[396] The remarkable passage in Diodorus Siculus, Bib. Hist., Lib. V. c. 33, is well known; but the phraseology should be noted for our purpose when he speaks of the union of the people as δυοῖν ἐθνῶν ἀλκίμων μιχθέντων. The fortieth section of Humboldt’s “Prüfung” should also be read; and the beginning of the Third Book of Strabo, in which he gives, as usual, a good deal that is curious about history and manners, as well as geography, and a good deal that is incredible, such as that the Turdetani had poetry and poetical laws six thousand years old. Ed. Casaub., 1720, p. 139. C.

[397] In speaking of the two earliest languages of the Spanish Peninsula, I have confined myself to the known facts of the case, without entering into the curious speculations to which these facts have led inquisitive and philosophical minds. But those who are interested in such inquiries will find abundant materials for their study in the remarkable “Researches into the Physical History of Mankind, by Dr. J. C. Prichard,” 5 vols. 8vo, London, 1836-47; and in the acute “Report” of the Chevalier Bunsen to the Seventeenth Meeting of the British Association, London, 1848, pp. 254-299. If we follow their theories, the Basque may be regarded as the language of a race that came originally from the northern parts of Asia and Europe, and to which Prichard gives the name of Ugro-Tartarian, while the Celtic language is that of the oldest of the great emigrations from the more southern portions of Asia, which Bunsen calls the Japhetic.

[398] The general statement may, perhaps, be taken from Mariana, (Lib. I. c. 15,) who gives the story as it has come down through tradition, fable, and history, with no more critical acumen than is common with the Spanish historians. But such separate facts as are mentioned by Livy (Lib. XXXIV. c. 10, 46, Lib. XL. c. 43, with the notes in Drakenborch) bring with them a more distinct impression of the immense wealth obtained anciently from Spain than any general statements whatever; even more than those of Strabo, Diodorus, etc. It has been supposed by Heeren, and by others before and since, (Ideen, 1824, Band I. Theil ii. p. 68,) that the Tarshish of the Prophets Ezekiel (xxvii. 12) and Isaiah (lx. 8, 9) was in Spain, and was, in fact, the ancient Tartessus; but this is denied, (Memorias de la Academia de la Historia, Tom. III. p. 320,) and, no doubt, if the Tarshish of the Prophets were in Spain, there must have been another Tarshish in Cilicia, that is mentioned in other parts of Scripture.

[399] See Heeren’s Ideen, Band I. Theil ii. pp. 24-71, 4th edit., 1824, where the whole subject is discussed.

[400] A sufficient account of the Carthaginians in Spain may be found in Heeren’s Ideen, Band II. Theil i. pp. 85-99, and 172-199. But Mariana contains the more national ideas and traditions, (Lib. I. c. 19, etc.,) and Depping is more ample (Hist. Générale de l’Espagne, 1811, Tom. I. pp. 64-96).

