Sermo Plebēius
A term used, in contradistinction to the classic Latinity of Cicero or Caesar, to designate
the speech of the common people, at Rome and in the provinces, which later became the basis of
the modern Romance languages. Its relation to literary Latin has been subject to frequent
misconception: thus, the two are not separate languages, although too often erroneously so
termed; nor, on the other hand, is the Sermo Plebeius in any sense either the parent or the
offspring of the classic speech. They are rather two kindred dialects, which, while steadily
diverging, trace their origin to a common source in the speech of early Rome, the
prisca Latinitas.
The differentiation between the popular and cultured speech begins properly with the early
Roman poets; for, prior to the birth of a national literature, the language lacked the
stability essential to a linguistic standard. It is noteworthy that Livius Andronicus,
Naevius, and Ennius were all of them natives of Magna Graecia, and that accordingly Rome owes
her first impulse in literature, as in the other arts, to external sources. These literary
pioneers naturally regarded their native Greek as the highest criterion of excellence, and
strove successively to impart something of its ease and grace to the rather unwieldy forms and
heavy quantities of archaic Latin. The process of refining and polishing the language in
accordance with Greek rules was continued by the famous literary circle which centred in the
younger Scipio, to an extent best realized by a comparison of the plays of Terence, whose
style is all but Ciceronian, with those of Plautus, which remain the best surviving specimens
of early plebeian Latin.
Classic Latin, thus carefully fostered, culminated at length in the cadenced prose of
Cicero and the harmonious rhythm of the Augustan poets—a proud achievement for the
grammarians, but gained at the expense of the vitality of the language. Its growth had been
checked before its natural resources were developed. Its vocabulary remained deficient; its
rules for accent and quantity were borrowed; its later development was so largely artificial
as to be necessarily unstable. Even in Livy and Tacitus there are seen the beginnings of the
decadence which was destined to blight the later literature, and which was hastened by the
steady encroachment of the Sermo Plebeius.
The latter, rude and untrammelled, was free to enlarge its vocabulary and modify its
constructions to meet the needs of the people's slowly broadening horizon. It was essentially
the language of the shops and streets, of the soldier and camp-follower, the slave and
rustic—in short, of all but the privileged literary class. In the early period, the
reciprocal influence exerted by the two diverging branches of the language was slight, for the
literary circle was strictly limited, while the great mass of the people lived and died
untouched by the new culture. Gradually, however, as knowledge became more general, and
facilities for learning increased, the influence of the cultured language filtered slowly
downward through the different grades of society, until all except the remoter rural districts
must have felt the leaven of its influence. Conversely, the Sermo Plebeius, with its
expressive slang phrases and hardy neologisms, became a more and more convenient source to
draw upon, so that with each generation a larger proportion of plebeian forms and
constructions found their way upward into the cultured speech. Hence arose a compromise, in
the shape of the
sermo cotidianus, the free-and-easy medium of every-day
life, which facilitated communication between the classes, and into which the most cultured
speakers were apt to relapse when conversing with their family and friends. Below this, down
to the
lingua rustica, the rudest form of the country districts, the
language shaded off through numerous gradations, all possessing the same essential
characteristics, and differing only in degree. The furthest division of the language which,
with our present knowledge, it is safe to make is threefold—into
sermo urbanus, sermo cotidianus, and
sermo plebeius.
