« PreviousContinue »
press themselves either in exclamatory (emotional) sentences
1 See Wundt, Völkerps. I, vol. ii, ch. 7, § V, 5 extr. ( = p. 354, 2d ed.).
subject of elaborate investigations. Such a difference does actually appear. Its nature and explanation, if I correctly interpret Tacitus, are as follows: The passages just cited, which are examples of the prevailing type of sentence found in Tacitus - a special form of the isolating type --- are characterized by an emotional tone peculiar to strong feeling under control (cf. supra). The intensity of the feeling involved and the extent of the apperceptive control may vary widely, and this variation will be reflected in the greater or less predominance at different times of the apperceptive and associative tendencies. Any increase in the emotional element without a corresponding increase in the apperceptive control will result in a tendency toward a looser connection between the psychical elements, and eventually the structure of the sentences will pass over into one of the associative types. Conversely, a relatively greater apperceptive control will give the sentences a tendency toward the more elaborate apperceptive types; and this tendency to organize the thought will be revealed in the presence of attributive elements in increasing number, or even, instead of them, more elaborate predicative members. An increase in the intensity of both emotions and apperceptive control will manifest itself in an increasing number of brief sentences and a tendency toward attributive rather than predicative forms.
The works of Tacitus, when examined from the point of view here taken, fall into three groups: 1. The Dialog. 2. The Germania, Agricola, and Histories. 3. The Annals. The kinship between the last two groups is, as would be expected, closer than that between the first and either one of the others. The sentences in the Dialog show the most elaborate organization. This is no doubt due not only to the lower emotional tone, but also in a certain degree to a conscious effort to imitate the Ciceronian style. In the Dialog only one-fourth of the sentences are simple sentences (i.e. sentences with a single primary analysis), four-tenths show two such analyses, and the remaining thirty-five per cent show still higher organization. In the Histories the converse of these conditions is found, nearly seven-tenths of the sentences
being simple sentences, while over three-tenths show only two main analyses, a very small number showing three or more subordinate clauses. The Germania and Agricola show a somewhat smaller proportion of simple sentences, and a somewhat higher degree of organization. If, as is usual with those who study the style of Tacitus, we should be guided in our investigation by the assumption that his later works exhibit the more distinctively Tacitean peculiarities in a more marked way, the extreme form appearing in his latest work, the Annals, we should expect the Annals to show an increase in the proportion of simple sentences and a decrease in elaborateness of organization. But we must not allow ourselves to be unduly influenced by the chronological sequence of any author's works. It may be important, or it may be of trilling moment; and in just this particular is seen one of the great advantages of approaching the subject from the point of view urged in this paper, for the attention is primarily fixed upon the fundamental question as to the character of the mental processes reflected in a given work, and the time element is relegated to a subordinate place. Now what do we really find on examining the Annals? We find that the sentences on an average show a greater complexity both as regards the predicative and the attributive elements, considerably less than half the number belonging to the simpler type, - a much smaller proportion than is found in the Histories. And this is precisely what we should expect. For if the emotional tone played as important a part in Tacitus's style as it appears to have played, we should expect to see less evidence of it in the Annals than in the Histories, since the latter are historiae in the true Roman sense of the word, i.e. a history of the writer's own times, and they describe events
a not far removed from those in which Domitian, non iam per intervalla ac spiramenta temporum, sed continuo et velut uno ictu rem publicam exhausit, - events that must have moved Tacitus more deeply than those described in the Annals, which were more remote from him both in time and interest.
What is here said of the style of Tacitus should be supplemented by the further statement that there is a decided syn
thetic tendency in Tacitus's thought. The nature of this tendency and its effect upon style are clearly brought out by Dr. Boucke, who draws an instructive parallel between Tacitus and Emerson in this particular.
An interesting and instructive comparison may here be made between Tacitus and Juvenal. Both have a strong
. emotional nature, both show clearly the influence of this upon their sentences, both have themselves given in their own words the clue to their interpretation. Tacitus writes sine ira et studio; with Juvenal facit indignatio versus. In Tacitus the emotion is under control, and we get the type just described ; Juvenal gives rein to his emotions, and writes in a predominatingly associative form.
A second figure belonging to the early empire, Lucius Annaeus Seneca the Younger, like Tacitus, has left his personality clearly impressed upon his style - and this notwithstanding the distinct rhetorical tinge which his works exhibit throughout. The study of Seneca is on the whole simpler than that of Tacitus, because he employed essentially the same type of sentence from his earliest writings to his latest. His sentences resemble those of Tacitus in some ways. In particular both have a remarkable clearness and distinctness of apperception, by which is meant that the ideas are in themselves clearly apperceived and that each is sharply marked off from the other. These qualities make the sentences of
. both writers brief and concise. Yet a close comparison of the two reveals some marked differences between them. In the first place Seneca's range of consciousness is much narrower than that of Tacitus. He grasps much fewer elements at once. Consequently the single impressions are more striking and intense, the sentences average much shorter, and show even less organization. In the second place the synthetic tendency in Seneca is decidedly less marked. This is shown in the more frequent use he makes of connecting particles and in the presence of predicative members (subordinate clauses) in contrast with the numerous attributive elements found in Tacitus. Consistent with the general character of
1 Op. cit. pp. 407 f.
Seneca's style these clauses are always brief. As a fairly typical example we may quote Epist. 90, 27–28 : non est, inquam, instrumentorum ad usus necessarios opifex (sc. sapientia). quid illi tam parvula adsignas? artificem vides vitae. alias quidem artes sub dominio habet. nam cui vita, illi vitam quoque ornantia serviunt. ceterum ad beatum statum tendit, illo ducit, illo vias aperit. (28) quae sint mala, quae videantur ostendit. vanitatem exuit mentibus. dat magnitudinem solidam, inflatam vero et ex inani speciosam reprimit. nec ignorari sinit inter magna quid intersit et tumida. totius naturae notitiam ac suae tradit. Formula :
(aso | (añol (año | (a)37ajó (A) Bla) | (a)(a) (28) |
This is prevailingly the isolating type, but there is one associative addition, and in three cases the relations between the successive units of thought are grasped and expressed. This is indicated by the horizontal square bracket. Such connections, which appear to be more frequent in Seneca than in Tacitus, are intermediate forms between the isolating and the synthetic, since in the isolating type the relations are not grasped, in the one here mentioned they are apperceived and expressed, while in the synthetic type this apperceptive act is followed by a second synthesis. The contrast between Seneca and Tacitus is not brought out very clearly by the formulae used above, because they take no account of the attributive (adjectival and adverbial) members, and because the passages quoted from Tacitus are rather extreme cases.
Seneca's rhetorical training appears in one .particular to have had some effect upon his sentence structure. addicted in an extraordinary degree to the use of clausulae. Open a volume of Seneca almost anywhere and note how nearly every colon shows a cretic or trochaic clcse. Take for example de Ira, 3, 42: radicitus (-UU), haeserunt
1 The quantity of the last syllable is, of course, a matter of indifference.