"iovesat deivos qoi med mitat, nei ted endo cosmis virco sied, asted
noisi opetoitesiai pacari vois.
dvenos med feced en manom einom duenoi ne med malo statod."
The general style of the writing and the phonetic peculiarities make it
fairly certain that this work must have been produced not later than 300
B.C. Some points in its interpretation are still open to doubt,[3] but
the probable interpretation is--
"Deos iurat ille (_or_ iurant illi) qui me mittat (_or_ mittant) ne in
te Virgo (i.e. Proserpina) comis sit, nisi quidem optimo (?) Theseae
(?) pacari vis. Duenos me fecit contra Manum, Dueno autem ne per me
malum stato (= imputetur, imponatur)."
"He (or they) who dispatch me binds the gods (by his offering) that
Proserpine shall not be kind to thee unless thou wilt make terms with
(or "for") Opetos Thesias (?). Duenos made me against Manus, but let no
evil fall to Duenos on my account."
41. Between these two inscriptions lies in point of date the famous
stele discovered in the Forum in 1899 (G. Boni, _Notiz. d. scavi_, May
1899). The upper half had been cut off in order to make way for a new
pavement or black stone blocks (known to archaeologists as the _niger
lapis_) on the site of the comitium, just to the north-east of the Forum
in front of the Senate House. The inscription was written lengthwise
along the (pyramidal) stele from foot to apex, but with the alternate
lines in reverse directions, and one line not on the full face of any
one of the four sides, but up a roughly-flattened fifth side made by
slightly broadening one of the angles. No single sentence is complete
and the mutilated fragments have given rise to a whole literature of
conjectural "restorations."
R. S. Conway examined it _in situ_ in company with F. Skutsch in 1903
(cf. his article in Vollmöller's _Jahresbericht_, vi. 453), and the
only words that can be regarded as reasonably certain are _regei_
(_regi_) on face 2, _kalatorem_ and _iouxmenta_ on face 3, and
_iouestod_ (_iusto_) on face 4.[3] The date may be said to be fixed by
the variation of the sign for _m_ between [symbol] and [symbol] (with
[symbol] for _r_) and other alphabetic indications which suggest the
5th century B.C. It has been suggested also that the reason for the
destruction of the stele and the repavement may have been either (1)
the pollution of the comitium by the Gallic invasion of 390 B.C., all
traces of which, on their departure, could be best removed by a
repaving; or (2) perhaps more probably, the Augustan restorations
(Studniczka, _Jahresheft d. Österr. Institut_, 1903, vi. 129 ff.).
(R. S. C.)
42. Of the earlier long inscriptions the most important would be the
_Columna Rostrata_, or column of Gaius Duilius (q.v.), erected to
commemorate his victory over the Carthaginians in 260 B.C., but for
the extent to which it has suffered from the hands of restorers. The
shape of the letters plainly shows that the inscription, as we have
it, was cut in the time of the empire. Hence Ritschl and Mommsen
pointed out that the language was modified at the same time, and that,
although many archaisms have been retained, some were falsely
introduced, and others replaced by more modern forms. The most
noteworthy features in it are--C always written for G (CESET =
_gessit_), single for double consonants (_clases-classes_), _d_
retained in the ablative (e.g., _in altod marid_), _o_ for _u_ in
inflexions (_primos_, _exfociont_ = _exfugiunt_), _e_ for _i_
(_navebos_ = _navibus_, _exemet_ = _exemit_); of these the first is
probably an affected archaism, G having been introduced some time
before the assumed date of the inscription. On the other hand, we have
_praeda_ where we should have expected _praida_; no final consonants
are dropped; and the forms -_es_, -_eis_ and -_is_ for the accusative
plural are interchanged capriciously. The doubts hence arising
preclude the possibility of using it with confidence as evidence for
the state of the language in the 3rd century B.C.
43. Of unquestionable genuineness and the greatest value are the
_Scipionum Elogia_, inscribed on stone coffins, found in the monument
of the Scipios outside the Capene gate (_C.I.L._[1] i. 32). The
earliest of the family whose epitaph has been preserved is L.
Cornelius Scipio Barbatus (consul 298 B.C.), the latest C. Cornelius
Scipio Hispanus (praetor in 139 B.C.); but there are good reasons for
believing with Ritschl that the epitaph of the first was not
contemporary, but was somewhat later than that of his son (consul 259
B.C.). This last may therefore be taken as the earliest specimen of
any length of Latin and it was written at Rome; it runs as follows:--
honcoino . ploirume . cosentiont . r[_omai_]
duonoro . optumo . fuise . uiro [_virorum_]
luciom . scipione . filios . barbati
_co_]nsol . censor . aidilis . hic . fuet a [_pud vos_]
_he_]c . cepit . corsica . aleriaque . urbe[_m_]
_de_]det . tempestatebus . aide . mereto[_d votam_].
The archaisms in this inscription are--(1) the retention of _o_ for
_u_ in the inflexion of both nouns and verbs; (2) the diphthongs _oi_
(= later _u_) and _ai_ (= later _ae_); (3) -_et_ for -_it_, _hec_ for
_hic_, and -_ebus_ for -_ibus_; (4) _duon_- for _bon_; and (5) the
dropping of a final _m_ in every case except in _Luciom_, a variation
which is a marked characteristic of the language of this period.
44. The oldest specimen of the Latin language preserved to us in any
literary source is to be found in two fragments of the Carmina
Saliaria (Varro, _De ling. Lat._ vii. 26, 27), and one in Terentianus
Scaurus, but they are unfortunately so corrupt as to give us little
real information (see B. Maurenbrecher, _Carminum Saliarium
reliquiae_, Leipzig, 1894; G. Hempl, _American Philol. Assoc.
Transactions_, xxxi., 1900, 184). Rather better evidence is supplied
in the _Carmen Fratrum Arvalium_, which was found in 1778 engraved on
one of the numerous tablets recording the transactions of the college
of the Arval brothers, dug up on the site of their grove by the Tiber,
5 m. from the city of Rome; but this also has been so corrupted in its
oral tradition that even its general meaning is by no means clear
(_C.I.L._^1 i. 28; Jordan, _Krit. Beiträge_, pp. 203-211).
