(a) The first represents the period of the early intercourse of Rome with the Greek states, especially with the colonies in the south of Italy and Sicily. To this stage belong many names of nations, countries and towns, asSiculi,Tarentum,Graeci,Achivi,Poenus; and also names of weights and measures, articles of industry and terms connected with navigation, asmina,talentum,purpura,patina,ancora,aplustre,nausea. Words likeamurca,scutula,pessulus,balineum,tarpessitarepresent familiarity with Greek customs and bear equally the mark of naturalization. To these may be added names of gods or heroes, likeApollo,Polluxand perhapsHercules. These all became naturalized Latin words and were modified by the phonetic changes which took place in the Latin language after they had come into it (cf. §§ 9-27supra). (b) The second stage was probably the result of the closer intercourse resulting from the conquest of southern Italy, and the wars in Sicily, and of the contemporary introduction of imitations of Greek literature into Rome, with its numerous references to Greek life and culture. It is marked by the free use of hybrid forms, whether made by the addition of Latin suffixes to Greek stems asballistārius,hēpatārius,subbasilicānus,sycophantiōsus,cōmissārīor of Greek suffixes to Latin stems asplāgipatidas,pernōnides; or by derivation, asthermopōtāre,supparasītāri; or by composition asineuschēmē,thyrsigerae,flagritribae,scrophipascī. The character of many of these words shows that the comic poets who coined them must have been able to calculate upon a fair knowledge of colloquial Greek on the part of a considerable portion of their audience. The most remarkable instance of this is supplied by the burlesque lines in Plautus (Pers.702 seq.), where Sagaristio describes himself asVaniloquidorus, Virginisvendonides,Nugipiloquides, Argentumexterebronides,Tedigniloquides, Nummosexpalponides,Quodsemelarripides, Nunquameripides.During this period Greek words are still generally inflected according to the Latin usage.(c) But with Accius (see below) begins a third stage, in which the Greek inflexion is frequently preserved,e.g.Hectora,Oresten,Cithaeron; and from this time forward the practice wavers. Cicero generally prefers the Latin case-endings, defending,e.g.,Piraeeumas againstPiraeea(ad Att.vii. 3, 7), but not without some fluctuation, while Varro takes the opposite side, and preferspoëmasinto the Ciceronianpoëmatis. By this time alsoyandzwere introduced, and the representation of the Greek aspirates byth,ph,ch, so that words newly borrowed from the Greek could be more faithfully reproduced. This is equally true whatever was the precise nature of the sound which at that period the Greek aspirates had reached in their secular process of change from pure aspirates (as in Eng.ant-hill, &c.) to fricatives (like Eng.thinthin). (See Arnold and Conway,The Restored Pronunciation of Greek and Latin, 4th ed., Cambridge, 1908, p. 21.)(d) A fourth stage is marked by the practice of the Augustan poets, who, especially when writing in imitation of Greek originals, freely use the Greek inflexions, such asArcaděs,Tethŷ,Aegida,Echūs, &c. Horace probably always used the Latin form in hisSatiresandEpistles, the Greek in his Odes. Later prose writers for the most part followed the example of hisOdes. It must be added, however, in regard to these literary borrowings that it is not quite clear whether in this fourth class, and even in the unmodified forms in the preceding class, the words had really any living use in spoken Latin.V. PronunciationThis appears the proper place for a rapid survey of the pronunciation1of the Latin language, as spoken in its best days.37.Consonants.—(i.)Back palatal.Breathed plosivec, pronounced always ask(except that in some early inscriptions—probably none much later, if at all later, than 300B.C.—the character is used also forg) until about the 7th century after Christ.Kwent out of use at an early period, except in a few old abbreviations for words in which it had stood beforea,e.g.,kal.forkalendae.Q, always followed by the consonantalu, except in a few old inscriptions, in which it is used forcbefore the vowelu,e.g.pequnia.X, an abbreviation forcs;xsis, however, sometimes found. Voiced plosiveg, pronounced as in Englishgone, but never as in Englishgembefore about the 6th century after Christ. Aspirateh, the rough breathing as in English.(ii.)Palatal.