[401] Of the Greeks in Spain, it has not been thought necessary here to speak. Their few establishments were on the southern coast, and rather on the eastern part of it; but they were of little consequence, and do not seem to have produced any lasting effect on the character or language of the country. They were, in fact, rather a result of the influence of the rich and cultivated Greek colony in the South of France, whose capital seat was Marseilles, or of the spirit which in Rhodes and elsewhere sent out adventurers to the far west. (See Benedictins, Hist. Litt. de la France, 1733, 4to, Tom. I. pp. 71, etc.) For those who are curious about the Greeks in Spain, more than they will probably desire will be found in the elaborate and clumsy work of Masdeu, Hist. Crit. de España, Tom. I. p. 211, Tom. III. pp. 76, etc. Aldrete (Orígen de la Lengua Española, 1674, f. 65) has collected about ninety Spanish words to which he attributes a Greek origin; but nearly all of them may be easily traced through the Latin, or else they belong to the Northern invaders or to Italy. Marina, a good authority on this particular point, says: “I do not deny, nor can it be doubted, that, in the Spanish language, are found many words purely Greek, and occasional phrases and turns of expression that are in Attic taste; but this is because they had first been adopted by the Latin language, which is the mother of ours.” Mem. de la Real Acad., Tom. IV., Ensayo, etc., p. 47. There is a curious inscription in Nunes de Lião, (Origem da Lingoa Portugesa, Lisboa, 1784, p. 32,) from a temple erected by Greeks at Ampurias to Diana of Ephesus, which states, that “nec relicta Græcorum lingua, nec idiomate patriæ Iberæ recepto, in mores, in linguam, in jura, in ditionem cessere Romanam, M. Cathego et L. Apronio Coss.” No doubt, these Greeks came from Marseilles, or were connected with it; and no doubt they spoke Latin. But the ancient Iberian language seems to be recognized as existing, also, among them. Ampurias, however, was generally in Spain held to be of Greek origin, as we may see in different ways, and among the rest in the following lines of Espinosa, who, when Alambron comes there with the Infanta Fenisa, says:—

Segunda Parte de Orlando, ed. 1556, Canto xxxi.

[402] Livius, Hist. Rom., Lib. XXVIII. c. 12. The words are remarkable. “Itaque ergo prima Romanis inita provinciarum, quæ quidem continentis sint, postrema omnium, nostrâ demum ætate, ductu auspicioque Augusti Cæsaris, perdomita est.”

[403] Livius, Hist. Rom., Lib. XLIII. c. 3.

[404] Strabo, Lib. III., especially pp. 168, 169, ed. Casaubon, fol., 1620; and Plin., Hist. Nat., Lib. III. §§ 2-4, but particularly Vol. I., ed. Franzii, 1778, p. 547. A striking proof of the importance of Spain, in antiquity generally, may be found in the fact incidentally stated by W. von Humboldt, (Prüfung, etc., § 2, p. 3,) that “ancient writers have left us a great number of Spanish names of places;—in proportion, a greater number than of any other country except Greece and Italy.”

[405] Plin., Hist. Nat., Lib. VII. c. 44, where the distinction is spoken of as something surprising, since Pliny adds, that it was “an honor which our ancestors refused even to those of Latium.”

[406] Plin., Hist. Nat., Lib. V. c. 5, with the note of Hardouin, and with Antonio, Bibliotheca Hispana Vetus, fol., 1787, Lib. I. c. ii.

[407] Plutarchus in Sertorium, c. 14.

[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).

[418] For Isidorus Hispalensis, see Antonio, Bib. Vet., Lib. V. capp. iii., iv.; and Castro, Bib. Esp., Tom. II. pp. 293-344. I judge Isidore’s Latinity chiefly from his “Etymologiarum Libri XX.,” and his “De Summo Bono, Libri III.,” fol., 1483, lit. Goth. No doubt, there are many words in Isidore of Seville, that are not of classical authority, some of which he marks as such, and others not; but, on the whole, his Latinity is respectable. Among the corrupt words he uses are a few that are curious, because they have descended into the modern Castilian; such as, “astrosus, ab astro dictus, quasi malo sidere natus,” (Etymol., 1483, fol. 50. a,) which appears in the present astroso, the familiar term for unhappy, disastrous, and permitted by the Spanish Academy;—cortina, of which Isidore says, “Cortinæ sunt aulæa, id est, vela de pellibus, qualia in Exodo leguntur,” (Etym., f. 97. b,) which appears in the modern Spanish cortina, for curtain;—”camisias vocamus, quod in his dormimus in camis,” (Etym., f. 96. b,) which last word, cama, is explained afterwards to be “lectus brevis et circa terram,” (Etym., f. 101. a,) and both of which are now Spanish, camisa being the proper word for shirt, and cama for bed;—”mantum Hispani vocant quod manus tegat tantum, est enim brevis amictus,” (Etym., f. 97. a,) which is the Spanish manto;—and so on with a few others. They are, however, only curious as corrupted Latin words, which happened to continue in use, till the modern Spanish arose several centuries later.

