In “Tristia”, Ovid confessed, among other things, that the muse who inspired
him to write verses in “the Getic language” made him forget his own language,
namely Latin. “Dicere saepe aliquid conanti – turpe fateri – verba mihi desunt de
didicique loqui. / Threı ¨cio Scythicoque fere circumsonor ore, / et videor Geticis
scribere posse modis. / Crede mihi, timeo ne sint inmixta Latinis / inque meis
scriptis Pontica verba legas . . .” (“Often, when I attempt some utterance-shameful
confession! – words fail me: I have unlearned my power of speech. Thracian and
Scythian Tongues chatter on almost every side, and I think I would write in Getic
measure. O, believe me, I fear that there may be mingled with the Latin in my
writings the language of the Pontus”) (Wheeler 1939).
Thus, Ovid recognized that, being forced to use daily the local language, i.e. the
Getic language, it was difficult to remember the “verba Latina” (Latin words) that –
mostly – were similar, in their lexical substance, to those of the Tomitae, i.e. the
Getae. Therefore, the text of those verses would easily reveal the fact that, in terms
of vocabulary, the Getic language was not so different from Latin. Of course, only
this way we can explain the fact that Ovid was able to learn so quickly the local
language, i.e. the language of the Proto-Romanians (the Thracian-Geto-Dacians).
Moreover, this also explains his fear that “Getic verses” have slipped through his
“Latin” verses, written in “Geticis modis”, i.e. written according to the rhyme and
structure of the Getic poetry, and not of the Latin one. Ovid’s testimony also reveals
that the Getic ars poetica had its own rules in terms of lyrical structure, number of
accents, number of syllables per verse etc. Additionally, this reality also attests the
fact that the Getae were poets by nature. In this regard, not incidentally, a great
romanian poet, Vasile Alecsandri ({ 1890), confirmed that “the Romanian is born to
be a poet”.
Ovid’s verses reveal that these Thracian nations – which included the Getae –
were speaking a common language, i.e. the “Getic” language, which was the
Thracian language of the Getic natives. This reality is confirmed by the geographer
and historian Strabo from Amaseia (c. 65 a. Chr. n. c. 20 p. Chr. n.), who wrote that
the Getae from the banks of the Danube were a “nation of men” speaking “the same
language as the Thracians, . . .” (Geografia VII, 3, 10).
Unfortunately, Ovid’s claims were not the subject of scientific research, “sine ira
et studio”, by the philologists and historians of the ancient Proto-Romanian literature. Nevertheless, we hope that they will finally come to the attention of some
leading specialists in these fields, because they can bring an important contribution
in terms of the disclosure of the so-called “miracle” of the Romanian language.
On another occasion, poet Ovid complained that he was forced to speak the local
language, because “. . . unus in hoc nemo est populo, qui forte Latine/, quaelibet e
medio reddere verba queat” (Wheeler 1939) (there is not a single man among these
people who perchance might express in Latin any common words whatsoever).
Ovid recognized that “hic” (here), i.e. at Tomis, he was in fact “Barbarus” (the
barbarian), “qui non intellegor ulli” (since I am not understood by nobody), “et
rident stolidi verba Latina Getae” (Wheeler 1939) (and the Getae laugh stupidly at
Latin words). But, the fact that only after 2 or 3 years, since he had been exiled at
Tomis, Ovid was already able to write poems in the local language of the Thracian
4 About “Publius Ovidius Naso” ({ 17 p. Chr. n.) and His. . .
73
him to write verses in “the Getic language” made him forget his own language,
namely Latin. “Dicere saepe aliquid conanti – turpe fateri – verba mihi desunt de
didicique loqui. / Threı ¨cio Scythicoque fere circumsonor ore, / et videor Geticis
scribere posse modis. / Crede mihi, timeo ne sint inmixta Latinis / inque meis
scriptis Pontica verba legas . . .” (“Often, when I attempt some utterance-shameful
confession! – words fail me: I have unlearned my power of speech. Thracian and
Scythian Tongues chatter on almost every side, and I think I would write in Getic
measure. O, believe me, I fear that there may be mingled with the Latin in my
writings the language of the Pontus”) (Wheeler 1939).
Thus, Ovid recognized that, being forced to use daily the local language, i.e. the
Getic language, it was difficult to remember the “verba Latina” (Latin words) that –
mostly – were similar, in their lexical substance, to those of the Tomitae, i.e. the
Getae. Therefore, the text of those verses would easily reveal the fact that, in terms
of vocabulary, the Getic language was not so different from Latin. Of course, only
this way we can explain the fact that Ovid was able to learn so quickly the local
language, i.e. the language of the Proto-Romanians (the Thracian-Geto-Dacians).
Moreover, this also explains his fear that “Getic verses” have slipped through his
“Latin” verses, written in “Geticis modis”, i.e. written according to the rhyme and
structure of the Getic poetry, and not of the Latin one. Ovid’s testimony also reveals
that the Getic ars poetica had its own rules in terms of lyrical structure, number of
accents, number of syllables per verse etc. Additionally, this reality also attests the
fact that the Getae were poets by nature. In this regard, not incidentally, a great
romanian poet, Vasile Alecsandri ({ 1890), confirmed that “the Romanian is born to
be a poet”.
Ovid’s verses reveal that these Thracian nations – which included the Getae –
were speaking a common language, i.e. the “Getic” language, which was the
Thracian language of the Getic natives. This reality is confirmed by the geographer
and historian Strabo from Amaseia (c. 65 a. Chr. n. c. 20 p. Chr. n.), who wrote that
the Getae from the banks of the Danube were a “nation of men” speaking “the same
language as the Thracians, . . .” (Geografia VII, 3, 10).
Unfortunately, Ovid’s claims were not the subject of scientific research, “sine ira
et studio”, by the philologists and historians of the ancient Proto-Romanian literature. Nevertheless, we hope that they will finally come to the attention of some
leading specialists in these fields, because they can bring an important contribution
in terms of the disclosure of the so-called “miracle” of the Romanian language.
On another occasion, poet Ovid complained that he was forced to speak the local
language, because “. . . unus in hoc nemo est populo, qui forte Latine/, quaelibet e
medio reddere verba queat” (Wheeler 1939) (there is not a single man among these
people who perchance might express in Latin any common words whatsoever).
Ovid recognized that “hic” (here), i.e. at Tomis, he was in fact “Barbarus” (the
barbarian), “qui non intellegor ulli” (since I am not understood by nobody), “et
rident stolidi verba Latina Getae” (Wheeler 1939) (and the Getae laugh stupidly at
Latin words). But, the fact that only after 2 or 3 years, since he had been exiled at
Tomis, Ovid was already able to write poems in the local language of the Thracian
4 About “Publius Ovidius Naso” ({ 17 p. Chr. n.) and His. . .
73