Francesco Filelfo, Letter to Lorenzo Medici (Part 4)

“Nor was there that much need of literature in pure and undiluted Latinity, since plebiscites and decrees of the senate and laws and the responses of legal experts and the praetorian exceptions and all of the laws, institutes, pacts, and agreements of the city were written in Latin, not grammatically.

Should we suppose that orators in the senate or the forum or among the people used any language other than Latin (that is, their daily and common language), when a speech was to be composed (and Quintilian is the witness here) for the judgment of others, and when one needed to speak among those who were altogether uneducated and certainly did not at any rate know literature?

Even Cicero himself teaches that the greatest fault in speaking is to break from the common mode of speech and the custom of agreed sense.

Livy, a man of singular eloquence, sometimes neglected this maxim, and Asinius Pollio did not hesitate to joke that there was a certain Patavinity in his speech.

A speech, as Cicero said, should be accommodated to the ears of the multitude.”

Nec erat admodum opus litteratura in mera ac pura latinitate, cum et plebiscita et senatusconsulta et decreta et leges ac iurisconsultorum responsa et praetoriae exceptiones, et omnia civitatis iura, instituta, pacta conventaque latine, non grammatice, scriberentur.

Num putemus oratores vel in senatu, vel in foro, vel apud populum alia usos oratione quam latina, hoc est quottidiana vulgarique, cum esset componenda oratio, vel Quintiliano teste, ad aliorum iudicia, saepiusque apud eos loquendum, qui imperiti omnino forent atque alias certe litteras ignorarent?

Quin ipse etiam Cicero praecipit in dicendo vitium vel maximum esse a vulgari genere orationis atque a consuetudine communis sensus abhorrere.

Quod eum T. Livius, singulari facundia vir, aliquando neglexerit, non dubitavit Pollio Asinius cavillari patavinitatem quandam in eius inesse oratione.

Est enim ipsa oratio, ut ait idem Cicero, auribus multitudinis accomodanda.

Francesco Filelfo, Letter to Lorenzo Medici (Part 3)

“But literary speech was rarer among the Romans, and though it was familiar to learned people, it was less known to the uneducated.

This is clear from Cicero’s Cato on Old Age. For he says, speaking of Quintus Fabius Maximus, ‘He was not great just in the light and eyes of his citizens, but was remarkable even inside at home; what speech, what advice, what attention to antiquity and knowledge of law and augury! He even possessed a fair stock of literature, a rare thing in a Roman.

If anyone wants to know more about that, they should consult the third book of de Oratore which that same Cicero wrote to his brother Quintus, in which Lucius Crassus is depicted saying, ‘Our people study literature less than Latinity; yet from those city people, whom you know, and in whom there is only the smallest amount of literature, there is no one in a toga who could easily conquer Quintus Valerius Soranus in softness of voice, expression of the mouth, and sound.’ From this it is clearly shown that the Romans were not that literate.”

At litteralis sermo rarior erat apud Romanos, et doctis familiaris hominibus, indoctis autem minus notus.

Id quod apud Ciceronem patet, in Catone quem scripsit de senectute. Hic enim, de Quinto Fabio Maximo loquens, ita ait: “Nec vero ille in luce modo atque in oculis civium magnus, sed intus domique praestantior; qui sermo, quae praecepta, quanta noticia antiquitatis, scientia iuris et augurii! Multae etiam, ut in homine romano, litterae”.

Quod si quis ea de re quaerat apertius nosse, audiat ex tertio libro de Oratore ad Quintum fratrem, apud eundem Ciceronem, L. Crassum talia disserentem: “Nostri minus student litteris quam latinitati; tamen ex istis, quos nosti, urbanis, in quibus minimum est litterarum, nemo est qui litteratissimum togatorum omnium, Q. Valerium Soranum, lenitate vocis atque ipso oris pressu et sono facile vincat”. Ex quibus verbis non obscure ostenditur fuisse Romanos non admodum litteratos.

Francesco Filelfo, Letter to Lorenzo Medici (Part 2)

“We know that in our own times, whatever we have either of elegant literature or of polished learning or even of eloquence itself has been summoned back into the light from the underworld, and summoned back not just so that the people of our times could yield to those most learned ancients whom we admire so much, whether poets, or orators, or philosophers.

In all of these things, one must pay thanks to your most flourishing republic, by whose munificence Manuel Chrysoloras, a man who is in no way ignorant of any elegant learning, was summoned from Constantinople here into Italy, and taught Greek with extraordinary erudition first among you in Florence, then in Milan, and skillfully both rooted out and destroyed all of that inept and inveterate barbarism of speech and judgment from our citizens.

We can see from these beginnings that it was brought about that subsequently some youths, eager to acquire some of this improved learning and eloquence, went to Greece and brought back all of the elegance of learning back to us.

Further, to return from whence we were diverted, we should discuss (and not at more length than necessary) whether literary speech and Latin are the same or entirely different.

They are not the same, nor wholly different.

Latin was common both to the learned and unlearned, who were nourished on it from infancy, and it was their mother tongue and common tongue, just as that which we see among the Greeks, from their five languages which they call dialects, one is called koine, that is common, even though one must hold on to the same thing from individual languages which applies to one’s mother/common tongue and to grammar.”

Scimus enim nostris prope temporibus quicquid habemus elegantioris aut litteraturae, aut doctrinae cuiusquam politioris, aut ipsius denique eloquentiae, tanquam ab inferis revocatum in lucem, et ita revocatum, ut non admodum multum a nostris huius tempestatis hominibus concedatur eruditissimis illis priscis, quos magis admiramur, vel poetis, vel oratoribus, vel philosophis.