[419] See Eichhorn’s Cultur, Band II. pp. 472, etc.;—or, for more ample accounts, Antonio, Bib. Vet., Lib. V. and VI.; and Castro, Bib. Esp., Tom. II.

[420] Gibbon, Chap. XXX.

[421] Lib. V. c. 1.

[422] Mariana, Lib. V. c. 2.

[423] Gibbon, Chap. XXXVII.; an article in the Edinburgh Review, Vol. XXXI., on the Gothic Laws of Spain; and Depping, Tom. II. pp. 217, etc.

[424] In the earliest Gothic that remains to us, (the Gospels of Ulfilas, circa A. D. 370,) there is no indefinite article; and the definite does not always occur where it is used in the original Greek, from which, it is worthy of notice, the venerable Bishop made his version, and not from the Latin. But there is no reason, I think, to suppose that the articles of both sorts were not used by the Goths, as well as by the other Northern tribes, in the fifth century, as they have been ever since. See Ulfilas, Gothische Bibelübersetzung, ed. Zahn, 1805, 4to, and, especially, Einleitung, pp. 28-37.

[425] Raynouard, Troubadours, Tom. I. pp. 39, 43, 48, etc., and Diez, Grammatik der Romanischen Sprachen, 1838, 8vo, Band II. pp. 13, 14, 98-100, 144, 145.

[426] Raynouard, Troubadours, Tom. I. pp. 76-85.

[427] See, on the whole of this subject,—the formation of the modern dialects of the South of Europe,—the excellent “Grammatik der Romanischen Sprachen von Fried. Diez,” Bonn, 1836-38, 2 vols. 8vo. For examples of corruptions of the Spanish language, such as are above referred to, take the following:—Frates, orate pro nos, instead of Fratres, orate pro nobis;—Sedeat segregatus a corpus et sanguis Domini, instead of corpore et sanguine. (Marina, Ensayo, p. 22, note, in Memorias de la Academia de la Hist., Tom. IV.) The changes in spelling are innumerable, but are less to be trusted as proofs of change in the language, because they may have arisen from the carelessness or ignorance of individual copyists. Specimens of every sort of them may be found in the “Coleccion de Cédulas,” etc., referred to in Vol. I. p. 47, note, and in the “Coleccion de Fueros Municipales,” by Don Tomas Muñoz y Romero, Madrid, 1847, fol., Tom. I.

[428] See some striking remarks on the adventures of Mohammed, in Prof. Smyth’s genial Lectures on Modern History, Vol. I. pp. 66, 67, 8vo, London, 1840.

[429] They were so called from their African abode, Mauritania, where they naturally inherited the name of the ancient Mauri.

[430] See Huet, “Origine des Romans,” (ed. 1693, p. 24,) but especially Warton, in his first Dissertation, for the Oriental and Arabic origin of romantic fiction. The notes to the octavo edition, by Price, add much to the value of the discussions on these questions. Warton’s Eng. Poetry, 1824, 8vo, Vol. I.; Massieu (Hist. de la Poésie Françoise, 1739, p. 82) and Quadrio (Storia d’ Ogni Poesia, 1749, Tom. IV. pp. 299, 300) follow Huet, but do it with little skill.

[431] The opinion of Father Andres is boldly stated by him in the following words: “Quest’ uso degli Spagnuoli di verseggiare nella lingua, nella misura, e nella rima degli Arabi, può dirsi con fondamento la prima origine della moderna poesia.” (Storia d’ Ogni Lett., Lib. I. c. 11, § 161; also pp. 163-272, ed. 1808, 4to.) The same theory will be found yet more strongly expressed by Ginguené (Hist. Litt. d’Italie, 1811, Tom. I. pp. 187-285); by Sismondi (Litt. du Midi, 1813, Tom. I. pp. 38-116; and Hist. des Français, 8vo, Tom. IV., 1824, pp. 482-494); and in the Hist. Litt. de la France (4to, 1814, Tom. XIII. pp. 42, 43). But these last authors have added little to the authority of Andres’s opinion, the very last being, I think, Ginguené.