—The consonantali, like the Englishy; it is only in late inscriptions that we find, in spellings likeZanuario,Giove, any definite indication of a pronunciation like the Englishj. The precise date of the change is difficult to determine (see Lindsay’sLatin Lang.p. 49), especially as we may, in isolated cases, have before us merely a dialectic variation; seePaeligni.(iii.)Lingual.—ras in English, but probably produced more with the point of the tongue.lsimilarly more dental than in English.salways breathed (as Eng.ceinice).z, which is only found in the transcription of Greek words in and after the time of Cicero, asdzorzz.(iv.)Dental.—Breathed,tas in English. Voiced,das in English; but by the end of the 4th centurydibefore a vowel was pronounced like ourj(cf.diurnalandjournal). Nasal,nas in English; but also (like the Englishn) a guttural nasal (ng) before a guttural. Apparently it was very lightly pronounced, and easily fell away befores.(v.)Labial.—Breathed,pas in English. Voiced,bas in English; but occasionally in inscriptions of the later empirevis written forb, showing that in some casesbhad already acquired the fricative sound of the contemporary β (see § 24, iii.).bbefore a sharpswas pronouncedp,e.g.inurbs. Nasal,mas in English, but very slightly pronounced at the end of a word. Spirant,vlike theouin Frenchoui, but later approximating to thewheard in some parts of Germany, Ed. Sievers,Grundzüge d. Phonetik, ed. 4, p. 117,i.e.a labialv, not (like the Englishv) a labio-dentalv.(vi.)Labio-dental.—Breathed fricative,fas in English.38.Vowels.—ā,ū,ī, as the Englishah, oo,ee;ō, a sound coming nearer to Eng.awthan to Eng.ō;ēa close Italianē, nearly as theaof Eng.mate,éeof Fr.passée. The short sound of the vowels was not always identical in quality with the long sound.ăwas pronounced as in the Frenchchatte,ŭnearly as in Eng.pull,ĭnearly as inpit,ŏas indot,ĕnearly as inpet. The diphthongs were produced by pronouncing in rapid succession the vowels of which they were composed, according to the above scheme. This gives,ausomewhat broader thanouin house;eulikeowin the “Yankee” pronunciation oftown;aelike the vowel inhatlengthened, with perhaps somewhat more approximation to theiinwine;oe, a diphthongal sound approximating to Eng.oi;ui, as the Frenchoui.To this it should be added that the Classical Association, actingon the advice of a committee of Latin scholars, has recommended for the diphthongsaeandoethe pronunciation of Englishi(reallyai) inwineandoiinboil, sounds which they undoubtedly had in the time of Plautus and probably much later, and which for practical use in teaching have been proved far the best.
(a) The first represents the period of the early intercourse of Rome with the Greek states, especially with the colonies in the south of Italy and Sicily. To this stage belong many names of nations, countries and towns, asSiculi,Tarentum,Graeci,Achivi,Poenus; and also names of weights and measures, articles of industry and terms connected with navigation, asmina,talentum,purpura,patina,ancora,aplustre,nausea. Words likeamurca,scutula,pessulus,balineum,tarpessitarepresent familiarity with Greek customs and bear equally the mark of naturalization. To these may be added names of gods or heroes, likeApollo,Polluxand perhapsHercules. These all became naturalized Latin words and were modified by the phonetic changes which took place in the Latin language after they had come into it (cf. §§ 9-27supra). (b) The second stage was probably the result of the closer intercourse resulting from the conquest of southern Italy, and the wars in Sicily, and of the contemporary introduction of imitations of Greek literature into Rome, with its numerous references to Greek life and culture. It is marked by the free use of hybrid forms, whether made by the addition of Latin suffixes to Greek stems asballistārius,hēpatārius,subbasilicānus,sycophantiōsus,cōmissārīor of Greek suffixes to Latin stems asplāgipatidas,pernōnides; or by derivation, asthermopōtāre,supparasītāri; or by composition asineuschēmē,thyrsigerae,flagritribae,scrophipascī. The character of many of these words shows that the comic poets who coined them must have been able to calculate upon a fair knowledge of colloquial Greek on the part of a considerable portion of their audience. The most remarkable instance of this is supplied by the burlesque lines in Plautus (Pers.702 seq.), where Sagaristio describes himself as
Vaniloquidorus, Virginisvendonides,Nugipiloquides, Argentumexterebronides,Tedigniloquides, Nummosexpalponides,Quodsemelarripides, Nunquameripides.
