Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 14.djvu/360

 342 LATIN LANGUAGE one of these, Gasparino of Barziza (died 1431), has commonly been assigned the distinction of being the father ol the pure and elegant Latiuity of the Renaissance. His devotion to the study of Cicero is shown by the plan which he formed to fill up, by conjectural links, the numerous deficiencies in the MSS. of the De Oratore then known to scholars, a design happily superseded by the discovery of the famous Codex Laudianus. Additional material was furnished by the recovery of not a few authors or portions of authors of the best period by the unwearied diligence of Poggio Bracciolini ; and from henceforward the study of the Latin classics was pursued with the happiest results. Throughout the 15th century no literary acquire ment was more valued than a good Latin style ; the patronage ex tended to scholarship by the learned Pope Nicholas V. and the grammatical teaching of scholars like Laurentius Valla combined to encourage its pursuit with energy and success. Towards the latter part of the century Politian at Florence, and Hermolaus Barbaras at Venice, showed a mastery over the Latin language which won for them the enthusiastic admiration of their contemporaries ; and, though the learning of these eminent scholars proved not unfre- quently injurious to their style by inducing an affectation of obso lete or unfamiliar words, there is no reason to deny that on the whole this admiration was well deserved. In Germany they had a worthy rival, by some even ranked before them, in Agricola ; in France and England there was as yet no one who, in the judgment afterwards expressed by Erasmus, could be said to write Latin at all. As far as purity of style went, the highest pitch of excellence was doubtless reached by the Italians towards the beginning of the 16th century. Sadolet, Bembo, Paulus Manutius, and, we must in justice add, Longolius in France, wrote Latin with a grace and finish which place their works in respect of style almost on a level with those of their great model Cicero. But it cannot be denied that their fastidiousness of language often led them to sacrifice the fruits to the ilowers of learning, and justly drew down upon them the witty and biting censures of Erasmus in his Cicerouianus. In the controversy between the men of learning and the men of taste, the best tendencies of the age were decidedly on the side of the former ; and the Italian scholars whose object, as Hallam well ex presses it, was &quot; to write pure Latin, to glean little morsels of Roman literature, to talk a heathenish philosophy in private, and to leave the world to its own abuses,&quot; had little influence on the next generation in comparison with the wider culture and loftier aims of scholars like Erasmus and Melanchthon. The rapid exten sion of a knowledge of Greek literature, especially in England, France, and Germany, had its effects in the same direction. Men threw themselves into the new world of thought thus revealed with an eager avidity which left little leisure for that elaborate polishing of periods which had been the delight of the Ciceronianists. The 16th century saw enormous advances in the knowledge of antiquity ; but the most learned scholars were by no means always equally famous for their skill in the use of the Latin language. Even in Italy itself the most eminent writers on classical subjects approach rather to the German than to the Ciceronian type, and are more distinguished for the width of their erudition and the abundance of their quotations than for elegance or purity of style. On this side of the Alps the prevalence of the same type was, as might have been expected, all but universal. Muretus alone perhaps maintained in this generation the best traditions of style, and was pronounced, even by the judgment of the censorious Scaliger, to have written better Latin than any one since Cicero; in Italy, however, he had a formidable rival in the last of the Ciceronians, Paulus Manutius. It shows how little Latin was now a living language that the latter, like all his school, refused to speak in Latin, for fear that the necessities of daily conversation should make him familiar with bar barous phrases, which would hardly fail to taint his written style. Others for a similar reason always recited the breviary in Greek, just as in later days some have refused to read the New Testament in the original language for fear of spoiling the purity of their Attic prose. In Germany especially the influence of Lipsius founded a new school of Latinists, based on the imitation of the silver Latinity of Tacitus and Seneca, and conspicuous for some of the merits, and more than all the faults, which have been noticed above as marking those authors. In Britain the only scholar whose style merits especial notice is George Buchanan, whose prose is hardly less admirable than his famous poetical version of the Psalms. On the whole it must be said that, while the improvement in works of reference, and in methods of education generally (especially through the activity of the Jesuits), raises the average of correctness and purity, there is less grace and power than may be found among the best of the writers of an earlier time. As yet the use of Latin as a means of literary expression and of public business showed no signs of decline, except perhaps in Germany, where the version of the Bible by Luther and his popular works in the vernacular had given a model for literary German, and in England, where some of the great works of controversial theology, notably Hooker s Ecclesiastical Polity, were already published in English, doing thereby