[432] Andres, Storia, Tom. I. p. 273. Ginguené, Tom. I. pp. 248-250, who says: “C’est à cette époque (1085) que remontent peut-être les premiers essais poétiques de l’Espagne, et que remontent sûrement les premiers chants de nos Troubadours.”

[433] Fragment d’un Poème en Vers Romans sur Boèce, publié par M. Raynouard, etc., Paris, 8vo, 1817. Also in his Poésies des Troubadours, Tom. II. Consult, further, Grammaire de la Langue Romane, in the same work, Tom. I.

[434] I refer to “Observations sur la Langue et la Littérature Provençales, par A. W. Schlegel,” Paris, 1818, 8vo, not published. See, especially, pp. 73, etc., in which he shows how completely anti-Arabic are the whole tone and spirit of the early Provençal, and still more those of the early Spanish poetry. And see, also, Diez, Poesie der Troubadours, 8vo, 1826, pp. 19, etc.; an excellent book.

[435] Conde, Historia de la Dominacion de los Arabes en España, Madrid, 1820-21, 4to, Tom. I. and II., but especially Tom. I. pp. 158-226, 425-489, 524-547.

[436] Sylvester II. (Gerbert) was Pope from 999 to 1003, and was the first head France gave to the Church. I am aware that the Benedictines (Hist. Litt. de la France, Tom. VI. p. 560) intimate that he did not pass, in Spain, beyond Córdova, and I am aware, too, that Andres (Tom. I. pp. 175-178) is unwilling to allow him to have studied at any schools in Seville and Córdova except Christian schools. But there is no pretence that the Christians had important schools in Andalusia at that time, though the Arabs certainly had; and the authorities on which Andres relies assume that Gerbert studied with the Moors, and prove more, therefore, than he wishes to be proved. Like many other men skilled in the sciences during the Middle Ages, Gerbert was considered a necromancer. A good account of his works is in the Hist. Litt. de la France, Tom. VI. pp. 559-614.

[437] The condition of the Christians under the Moorish governments of Spain may be learned, sufficiently for our purpose, from many passages in Conde, e. g. Tom. I. pp. 39, 82, etc. But after all, perhaps, the reluctant admissions of Florez, Risco, etc., in the course of the forty-five volumes of the “España Sagrada,” are quite as good a proof of the tolerance exercised by the Moors, as the more direct statements taken from the Arabian writers. See, for Toledo, Florez, Tom. V. pp. 323-329; for Complutum or Alcalá de Henares, Tom. VII. p. 187; for Seville, Tom. IX. p. 234; for Córdova and its martyrs, Tom. X. pp. 245-471; for Saragossa, Risco, Tom. XXX. p. 203, and Tom. XXXI. pp. 112-117; for Leon, Tom. XXXIV. p. 132; and so on. Indeed, there is something in the accounts of a great majority of the churches, whose history these learned men have given in so cumbrous a manner, that shows the Moors to have practised a toleration which, mutatis mutandis, they would have been grateful to have found among the Christians in the time of Philip III.

