554
B 361137
LATINITAS AND ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΣ
BY
THE INFLUENCE OF THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE AS SHOWN
IN THE WRITINGS OF DIONYSIUS, QUINTILIAN, PLINY
YOUNGER, TACITUS, FRONTO, AULUS
GELLIUS, AND SEXTUS EMPIRICUS
THE
CHARLES NEWTON SMILEY
DUPL
A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
1905
(REPRINTED FROM THE BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
PHILOLOGY AND LITERATURE SERIES, VOL. 3, PP. 205-272)
MADISON, WISCONSIN
1906
F
TOWILLEN
Ox
DEEDED
ARTES
LIBRARY
VARSANA VASARJAS
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
onli
1837
muna
VERITAS
NA
PLURIBUS UNDO
51 QUAERIS PENINSULAM AMOENAMY.
CIRCUMSPICE
AUT
TUEBOR
SCIENTIA
OF THE
ARISANAMARASARANAMANIAN
HOME HO
WING
A
JA
C
10
***
**
.......
PERATUS
LATINITAS AND ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΣ
THE INFLUENCE OF THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE AS SHOWN
IN THE WRITINGS OF DIONYSIUS, QUINTILIAN, PLINY
THE YOUNGER, TACITUS, FRONTO, AULUS
GELLIUS, AND SEXTUS EMPIRICUS
BY
CHARLES NEWTON SMILEY
A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE, DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
1905
(REPRINTED FROM THE BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
PHILOLOGY AND LITERATURE SERIES, VOL. 3, PP. 205-272)
MADISON, WISCONSIN
1906
880
564
5.3600f510
PREFATORY NOTE.
I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to Professor G. L.
Hendrickson in whose seminary in ancient rhetoric I began to
work on the problem of Latinitas. The subject was one of his
suggestion, and during the months I have been writing the
chapters here presented, he has been my adviser. I take this
way of expressing my hearty thanks to him. I wish also to
express my gratitude to Professors M. S. Slaughter, C. F.
Smith, A. G. Laird, G. C.Fiske, Alexander Kerr, Grant Show-
erman, and Doctor Katharine Allen, my instructors in the
University of Wisconsin, to whom I am deeply indebted in
many ways.
Grinnell, Ia., June 1, 1906.
161246
C. N. S.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
Latinitas: the Significance of the Term..
CHAPTER II.
The Influence of the Stoic Theory on Dionysius of Halicarnassus
CHAPTER III.
Quintilian's Attitude towards Latinitas.
CHAPTER IV.
Traces of the Influence of Latinitas in Pliny the Younger..
CHAPTER V.
Evidence concerning Latinitas in Tacitus...
CHAPTER VI.
The Influence of the Stoic Theory on Fronto....
CHAPTER VII.
Evidence concerning Latinitas in Aulus Gellius.....
CHAPTER VIII.
The Stoic Theory in Sextus Empiricus...
Page
211
219
232
241
245
249
257
269
LATINITAS AND ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΣ
THE INFLUENCE OF THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE AS
SHOWN IN THE WRITINGS OF DIONYSIUS, QUINTILIAN,
PLINY THE
THE YOUNGER,
YOUNGER, TACITUS, FRONTO, AULUS
GELLIUS, AND SEXTUS EMPIRICUS.
CHAPTER I.
LATINITAS: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TERM.
It is the purpose of this paper to trace the history of the in-
fluence of Latinitas, the Stoic theory of style, for a period of
two hundred years, from the beginning of the reign of Augustus
to the close of the reign of Marcus Aurelius.
As a preliminary it is perhaps necessary to define the term,
Latinitas. This can best be accomplished by giving a brief
discussion of the Stoic basis on which the theory is founded,
and by tracing the history of the development of the theory, of
its introduction at Rome, and of its subsequent influence on Ro-
man stylistic theories.
There were perhaps three considerations which had weight
with the Stoics in the formulation of their theory of style.
(1) Their belief that to speak well was to speak the truth.'
(2) Their conception that the function of an orator was merely
¹Anon. Prolegg. ad Hermog. Rhet. Gr. VII.,8, W: oi ΣTwikoi dè TÒ CỦ
λέγειν ἔλεγον τὸ ἀληθῆ λέγειν.