45. The text of the Twelve Tables (451-450 B.C.), if preserved in its
integrity, would have been invaluable as a record of antique Latin; but
it is known to us only in quotations. R. Schoell, whose edition and
commentary (Leipzig, 1866) is the most complete, notes the following
traces, among others, of an archaic syntax: (1) both the subject and the
object of the verb are often left to be understood from the context,
e.g. _ni it antestamino, igitur, em capito_; (2) the imperative is used
even for permissions, "si volet, plus dato," "if he choose, he may give
him more"; (3) the subjunctive is apparently never used in conditional,
only in final sentences, but the future perfect is common; (4) the
connexion between sentences is of the simplest kind, and conjunctions
are rare. There are, of course, numerous isolated archaisms of form and
meaning, such as _calvitur_, _pacunt_, _endo_, _escit_. Later and less
elaborate editions are contained in _Fontes Iuris Romani_, by
Bruns-Mommsen-Gradenwitz (1892); and P. Girard, _Textes de droit romain_
(1895).
46. Turning now to the language of literature we may group the Latin
authors as follows:--[5]
I. _Ante-Classical_ (240-80 B.C.).--Naevius (? 269-204), Plautus
(254-184), Ennius (239-169), Cato the Elder (234-149), Terentius (?
195-159), Pacuvius (220-132), Accius (170-94), Lucilius (? 168-103).
II. _Classical--Golden Age_ (80 B.C.-A.D. 14).--Varro (116-28), Cicero
(106-44), Lucretius (99-55), Caesar (102-44), Catullus (87-? 47),
Sallust (86-34), Virgil (70-19), Horace (65-8), Propertius (? 50- ?),
Tibullus (? 54-? 18), Ovid (43 B.C.-A.D. 18), Livy (59 B.C.-A.D. 18).
III. _Classical--Silver Age_ (A.D. 14-180).--Velleius (? 19 B.C.-? A.D.
31), M. Seneca (d. c. A.D. 30), Persius (34-62), Petronius (d. 66),
Lucan (39-65), L. Seneca (d. A.D. 65), Plinius major (23-A.D. 79),
Martial (40-101), Quintilian (42-118), Pliny the Younger (61-? 113),
Tacitus (? 60-? 118), Juvenal (? 47-? 138), Suetonius (75-160), Fronto
(c. 90-170).
47. _Naevius and Plautus._--In Naevius we find archaisms proportionally
much more numerous than in Plautus, especially in the retention of the
original length of vowels, and early forms of inflexion, such as the
genitive in -_as_ and the ablative in -_d_. The number of archaic words
preserved is perhaps due to the fact that so large a proportion of his
fragments have been preserved only by the grammarians, who cited them
for the express purpose of explaining these.
Of the language of Plautus important features have already been
mentioned (§§ 10-16); for its more general characteristics see PLAUTUS.
48. _Ennius._--The language of Ennius deserves especial study because of
the immense influence which he exerted in fixing the literary style. He
first established the rule that in hexameter verse all vowels followed
by two consonants (except in the case of a mute and a liquid), or a
double consonant, must be treated as lengthened by position. The number
of varying quantities is also much diminished, and the elision of final
-_m_ becomes the rule, though not without exceptions. On the other hand
he very commonly retains the original length of verbal terminations
(_esset_, _faciet_) and of nominatives in _or_ and _a_, and elides final
_s_ before an initial consonant. In declension he never uses -_ae_ as
the genitive, but -_ai_ or -_as_; the older and shorter form of the gen.
plur. is -_um_ in common; obsolete forms of pronouns are used, as _mis_,
_olli_, _sum_ (= eum), _sas_, _sos_, _sapsa_; and in verbal inflexion
there are old forms like _morimur_ (§ 15), _fuimus_ (§ 17, vi.),
_potestur_ (cf. § 5, iv.). Some experiments in the way of tmesis (_saxo_
cere _comminuit_-brum) and apocope (_divum domus altisonum_ cael,
_replet te laetificum_ gau) were happily regarded as failures, and never
came into real use. His syntax is simple and straightforward, with the
occasional pleonasms of a rude style, and conjunctions are comparatively
rare. From this time forward the literary language of Rome parted
company with the popular dialect. Even to the classical writers Latin
was in a certain sense a dead language. Its vocabulary was not identical
with that of ordinary life. Now and again a writer would lend new vigour
to his style by phrases and constructions drawn from homely speech. But
on the whole, and in ever-increasing measure, the language of literature
was the language of the schools, adapted to foreign models. The genuine
current of Italian speech is almost lost to view with Plautus and
Terence, and reappears clearly only in the semi-barbarous products of
the early Romance literature.
49. _Pacuvius, Accius and Lucilius._--Pacuvius is noteworthy especially
for his attempt to introduce a free use of compounds after the fashion
of the Greek, which were felt in the classical times to be unsuited to
the genius of the Latin language, Quintilian censures severely his
line--
Nerei repandirostrum incurvicervicum pecus.
Accius, though probably the greatest of the Roman tragedians, is only
preserved in comparatively unimportant fragments. We know that he paid
much attention to grammar and orthography; and his language is much more
finished than that of Ennius. It shows no marked archaisms of form,
unless the infinitive in -_ier_ is to be accounted as such.
Lucilius furnishes a specimen of the language of the period, free from
the restraints of tragic diction and the imitation of Greek originals.