[438] The meaning of the word Mozárabe was long doubtful; the best opinion being that it was derived from Mixti-arabes, and meant what this Latin phrase would imply. (Covarrubias, Tesoro, 1674, ad verb.) That this was the common meaning given to it in early times is plain from the “Chrónica de España,” (Parte II., at the end,) and that it continued to be so received is plain, among other proofs, from the following passage in “Los Muçárabes de Toledo,” (a play in the Comedias Escogidas, Tom. XXXVIII., 1672, p. 157,) where one of the Muzárabes, explaining to Alfonso VII. who and what they are, says, just before the capture of the city,—

But, amidst the other rare learning of his notes on “The Mohammedan Dynasties of Spain,” (4to, London, 1840, Vol. I. pp. 419, 420,) Don Pascual de Gayangos has perhaps settled this vexed, though not very important, question. Mozárabe, or Muzárabe, as he explains it, “is the Arabic Musta’rab, meaning a man who tries to imitate or to become an Arab in his manners and language, and who, though he may know Arabic, speaks it like a foreigner.” The word is still used in relation to the ritual of some of the churches in Toledo. (Castro, Biblioteca, Tom. II. p. 458, and Paleographía Esp., p. 16.) On the other hand, the Moors who, as the Christian conquests were advanced towards the South, remained, in their turn, inclosed in the Christian population and spoke or assumed its language, were originally called Moros Latinados. See “Poema del Cid,” v. 266, and “Crónica General,” (ed. 1604, fol. 304. a,) where, respecting Alfaraxi, a Moor, afterwards converted, and a counsellor of the Cid, it is said he was “de tan buen entendimento, e era tan ladino que semejava Christiano.”

[439] Conde, Tom. I. p. 229.

[440] Florez, España Sagrada, Tom. XI. p. 42.

[441] The “Indiculus Luminosus” is a defence of the fanatical martyrs of Córdova, who suffered under Abderrahman II. and his son. The passage referred to, with all its sins against pure Latinity and good taste, is as follows:—“Heu, proh dolor! linguam suam nesciunt Christiani, et linguam propriam non advertunt Latini, ita ut omni Christi collegio vix inveniatur unus in milleno hominum numero, qui salutatorias fatri possit rationabiliter dirigere literas. Et reperitur absque numero multiplex turba, qui eruditè Caldaicas verborum explicet pompas. Ita ut metricè eruditiori ab ipsis gentibus carmine et sublimiori pulchritudine,” etc. It is found at the end of the treatise, which is printed entire in Florez (Tom. XI. pp. 221-275). The phrase omni Christi collegio is, I suppose, understood by Mabillon, “De Re Diplomaticâ,” (fol., 1681, Lib. II. c. 1, p. 55,) to refer to the clergy, in which case the statement would be much stronger, and signify that “not one priest in a thousand could address a common letter of salutation to another” (Hallam, Middle Ages, London, 8vo, 1819, Vol. III. p. 332);—but I incline to think that it refers to the whole body of Christians in and about Córdova.

[442] The time when John of Seville lived is not settled (Florez, Tom. IX. pp. 242, etc.); but that is not important to our purpose. The fact of the translation is in the Crónica General (Parte III. c. 2, f. 9, ed. 1604): “Trasladó las sanctas Escripturas en Arávigo e fizó las exposiciones dellas segun conviene a la sancta Escriptura.” And Mariana gives the true reason for it: “A causa que la lengua Arábiga se usaba mucho entre todos; la Latina ordinariamente ni se usaba, ni se sabia.” (Lib. VII. c. iii., prope finem.) See, also, Antonio, Bib. Vet., Lib. VI. c. 9; Castro, Bib. Esp., Tom. II. pp. 454, etc.

[443] Paleographía Española, p. 22.

[444] Memorias de la Real Acad. de la Hist., Tom. IV., Ensayo de Marina, pp. 40-43.

[445] Mondejar, Memorias de Alonso el Sabio, fol., 1777, p. 43. Ortiz y Zuñiga, Anales de Sevilla, fol., 1677, p. 79.

[446] Mem. de la Real Acad. de la Hist., Tom. IV., Ensayo de Marina, p. 40.

[447] For the great Arabic infusion into the language of Spain, see Aldrete, Orígen, Lib. III. c. 15; Covarrubias, Tesoro, passim; and the catalogue, of 85 pages, in the fourth volume of the Memorias de la Academia de Historia. To these may be well added the very curious “Vestigios da Lingua Arábica em Portugal per João de Sousa,” Lisboa, 1789, 4to. A general notice of the whole subject, but one that gives too much influence to the Arabic, may be found in the “Ocios de Españoles Emigrados,” Tom. II. p. 16, and Tom. III. p. 291.