Quibus quidem in rebus, tuae potissimum florentissimae reipublicae gratia est habenda, cuius munificentissimo beneficio Manuel Chrisolora, vir nullius expers elegantioris disciplinae, ex urbe Constantinopoli in Italiam accersitus, cum et apud vos primo, deinde Mediolani doceret eruditius graece, inveteratam illam omnem ineptamque barbariam, et dicendi et iudicandi, ex hominibus nostris non mediocriter eruit atque extirpavit.

Quibus initiis videmus effectum ut, cum nonnulli postea iuvenes, melioris disciplinae et eloquentiae cupidi, in Graeciam traiecissent, omnem inde ad nostros eruditionis elegantiam reportarint.

Caeterum, ut eo redeamus unde divertimus, discutiendum est, et id quidem haud pluribus quam sit opus, idemne sit sermo litteralis et latinus, an diversus omnino.

Nec idem est, nec ex omni parte alius.

Sermo latinus erat doctis indoctisque communis, qui simul cum infantia alebatur, eratque materna ipsa vernaculaque lingua qualem videmus apud Graecos eam quae ex quinque linguis quas dialektous, dialectus, vocant, koine, coene, hoc est communis, nominatur, quamquam etiam de singulis linguis idem est tenendum, quo ad maternam vulgaremque linguam atque grammaticam.

Francesco Filelfo, Letter to Lorenzo Medici (Part 1)

“Lorenzo Medici, since I see that some are wrapped up in that error and believe that there is no real difference between literary and Latin speech, and furthermore that that they all use this same speech common at those times at which the most outstanding poets – the comedians as much as the tragedians and the most eloquent orators – flourished, and which we ourselves use now, I thought (since you are endowed with the noblest birth, intellect, and learning) that you would not be displeased in light of our friendship to learn from me what opinion I think we should take on the subject.

I have done this with more accuracy, since Leonardo Bruni, our friend and surely a most eloquent man, has discoursed much against Flavio Biondo, and Poggio, following Leonardo’s death, gratified Karolus of Arezzo by covering up the little book written against Biondo’s writings which offended the glory of his fellow citizen. Neither of these people properly discharged his duty. But I, serving the cause of truth, shall bring forth not what others have wished or would wish, but what pertains to the matter at hand.

First of all I think that I can say without doubt and clearly affirm that nothing is more abhorrent to the old mode of Roman speech than this common language which all of Italy now uses.

For if the ancient Romans had used speech of this sort, some of their writings or books would have remained either in verse or in prose – such volumes as we now see a lot of, written learnedly and elegantly by those who have earned a reputation in modern times: the two Guidos of Florence, Dante, Petrarch, Bocaccio, Asculanus Cicchus, and many others, whose monuments no memory will ever obscure.

And so, this common language which all of Italy now speaks, even though it is worse in some regions than in others, has nothing in common with that ancient speech which was in use during the age of Cicero.

There is no wonder here, given that so many barbarous tribes overran Italy. The Vandals, the Huns, the Lombards, the Germans, the Burgundians, the British, the Franks, the Belgians, one nation upon another, who confused and corrupted the language itself and our customs and all of our learning and the majesty of our speech.”

Cum viderem nonnullos in eo versari errore, Laurenti Medices, ut arbitrarentur nihilo prorsus inter se differre sermonem litteralem et latinum, praeterea eadem hac omnes usos vulgari lingua temporibus iis, quibus egregii poetae, tam comici quam tragici, et oratores eloquentissimi floruerunt apud Romanos, qua ipsi nunc utimur, existimavi tibi, qui nobilissimo es et genere et ingenio et doctrina, pro nostra amicicia fore non ingratum si ex me cognosceres quid ea de re sentiendum putem.

Quod eo feci accuratius, quoniam et Leonardus Arretinus, familiaris noster, vir sane facundissimus, adversus Blondum Flavium multa disseruit, et post Leonardi obitum Poggius, Karolo gratificatus Arretino, quem disertissimi concivis gloriam offenderet libellum etiam contra illius scripta contexuit; cum neuter suo sit functus officio. At ego, veritati inserviens, non quid caeteri aut voluerint aut velint, sed quid in rem sit, in medium referam.

Et omnium primum illud mihi videor indubitato posse ac dilucide affirmare, nihil magis abhorruisse a communi loquendi Romanorum consuetudine, quam hanc vulgarem linguam qua nunc omnis utitur Italia.

Nam, si huiusmodi sermone prisci Romani illi essent usi, extarent aliqua eorum scripta, aliqui libri, aut versu aut soluta oratione, qualia videmus hac tempestate volumina plurima perdocte et eleganter scripta ab iis qui proximis temporibus claruere: duobus Guidonibus florentinis, Dante Aldigerio, Francisco Petrarca, Ioanne Boccacio et Asculano Ciccho aliisque quam plurimis, quorum monimenta nulla unquam memoria obscurabit.
Itaque lingua haec vulgaris qua nunc universa loquitur Italia, tametsi in alia quam in alia eius regione deterius, nihil habet omnino commune cum vetusto illo sermone qui Ciceronis memoria erat in usu.

Et ne id quidem mirum, cum tot deinceps barbarae gentes in Italiam irruerunt. Vandali, Hunni, Gotthi, Longobardi, Germani, Burgundiones, Britanni, Franci, Belgae, et aliae atque aliae nationes, quae et linguam ipsam et mores doctrinamque omnem maiestatemque dicendi confuderunt atque inquinarunt.