Unfortunately the greater part of his fragments are preserved only by a
grammarian whose text is exceptionally corrupt; but they leave no doubt
as to the justice of the criticism passed by Horace on his careless and
"muddy" diction. The _urbanitas_ which is with one accord conceded to
him by ancient critics seems to indicate that his style was free from
the taint of provincial Latinity, and it may be regarded as reproducing
the language of educated circles in ordinary life; the numerous
Graecisms and Greek quotations with which it abounds show the
familiarity of his readers with the Greek language and literature. Varro
ascribes to him the _gracile genus dicendi_, the distinguishing features
of which were _venustas_ and _subtilitas_. Hence it appears that his
numerous archaisms were regarded as in no way inconsistent with grace
and precision of diction. But it may be remembered that Varro was
himself something of an archaizer, and also that the grammarians'
quotations may bring this aspect too much into prominence. Lucilius
shares with the comic poets the use of many plebeian expressions, the
love for diminutives, abstract terms and words of abuse; but
occasionally he borrows from the more elevated style of Ennius forms
like _simitu_ (= simul), _noenu_ (= non), _facul_ (= facile), and the
genitive in -_ai_, and he ridicules the contemporary tragedians for
their _zetematia_, their high-flown diction and _sesquipedalia verba_,
which make the characters talk "not like men but like portents, flying
winged snakes." In his ninth book he discusses questions of grammar, and
gives some interesting facts as to the tendencies of the language. For
instance, when he ridicules a _praetor urbanus_ for calling himself
_pretor_, we see already the intrusion of the rustic degradation of _ae_
into _e_, which afterwards became universal. He shows a great command of
technical language, and (partly owing to the nature of the fragments)
[Greek: hapax legomena] are very numerous.
50. _Cato._--The treatise of Cato the elder, _De re rustica_, would have
afforded invaluable material, but it has unfortunately come down to us
in a text greatly modernized, which is more of interest from the point
of view of literature than of language. We find in it, however,
instances of the accusative with _uti_, of the old imperative
_praefamino_ and of the fut. sub. _servassis_, _prohibessis_ and such
interesting subjunctive constructions as _dato bubus bibant omnibus_,
"give all the oxen (water) to drink."
51. _Growth of Latin Prose._--It is unfortunately impossible to trace
the growth of Latin prose diction through its several stages with the
same clearness as in the case of poetry. The fragments of the earlier
Latin prose writers are too scanty for us to be able to say with
certainty when and how a formed prose style was created. But the impulse
to it was undoubtedly given in the habitual practice of oratory. The
earliest orators, like Cato, were distinguished for strong common sense,
biting wit and vigorous language, rather than for any graces of style;
and probably personal _auctoritas_ was of far more account than rhetoric
both in the law courts and in the assemblies of the people. The first
public speaker, according to Cicero, who aimed at a polished style and
elaborate periods was M. Aemilius Lepidus Porcina, in the middle of the
2nd century B.C.[6] On his model the Gracchi and Carbo fashioned
themselves, and, if we may judge from the fragments of the orations of
C. Gracchus which are preserved, there were few traces of archaism
remaining. A more perfect example of the _urbanitas_ at which good
speakers aimed was supplied by a famous speech of C. Fannius against C.
Gracchus, which Cicero considered the best oration of the time. No
small part of the _urbanitas_ consisted in a correct urban
pronunciation; and the standard of this was found in the language of the
women of the upper classes, such as Laelia and Cornelia.
In the earliest continuous prose work which remains to us the four books
_De Rhetorica ad Herennium_, we find the language already almost
indistinguishable from that of Cicero. There has been much discussion as
to the authorship of this work, now commonly, without very convincing
reasons, ascribed to Q. Cornificius; but, among the numerous arguments
which prove that it cannot have been the work of Cicero, none has been
adduced of any importance drawn from the character of the language. It
is worth while noticing that not only is the style in itself perfectly
finished, but the treatment of the subject of style, _elocutio_ (iv. 12.
17), shows the pains which had already been given to the question. The
writer lays down three chief requisites--(1) _elegantia_, (2)
_compositio_ and (3) _dignitas_. Under the first come _Latinitas_, a due
avoidance of solecisms and barbarisms, and _explanatio_, clearness, the
employment of familiar and appropriate expressions. The second demands a
proper arrangement; hiatus, alliteration, rhyme, the repetition or
displacement of words, and too long sentences are all to be eschewed.
Dignity depends upon the selection of language and of sentiments.
52. _Characteristics of Latin Prose._--Hence we see that by the time of
Cicero Latin prose was fully developed. We may, therefore, pause here to
notice the characteristic qualities of the language at its most perfect
stage. The Latin critics were themselves fully conscious of the broad
distinction in character between their own language and the Greek.
Seneca dwells upon the stately and dignified movement of the Latin
period, and uses for Cicero the happy epithet of _gradarius_. He allows
to the Greeks _gratia_, but claims _potentia_ for his own countrymen.
Quintilian (xii. 10. 27 seq.) concedes to Greek more euphony and variety
both of vocalization and of accent; he admits that Latin words are
harsher in sound, and often less happily adapted to the expression of
varying shades of meaning. But he too claims "power" as the
distinguishing mark of his own language. Feeble thought may be carried
off by the exquisite harmony and subtleness of Greek diction; his
countrymen must aim at fulness and weight of ideas if they are not to be
beaten off the field. The Greek authors are like lightly moving skiffs;
the Romans spread wider sails and are wafted by stronger breezes; hence
the deeper waters suit them. It is not that the Latin language fails to
respond to the calls made upon it. Lucretius and Cicero concur, it is
true, in complaints of the poverty of their native language; but this
was only because they had had no predecessors in the task of adapting it
to philosophic utterance; and the long life of Latin technical terms
like _qualitas_, _species_, _genus_, _ratio_, shows how well the need
was met when it arose. H. A. J. Munro has said admirably of this very
period:--
"The living Latin for all the higher forms of composition, both prose
and verse, was a far nobler language than the living Greek. During the
long period of Grecian pre-eminence and literary glory, from Homer to
Demosthenes, all the manifold forms of poetry and prose which were
invented one after the other were brought to such exquisite perfection
that their beauty of form and grace of language were never afterwards
rivalled by Latin or any other people. But hardly had Demosthenes and
Aristotle ceased to live when that Attic which had been gradually
formed into such a noble instrument of thought in the hands of
Aristophanes, Euripides, Plato and the orators, and had superseded for
general use all the other dialects, became at the same time the
language of the civilized world and was stricken with a mortal
decay.... Epicurus, who was born in the same year as Menander, writes
a harsh jargon that does not deserve to be called a style; and others
of whose writings anything is left entire or in fragments, historians
and philosophers alike, Polybius, Chrysippus, Philodemus, are little
if any better. When Cicero deigns to translate any of their sentences,
see what grace and life he instils into their clumsily expressed
thoughts, how satisfying to the ear and taste are the periods of Livy
when he is putting into Latin the heavy and uncouth clauses of
Polybius! This may explain what Cicero means when at one time he gives
to Greek the preference over Latin, at another to Latin over Greek; in
reading Sophocles or Plato he could acknowledge their unrivalled
excellence; in translating Panaetius or Philodemus he would feel his
own immeasurable superiority."