[448] The common and characteristic phrase, from a very early period, for the Moorish conquest of Spain, was “la pérdida de España,” and that for its reconquest, “la restauracion de España.”

[449] The Arabic accounts, which are much to be relied on, because they are contemporary, give a shocking picture of the Christians at the North in the eighth century. “Viven como fieras, que nunca lavan sus cuerpos ni vestidos, que no se las mudan, y los llevan puestas hasta que se les caen despedezados en andrajos,” etc. (Conde, Dominacion, etc., Parte II. c. 18.) The romantic and uncertain accounts, in the beginning of the third part of the Crónica General, and the more formal narrative of Mariana, (book seventh,) leave little doubt that such descriptions must be near the truth.

[450] Consult Marina, Ensayo, p. 19.

[451] Ibid., pp. 23, 24.

[452] The Avilés document is regarded by all who have noticed it as of great importance for the earliest history of the Castilian. It is first mentioned, I believe, by Father Risco, in his “Historia de la Ciudad y Corte de Leon” (Madrid, 1793, 4to, Tom. I. pp. 252, 253); and next by Marina, in his “Ensayo” (Memorias de la Acad. de Historia, Tom. IV., 1805, p. 33);—both competent witnesses, and both entirely satisfied that it is genuine. Risco, however, printed no part of it, and Marina published only a few extracts. But in the “Revista de Madrid,” (Segunda Epoca, Tom. VII. pp. 267-322,) it is published entire, as part of an interesting discussion concerning the old codes of the country, by Don Rafael Gonzalez Llanos, a man of learning and a native of Avilés, who seems to have a strong love for the place of his birth and to be familiar with its antiquities.

The document in question belongs to the class of instruments sometimes called “Privilegios,” and sometimes “Foros,” or “Fueros” (see, ante, Vol. I. p. 47, note 28); but where, as in this case, the authority of the instrument is restricted to a single town or city, it is more properly called “Carta Puebla,” or municipal charter. This Carta Puebla of Avilés contains a royal grant of rights and immunities to the several citizens, as well as to the whole municipality, and involves whatever regarded the property, business, and franchises of all whom it was intended to protect. Charters, which were so important to the welfare of many persons, but which still rested on the arbitrary authority of the crown, were, as we have previously said, (Vol. I. p. 47, note 27,) confirmed by succeeding sovereigns, as often as their confirmation could conveniently be procured by the communities so deeply interested in their preservation.

The Carta Puebla of Avilés was originally granted by Alfonso VI., who reigned from 1073 to 1109. It was, no doubt, written in such Latin as was then used; and in 1274 it was formally made known to Alfonso the Wise, that it had been burnt during the attack on that city by his son Sancho. The original, therefore, is lost, and we know how it was lost.

What we possess is the translation of this Carta Puebla, made when it was confirmed by Alfonso VII., A. D. 1155. It is still preserved in the archives of the city of Avilés, on the original parchment, consisting of two skins sewed together,—the two united being about four feet and eleven inches long, and about nineteen inches wide. It bears the known seal of Alfonso VII., and the original signatures of several persons who were bound to sign it with him, and several subsequent confirmations, scattered over five centuries. (See Revista, ut sup., pp. 329, 330.) So that in all respects, including the coarseness of the parchment, the handwriting, and the language, it announces its own genuineness with as much certainty as any document of its age. As printed, it fills about twelve pages in octavo, and enables us to judge somewhat of the state of the Castilian at the time it was written.