I. Provincial Latin.—The history of the Sermo Plebeius
in the provinces presents certain peculiar features, which are noteworthy because they go far
towards explaining the origin of those dialectic differences which resulted in the separate
Romance languages. It was always the policy of Rome to force her speech, as well as her
customs, upon the nations that she subjugated, and to that end Latin was made the official
language of the provinces. The standard of Latinity, however, was not so easily regulated, the
conquered people naturally acquiring it from the Romans with whom they earliest came in
immediate contact—the common soldiers, petty officials, itinerant merchants, the
rank and file that followed in the track of the successful armies. Accordingly, while
provincial Latin is far from being synonymous with the Sermo Plebeius, and while many of the
leading families must have spoken as pure a Latin as any heard at Rome, yet the plebeian
element was more marked, more universal, extending higher in the social ranks, and even giving
a distinctive local colour to provincial literature. The important point,
however, is that, while the different provinces were acquired at long intervals, the Sermo
Plebeius, which thus formed successively the basis of African, Spanish, and Gallic Latin, was
itself undergoing a slow but constant evolution, and the form which Caesar's legions
introduced into Gaul was very different from the speech of the soldiers who, a century
earlier, had followed the younger Scipio to Carthage. It would be absurd to claim that the
language, once established in a province, became crystallized, never to change again. On the
contrary, and notably in the case of the African Latin, the later development is most
striking; but, owing to its comparative isolation from the influence of the classic speech,
plebeian Latin in the provinces tended to preserve certain archaic features much longer than
at Rome, a condition quite analogous to that observed in the French of Quebec, or the English
of the New England colonies. Accordingly, the Latin of the several provinces represents a
varying degree of archaism, in the order of their dates of conquest; and one may search in
vain in the Gallic writer Marcellus Empiricus for many of the archaisms prevalent in the works
of the Africans Tertullian, Arnobius, and Caelius Aurelianus. The dialectic differences thus
established played a far larger part than did any of the rapidly supplanted native tongues, in
the ultimate separation of the Romance languages. Thus, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalonian,
Provençal, French, and Roumanian show, in the order given, successive stages of the
Sermo Plebeius, while Italian, representing the vulgar speech in its native land, where its
ultimate development was reached, is the most advanced of all, excepting in the dialectic
forms spoken in the island of Sardinia, Rome's earliest external conquest, which retain to
this day many characteristics, such as accented ĭ and ŭ, and the
k-sound after
e and
i, which
must have been lost from the plebeian Latin at an early date, as they are wanting in the other
Romance languages.
II. Sources.—The sources for our knowledge of the Sermo
Plebeius are fairly abundant, but of very diverse degrees of importance. No one deliberately
wrote in vulgar Latin, but only when, through carelessness or ignorance, he failed to attain
the classic standard. Even the language of Plautus's slaves, and the realistic dialogue of
Trimalchio and his
colliberti in the
Satira of Petronius,
are softened to meet the exigencies of literature. Accordingly, the characteristics of
plebeian speech must be gleaned from isolated statements of Roman grammarians, errors of
orthography and syntax found in inscriptions, or in writers of inferior Latinity, and lastly
from the corroborative evidence of the Romance languages. The testimony of Roman writers,
however, although of the first importance, is extremely meagre, dealing largely with anomalies
of vocabulary and style. The only ancient work bearing directly upon the subject, of which we
have knowledge, that of T. Lavinius
De Verbis Sordidis, has unfortunately
perished. The most important existing document of this class is the curious grammatical
fragment, the
Appendix Probi (contained in the
Grammatici
Latini, ed. Keil), but whether of general, or merely local, authority is uncertain,
for although some authorities regard it as an African production, its source is still
problematic.
Among inscriptions the most important are the Pompeian wall inscriptions (in the
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, vol. iv.), comprising the careless scribblings
of schoolboys, slaves, etc., on houses and public buildings, and containing many important
clues to popular Latin in Southern Italy. The inscriptions from Gaul, Spain, and Africa are
also useful in tracing dialectic changes. But the chief value of inscriptions, wherever found,
is for the light they throw upon plebeian pronunciation, since the ignorant stone-cutters
often spelled as they pronounced, and, unlike the equally ignorant scribes, left their errors
recorded in an enduring form.
Turning to literature, we find a mass of material, which needs, however, careful
discrimination. The scanty remnants of the early writers are all valuable, for plebeian Latin
preserved many features of the
prisca Latinitas long after they had been
discarded by the classic speech; and in the Augustan age archaism was to a large extent
synonymous with vulgarism. Plautus and the other early comic poets are of especial value,
since their works were intended for the people and are accordingly written down to their
level. Even Terence contains a certain plebeian element which had probably become traditional
on the comic stage. Cato , famous as the opponent of Greek culture, naturally favoured the
earlier and ruder form of speech, and his
De Agricultura forms our unique
source for the early
sermo rusticus.