incalculable service to the dignity and the enrichment of the native tongue. But during the 17th century, as a consequence of the steady develop ment of the various national literatures, Latin came to be more and more merely the language of the learned. Some of the most eminent scholars belong to this period ; and among them Heinsius, Grotius, Salmasius, and his more illustrious antagonist Milton are all famous for the elegance of their diction ; while Scioppius and Vossius contributed largely to the scientific knowledge of grammar. But towards the end of the century complaints as to the general decay of learning frequently occur. In Germany it was almost extinct. In France the Jesuit colleges maintained the traditions of a pure Latinity with some success, and were noted for the polished though sometimes too rhetorical style in which their exercises were conducted. In England the decay of Latin was never so complete as that of Greek ; and the great name of Bentley shines out con spicuous, set off, it must be admitted, by the school-boy darkness of most of his rivals. Even he did not escape the ferule of the schoolmaster, Richard Johnson of Nottingham, who claims in his Anti-Aristarchus to have pointed out more than ninety errors in the great scholar s Latinity. In the 18th century we still find Latin used for vorks on science and philosophy, which appealed to the learned in all countries ; to say nothing of Newton s Principict, (1689), Burnet s Theoria Tdluris Sacra (1694), and Ray s Synopsis Methodica (1693), and subsequent botanical works, we find even Linnseus in 1760 issuing his Systema Naturae in Latin. But as an organ of general literature it may be said to have expired in the course of the 17th century. The last great philosopher who habitually employed Latin for his works was Leibnitz (1646-1716) ; perhaps the last important work in English theology written in Latin was Bull s Defensio Fidei Niccnae (1685). The use of Latin in diplomacy died out towards the end of the 17th century. The Spanish embassy sent to the court of James I. in 1605 used sometimes Latin and sometimes French ; the Latin state-papers written by Milton during the Commonwealth are well known ; and in the negotiations at Miiuster (1644) even the French representative, M. d Avaux, prided himself on his skill in writing Latin. But at Nymegen (1677) the Danish ambassador s claim that the Latin language should be used between the French representa tive and himself was rejected as an impertinence ; and he was obliged to agree that, while he might employ Latin himself, the French should use their own language. At Ryswick, Temple opened the proceedings in French ; he was answered by the bishop of Gurk in Latin ; but the French envoys pleaded that they had forgotten their Latin, and the subsequent proceedings were conducted in French (cf. Bernard s Lectures on Diplomacy, pp. 153-155). Long after this date the German empire insisted that all negotiations with it should be conducted in Latin ; and, although Joseph II. attempted to make German the official language of Hungary in its place, he was compelled to give way, and it was only in 1825 that Latin was for the first time displaced by Magyar in the debates of the diet (cf. vol. xii. p. 371). It is now the universal practice that written communications from any European power should be made in the language of that power, but oral intercourse is carried on in French, with rare exceptions. Authorities. For the earliest stage of the Latin language the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, vol. i., or Garrucci s tiylloge In- scriptionum Latinarum, is indispensable. Wordsworth s Fragments and Specimens of Early Latin is very useful. Hubner s Grundriss zu Vorlcsuncjen iiber die Lateinische Grammatik (Berlin, 1880, p. 104) contains a very complete list of all works of value upon the language. Corssen s Aussprache Vokalismus und Uetonung dcr Lateinischcn Sprache (2 vols., Leipsic, 1870) contains a valu able collection of the evidence as to the history of the pronuncia tion. Neue s Formcnlelire (2 vols., Berlin, 1877) is a complete storehouse of the inflexional forms. Prager s Historischc Syntax (2 vols., Leipsic, 1880) is extremely valuable, especially for the classical writers. Kiihner s Ausfuhrlichc Grammatik dcr Latcin- ischcn S2)rache (2 vols., Hanover, 1877-78) is the most complete of recent grammars. In English the best grammars are those of Madvig, Dr Kennedy, and Mr Roby. The first is excellent in the syntax, and well represents the most complete knowledge of the Latin language in its classical form to be gained without the aid of comparative philology ; the second in respect of etymology too frequently adopts not only the facts but the less trustworthy theories of Corssen, while in syntax the full collection of examples is sometimes encumbered by an awkward terminology ; the last is equally admirable for the clearness and fulness of its discussion of phonetics, the careful historical treatment of inflexions, and the freshness and precision of its syntax. For later Latin and its con nexion with the Romance languages, Schuchardt s Vokalismus dcs vulgdrlatcins, Ronsch s Itala und Vnlgata, and Diez s Grammairc des Langues Romanes are the chief text-books. The diction of the most important writers can best be studied in the numerous German treatises and programmes devoted to them severally, most of which will be found mentioned in Drager s Syntax and in Pro fessor Mayor s edition of Hiibner s Guide to Latin Literature. Bemhardy s Grundriss der Romischen Littcratur and Teutfel s History of Roman Literature have many useful hints as to the growth of the language. (A. S. W. )