After a caption or enrolment in bad Latin, it opens with these words:—

“Estos sunt los foros que deu el rey D. Alfonso ad Abilies cuando la poblou par foro Sancti Facundi et otorgo lo emperador. Em primo, per solar pinder, I solido a lo reu et II denarios a lo saion, é cada ano un sólido en censo per lo solar: é qui lo vender, de I solido á lo rai, é quil comparar dará II denarios a lo saion,” etc. p. 267.

A part of one of its important regulations is as follows:—“Toth homine qui populador for ela villa del rey, de quant aver qui ser aver, si aver como heredat, dè fer en toth suo placer de vender o de dar, et á quen lo donar que sedeat stabile si filio non aver, et si filio aver del, delo á mano illo quis quiser é fur placer, que non deserede de toto, et si toto lo deseredar, toto lo perdan aquellos á quen lo der.” Revista, p. 315.

Its concluding provisions are in these words:—“Duos homines cum armas derumpent casa, et de rotura de orta serrada, LX. sólidos al don de la orta, el medio al rei, é medio al don dela.—Homines populatores de Abilies, non dent portage ni rivage, desde la mar ata Leon.” Ibid., p. 322.

It ends with bad Latin, denouncing excommunication on any person who shall attempt to infringe its provisions, and declaring him “cum Datam et Abiron in infernum damnatus.” Ibid., p. 329.

By the general consent of those who have examined it, this Carta Puebla of Avilés is determined to be the oldest document now known to exist in the Castilian or vulgar dialect of the period, which dialect, in the opinion of Don Rafael Gonzalez Llanos, received its essential character as early as 1206, or six years before the decisive battle of the Navas de Tolosa, (see, ante, Vol. I. p. 9, note,) though not a few documents, after that date, abound in Latin words and phrases. Revista, ut supra, Tom. VIII. p. 197.

I am aware that two documents in the Spanish language, claiming to be yet older, have been cited by Mr. Hallam, in a note to Part II. c. 9 of his Middle Ages, London, 1819, 8vo, Vol. III. p. 554, where he says: “The earliest Spanish that I remember to have seen is an instrument in Martene, Thesaurus Anecdotorum, Tom. I. p. 263; the date of which is 1095. Persons more conversant with the antiquities of that country may possibly go farther back. Another of 1101 is published in Marina’s Teoria de las Cortes, Tom. III. p. 1. It is in a Vidimus by Peter the Cruel, and cannot, I presume, have been a translation from the Latin.” There can be no higher general authority than Mr. Hallam for any historical fact, and this statement seems to carry back the oldest authentic date for the Spanish language sixty years earlier than I have ventured to carry it. But I have examined carefully both of the documents to which Mr. Hallam refers, and am satisfied they are of later date than the charter of Avilés. That in Martene is merely an anecdote connected with the taking of “the city of Exea,” when it was conquered, as this story states, by Sancho of Aragon. Its language strongly resembles that of the “Partidas,” which would bring it down to the middle of the thirteenth century; but it bears, in truth, no date, and only declares at the end that the city of Exea was taken on the nones of April, 1095, from the Moors. Of course, there is some mistake about the whole matter, for Sancho of Aragon, here named as its conqueror, died June 4th, 1094, and was succeeded by Peter I., and the person who wrote this account, which seems to be, after all, only an extract from some monkish chronicle, did not live near enough to that date to know so notorious a fact. Moreover, Exea is in Aragon, where it is not probable the earliest Castilian was spoken or written. Thus much for the document from Martene. That from Marina’s Teoria is of a still later and quite certain date. It is a charter of privileges granted by Alfonso VI. to the Mozárabes of Toledo, but translated in 1340, when it was confirmed by Alfonso XI. Indeed, it is so announced by Marina himself, who in the table of contents says especially, that it is “translated into Castilian.”

[453] Marina, Ensayo, p. 19.