The greater number of long syllables, combined with the paucity of
diphthongs and the consequent monotony of vocalization, and the
uniformity of the accent, lent a weight and dignity of movement to the
language which well suited the national _gravitas_. The precision of
grammatical rules and the entire absence of dialectic forms from the
written literature contributed to maintain the character of unity which
marked the Roman republic as compared with the multiplicity of Greek
states. It was remarked by Francis Bacon that artistic and imaginative
nations indulge freely in verbal compounds, practical nations in simple
concrete terms. In this respect, too, Latin contrasts with Greek. The
attempts made by some of the earlier poets to indulge in novel compounds
was felt to be out of harmony with the genius of the language.
Composition, though necessarily employed, was kept within narrow limits,
and the words thus produced have a sharply defined meaning, wholly
unlike the poetical vagueness of some of the Greek compounds. The
vocabulary of the language, though receiving accessions from time to
time in accordance with practical needs, was rarely enriched by the
products of a spontaneous creativeness. In literature the taste of the
educated town circles gave the law; and these, trained in the study of
the Greek masters of style, required something which should reproduce
for them the harmony of the Greek period. Happily the orators who gave
form to Latin prose were able to meet the demand without departing from
the spirit of their own language.[7]
53. _Cicero and Caesar._--To Cicero especially the Romans owed the
realization of what was possible to their language in the way of
artistic finish of style. He represents a protest at one and the same
time against the inroads of the _plebeius sermo_, vulgarized by the
constant influx of non-Italian provincials into Rome, and the "jargon of
spurious and partial culture" in vogue among the Roman pupils of the
Asiatic rhetoricians. His essential service was to have caught the tone
and style of the true Roman _urbanitas_, and to have fixed it in
extensive and widely read speeches and treatises as the final model of
classical prose. The influence of Caesar was wholly in the same
direction. His cardinal principle was that every new-fangled and
affected expression, from whatever quarter it might come, should be
avoided by the writer, as rocks by the mariner. His own style for
straightforward simplicity and purity has never been surpassed; and it
is not without full reason that Cicero and Caesar are regarded as the
models of classical prose. But, while they fixed the type of the best
Latin, they did not and could not alter its essential character. In
subtlety, in suggestiveness, in many-sided grace and versatility, it
remained far inferior to the Greek. But for dignity and force, for
cadence and rhythm, for clearness and precision, the best Latin prose
remains unrivalled.
It is needless to dwell upon the grammar or vocabulary of Cicero. His
language is universally taken as the normal type of Latin; and, as
hitherto the history of the language has been traced by marking
differences from his usage, so the same method may be followed for what
remains.
54. _Varro_, "the most learned of the ancients," a friend and
contemporary of Cicero, seems to have rejected the periodic rhythmical
style of Cicero, and to have fallen back upon a more archaic structure.
Mommsen says of one passage "the clauses of the sentence are arranged on
the thread of the relative like dead thrushes on a string." But, in
spite (some would say, because) of his old-fashioned tendencies, his
language shows great vigour and spirit. In his Menippean satires he
intentionally made free use of plebeian expressions, while rising at
times to a real grace and showing often fresh humour. His treatise _De
Re Rustica_, in the form of a dialogue, is the most agreeable of his
works, and where the nature of his subject allows it there is much
vivacity and dramatic picturesqueness, although the precepts are
necessarily given in a terse and abrupt form. His sentences are as a
rule co-ordinated, with but few connecting links; his diction contains
many antiquated or unique words.
55. _Sallust._--In Sallust, a younger contemporary of Cicero, we have
the earliest complete specimen of historical narrative. It is probably
due to his subject-matter, at least in part, that his style is marked by
frequent archaisms; but something must be ascribed to intentional
imitation of the earlier chroniclers, which led him to be called
_priscorum Catonisque verborum ineruditissimus fur_. His archaisms
consist partly of words and phrases used in a sense for which we have
only early authorities, e.g. _cum animo habere_, &c., _animos tollere_,
_bene factum_, _consultor_, _prosapia_, _dolus_, _venenum_, _obsequela_,
_inquies_, _sallere_, _occipere_, _collibeo_, and the like, where we may
notice especially the fondness for frequentatives, which he shares with
the early comedy; partly in inflections which were growing obsolete,
such as _senati_, _solui_, _comperior_ (dep.), _neglegisset_, _vis_
(acc. pl.) _nequitur_. In syntax his constructions are for the most part
those of the contemporary writers.