For the classic and Silver Latin period, material is more abundant. The
Bellum
Hispaniense and other supplements to Caesar's
Commentarii are probably
mild specimens of the
sermo militaris. Cicero, elsewhere the standard of
Latinity, assumes in his letters, as he himself confesses, a more colloquial tone:
Quid tibi ego in epistolis uideor? Nonne plebeio sermone agere tecum? (Ad
Fam. ix. 21); and they remain our best example of the
sermo cotidianus of the upper classes. Satire, from its very nature and
origin, required a less elevated style than other forms of poetry, and the satires of Horace,
Persius, and Juvenal all afford a fruitful source for vulgarisms. There are also numerous
writers on technical subjects, skilful in their several provinces, but weak in point of
grammar: thus the architect Vitruvius, who would write correctly if he could, apologizes for
his ignorance and begs that
si quid parum ad regulam artis grammaticae fuerit
explicatum ignoscatur (i. 1, 17). The elder Pliny , whose
Historia
Naturalis is confessedly a literary mosaic, is a treasure-house of plebeian
vocabulary. The chief source, however, in anteHadrian Latin is and must remain the
Cena
Trimalchionis of Petronius, the narrative of which is told in the easy colloquial
language of the upper classes, while the conversation of Trimalchio's circle is fairly
redolent with vulgarisms, popular proverbs, and the current slang of the streets. See
Petronius.
For post-classical Latin the entire range of literature is useful: for although departures
from the classic norm must not be indiscriminately stigmatized as plebeian, few writers of the
decadence escaped some taint of popular Latin. Of especial interest are Fronto, Gellius, and
Apuleius, whose numerous archaisms are due as much to the
sermo Africus as to
the retrogressive movement begun under the emperor Hadrian. The later African writers are also
of great importance, notably Tertullian, Arnobius, Commodian, and
Augustine; for although African Latin has left no modern representative, it was the great
vitality of that idiom which imprinted upon ecclesiastical Latin its distinctive character,
and thus indirectly imparted a tinge, especially in vocabulary and syntax, to the modern
Romance languages.
As specimens of very late Latin, where the language is on the verge of disintegration,
Anthimus, the historians Fredegarius and Gregory of Tours, and the
Regula
Monachorum of St. Benedict, recently edited by Wölfflin
(Leipzig,
1895), are very instructive.
III. Characteristics of Plebeian Latin.—
(a)
Phonetics.—The main changes occur in the vowelsystem. Latin originally
possessed five vowels—
a, e, i, o, u—which might be
long or short. Plebeian Latin, however, gives early proof of a growing qualitative difference,
long vowels tending to become close, short vowels open. That all qualitative difference was
eventually lost appears from the Romance languages, and is further evidenced by the growing
frequency of false quantities in Christian poets after the third century (Commodian, Ausonius,
Dracontius, etc.), and by the substitution of stress accent for metrical accent in late
popular songs. Owing to such changes,
ĭ tended early to
merge in
ē, and
ŭ in
ō soon after: see Varr.
R. R. 1, 2, 14,
rustici viam veham appellant, and the admonitions of
App. 197, 25,
columna, non
“colomna”; id.
198, 23,
puella, non “poella” (compare the Italian,
penna, pera; pollo, torre=Latin
pinna, pira, pullus, turris).
Similarly the diphthongs
ae, au, tended to weaken to
e,
o: see Varro,
L. L. v. 97,
in Latio rure
“edus”; qui in urbe, ut in multis, a addito, aedus;
Fest. 202,
Fest. 13,
orata, genus piscis, appellatur a colore auri quod rustici “orum”
dicebant, ut auriculas “oriculas” (compare the Ital.
povero, toro; Span.
pobre, toro=Lat.
pauper,
taurus). Unaccented
au, closely followed by
u, weakened to
a: see Caper, 108, 6,
ausculta, non
“asculta” (compare the Ital.
Agosto, Fr.
Août=Lat.