Vaniloquidorus, Virginisvendonides,
Nugipiloquides, Argentumexterebronides,
Tedigniloquides, Nummosexpalponides,
Quodsemelarripides, Nunquameripides.
During this period Greek words are still generally inflected according to the Latin usage.
(c) But with Accius (see below) begins a third stage, in which the Greek inflexion is frequently preserved,e.g.Hectora,Oresten,Cithaeron; and from this time forward the practice wavers. Cicero generally prefers the Latin case-endings, defending,e.g.,Piraeeumas againstPiraeea(ad Att.vii. 3, 7), but not without some fluctuation, while Varro takes the opposite side, and preferspoëmasinto the Ciceronianpoëmatis. By this time alsoyandzwere introduced, and the representation of the Greek aspirates byth,ph,ch, so that words newly borrowed from the Greek could be more faithfully reproduced. This is equally true whatever was the precise nature of the sound which at that period the Greek aspirates had reached in their secular process of change from pure aspirates (as in Eng.ant-hill, &c.) to fricatives (like Eng.thinthin). (See Arnold and Conway,The Restored Pronunciation of Greek and Latin, 4th ed., Cambridge, 1908, p. 21.)
(d) A fourth stage is marked by the practice of the Augustan poets, who, especially when writing in imitation of Greek originals, freely use the Greek inflexions, such asArcaděs,Tethŷ,Aegida,Echūs, &c. Horace probably always used the Latin form in hisSatiresandEpistles, the Greek in his Odes. Later prose writers for the most part followed the example of hisOdes. It must be added, however, in regard to these literary borrowings that it is not quite clear whether in this fourth class, and even in the unmodified forms in the preceding class, the words had really any living use in spoken Latin.
V. Pronunciation
This appears the proper place for a rapid survey of the pronunciation1of the Latin language, as spoken in its best days.
37.Consonants.—(i.)Back palatal.Breathed plosivec, pronounced always ask(except that in some early inscriptions—probably none much later, if at all later, than 300B.C.—the character is used also forg) until about the 7th century after Christ.Kwent out of use at an early period, except in a few old abbreviations for words in which it had stood beforea,e.g.,kal.forkalendae.Q, always followed by the consonantalu, except in a few old inscriptions, in which it is used forcbefore the vowelu,e.g.pequnia.X, an abbreviation forcs;xsis, however, sometimes found. Voiced plosiveg, pronounced as in Englishgone, but never as in Englishgembefore about the 6th century after Christ. Aspirateh, the rough breathing as in English.
(ii.)Palatal.—The consonantali, like the Englishy; it is only in late inscriptions that we find, in spellings likeZanuario,Giove, any definite indication of a pronunciation like the Englishj. The precise date of the change is difficult to determine (see Lindsay’sLatin Lang.p. 49), especially as we may, in isolated cases, have before us merely a dialectic variation; seePaeligni.
(iii.)Lingual.—ras in English, but probably produced more with the point of the tongue.lsimilarly more dental than in English.salways breathed (as Eng.ceinice).z, which is only found in the transcription of Greek words in and after the time of Cicero, asdzorzz.
(iv.)Dental.—Breathed,tas in English. Voiced,das in English; but by the end of the 4th centurydibefore a vowel was pronounced like ourj(cf.diurnalandjournal). Nasal,nas in English; but also (like the Englishn) a guttural nasal (ng) before a guttural. Apparently it was very lightly pronounced, and easily fell away befores.
