The Language of Pliny the Elder

This chapter suggests that long sentences need not be ‘periods’. It also aims to take Pliny seriously in his own right and shows a few characteristics of his language in the light of his general aims. Pliny’s work covers a broad range of topics, some of which were more accessible for his audience than others, some of which were known in more detail in his time than others, and some of which human participants were more involved than in others. Although Pliny clearly views nature from the perspective of its significance for human beings, his text is nevertheless the largest work in Latin that is not chiefly anthropocentric in its subject matter, and therefore a welcome source for statistically ‘deviant’ linguistic structures. The chapter then addresses a few features of Pliny’s language that are not, or are less, determined by his subject matter. The overall organization of the material is very careful, down to the smallest detail.

Cicero’s Adaptation of Legal Latin in the De legibus

This chapter argues that some apparent archaisms in the laws composed by Cicero in the De legibus should not be regarded as archaisms in a legal context. It also demonstrates that Cicero does indeed scatter about features of archaic laws for particular effects. The chapter then mentions that it is ‘typical of Cicero’s processes of literary composition that he should sometimes archaize vigorously when the context inspires him to do so, and at other times use archaic features more sparingly’. In addition, it describes the cases of ‘false archaism’, where an archaic word, form, or construction is used in a way that is different from its use in older material for archaisms which are in fact innovations in Latin poetry. Moreover, the chapter reports the Twelve Tables as Cicero’s model for his law code. The contemporary legal style in the law code and the ciceronianisms are addressed. The chapter then presents a more detailed consideration of the question of archaism and the problem of the transmission of the text.

Hair, Hegemony, and Historiography: Caesar’s Style and its Earliest Critics

The ancient term commentarius designates works ranging from official records to collections of anecdotes to historical narrative. The ancient historiographical commentarius tended to be represented as an emperor in search of new clothes, as it were – clothing that would provide the copia, ornatus, and completeness appropriate to a work of artistic prose. The three ancient critics presented testify to the frustrations inherent in evaluating a Caesarian commentarius. Additionally, some ways in which the ancient reactions to the Commentarii are reflected in modern criticism (primarily of the Bellum Gallicum) are covered. The chapter then demonstrates that what Eden (1962:74) calls the ‘ambivalent status’ of the commentarius does fit closely with the biographical tradition concerning Caesar’s habits, dress, and demeanor; and further, suggests that same biographical tradition can be read as a complex of metaphors. Caesar’s particular brand of commentarius may be just the kind of oratio this character deserved.

The Language and Style of the Fragmentary Republican Historians

This chapter starts by describing the nature of the evidence of the language and style of the fragmentary republican historians. It also refers to a number of usages which are absent, or virtually absent, from Cicero and Caesar: some of these are found in Latin – primarily, of course, in poetry – of a time before that of the historian concerned, while others occur for the first time in the author in question. The chapter specifically discusses archaisms and neologisms. It also reports the successors of Cato I. The verbatim fragments of L. Cassius Hemina, Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus, L. Calpurnius Piso, C. Fannius and Cn. Gellius, L. Coelius Antipater, Sempronius Asellio, Q. Claudius Quadrigarius, Valerius Antias, L. Cornelius Sisenna, and C. Licinius Macer are then explored. The surviving longer fragments, with a few exceptions, exhibit a simple sentence structure, with a minimum of subordination.

Introduction

‘Language’ is given a comprehensive sense in this book. Many of the chapters are not ‘linguistic’ in any formal sense, but are about the skill (or otherwise) of writers in expressing themselves. They are thus about style, the study of which can be seen as a branch of literary criticism. There are various objections that can be made to the notion (implicit in Bernhard’s statement) that the inclusion of ‘poeticisms’ in prose was an imperial development and represented a debasement of the literary language. The diversity of extant prose is a major theme of this book. Examples of early long sentences are also presented. Bad writing may show up clearly in a translation. This writing may be determined in a non-literary text written by someone who had not had a literary education and might not even have been a native speaker of Latin. Archaism emerges as a generic label rather than a unified category. The chapter then discusses the translation from Greek. Aspects of high-style Latin prose, namely neologism, archaism, Greek loanword, and poeticism, are described.