56. _Lucretius_ is largely archaic in his style. We find _im_ for _eum_,
_endo_ for _in_, _illae_, _ullae_, _unae_ and _aliae_ as genitives,
_alid_ for _aliud_, _rabies_ as a genitive by the side of genitives in
-_ai_, ablatives in -_i_ like _colli_, _orbi_, _parti_, nominatives in
_s_ for _r_, like _colos_, _vapos_, _humos_. In verbs there are
_scatit_, _fulgit_, _quaesit_, _confluxet_ = _confluxisset_, _recesse_ =
_recessisse_, _induiacere_ for _inicere_; simple forms like _fligere_,
_lacere_, _cedere_, _stinguere_ for the more usual compounds, the
infinitive passive in -_ier_, and archaic forms from _esse_ like _siet_,
_escit_, _fuat_. Sometimes he indulges in tmesis which reminds us of
Ennius: _inque pediri_, _disque supata_, _ordia prima_. But this archaic
tinge is adopted only for poetical purposes, and as a proof of his
devotion to the earlier masters of his art; it does not affect the
general substance of his style, which is of the freshest and most
vigorous stamp. But the purity of his idiom is not gained by any slavish
adherence to a recognized vocabulary: he coins words freely; Munro has
noted more than a hundred [Greek: hapax legomena], or words which he
alone among good writers uses. Many of these are formed on familiar
models, such as compounds and frequentatives; others are directly
borrowed from the Greek apparently with a view to sweetness of rhythm
(ii. 412, v. 334, 505); others again (forty or more in number) are
compounds of a kind which the classical language refused to adopt, such
as _silvifragus_, _terriloquus_, _perterricrepus_. He represents not so
much a stage in the history of the language as a protest against the
tendencies fashionable in his own time. But his influence was deep upon
Virgil, and through him upon all subsequent Latin literature.
57. _Catullus_ gives us the type of the language of the cultivated
circles, lifted into poetry by the simple directness with which it is
used to express emotion. In his heroic and elegiac poems he did not
escape the influence of the Alexandrian school, and his genius is ill
suited for long-continued flights; but in his lyrical poems his language
is altogether perfect. As Macaulay says: "No Latin writer is so Greek.
The simplicity, the pathos, the perfect grace, which I find in the great
Athenian models are all in Catullus, and in him alone of the Romans."
The language of these poems comes nearest perhaps to that of Cicero's
more intimate letters. It is full of colloquial idioms and familiar
language, of the diminutives of affection or of playfulness. Greek words
are rare, especially in the lyrics, and those which are employed are
only such as had come to be current coin. Archaisms are but sparingly
introduced; but for metrical reasons he has four instances of the inf.
pass., in -_ier_, and several contracted forms; we find also _alis_ and
_alid_, _uni_ (gen.), and the antiquated _tetuli_ and _recepso_. There
are traces of the popular language in the shortened imperatives _cave_
and _mane_, in the analytic perfect _paratam habes_, and in the use of
_unus_ approaching that of the indefinite article.
58. _Horace._--The poets of the Augustan age mark the opening of a new
chapter in the history of the Latin language. The influence of Horace
was less than that of his friend and contemporary Virgil; for Horace
worked in a field of his own, and, although Statius imitated his
lyrics, and Persius and Juvenal, especially the former, his satires, on
the whole there are few traces of any deep marks left by him on the
language of later writers. In his _Satires_ and _Epistles_ the diction
is that of the contemporary _urbanitas_, differing hardly at all from
that of Cicero in his epistles and dialogues. The occasional archaisms,
such as the syncope in _erepsemus_, _evasse_, _surrexe_, the infinitives
in -ier, and the genitives _deum_, _divum_, may be explained as still
conversationally allowable, though ceasing to be current in literature;
and a similar explanation may account for plebeian terms, e.g.
_balatro_, _blatero_, _giarrio_, _mutto_, _vappa_, _caldus_, _soldus_,
_surpite_, for the numerous diminutives, and for such pronouns, adverbs,
conjunctions and turns of expression as were common in prose, but not
found, or found but rarely, in elevated poetry. Greek words are used
sparingly, not with the licence which he censures in Lucilius, and in
his hexameters are framed according to Latin rules. In the _Odes_, on
the other hand, the language is much more precisely limited. There are
practically no archaisms (_spargier_ in Carm. iv. 11. 8 is a doubtful
exception), or plebeian expressions; Greek inflections are employed, but
not with the licence of Catullus; there are no datives in _i_ or _sin_
like _Tethyi_ or _Dryasin_; Greek constructions are fairly numerous,
e.g. the genitive with verbs like _regnare_, _abstinere_, _desinere_,
and with adjectives, as _integer vitae_, the so-called Greek accusative,
the dative with verbs of contest, like _luctari_, _decertare_, the
transitive use of many intransitive verbs in the past participle, as
_regnatus_, _triumphatus_; and finally there is a "prolative" use of the
infinitive after verbs and adjectives, where prose would have employed
other constructions, which, though not limited to Horace, is more common
with him than with other poets. Compounds are very sparingly employed,
and apparently only when sanctioned by authority. His own innovations in
vocabulary are not numerous. About eighty [Greek: hapax legomena] have
been noted. Like Virgil, he shows his exquisite skill in the use of
language rather in the selection from already existing stores, than in
the creation of new resources: _tantum series iuncturaque pollet_. But
both his diction and his syntax left much less marked traces upon
succeeding writers than did those of either Virgil or Ovid.
59. _Virgil._--In Virgil the Latin language reached its full maturity.
What Cicero was to the period, Virgil was to the hexameter; indeed the
changes that he wrought were still more marked, inasmuch as the language
of verse admits of greater subtlety and finish than even the most
artistic prose. For the straightforward idiomatic simplicity of
Lucretius and Catullus he substituted a most exact and felicitous
diction, rich with the suggestion of the most varied sources of
inspiration. Sometimes it is a phrase of Homer's "conveyed" literally
with happy boldness, sometimes it is a line of Ennius, or again some
artistic Sophoclean combination. Virgil was equally familiar with the
great Greek models of style and with the earlier Latin poets. This
learning, guided by an unerring sense of fitness and harmony, enabled
him to give to his diction a music which recalls at once the fullest
tones of the Greek lyre and the lofty strains of the most genuinely
national song. His love of antiquarianism in language has often been
noticed, but it never passes into pedantry. His vocabulary and
constructions are often such as would have conveyed to his
contemporaries a grateful flavour of the past, but they would never have
been unintelligible. Forms like _iusso_, _olle_ or _admittier_ can have
delayed no one.
In the details of syntax it is difficult to notice any peculiarly
Virgilian points, for the reason that his language, like that of Cicero,
became the canon, departures from which were accounted irregularities.