(v.)Labial.—Breathed,pas in English. Voiced,bas in English; but occasionally in inscriptions of the later empirevis written forb, showing that in some casesbhad already acquired the fricative sound of the contemporary β (see § 24, iii.).bbefore a sharpswas pronouncedp,e.g.inurbs. Nasal,mas in English, but very slightly pronounced at the end of a word. Spirant,vlike theouin Frenchoui, but later approximating to thewheard in some parts of Germany, Ed. Sievers,Grundzüge d. Phonetik, ed. 4, p. 117,i.e.a labialv, not (like the Englishv) a labio-dentalv.
(vi.)Labio-dental.—Breathed fricative,fas in English.
38.Vowels.—ā,ū,ī, as the Englishah, oo,ee;ō, a sound coming nearer to Eng.awthan to Eng.ō;ēa close Italianē, nearly as theaof Eng.mate,éeof Fr.passée. The short sound of the vowels was not always identical in quality with the long sound.ăwas pronounced as in the Frenchchatte,ŭnearly as in Eng.pull,ĭnearly as inpit,ŏas indot,ĕnearly as inpet. The diphthongs were produced by pronouncing in rapid succession the vowels of which they were composed, according to the above scheme. This gives,ausomewhat broader thanouin house;eulikeowin the “Yankee” pronunciation oftown;aelike the vowel inhatlengthened, with perhaps somewhat more approximation to theiinwine;oe, a diphthongal sound approximating to Eng.oi;ui, as the Frenchoui.
To this it should be added that the Classical Association, actingon the advice of a committee of Latin scholars, has recommended for the diphthongsaeandoethe pronunciation of Englishi(reallyai) inwineandoiinboil, sounds which they undoubtedly had in the time of Plautus and probably much later, and which for practical use in teaching have been proved far the best.
VI.The Language As Recorded
39. Passing now to a survey of the condition of the language at various epochs and in the different authors, we find the earliest monument of it yet discovered in a donative inscription on a fibula or brooch found in a tomb of the 7th centuryB.C.at Praeneste. It runs “Manios med fhefhaked Numasioi,”i.e.“Manios made me for Numasios.” The use off(fh) to denote the sound of Latinfsupplied the explanation of the change of the symbolffrom its Greek value (= Eng.w) to its Latin valuef, and shows the Chalcidian Greek alphabet in process of adaptation to the needs of Latin (seeWriting). The reduplicated perfect, its 3rd sing. ending -ed, the dative masculine in -oi(this is one of the only two recorded examples in Latin), the -s- between vowels (§ 25, 1), and the -a- in what was then (see §§ 9, 10) certainly an unaccented syllable and the accusativemed, are all interesting marks of antiquity.2
40. The next oldest fragment of continuous Latin is furnished by a vessel dug up in the valley between the Quirinal and the Viminal early in 1880. The vessel is of a dark brown clay, and consists of three small round pots, the sides of which are connected together. All round this vessel runs an inscription, in three clauses, two nearly continuous, the third written below; the writing is from right to left, and is still clearly legible; the characters include one sign not belonging to the later Latin alphabet, namelyfor R, while the M has five strokes and the Q has the form of a Koppa.
The inscription is as follows:—
“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.”
“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 300B.C.Some points in its interpretation are still open to doubt,3but the probable interpretation is—
“Deos iurat ille (oriurant illi) qui me mittat (ormittant) 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).”
“Deos iurat ille (oriurant illi) qui me mittat (ormittant) 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 theniger 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 itin situin company with F. Skutsch in 1903 (cf. his article in Vollmöller’sJahresbericht, vi. 453), and the only words that can be regarded as reasonably certain areregei(regi) on face 2,kalatoremandiouxmentaon face 3, andiouestod(iusto) on face 4.4The date may be said to be fixed by the variation of the sign formbetweenand(withforr) and other alphabetic indications which suggest the 5th centuryB.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 390B.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 theColumna Rostrata, or column of Gaius Duilius (q.v.), erected to commemorate his victory over the Carthaginians in 260B.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),dretained in the ablative (e.g.,in altod marid),oforuin inflexions (primos,exfociont=exfugiunt),efori(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 havepraedawhere we should have expectedpraida; no final consonants are dropped; and the forms -es, -eisand -isfor 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 centuryB.C.43. Of unquestionable genuineness and the greatest value are theScipionum Elogia, inscribed on stone coffins, found in the monument of the Scipios outside the Capene gate (C.I.L.1i. 32). The earliest of the family whose epitaph has been preserved is L. Cornelius Scipio Barbatus (consul 298B.C.), the latest C. Cornelius Scipio Hispanus (praetor in 139B.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 259B.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 . barbatico]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 ofoforuin the inflexion of both nouns and verbs; (2) the diphthongsoi(= lateru) andai(= laterae); (3) -etfor -it,hecforhic, and -ebusfor -ibus; (4)duon- forbon; and (5) the dropping of a finalmin every case except inLuciom, 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 theCarmen 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.1i. 28; Jordan,Krit. Beiträge, pp. 203-211).