[454] The most striking proof, perhaps, that can be given of the number of Latin words and constructions retained in the modern Spanish, is to be found in the many pages of verse and prose that have, from time to time, been so written that they can be read throughout either as Latin or as Spanish. The first instance of this sort that I know of is by Juan Martinez Siliceo, Archbishop of Toledo and preceptor to Philip II., who, when he was in Italy, wrote a short prose dissertation that could be read in both languages, in order to prove to some of his learned friends in that country that the Castilian of Spain was nearer to the Latin than their Italian;—a jeu-d’esprit, which he printed in his treatise on Arithmetic, in 1514. (Antonio, Bib. Nov., Tom. II. p. 737.) Other examples occur afterwards. One may be found in a Spanish Grammar, published at Louvain in 1555, and entitled “Util y Breve Institution para aprender Lengua Hespañola”; a curious book, which treats the Castilian as only one of several languages then spoken in the Spanish Peninsula, and says of it, “no es otra cosa que Latin corrupto,”—adding that many letters had been written in Spanish words that were yet Latin letters, one of which he proceeds to give in proof. Other examples occur in a Dialogue by Fern. Perez de Oliva, and an Epistle of Ambrosio Morales, the historian, printed in 1585, with the works of the first; in a Sonnet published by Rengifo, in his “Arte Poética,” in 1592; and, finally, in an excessively rare volume of terza rima, by Diego de Aguiar, printed in 1621, and entitled “Tercetos en Latin congruo y puro Castellano,” of which the following is a favorable specimen:—

Much cannot be said for the purity of either the Castilian or the Latin in verses like these; but they leave no doubt of the near relationship of the two. For the proportions of all the languages that enter into the Spanish, see Sarmiento, Memorias, 1775, p. 107;—Larramendi, Antiguedad y Universalidad del Bascuence, 1728, c. xvi., apud Vargas y Ponce, Disertacion, 1793, pp. 10-26;—Rosseeuw de St. Hilaire, Etudes sur l’Origine de la Langue et Romances Espagnoles, Thèse, 1838, p. 11;—W. von Humboldt, Prüfung, already cited;—Marina, Ensayo, in Mem. de la Acad. de Hist., Tom. IV., 1805;—and an article in the British and Foreign Review, No. XV., 1839.

[455] All the documents containing the privileges granted by St. Ferdinand to Seville, on the capture of the city, are in the vernacular of the time, the Romance. Ortiz y Zuñiga, Anales de Sevilla, fol., 1677, p. 89.

[456]

Vida de S. Domingo de Silos, St. 2.

Roman paladino means the “plain Romance language,” paladino being derived, as I think, with Sanchez, from palam, though Sarmiento (in his manuscript on “Amadis de Gaula,” referred to, Vol. I. p. 322, note) says, when noticing this line: “Paladino es de palatino y este es de palacio.” The otro latino is, of course, the elder Latin, however corrupted. Cervantes uses the word ladino to mean Spanish, (Don Quixote, Parte I. c. 41, and the note of Clemencin,) and Dante (Par., III. 63) uses it once to mean plain, easy; both curious instances of an indirect meaning, forced, as it were, upon a word. Prosa means, I suppose, story. Biagioli (Ad Purgatorio, XXVI. 118) says: “Prosa nell’ Italiano e nel Provenzale del secolo xiii. significa precisamente istoria o narrazione in versi.” It may be doubted whether he is right in applying this remark to the passage in Dante, but it is no doubt applicable to the passage before us in Berceo, the meaning of which both Bouterwek and his Spanish translators have mistaken. (Bouterwek, Trad. Cortina, etc., 8vo, Madrid, 1829, Tom. I. pp. 60 and 119.) Ferdinand Wolf (in his very learned work, “Über die Lais, Sequenzen und Leiche,” Heidelberg, 1841, 8vo, pp. 92 and 304) thinks the use of the word prosa, here and elsewhere in early Spanish poetry, had some reference to the well-known use of the same word in the offices of the Church. (Du Cange, Glossarium, ad verb.) But I think the early Spanish rhymers took it from the Provençal, and not from the ecclesiastical Latin.