Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 14.djvu/356

 338 LATIN LANGUAGE part new formations or compounds from stems already in use, especially verbal substantives in -tor and -sor, -tus and -sus, -tura and -mention, with new frequentatives.. 3. Words used with a meaning (a) not found in earlier prose, but sometimes (in more than eighty instances) borrowed from the poets, e.g., componcrc, &quot;to bury&quot; ; scriptura, &quot;a writing&quot;; fer- ratus, &quot;armed with a sword&quot;; (6) peculiar to later writers, e.g., numerosus, &quot;numerous&quot;; famosus, &quot;famous&quot;; decollare, &quot;to be head&quot;; imputare, &quot; to take credit for, &quot; &c. ; (c) restricted to Tacitus himself, e.g., dispergcre = divolgare; of these Boetticher quotes one hundred and twenty-two. Generally speaking, Tacitus likes to use a simple verb instead of a compound one, after the fashion of the poets, employs a pluper fect for a perfect, and (like Livy and sometimes Caesar) aims at vividness and variety by employing the present and perfect con junctive in indirect speech even after historical tenses. Collective words are followed by a plural far more commonly than in Cicero. The ellipse of a verb is more frequent. The use of the cases approximates to that of the poets, and is even more free. The accusative of limitation is common in Tacitus, though never found in Quintilian. Compound verbs are frequently followed by the accusative where the dative might have been expected; and the Vir- gilian construction of an accusative with middle and passive verbs is not unusual. The dative &quot;absolute &quot; is shared by Tacitus with Livy ; the dative of purpose and the dative with a substantive in place of a genitive are more common with him than with any writer. The ablative of separation is used without a preposition, even with names of countries and with common nouns ; the ablative of place is employed similarly without a preposition ; the ablative of time has sometimes the force of duration ; the instru mental ablative is employed even of persons. A large extension is given to the use of the quantitative genitive after neuter adjectives and pronouns, and even adverbs, and to the genitive with active participles; and the genitive of relation after adjectives is (probably by a Greecism) very freely employed. In regard to prepositions, there are special uses of citra, erga, iuxta, and tenus to be noted, and a frequent tendency to interchange the use of a preposition with that of a simple case in corresponding clauses. In subordinate sentences quod is used for &quot;the fact that,&quot; and sometimes approaches the later use of &quot; that&quot; ; the infinitive follows many verbs and adjec tives that do not admit of this construction in classical prose ; the accusative and infinitive are used after negative expressions of .doubt, and even in modal and hypothetical clauses. Like Livy, the writers of this time freely employ the conjunctive of repeated action with a relative, and extend its use to relative conjunctions, which he does not. In clauses of comparison and proportion there is frequently an ellipse of a verb (with nihil aliud quam, itt, tanquani}; tanquam, quasi, and velut are used to imply not comparison but alleged reason ; quin and quominus are inter changed at pleasure. Quamquam and quamvis are commonly followed by the subjunctive, even when denoting facts. The free use of the genitive and dative of the gerundive participle to denote purpose is common in Tacitus, the former being almost limited to him. Livy s practice in the use of participles is extended even beyond the limits to which he restricts it. It has been calculated that where Caesar uses five participial clauses, Livy has sixteen, Tacitus twenty-four. In his compressed brevity Tacitus may be said to be individual ; but in the poetical colouring of his diction, in the rhetorical cast of his sentences, and in his love for picturesqueness and variety he is a true representative of his time. The language of Suetonius is of interest as giving a specimen of silver Latinity almost entirely free from personal idiosyncrasies; his expressions are regular and straightforward, clear and business-like; and, while in grammar he does not attain to classical purity, he is comparatively free from rhetorical affectations. The A new era commences with the accession of Hadrian African (117 A.D.). As the preceding half century had been Latinity, marked by the influence of Spanish Latinity (the Senecas, Lucan, Martial, Quintilian), so in this the African style was paramount. This is the period of affected archaisms and pedantic learning, combined at times