R. S. Conway examined itin situin company with F. Skutsch in 1903 (cf. his article in Vollmöller’sJahresbericht, vi. 453), and the only words that can be regarded as reasonably certain areregei(regi) on face 2,kalatoremandiouxmentaon face 3, andiouestod(iusto) on face 4.4The date may be said to be fixed by the variation of the sign formbetweenand(withforr) and other alphabetic indications which suggest the 5th centuryB.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 390B.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 theColumna Rostrata, or column of Gaius Duilius (q.v.), erected to commemorate his victory over the Carthaginians in 260B.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),dretained in the ablative (e.g.,in altod marid),oforuin inflexions (primos,exfociont=exfugiunt),efori(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 havepraedawhere we should have expectedpraida; no final consonants are dropped; and the forms -es, -eisand -isfor 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 centuryB.C.
43. Of unquestionable genuineness and the greatest value are theScipionum Elogia, inscribed on stone coffins, found in the monument of the Scipios outside the Capene gate (C.I.L.1i. 32). The earliest of the family whose epitaph has been preserved is L. Cornelius Scipio Barbatus (consul 298B.C.), the latest C. Cornelius Scipio Hispanus (praetor in 139B.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 259B.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 . barbatico]nsol . censor . aidilis . hic . fuet a [pud vos]he]c . cepit . corsica . aleriaque . urbe[m]de]det . tempestatebus . aide . mereto[d votam].
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 ofoforuin the inflexion of both nouns and verbs; (2) the diphthongsoi(= lateru) andai(= laterae); (3) -etfor -it,hecforhic, and -ebusfor -ibus; (4)duon- forbon; and (5) the dropping of a finalmin every case except inLuciom, 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 theCarmen 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.1i. 28; Jordan,Krit. Beiträge, pp. 203-211).
45. The text of the Twelve Tables (451-450B.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 ascalvitur,pacunt,endo,escit. Later and less elaborate editions are contained inFontes 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(240-80B.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(80B.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 (43B.C.-A.D.18), Livy (59B.C.-A.D.18).
III.Classical—Silver Age(A.D.14-180).—Velleius (? 19B.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 -asand 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 seePlautus.
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 -mbecomes the rule, though not without exceptions. On the other hand he very commonly retains the original length of verbal terminations (essēt,faciēt) and of nominatives inoranda, and elides finalsbefore an initial consonant. In declension he never uses -aeas the genitive, but -aior -as; the older and shorter form of the gen. plur. is -umin common; obsolete forms of pronouns are used, asmis,olli,sum(= eum),sas,sos,sapsa; and in verbal inflexion there are old forms likemorīmur(§ 15),fūimus(§ 17, vi.),potestur(cf. § 5, iv.). Some experiments in the way of tmesis (saxocerecomminuit-brum) and apocope (divum domus altisonumcael,replet te laetificumgau) 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 -ieris 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. Theurbanitaswhich 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 thegracile genus dicendi, the distinguishing features of which werevenustasandsubtilitas. 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 likesimitu(= simul),noenu(= non),facul(= facile), and the genitive in -āī, and he ridicules the contemporary tragedians for theirzetematia, their high-flown diction andsesquipedalia 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 apraetor urbanusfor calling himselfpretor, we see already the intrusion of the rustic degradation ofaeintoe, which afterwards became universal. He shows a great command of technical language, and (partly owing to the nature of the fragments)ἅπαξ λεγόμεναare 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 withuti, of the old imperativepraefaminoand of the fut. sub.servassis,prohibessisand such interesting subjunctive constructions asdato 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 personalauctoritaswas 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 centuryB.C.6On 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 theurbanitasat 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 theurbanitasconsisted 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 booksDe 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)compositioand (3)dignitas. Under the first comeLatinitas, a due avoidance of solecisms and barbarisms, andexplanatio, 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 ofgradarius. He allows to the Greeksgratia, but claimspotentiafor 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 likequalitas,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 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 nationalgravitas. 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 theplebeius 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 Romanurbanitas, 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 treatiseDe 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 ismuch 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 calledpriscorum 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 assenati,solui,comperior(dep.),neglegisset,vis(acc. pl.)nequitur. In syntax his constructions are for the most part those of the contemporary writers.