Augustus). A result of the stress accent
was frequent syncope of unaccented vowels, notably between liquids and mutes: see
App. 198, 3,
calida, non “calda,”
frigida, non “frigda” (compare
domnus=dominus [Plaut.],
mattus=maditus [Petr. ], and Ital.
caldo, freddo, Fr.
chaud, froid). From the second
century, a prosthetic
i became frequent before
st, sc,
sp, etc., mainly in inscriptions, and has survived to some extent in the Romance
languages (compare Fr.
étude, écrire=Lat.
studium, scribere).
The majority of Latin consonants have passed unaltered into the Romance language and exhibit
few distinctly plebeian features. The most important changes, the assibilation of
ti before a vowel and of
c and
g before
e and
i, belong to the latest period
of Latinity. In post-Hadrian Latin
b became confounded with
v (comp. forms like
Berecundus, inbicto, berbeces, from the
second-century inscriptions;
App. 198, 7,
alveus, non
“albeus”; Ital.
avere, inverno; Fr.
avoir, hiver=Lat.
habere, hibernum). The aspirate was
frequently misapplied, as to-day in Cockney English: Catullus (
Carm. 84) ridicules forms like
chommoda,
hinsidias as a vulgar affectation (cf.
Nigid. ap.
Gell. xiii.6.3,
rusticus fit sermo si aspires
perperam; Caper, vii. 102, 12,
alica, non
“halica”). Final consonants were often neglected. Thus final
m, lightly sounded even in classic Latin, was disregarded in the popular
speech (cf.
App. 199, 14,
passim, non “passi”;
numquam, non “numqua”; pridem, non “pride”; olim, non
“oli”). The failure of final
s to make
position, a usage common in early poetry, had become “
subrusticum” in Cicero's day (
Orator, 48, 161): its omission
becomes frequent in the second-century inscriptions. In Pompeian wall inscriptions final
t is sometimes wanting (comp. forms like
ama, valia,
peria). The Sermo Plebeius carried assimilation much further than the classic speech:
nn for
nd was probably due to Osco-Umbrian
influence.
App. 197, 24,
“candela,” non
“cannela,” and forms like
dispennite
(Plaut.),
verecunnus (Inscrr. Pomp.), with Oscan
upsannam=Lat.
operandum. Such forms are now common in the
Neapolitan dialect.
tt for
ct is found in the
fourth century inscriptions—e. g.
lattucae, ottobris (cf.
App. 198, 30:
auctor, non
“auttor,” and Ital.
notte, ottavo,
pittore=Lat.
noctem, octavus, pictor. tt for
pt is seen in inscriptional forms, such as
Settembris, scritus (cf. Ital.
Settembre, scritto); ss for
sp, or
ps. Comp. also the vulgar form
issa for
ipsa in Martial (i. 1 [9]):
scriserunt (Inscr.); Ital.
scrissi.
(b) Word-Formation.—The contrast between the Romance languages and
classic Latin is nowhere sharper than in vocabulary. Many familiar classic words have
vanished, plebeian forms surviving in their place; so the vulgar
bucca,
caballus, have replaced
os (gen.
oris), equus
(cf. the French bouche, cheval; Ital.
bocca,
cavallo). Still oftener the simple Latin word has survived only in a derivative
form, a condition due to the plebeian fondness for ponderous derivatives and compounds. The
popular language was burdened with substantives in -
bulum, -mentum, and
-
monium, and adjectives in -
bundus, -lentus, and
-
osus; frequentative, inchoative, and desiderative verbs, diminutives,
and prepositional compounds all abounded. Everywhere the effort was apparent to compensate by
volume of sound for native poverty of thought. Such derivatives often differed but slightly,
if at all, in meaning from the simple word, as the Romance languages testify (cf. the French
abeille, corbeille, from Lat. diminutives
apicula, corbicula; chanter, jeter, from frequentatives
cantare, iactare). Through such misuse, words tended to wear out
quickly, and it became necessary to reinforce them. Hence arose double diminutives, like
homullulus, lapillulus; double frequentatives, like
cantitare,
ductitare; verbs with reduplicated prepositions, as
con-colligere,
per-per-ire, etc. The same fondness for lengthened forms is seen in the numerous
compound suffixes resulting from secondary derivation, such as -
bili-tas,
-osi-tas, -tor-ius, -ill-are, or by deliberate compounding of separate endings, as -
astellus, -ul-aster, -idini-tas, -eli-tas. Furthermore, the two processes of
composition and derivation are used in combination; a growing proportion of derivative verbs
are compounded with prepositions, while the growing tendency to derive substantives and
adjectives from compound verbs by preference gave rise to such forms as
stultiloquentia, vaniloquentia (Plaut.),
circumspicientia (Gell.