But we may notice as favourite constructions a free use of oblique cases
in the place of the more definite construction with prepositions usual
in prose, e.g. _it clamor caelo_, _flet noctem_, _rivis currentia vina_,
_bacchatam iugis Naxon_, and many similar phrases; the employment of
some substantives as adjectives, like _venator canis_, and vice versa,
as _plurimus volitans_; a proleptic use of adjectives, as _tristia
torquebit_; idioms involving _ille_, _atque_, _deinde_, _haud_, _quin_,
_vix_, and the frequent occurrence of passive verbs in their earlier
reflexive sense, as _induor_, _velor_, _pascor_.
60. _Livy._--In the singularly varied and beautiful style of Livy we
find Latin prose in rich maturity. To a training in the rhetorical
schools, and perhaps professional experience as a teacher of rhetoric,
he added a thorough familiarity with contemporary poetry and with the
Greek language; and these attainments have all deeply coloured his
language. It is probable that the variety of style naturally suggested
by the wide range of his subject matter was increased by a
half-unconscious adoption of the phrases and constructions of the
different authorities whom he followed in different parts of his work;
and the industry of German critics has gone far to demonstrate a
conclusion likely enough in itself. Hence perhaps comes the fairly long
list of archaisms, especially in formulae (cf. Kühnast, _Liv. Synt._ pp.
14-18). These are, however, purely isolated phenomena, which do not
affect the general tone. It is different with the poetical constructions
and Graecisms, which appear on every page. Of the latter we find
numerous instances in the use of the cases, e.g. in genitives like _via
praedae omissae_, _oppidum Antiochiae_, _aequum campi_; in datives like
_quibusdam volentibus erat_; in accusatives like _iurare calumniam_,
_certare multam_; an especially frequent use of transitive verbs
absolutely; and the constant omission of the reflexive pronoun as the
subject of an infinitive in reported speech. To the same source must be
assigned the very frequent pregnant construction with prepositions, an
attraction of relatives, and the great extension of the employment of
relative adverbs of place instead of relative pronouns, e.g. _quo_ = _in
quem_. Among his poetical characteristics we may place the extensive
list of words which are found for the first time in his works and in
those of Virgil or Ovid, and perhaps his common use of concrete words
for collective, e.g. _eques_ for _equitatus_, of abstract terms such as
_remigium_, _servitia_, _robora_, and of frequentative verbs, to say
nothing of poetical phrases like _haec ubi dicta dedit, adversum
montium_, &c. Indications of the extended use of the subjunctive, which
he shares with contemporary writers, especially poets, are found in the
construction of _ante quam_, _post quam_ with this mood, even when there
is no underlying notion of anticipation, of _donec_, and of _cum_
meaning "whenever." On the other hand, _forsitan_ and _quamvis_, as in
the poets, are used with the indicative in forgetfulness of their
original force. Among his individual peculiarities may be noticed the
large number of verbal nouns in -_tus_ (for which Cicero prefers forms
in -_tio_) and in -_tor_, and the extensive use of the past passive
participle to replace an abstract substantive, e.g. _ex dictatorio
imperio concusso_. In the arrangement of words Livy is much more free
than any previous prose writer, aiming, like the poets, at the most
effective order. His periods are constructed with less regularity than
those of Cicero, but they gain at least as much in variety and energy as
they lose in uniformity of rhythm and artistic finish. His style cannot
be more fitly described than in the language of Quintilian, who speaks
of his _mira iucunditas_ and _lactea ubertas_.
61. _Propertius._--The language of Propertius is too distinctly his own
to call for detailed examination here. It cannot be taken as a specimen
of the great current of the Latin language; it is rather a tributary
springing from a source apart, tinging to some slight extent the stream
into which it pours itself, but soon ceasing to affect it in any
perceptible fashion. "His obscurity, his indirectness and his
incoherence" (to adopt the words of J. P. Postgate) were too much out of
harmony with the Latin taste for him to be regarded as in any sense
representative; sometimes he seems to be hardly writing Latin at all.
Partly from his own strikingly independent genius, partly from his
profound and not always judicious study of the Alexandrian writers, his
poems abound in phrases and constructions which are without a parallel
in Latin poetry. His archaisms and Graecisms, both in diction and in
syntax, are very numerous; but frequently there is a freedom in the use
of cases and prepositions which can only be due to bold and independent
innovations. His style well deserves a careful study for its own sake
(cf. J. P. Postgate's _Introduction_, pp. lvii.-cxxv.); but it is of
comparatively little significance in the history of the language.
62. _Ovid._--The brief and few poems of Tibullus supply only what is
given much more fully in the works of Ovid. In these we have the
language recognized as that best fitted for poetry by the fashionable
circles in the later years of Augustus. The style of Ovid bears many
traces of the imitation of Virgil, Horace and Propertius, but it is not
less deeply affected by the rhetoric of the schools. His never-failing
fertility of fancy and command of diction often lead him into a
diffuseness which mars the effect of his best works; according to
Quintilian it was only in his (lost) tragedy of _Medea_ that he showed
what real excellence he might have reached if he had chosen to control
his natural powers. His influence on later poets was largely for evil;
if he taught them smoothness of versification and polish of language, he
also co-operated powerfully with the practice of recitation to lead them
to aim at rhetorical point and striking turns of expression, instead of
a firm grasp of a subject as a whole, and due subordination of the
several parts to the general impression. Ovid's own influence on
language was not great; he took the diction of poetry as he found it,
formed by the labours of his predecessors; the conflict between the
archaistic and the Graecizing schools was already settled in favour of
the latter; and all that he did was to accept the generally accepted
models as supplying the material in moulding which his luxuriant fancy
could have free play. He has no deviations from classical syntax but
those which were coming into fashion in his time (e.g. _forsitan_ and
_quamvis_ with the indic., the dative of the agent with passive verbs,
the ablative for the accusative of time, the infinitive after adjectives
like _certus_, _aptus_, &c.), and but few peculiarities in his
vocabulary. It is only in the letters from the Pontus that laxities of
construction are detected, which show that the purity of his Latin was
impaired by his residence away from Rome, and perhaps by increasing
carelessness of composition.