56.Lucretiusis largely archaic in his style. We findimforeum,endoforin,illae,ullae,unaeandaliaeas genitives,alidforaliud,rabiesas a genitive by the side of genitives in -ai, ablatives in -ilikecolli,orbi,parti, nominatives insforr, likecolos,vapos,humos. In verbs there arescatit,fulgit,quaesit,confluxet=confluxisset,recesse=recessisse,induiacereforinicere; simple forms likefligere,lacere,cedere,stinguerefor the more usual compounds, the infinitive passive in -ier, and archaic forms fromesselikesiet,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 hundredἅπαξ λεγόμενα, 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 assilvifragus,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.Catullusgives 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 alsoalisandalid,uni(gen.), and the antiquatedtetuliandrecepso. There are traces of the popular language in the shortened imperativescavĕandmanĕ, in the analytic perfectparatam habes, and in the use ofunusapproaching 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 hisSatiresandEpistlesthe diction is that of the contemporaryurbanitas, differing hardly at all from that of Cicero in his epistles and dialogues. The occasional archaisms, such as the syncope inerepsemus,evasse,surrexe, the infinitives in -ier, and the genitivesdeum,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 theOdes, on the other hand, the language is much more precisely limited. There are practically no archaisms (spargierin 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 inĭorsĭnlikeTethyĭorDryasin; Greek constructions are fairly numerous,e.g.the genitive with verbs likeregnare,abstinere,desinere, and with adjectives, asinteger vitae, the so-called Greek accusative, the dative with verbs of contest, likeluctari,decertare, the transitive use of many intransitive verbs in the past participle, asregnatus,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 eightyἅπαξ λεγόμεναhave 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 likeiusso,olleoradmittiercan 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, likevenator canis, and vice versa, asplurimus volitans; a proleptic use of adjectives, astristia torquebit; idioms involvingille,atque,deinde,haud,quin,vix, and the frequent occurrence of passive verbs in their earlier reflexive sense, asinduor,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 likevia praedae omissae,oppidum Antiochiae,aequum campi; in datives likequibusdam volentibus erat; in accusatives likeiurare 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.equesforequitatus, of abstract terms such asremigium,servitia,robora, and of frequentative verbs, to say nothing of poetical phrases likehaec 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 ofante quam,post quamwith this mood, even when there is no underlying notion of anticipation, ofdonec, and ofcummeaning “whenever.” On the other hand,forsitanandquamvis, 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 hismira iucunditasandlactea 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’sIntroduction, 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 ofMedeathat 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.forsitanandquamviswith the indic., the dative of the agent with passive verbs, the ablative for the accusative of time, the infinitive after adjectives likecertus,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 thesermo plebeius. Among them may be placed the authors of theBellum Africanumand theBellum Hispanienseappended to Caesar’s Commentaries. These are not only far inferior to the exquisiteurbanitasof Caesar’s own writings; they are much rougher in style even than the less polishedBellum AlexandrinumandDe 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 theBellum Alexandrinumuses a larger number of diminutives within his short treatise than Caesar in nearly ten times the space;postquamandubiare used with the pluperfect subjunctive; there are numerous forms unknown to the best Latin, liketristimonia,exporrigere,cruciabiliterandconvulnero;potioris 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 thisplebeius sermo(Nipperdey,Quaest. Caes.pp. 13-30).