212
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
2
to teach, and not as Ciccro asserted "to teach, to delight, to
move." This conception was an outgrowth of the Stoic doctrine
of årácia; they held that it was unworthy of an orator to cloud
the reason of his audience by playing upon the emotions in any
way. (3) There was the general Stoic principle that anything
to be ideal, whether speech or conduct, must be in harmony
with nature. Given now an orator whose function is to speak
the truth, to teach, and to use language that is in harmony with
nature, it is easy to formulate a theory of style, the virtues of
which shall be (1) pure and unperverted speech, (2) clearness,
(3) precision, (4) conciseness, (5) appropriateness, (6) free-
dom from all artificial ornamentation. And this was the Stoic
theory which bore the name of ŋvioμós or Latinitas. The
reason why the first virtue gave its name to the theory, is
quite evident, for the first virtue in a sense embraces the other
five. Speech that is pure and unperverted and in harmony
with nature, will be of necessity clear, precise, concise, appro-
priate, and free from all artificiality. This is essentially the form
in which we find it in its first extant enunciation, viz., that of
Diogenes the Stoic of Babylon as it is preserved in Diogenes
Laertius' life of Zeno (7, 59):
᾿Αρεταὶ δὲ λόγου εἰσὶ πέντε· Ἑλληνισμός, σαφήνεια, συντομία, πρέπον,
κατασκευή. Ἑλληνισμὸς μὲν οὖν ἐστι φράσις ἀδιάπτωτος ἐν τῇ τεχνικῇ καὶ μὴ
εἰκαίᾳ συνηθείᾳ. σαφήνεια δέ ἐστι λέξις γνωρίμως παριστῶσα τὸ νοούμενον.
συντομίαδέ ἐστι λέξις αὐτὰ τὰ ἀναγκαῖα περιέχουσα πρὸς δήλωσιν τοῦ πράγμα-
τος. πρέπον δέ ἐστι λέξις οἰκεία τῷ πράγματι, κατασκευὴ δέ ἐστι λέξις ἐκπε-
φευγυῖα τὸν ἰδιωτισμόν. ὁ δὲ βαρβαρισμὸς ἐκ τῶν κακιῶν λέξις ἐστὶ παρὰ τὸ
ἔθος τῶν εὐδοκιμούντων Ἑλλήνων, σολοικισμὸς δέ ἐστι λόγος ἀκαταλλήλως
συντεταγμένος.
ש
As it was largely through Diogenes of Babylon and his pu-
pil Panaetius that the Stoic doctrine was established at Rome,
it may be worth while to examine the foregoing statement with
some care. Some light for its interpretation may be had from
Herodian who has given a similar enumeration of the ȧperai
Aóyou in his treatise de Barbarismo et Soloecismo. Herodian
8
2 Quint., Inst. O., Prooemium, Book V.
"Nauck, Lexicon Vindobonense, 308 ff. Ibid., 311, 5 ff.
SMILEY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THECRY OF STYLE. 213
presents three views that were held concerning the proper basis
for noμós. He says: "Some say that noμuós is the poet,"
i. e. Homer (he means that a correct diction must be based on
the usage of Homer), "others say that noμós is the common
dialect of the Greeks who went against Ilium, others say that
Envioμós is etymology," i. e. a correct diction must be based on
a careful etymological study of words. These three views con-
cerning the proper basis of ŋvoμós are important to our dis-
cussion only as they afford one of a number of proofs that the
idea of ŋuoμós is thoroughly Stoic. It was a Stoic tendency
and almost a Stoic principle to look back for their ideals to the
Golden Age when all things were perfect, even written and spok-
en language. There, if anywhere, would be found the "sermo
purus et incorruptus." And these three views concerning the
proper basis of noμós are but three attempts to get back as
close as possible to the Golden Age and its perfection. The first
view was that a correct diction must be based on the usage of
Homer, the earliest poet; the second, that it must be based on
the dialect of the pre-Homeric Greeks; the third, that it must
be based on a careful search after root meanings, the earliest
meanings of words. A careful search for, and a high valuation
of the "verba antiqua" characterize the influence of the Stoic
theory at all periods.
φράσις λέξις,
In considering Diogenes' definition of noμós two things
are to be noted: (1) he says éλŋvioµós éσti opáσis, while he refers
to each of the other ἀρεταὶ λόγου as λέξις. Striller has pointed out
in his de Stoicorum Studiis Rhetoricis that the Stoics differen-
tiated Opáσis from λégis, making the former refer to style as a
whole. This affords another proof that Anuouós was the name
applied to this theory of style, and that it was a blanket name
large enough to embrace the other virtues. (2) The two tests
which Diogenes sets for ἑλληνισμός, in the expression φράσις ἀδιάπ
τωτος ἐν τῇ τεχνικῇ καὶ μὴ εἰκαίᾳ συνηθείᾳ, are evidently the tests of an-
alogy and anomaly. From this it would seem that in the con-
'Breslauer Phil. Abhandlungen, I: de Stoicorum Studiis Rhetoricis, 52.
214
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
troversy between the anomalists and the analogists, Diogenes
had taken the middle ground of compromise. From this we may
further conclude that there were Stoics who held that the earliest
speech of the Golden Age was perfectly regular in its forms
and usages, and that there were not only Stoic anomalists
but also Stoic analogists. Concerning Diogenes' second and
third virtues of style, σapúveia (clearness, perspicuity) and
σvvтoμía (brevity), perhaps no comment need be made. We
should naturally expect perspicuity in an orator whose func-
tion was to teach, and conciseness in a speaker who eschewed
all that was artificial in diction. Particular attention must be
given to Diogenes' definition of the fourth virtue: pérov dé éσTi
λέξις οἰκεία τῷ πράγματι. It is to be noticed that he limits τὸ πρέπον
to appropriateness to the subject matter. Cicero extends the
application of the term, and demands that speech shall be ap-
propriate not simply to the subject matter but also to the char-
acter of the speaker and to the character of the audience.
