorities, which, however, must be consulted with great caution, as they are full of the inconsistencies alluded to in the last note.
[415] One reason why the clergy did little to preserve the purity of the Latin, and much to corrupt it, in the South of Europe, was, that they were obliged to hold their intercourse with the common people in the degraded Latin. And this intercourse, which consisted chiefly of instructions given to the common people, was a large part of all the clergy did in the early ages of the Church. For the Christian clergy in Spain, as elsewhere, addressed themselves, for a long period, to the lower and more ignorant classes of society, because the refined and the powerful refused to listen to them. But the Latin spoken by those classes in Spain, whether it were what was called the “lingua rustica” or not, was undoubtedly different from the purer Latin spoken by the more cultivated and favored classes, just as it was in Italy, and even much more than it was there. In addressing the common people, their Christian teachers in Spain, therefore, very early found it expedient, and probably necessary, to use the degraded Latin, which the common people spoke. At last, as we learn, no other was intelligible to them; for the grammatical Latin, even of the office of the Mass, ceased to be so. In this way, Christianity must have contributed directly and materially to the degradation of the Latin, and to the formation of the new dialects, just as it contributed to form the modern character, as distinguished from the ancient. Indeed, without entering into the much vexed questions concerning the lingua rustica or quotidiana, its origin, character and prevalence, I cannot help saying, that I am persuaded the modern languages and their dialects in the South of Europe were, so far as the Latin was concerned, formed out of the popular and vulgar Latin found in the mouths of the common people; and that Christianity, more than any other single cause, was the medium and means by which this change from one to the other was brought about. For the lingua rustica, see Morhof, De Patavinitate Livianâ, capp. vi., vii., and ix.; and Du Cange, De Causis Corruptæ Latinitatis, §§ 13-25, prefixed to his Glossarium.
[416] The passage from Licinian is given in a note to Eichhorn’s “Allgemeine Geschichte der Cultur,” 1799, 8vo, Band II. p. 467. See, also, Castro, Biblioteca Española, 1786, folio, Tom. II. p. 275.
[417] Isidore, as cited at length in Eichhorn’s “Cultur,” Band II. p. 470, note (I).