William of Malmesbury and the Latin Classics Revisited

William of Malmesbury was probably the greatest historian of England between Bede and Macaulay. He was born around 1090 and disappears from the historical record late in 1142; from childhood until the end of his life he was a monk of the ancient Benedictine foundation of Malmesbury in Wiltshire. The chapter mentions his florilegium, the Polyhistor, a compendium of information about ancient peoples and places that drew on both pagan and Christian writers of antiquity: there are eighteen pagan works. William’s invocation of ancient texts certainly adds dignity to his narrative, but it did not necessarily contribute to his historical accuracy. His classicizing occasionally led him to surprisingly unmonastic, and indeed un-Christian, sentiments and language.

Translator’s Latin

Latin is only one among many languages that have established themselves, in written form, by translating from others. The negative impact that humanism as promoted by Petrarch made on what is called the ‘inclusiveness’ of medieval Latin is shown. The relation between bilingualism and translation is obviously intricate. The separate source of the anecdote emerges quite clearly in the language. The chapter also shows the three factors in the story of Latin: (a) native developments in the language, (b) Hellenisms that infiltrated into it, and (c) outright translationese, idioms remaining recognizably foreign. It is suggested that, as the development of Latin in all its forms is understood from antiquity down to the Renaissance, it could be useful to pay more attention to the role of translations from Greek; not as a category apart, but as a continuing process, constantly provoking or instilling redefinition of what is possible as written Latin, or indeed as Kunstprosa.

‘Langues réduites au lexique’? The Languages of Latin Technical Prose

This chapter discusses the characteristics of technical prose in some modern languages as well as in Latin. It specifically aims to question the assertion that Latin technical languages are nothing more than sets of technical terms, and to touch on one or two aspects of Latin technical prose in antiquity and the early Middle Ages. Throughout, the focus is mainly on linguistic features other than the terminology, although part of the argument is that vocabulary is inseparably intertwined with syntax and style. The chapter starts with the question of the definition of technical languages and the scope of their study, and then provides a contention that Latin technical languages are not simply sets of lexical items.

Omisso speciosiore stili genere

This chapter first examines in detail the three passages in which Quintilian’s comments on the way he is presenting his material, and comparing what follows the announcement of a change with what precedes it. But before coming to the passages themselves, it makes a few preliminary observations. Quintilian announces that he is now going on to the traditional core of rhetoric. The chapter then turns to omisso speciosiore stili genere, the programmatic announcement made at 7.1.54. But it must put it in its context, which has several interesting features. Quintilian often changes register without giving prior warning. Periodic writing does of course make recognizable patterns more frequent and obvious, but even in his simplest writing Quintilian appears to be rhythmical by instinct.

The Impracticability of Latin ‘Kunstprosa’

This chapter provides a discussion that aims to offer some account of the impracticability of Latin ‘Kunstprosa’. It begins by presenting the quandary of Vitruvius. Vitruvius showed a thorough competence; his intellectual predecessors in the later Republic had provided a lesson in the logical grouping of topics, a lesson he learnt. Vitruvius’ quandary can be explained by the failure of Latin prose to provide the educated writer with workable models of sound prose style. The chapter then inspects the masters themselves, Cicero and Caesar. The period in Cicero’s oratorical prose is deemed to be generally above reproach, once allowance is made for his increasing assurance. The issue of anacoluthon in Cicero’s philosophical writings was considerably discussed at the time this essay was delivered, and in subsequent e-mail exchanges with Jaap Wisse. The chapter then turns to Cicero’s only real successor, Livy. Moreover, the origin and use of the period in formal Latin style are described.