63. _The Latin of Daily Life._--While the leading writers of the
Ciceronian and Augustan eras enable us to trace the gradual development
of the Latin language to its utmost finish as an instrument of literary
expression, there are some less important authors who supply valuable
evidence of the character of the _sermo plebeius_. Among them may be
placed the authors of the _Bellum Africanum_ and the _Bellum
Hispaniense_ appended to Caesar's Commentaries. These are not only far
inferior to the exquisite _urbanitas_ of Caesar's own writings; they are
much rougher in style even than the less polished _Bellum Alexandrinum_
and _De Bello Gallico Liber VIII._, which are now with justice ascribed
to Hirtius. There is sufficient difference between the two to justify us
in assuming two different authors; but both freely employ words and
constructions which are at once antiquated and vulgar. The writer of the
_Bellum Alexandrinum_ uses a larger number of diminutives within his
short treatise than Caesar in nearly ten times the space; _postquam_ and
_ubi_ are used with the pluperfect subjunctive; there are numerous forms
unknown to the best Latin, like _tristimonia_, _exporrigere_,
_cruciabiliter_ and _convulnero_; _potior_ is followed by the
accusative, a simple relative by the subjunctive. There is also a very
common use of the pluperfect for the imperfect, which seems a mark of
this _plebeius sermo_ (Nipperdey, _Quaest. Caes._ pp. 13-30).
Another example of what we may call the Latin of business life is
supplied by Vitruvius. Besides the obscurity of many of his technical
expressions, there is a roughness and looseness in his language, far
removed from a literary style; he shares the incorrect use of the
pluperfect, and uses plebeian forms like _calefaciuntur_, _faciliter_,
_expertiones_ and such careless phrases as _rogavit Archimedem uti in
se sumeret sibi de eo cogitationem_. At a somewhat later stage we
have, not merely plebeian, but also provincial Latin represented in
the Satyricon of Petronius. The narrative and the poems which are
introduced into it are written in a style distinguished only by the
ordinary peculiarities of silver Latinity; but in the numerous
conversations the distinctions of language appropriate to the various
speakers are accurately preserved; and we have in the talk of the
slaves and provincials a perfect storehouse of words and constructions
of the greatest linguistic value. Among the unclassical forms and
constructions may be noticed masculines like _fatus_, _vinus_,
_balneus_, _fericulus_ and _lactem_ (for _lac_), _striga_ for _strix_,
_gaudimonium_ and _tristimonium_, _sanguen_, _manducare_, _nutricare_,
_molestare_, _nesapius_ (_sapius_ = Fr. _sage_), _rostrum_ (= _os_),
_ipsimus_ (= master), _scordalias_, _baro_, and numerous diminutives
like _camella_, _audaculus_, _potiuncula_, _savunculum_, _offla_,
_peduclus_, _corcillum_, with constructions such as _maledicere_ and
_persuadere_ with the accusative, and _adiutare_ with the dative, and
the deponent forms _pudeatur_ and _ridetur_. Of especial interest for
the Romance languages are _astrum_ (_désastre_), _berbex_ (_brébis_),
_botellus_ (_boyau_), _improperare_, _muttus_, _naufragare_.
Suetonius (_Aug._ c. 87) gives an interesting selection of plebeian
words employed in conversation by Augustus, who for the rest was
something of a purist in his written utterances: _ponit assidue et pro
stulto baceolum, et pro pullo pulleiaceum, et pro cerrito vacerrosum,
et vapide se habere pro male, et betizare pro languere, quod vulgo
lachanizare dicitur_.
The inscriptions, especially those of Pompeii, supply abundant
evidence of the corruptions both of forms and of pronunciation common
among the vulgar. It is not easy always to determine whether a
mutilated form is evidence of a letter omitted in pronunciation, or
only in writing; but it is clear that the ordinary man habitually
dropped final _m_, _s_, and _t_, omitted _n_ before _s_, and
pronounced _i_ like _e_. There are already signs of the decay of _ae_
to _e_, which later on became almost universal. The additions to our
vocabulary are slight and unimportant (cf. _Corpus Inscr._ Lat. iv.,
with Zangemeister's _Indices_).
64. To turn to the language of literature. In the dark days of Tiberius
and the two succeeding emperors a paralysis seemed to have come upon
prose and poetry alike. With the one exception of oratory, literature
had long been the utterance of a narrow circle, not the expression of
the energies of national life; and now, while all free speech in the
popular assemblies was silenced, the nobles were living under a
suspicious despotism, which, whatever the advantage which it brought to
the poorer classes and to the provincials, was to them a reign of
terror. It is no wonder that the fifty years after the accession of
Tiberius are a blank as regards all higher literature. Velleius
Paterculus, Valerius Maximus, Celsus and Phaedrus give specimens of the
Latin of the time, but the style of no one of these, classical for the
most part in vocabulary, but occasionally approaching the later usages
in syntax, calls for special analysis. The elder Seneca in his
collection of _suasoriae_ and _controversiae_ supplies examples of the
barren quibblings by which the young Romans were trained in the
rhetorical schools. A course of instruction, which may have been of
service when its end was efficiency in active public life, though even
then not without its serious drawbacks, as is shown by Cicero in his
treatise _De Oratore_, became seriously injurious when its object was
merely idle display. Prose came to be overloaded with ornament, and
borrowed too often the language, though not the genius, of poetry; while
poetry in its turn, partly owing to the fashion of recitation, became a
string of rhetorical points.