),
disconvenientia, impraescientia, subtililoquentia (Tert. ),
suffumigatorius, superinunctorius (Cass. Fel. ); and such were often
further compounded, notably with
in- privative. Comp.
inrecogitatio (Tert. ),
incoinquinabilitas ( Rusp.Fulg. ).
(c) Inflection.—The radical process by which case-forms and
tense-endings were largely replaced in the Romance languages by prepositions and periphrastic
conjugations belongs under the head of syntax. The following are the
principal anomalies of plebeian inflection: transfers from the fourth declension to the
second, and from the fifth to the first, even in Plautine Latin, thus anticipating the loss of
the fourth and fifth in Romance languages. Comp.
senatus, -i, tumultus, -i,
ecfigia for
effigies (Plaut.); transfers from the third declension
to second: cf.
vasum, ossum (Plaut.),
pauper, a, um
(Plaut., Petr. ), and Ital.
vaso, osso, povero. Substitutions of nominal
endings in pronominal declension:
ipsus, istus; gen. sing.
isti, ulli; dat. sing. fem.
aliae, totae (all in
Plaut.). Numerous irregular comparatives and superlatives, made from superlative forms, as
postremior, extremior (Apul. ),
extremissimus
(Tert. ),
minissimus (Arnob.), or from other words not usually compared
in classic Latin, as
ipsissimus, geminissimus, patruissimus (Plaut.),
pathicissimus (Mart. ),
caenidior (Catull.).
Adverbs in -
ter, formed irregularly from adjectives in -
us: avariter, firmiter, largiter (Plaut.),
improbiter (Petr. ).
The use of active forms, in place of deponent verbs: cf.
laeto, opitulo (
Andr.),
ioco, nicto (Plaut.),
aemulo (Apul. ),
carnifico, vesco (Tert. ). Transfers from the third to the fourth conjugation
(so frequent in the Romance languages): cf.
aggrediri, moriri (Plaut.),
Ital.
morire. The formation of the fourth declension future in -
ibo, by analogy with -
abo, -ebo: cf.
nescibo, audibis, scibimus (Plaut.). The unusual formation of certain perfects with the
normal ending -
ivi: cf.
posivi, institivi, potivi,
etc. Similarly the use of the normal imperatives
face, duce, etc., for
usual
fac, duc.
(d) Syntax.—Neuter nouns tended to become masculine, more rarely
feminine: cf.
caelus, fatus, vinus, triclinia (Petr. ), and the loss of
the neuter in Ital., Span., etc. From the Romance standpoint, great importance attaches to the
tendency to develop syntax at the expense of inflectional forms. Thus case-constructions were
gradually replaced by prepositions: the partitive genitive by
de, the
dative of indirect object by
ad, the instrumental ablative by
cum. From early times the accusative tended to assume the functions of other
cases— e. g. of the ablative after
utor, fruor, fungor, etc.,
or of the dative after verbs of pleasing, trusting, etc. Gradually a confusion arose between
the cases, and we find
in construed indifferently with accusative or
ablative; later
cum, de, ex occur with the accusative;
ante, per, etc., with the ablative. Adjectives were compared with the help of adverbs,
such as
bene, magis, plus: cf. Fr.
bien joli,
Span.
mas grande, Ital.
più forte. There
was a tendency to use the verbs
esse, habere as auxiliaries to form
periphrastic tenses. The uses of the subjunctive mood were gradually curtailed: from the time
of Plautus the indicative occurs in indirect questions, and in later Latin purpose is often
expressed by the infinitive. Conversely, the infinitive with
verba sentiendi et
declarandi is constantly replaced by the indicative (more rarely the subjunctive) with
quod, quia, quoniam in post-classic Latin: cf.
dixi quod
mustella comedit (Petr. ), Fr.
j'ai dit que . . . Finally,
plebeian Latin is partial to double negatives:
nemini nihil satis est
(Petr. ); cf. Ital.
non fa niente, Fr.
je n'ai
point.
