Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 14.djvu/350

 332 LATIN LANGUAGE Plautus ; e.g., homoncm, cubi, eundc, &c. , the ablative d, nom. plur. in -is, &s,fundis. 3. The use of words excluded from the language of classical literature, but reappearing in the popular dialect : e.g., suppetias iri, batucre, deperc, bcllus, cxinterare, cxanclarc, nautca, savium, &c. Under this head we may place the very frequent employment of diminutives, e.g., papillarum horridularum opprcssiunculae, espe cially as terms of endearment, &quot;mcum corculum, mclculum, vcr- culu/n,&quot; passcrculum, hacdillum, mtcllum, ancticulam, moncrulam, catcllum, putellum, &c., the use of con, ad, and dc as strengthening particles, and of abstract words, especially in the plural, all marks of the plebcius sermo. 4. Syntactical constructions afterwards unusual: e.g., the accu sative after verbs ikefitngor and&amp;lt;0r; the accusative of the object after the gerundive (agitandumsL vigilias] ; the indicative in indirect questions and with cum signifying &quot;since&quot; or &quot;although&quot;; present infinitive instead of future after verbs of promising ; quia after verbs of feeling, instead of quod, quoniam= &quot; since,&quot; &quot; after&quot; ; infinitive with purpose of motion ; consulo and condone with double accusa tive ; decorus, acquus, and expers with ablative ; vercor with genitive ; similis with genitive ; quid hoc cst hominis ; faccre tucri, compcndi; faxo with a future logically dependent ; the frequent use of figura ctymoloyica, satin ut, praequam, praeut. There is a free use of verbals in -tio : quid tibi hanc curatio cst rcm aut muttitio. By a laxity common in popular language verbs of seeing, knowing, asking, &c., are followed by a direct, not an indirect, question: scire volo, quoi reddidistif Asyndeton is very frequently employed to give life and rapidity to the style: e.g. (Pseud., 168), Icpido victu, vino, un- guentis, inter pocula pulpamentis. Nseviua. In Naevius we find archaisms proportionally mucli 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 ; shorten ings do not seem so numerous. The number of archaic words preserved is perhaps due to the fact that eo large a proportion of his fragments have been preserved only by the grammarians, who cited them for the express purpose Ennius. of explaining these. 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 (poriit, 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 ; he has an inflexion Mettoeo Fufetioeo, probably intended for a dative ; the shorter form of the gen. plur. is -urn in common ; obsolete forms of pronouns are used, as mis, olli, sum ( = eum), sas, sos, sapsa ; and in verbal inflexion there are irregularities like monmur, fuimus, poteslur, contudit, &c. Some experiments in the way of tmesis (saxo cere com- minuit -bruni) and apocope (divum domus altisonum cael, replet te laetificum gau) were happily regarded as failures, and never took root in the language. His syntax is simple and straightforward, with the occasional pleonasms of a rude style, and conjunctions are comparatively rare. Pacuvins. 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 iucurvicervicum pecus. Accius. 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 Lucilius, 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 &quot;muddy&quot; diction. The urbanitas which is with one accord conceded to him by ancient critics seems to indicate that his style was regarded as free from the taint of provincial Latinity, and it may be regarded as reproducing the language of the educated circles in ordinary life ; even the numerous Grsecisms 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. I ut it may be remembered that Varro was himself something of an archaizer, and also that the grammarians quotations may bring this aspect of his language too much into pro minence. It is to be feared that the disgusting coarseness of many of his lines did not lose them favour with the circle for whom he wrote. He 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 similu ( = simul), nbenu ( = non),facul ( facile), and the genitive in -ai, and he ridicules the contemporary tragedians for their zetematia, their high-flown diction and sesqui- pedalia verba, which make the characters talk &quot; not like men but like portents, flying winged snakes.&quot; 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 beginning of the confusion of ae and e, which afterwards became universal. He shows a great command of technical language, and (partly owing to the nature of the fragments) a7ra Aeyo/xera are very numerous. The treatise of Cato De Ee Rustica would have afforded Cato. invaluable material, but it has unfortunately come down to us in a text greatly modernized. As it is, it is of interest from the point of view of literature rather than of language. We find in it instances of the accusative with uti, of the old imperative praefamino, and of the fut. subj. servassis, prohibessis ; but there is nothing which can be added to what we learn from Plautus. It is unfortunately impossible to trace the growth of Growth Latin prose diction through its several stages with the f Lat i r same clearness as in the case of poetry. The fragments of P rose&amp;gt; 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 audoritas 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. yEmilius Lepidus Porcina, in the middle of the 2d century B.C. 1 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 1 Cicero also refers to certain scripla dulcissima of the son of Scipio Africamis Major, which must have possessed some merits of style.