65. _Seneca, Persius and Lucan._--In the writers of Nero's age there are
already plain indications of the evil effects of the rhetorical schools
upon language as well as literature. The leading man of letters was
undoubtedly Seneca the younger, "the Ovid of prose"; and his style set
the model which it became the fashion to imitate. But it could not
commend itself to the judgment of sound critics like Quintilian, who
held firmly to the great masters of an earlier time. He admits its
brilliance, and the fertility of its pointed reflections, but charges
the author justly with want of self-restraint, jerkiness, frequent
repetitions and tawdry tricks of rhetoric. Seneca was the worst of
models, and pleased by his very faults. In his tragedies the rhetorical
elaboration of the style only serves to bring into prominence the
frigidity and frequent bad taste of the matter. But his diction is on
the whole fairly classical; he is, in the words of Muretus, _vetusti
sermonis diligentior quam quidam inepte fastidiosi suspicantur_. In
Persius there is a constant straining after rhetorical effect, which
fills his verses with harsh and obscure expressions. The careful choice
of diction by which his master Horace makes every word tell is
exaggerated into an endeavour to gain force and freshness by the most
contorted phrases. The sin of allusiveness is fostered by the fashion of
the day for epigram, till his lines are barely intelligible after
repeated reading. Conington happily suggested that this style was
assumed only for satiric purposes, and pointed out that when not writing
satire Persius was as simple and unaffected as Horace himself. This
view, while it relieves Persius of much of the censure which has been
directed against his want of judgment, makes him all the more typical a
representative of this stage of silver Latinity. In his contemporary
Lucan we have another example of the faults of a style especially
attractive to the young, handled by a youth of brilliant but
ill-disciplined powers. The _Pharsalia_ abounds in spirited rhetoric, in
striking epigram, in high sounding declamation; but there are no flights
of sustained imagination, no ripe wisdom, no self-control in avoiding
the exaggerated or the repulsive, no mature philosophy of life or human
destiny. Of all the Latin poets he is the least Virgilian. It has been
said of him that he corrupted the style of poetry, not less than Seneca
that of prose.
66. _Pliny_, _Quintilian_, _Frontinus._--In the elder Pliny the same
tendencies are seen occasionally breaking out in the midst of the
prosaic and inartistic form in which he gives out the stores of his
cumbrous erudition. Wherever he attempts a loftier tone than that of the
mere compiler, he falls into the tricks of Seneca. The nature of his
encyclopaedic subject matter naturally makes his vocabulary very
extensive; but in syntax and general tone of language he does not differ
materially from contemporary writers. Quintilian is of interest
especially for the sound judgment which led him to a true appreciation
of the writers of Rome's golden age. He set himself strenuously to
resist the tawdry rhetoric fashionable in his own time, and to hold up
before his pupils purer and loftier models. His own criticisms are
marked by excellent taste, and often by great happiness of expression,
which is pointed without being unduly epigrammatic. But his own style
did not escape, as indeed it hardly could, the influences of his time;
and in many small points his language falls short of classical purity.
There is more approach to the simplicity of the best models in
Frontinus, who furnishes a striking proof that it was rather the
corruption of literary taste than any serious change in the language of
ordinary cultivated men to which the prevalent style was due. Writing on
practical matters--the art of war and the water-supply of Rome--he goes
straight to the point without rhetorical flourishes; and the ornaments
of style which he occasionally introduces serve to embellish but not to
distort his thought.
67. _The Flavian Age._--The epic poets of the Flavian age present a
striking contrast to the writers of the Claudian period. As a strained
originality was the cardinal fault of the one school, so a tame and
slavish following of authority is the mark of the other. The general
_correctness_ of this period may perhaps be ascribed (with Merivale)
partly to the political conditions, partly to the establishment of
professional schools. Teachers like Quintilian must have done much to
repress extravagance of thought and language; but they could not kindle
the spark of genius. Valerius Flaccus, Silius Italicus and Papinius
Statius are all correct in diction and in rhythm, and abound in
learning; but their inspiration is drawn from books and not from nature
or the heart; details are elaborated to the injury of the impression of
the whole; every line is laboured, and overcharged with epigrammatic
rhetoric. Statius shows by far the greatest natural ability and
freshness; but he attempts to fill a broad canvas with drawing and
colouring suited only to a miniature. Juvenal exemplifies the tendencies
of the language of his time, as moulded by a singularly powerful mind. A
careful study of the earlier poets, especially Virgil and Lucan, has
kept his language up to a high standard of purity. His style is
eminently rhetorical; but it is rhetoric of real power. The concise
brevity by which it is marked seems to have been the result of a
deliberate attempt to mould his natural diffuseness into the form
recognized as most appropriate for satire. In his verses we notice a few
metrical peculiarities which represent the pronunciation of his age,
especially the shortening of the final -_o_ in verbs, but as a rule they
conform to the Virgilian standard. In Martial the tendency of this
period to witty epigram finds its most perfect embodiment, combined with
finished versification.
68. _Pliny the Younger and Tacitus._--The typical prose-writers of this
time are Pliny the younger and Tacitus. Some features of the style of
Tacitus are peculiar to himself; but on the whole the following
statement represents the tendencies shared in greater or less degree by
all the writers of this period. The gains lie mainly in the direction of
a more varied and occasionally more effective syntax; its most striking
defect is a lack of harmony in the periods, of arrangements in words, of
variety in particles arising from the loose connexion of sentences. The
vocabulary is extended, but there are losses as well as gains.
Quintilian's remarks are fully borne out by the evidence of extant
authorities: on the one hand, _quid quod nihil iam proprium placet, dum
parum creditur disertum, quod et alius dixisset_ (viii. _prooem._ 24);
_a corruptissimo quoque poetarum figuras seu translationes mutuamur; tum
demum ingeniosi scilicet, si ad intelligendos nos opus sit ingenio_ (ib.
25); _sordet omne quod natura dictavit_ (ib. 26); on the other hand,
_nunc utique, cum haec exercitatio procul a veritate seiuncta laboret
incredibili verborum fastidio, ac sibi magnam partem sermonis
absciderit_ (viii. 3, 23), _multa cotidie ab antiquis ficta moriuntur_
(ib. 6, 32). A writer like Suetonius therefore did good service in
introducing into his writings terms and phrases borrowed, not from the
rhetoricians, but from the usage of daily life.