with a reckless love of innovation and experiment, resulting in the creation of a large number of new formations and in the adoption of much of the plebeian dialect. Pronto and Appuleius mark a strong reaction against the culture of the preceding century, and for evil far more than for good the chain of literary tradition was broken. The language which had been unduly refined and elaborated now relapsed into a tasteless and confused patch-work, without either harmony or brilliance of colouring. In the case of the former the Fronto, subject matter is no set-off against the inferiority of the style. His latest editor is quite pathetic in lamenting the worthlessness of his author, and says that it would have conduced to his reputation if his works had never been unearthed. He deliberately attempts to go back to the obsolete diction of writers like Cato and Ennius. We find compounds like altipendulus, nudiustertianus, lolutilo- quentia, diminutives such as matercella, anulla, passercula, studiolum, forms like congarrire, diacontinnus, pedetemptius, desiderantissimus (passive), conticinium ; gaudeo, oboedio, and perfungor are used with an accusative, modestus with a genitive ; and, if our MS. is to be trusted, the interchange of b and v has already begun. On the other hand he actually attempts to revive the form asa for ara. In Appuleius the archaic element is only one element in the Appu- queer mixture which constitutes his style, and it probably leius. was not intended to give the tone to the whole. Poetical and prosaic phrases, Grsecisms, solecisms, jingling assonances, quotations, and coinages apparently on the spur of the moment, all appear in this wonderful medley. There are found such extraordinary genitives as sitire beati- tudinis, cenae pignerarer, incoram omnium, foras corporis, sometimes heaped one upon another, as fluxos vestium Arsacidas et frugum jia^ieres Ityraeos et odorum divites Arabas. Diminutives are coined with reckless freedom, e.g., diutule, longide, mundide amicta et altiuscule sub ipsas papillas succinct ula. He confesses himself that he is writing iu a language not familiar to him: &quot; In urbe Latia ad vena studiorum Quiritium indigenam sermonem aerumnabili labore, nullo magistro praeeunte, aggressus excolui &quot; ; and the general impression of his style fully bears out his confession. Melanchthon is hardly too severe when he says that Appuleius brays like his own ass. The language of Aulus Gellius is much superior in purity ; but still it Gellius abounds in rare and archaic words, e.g., edulcare, recentari, aeruscator, and in meaningless frequentatives like solitavisse. He has some admirable remarks on the pedantry of those who delighted in obsolete expressions (xi. 7) such as apluda, flocus, and bovinator ; but his practice falls far short of his theory. The style of the eminent lawyers of this period, foremost The among whom is Gaius, deserves especial notice as showing lawyer well one of the characteristic excellences of the Latin language. It is for the most part dry and unadorned, and in syntax departs occasionally from classical usages, but it is clear, terse, and exact. Technical terms may cause difficulty to the ordinary reader, but their meaning is always precisely defined ; new compounds are employed whenever the subject requires them, but the capacities of the language rise to the demands made upon it ; and the conceptions of jurisprudence have never been more adequately expressed than by the great Roman jurists. It is needless to trace in detail the gradual impoverishment and Decay disorganization of literary Latin. After the time of Gellius, there literar is no writer who deserves in any sense to be called classical. The Latin. true literary tradition was lost ; and even the poets who aimed at imitating the best models, by far the best of whom was Claudian, were led into many faults by the defective taste of their time. The sense of quantity was lost, and the practice of regarding accent as the ruling principle in metre, which had doubtless never been extinct in popular songs, 1 and which has left plain traces in a poem quoted by Gellius (xix. 11), became gradually predominant. Its effects are sometimes to be observed even in the poems of Ausonius (flor. 350 A.D.), and are plain in those of Sedulius in the next century. In Gaul the rhetorical schools, which flourished greatly in the 4th century, maintained a tradition of learning, which preserved some classical tinge of language, but it sank by degrees into bom- 1 Mr Munro (Cambridge Philosophical Society, 1860) has discussed an inscription in accented hexameters, from Cirta, dating from the 4th century of our era.