Encyclopaedia Britannica; or, A dictionary of arts and sciences, compiled upon a new plan … > Volume 2, C-L

LAN ( 874 ) LAN
minds of the Romans a tafte for that art of which they
had lately become fo much enamoured. Greece had, long
before this period, been corrupted by luxury-, their tafte
for the fine arts had degenerated into unneceflary refine¬
ment; and all their patriotifm confided in popular ha¬
rangues and unmeaning declamation. Oratory was
then ftudied as a refined art; and all the fubtleties
of it were taught by rule, with as great care as the gla¬
diators were afterwards trained up in Rome. But while
they were thus idly trying who Ihould be the lord of
their own people, the nerves of government were relaxed,
and they became an eafy prey to every invading power.
In this lituation they became the fubjefts, under the title
of the allies, of Rome, and introduced among them the
fame tafte for haranging which prevailed 4mong them-
felves. Well acquainted as they were with the powers of
their own language, they fet themfelves with unwearied
affiduity to polilh and improve that of their, new mafters:
hut with all their afliduity and pains they never were able
to make it arrive at that petfedtion which their own lan¬
guage had acquired ; and in the Auguftan age; when it
had arrived at the fummit of its glory, Cicero bitterly com¬
plains of its want of copioufnefs in many particulars.
But as it was the defire of all who ftudied this lan¬
guage with care, to make it capable Of that ftately dig¬
nity and pomp neceflary for public harangues; they fol¬
lowed the genius of the language in this particular,
and in a great meafure neglected thofe leffer delicacies
Which form the pleafure of domeftic enjoyment ; fo that,
while it acquired more copioufnefs, more harmony, and
precifion, it remained ftiff and inflexible for conveffation;
rtor could the minute diftin&ion of nice gramrhatical
rules be ever brought down to the apprehenfion of the
vulgar ; fo that the language fpoken among the lower
clafs of people remained rude and unpolilhed even till the
end of the monarchy. The Huns who over run I-
taly,' incapable of acquiring any knowledge of fuqh a dif¬
ficult and ah ftrufe language, ne^er adopted it; and the
native inhabitants being made acquainted with a lan¬
guage more natural and eafily acquired, quickly adopted
that idiom of fpeech introduced by their conquefors, al¬
though they ftill retained many of thofe words Which the
confined nature of the barbarian language made neceflary
to ailbw them, to exprefs their ideas.—And thus it was
that the language of Rome, that proud miftrefs of the
world, from an original defeat in its formation, although
it had been carried to a perfeftion in other refpe&s far fu-
perior to any northern language at that time, eafily gave
way to them, and in a few ages the knowledge of it was
loft among mankind : while, on the contrary, the more
eafy nature of the Greek language has ftill been able to
keep fome flight footing in the world, although the na¬
tions in which it has been fpoken have been fubjedted to
the yoke of foreign dominion for upwards of two thou-
fand years, and their country has been twice ravaged by
barbarous nations, and more cruelly deprefled than ever
the Romans were.
From the view which we have already given of the La-
fin language, it appears evident, that its idiom was more
ftrifHy tranfpofitive than any other language yet known,
and was attended with all the defedts to which that idiom
is naturally fubjeAed: nor could itboaftoffuch favourable'
alleviating circumftances as the Greek, the prevailing
founds of the Latin being far lefs harmonious tothe ear: and
although the formation of the words are fuch as to admit
of full and diftindt founds, and fo modulated as to lay
no reftraint upon the voice of the fpeaker; yet, to a per-
fon unacquainted with the language, they do not convey
that enchanting harmony fo remarkable in the Greek lan¬
guage. The Latin is ftately andfolemn, it does not ex¬
cite difguft ; but at the fame time it does not charm the
ear, foas to make it liften with pleafed attention. To one
acquainted with the language indeed, the nervous boldnefs
of the thoughts, the harmonious rounding of the periods,
the full folemn fwelling of the founds, fo diftinguilhable
in the moft eminent writers in that language which have
been preferved to us, allconfpire to make it pleafing and
agreeable.—In thefe admired works we meet with all its
beauties, without perceiving any of its defedls ; and we
naturally admire, as perfedt, a language which is capable
of producing fuch excellent works.—Yet with all thefe
feeming excellencies, this language is lefs copious, and
more limited in its ftyle of compofition, than many mo¬
dern languages far lefs capable of precifion and accuracy
than almoft any of thefe, and infinitely behind them all
in point of eafinefs in converfation. But thefe points
have been fo fully proved already, as to require no fur¬
ther illuftration.—Of the cbmpofitions in that language
which have been preferVed to us, the orations of Cicero
are heft adapted to the genius Of the language, and we
there fee it in its utmoft perfedlion. In the philofophical
•works of that great author we perceive fome of its defedts;
and it requires all the powers of that great man, to ren¬
der his epiJUei agreeable, as thefe have the genius of
the language to ftruggle with —Next to oratory, hiftory
agrees with the genius of this language; and Casfar, in
his Commentaries, has exhibited the language in its pureft:
elegance, without the aid of pomp or foreign ornament.
Among thefoets,'Virgil has heft adapted his works
to his language. The flowing harmony and pomp of it
is well adapted for the epic ftr^ih, and the corre<h deli¬
cacy of his tafte rendered him perfedtly equal tothe taflc.
But Horace is the only poet whofe force of genfus was
able to overcome the bars which the language threw in
his way, and fucceed in lyric poetry. Were it not for
the brilliancy of the thoughts, and acutenefs of remarks,
which fo eminently diftingUilh this author’s compolitions,
his odes would Ibng ere now have funk into utter obli¬
vion.—But fo confcious have all the Roman poets been
<3f the unfitnefs of their ftmguage for eafy dialogue; that
almoft none of them, after Plautus and Terence, haveat-
tempted any dramatic coatpofitions in that langusge.—
Nor have we any reafon to regret that they negledted this
branch of poetry, as it is probable, if they had ever be¬
come fond of thefe, they would have been obliged to
have adopted fo many unnatural contrivances to render
them agreeable, as would have prevented us (whoofcoarfe
would have confidered ourfelves as bound to follow them)
from making that progrefs in the drama which fo parti¬
cularly diftinguifhes the produ&ions of modern times..
The modern Italian language, from an inattention quite
common in literary fubtfls, has been ufually called a
Child;