IV. Bibliography.—Most of the literature concerning the
Sermo Plebeius is embodied in monographs, dealing either with special grammatical points or
with the style of the individual writers. There exists as yet no comprehensive treatise
covering the subject as a whole, although the results of modern scholarship have been to
some extent embodied in such recent works as Stolz and Schmalz's
Lateinische
Grammatik, in Müller's
Handbuch der klassischen
Alterthumswissenschaft, vol. ii.
(2d ed. Munich, 1890); Lindsay's
The Latin Language (Oxford, 1894); and the new
Historische Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, of which only the first
volume, by Prof. Stolz (
Einleitung, Lautlehre, Stammbildungslehre), has yet
appeared
(Leipzig, 1894-95). The following list includes the more important works
bearing upon this subject: Wölfflin,
Zum Vulgärlatein, in the
Philologus, vol. xxxiv. pp. 137-165; O. Rebling,
Versuch einer
Charakteristik der römischen Umgangssprache (2d ed. Kiel, 1882);
Rönsch,
Itala und Vulgata (Marburg and Leipzig, 1869); A.
von Guericke,
De Linguae Vulgaris Reliquiis apud Petronium et in Inscriptionibus
Parietariis Pompeianis (Gumbinnen, 1875); E. Ludwig,
Bericht
über die in den Jahren 1873-76 erschienenen Schriften über
Vulgärlatein und spätere Latinität, in Bursian's
Jahresbericht, vol. vi. pp. 238 foll., and the same author's
De
Petronii Sermone Plebeio (Marburg, 1869); G. Koffmane,
Geschichte des
Kirchenlateins, pts. i. and ii.
(Breslau, 1879-81); Ott,
Die
neueren Forschungen im Gebiete des BibelLatein, in the
Neue Jahrbuch
für Philologie (1874), pp. 757-792, 833-867; Storm,
Romance
Languages, in the
Encyclopaedia Britannica (9th ed.), vol. xx. pp.
661-668; Paul Monceaux,
Le Latin Vulgaire d'après les Dernières
Publications, in the
Revue des Deux Mondes (July 15,
1891), pp. 429-448; Budinsky,
Die Ausbreitung der lateinischen
Sprache (Berlin, 1881); A. Koehler,
De Auctoris Belli Africani et
Belli hispaniensis Latinitate (Erlangen, 1877); Kraut,
Ueber das
vulgäre Element in der Sprache des Salustius (Blaubeuren, 1881);
Stinner,
De eo quo Cicero in Epistolis Usus est Sermone (Oppeln,
1879); Cooper,
Word Formation in the Roman Sermo Plebeius (Boston,
1895); and the list of authorities there cited. See also the list given by Schmalz in
Müller's
Handbuch, and many articles contained in the
Archiv
für lateinische Lexicographie, vols. i.-viii.
(Leipzig,
1884-94). The following treatises are important for African Latin: Sittl,
Die lokalen Verschiedenheiten der lateinischen Sprache (Erlangen,
1882); H. Kretschmann,
De Latinitate L. Apulei Madaurensis
(Königsberg, 1865); Wölfflin,
Ueber die Latinität
des Afrikaners Cassius Felix, in
Sittungsber. d. k. b. Akademie der
Wissenschaften z. Munchen, Philos.Histos. Cl. (1880), pp.
381-432; three important articles in the eighth volume of the
Archiv f. Lat.
Lex.: Kübler,
Die lateinische Sprache auf afrikanischen
Inschriften, pp. 161-202; and Thielmann,
Die Lateinische Uebersetzung des
Buches der Weisheit, and
Die Lateinische Uebersetzung des Buches
Sirach, pp. 235-277, 501-561; Paul Monceaux,
Les Africains
(Paris, 1894); and Gaston Boissier,
L'Afrique Romaine (Paris,
1895).