This limitation of the doctrine of rò рéπоv on the part of
Diogenes, is due perhaps to the Stoic conception that "to speak
well is to speak the truth"; for the speaker who tries to adjust
his language to the character of his audience, very frequently
finds himself swerving from an exact statement of the truth.
The last of the ȧperai λóyou mentioned by Diogenes, is the
most difficult to interpret. He says: κατασκευὴ δέ ἐστι λέξις ἐκπε-
φευγυῖα τὸν ἰδιωτισμόν. The term катασкevý is usually translated
"ornamentation" or "embellishment." But it must be seen
at the outset that the very nature of the Stoic doctrine would
preclude any wide application of the term. In speech that is
in harmony with nature there is very little room for such arti-
ficial embellishment as the Gorgianic figures. The orator
whose function is to teach may not turn aside from that func-
tion to delight his hearers with well balanced antithetic clauses.
The orator whose duty is to speak the truth may not swerve
from a precise statement of fact merely for the sake of an
ὁμοιοτέλευτον. Of what embellishment of style then could a Stoic
approve? Herodian's enumeration of the aperaì λóyou throws
SMILEY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 215
some light upon this subject. His list of the aperaí is identical
with that of Diogenes except in one particular; it makes no
mention of KaTaσKevý, but in place of it, mentions two other
virtues κυριολογία and εὐσυνθεσία. Herodian makes plain in hig
treatise on ἀκυρολογία, that by κυριολογία, he means precision in
diction. It goes without saying that there is a certain embel-
lishment of style in precision of speech. When the speaker
takes pains to choose the word which so exactly expresses hist
thought that no other may be substituted for it without loss,
the style gains an unquestioned charm and grace which can
not be attained by the common crowd who use their words but
carelessly. And so Diogenes may well define karaokevý as λéģis
ἐκπεφευγυῖα τὸν ἰδιωτισμόν. The Stoic conception of embellishment
may have extended a little beyond this. St. Augustine in his
treatise on the Stoic dialectic recognized two values for each
word, viz., its sound value and its sense value. From the in-
formation afforded by this treatise it is safe to say that the
Stoics took some account of the sound value, i. e. if a Stoic
were forming a sentence and had at hand two synonyms, either
one of which would convey his meaning with precision, he
would choose between them according to their sound value.
There would be some embellishment of style in this. As the
sound value of any word depends largely on the final sound of
the preceding word, and on the initial sound of the word follow-
ing, we here have room for Herodian's evovvleσía.
Opposite these six virtues Herodian places six correspond-
ing faults of style. These six faults he then reduces to three:
σολοικισμός, βαρβαρισμός, ἀκυρολογία. Diogenes however mentions
only two ἐκ τῶν κακιῶν, omitting ἀκυρολογία. This omission may
ẻk
be due to the fact that by some authorities ȧkupoλoyía was re-
garded as a subdivision of ooλoktoμós. Since Latinitas is some-
times defined as the avoidance of "soloecismus" and "barbar-
ismus," it may be well to examine the terms with some care.
σολοικισμός.
First, σoλokioμós. Three etymologies are offered by the an-
cient authorities, and while it is unnecessary to accept any one
of the three, it is ecessary to see in them all, evidence
216
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
that the word is thoroughly Stoic, and that it represents the
Stoic striving after pure speech, the "sermo purus et incorrup-
tus," Latinitas, nnouós. The commonest etymology is that
offered by Diomedes" who says that σoλoktoμós is derived from
the name of the town Soli in Cilicia whose inhabitants spoke a
corrupt dialect (incolae qui sermone corrupto loquebantur).
Another etymology is recorded by Donatus" who says that
σoλoiкioμós may be derived from the name of the Attic lawgiver,
Solon, who corrupted his Attic speech by ten years of foreign
travel. But the most interesting etymology for our purpose is
offered by Polybius." He says that σolokwμós is formed by
merging σúov λóyou aikioμós, the injury or mutilation of sound
speech. Herodian defines σoλoikioμós as a fault in syntax, a
mistake involving more than one word. He enumerates eighty-
nine varieties.
Bapẞapioμós on the other hand is a mistake involving only a
single word, a mistake in spelling which usually involves a
mistake in pronunciation. Herodian gives eight varieties of
βαρβαρισμός.
Concerning the third fault in style ȧkupoλoyía, Herodian has a
short separate treatise. He defines åκupoλoyía as the failure to
give to each object and act its own specific name. To illustrate,
he says that it would be ȧkupoλoyía, if one were to speak of the
braying of a rooster, or the quacking of a mulè. Bottom was
unconsciously guilty of åkupoλoyía when he promised to roar as
gently as any suckling dove. Herodian concludes his treatise
on ȧkupoλoyía by devoting several pages to a careful differentia-
tion of certain pairs of synonyms.
It is to be observed that this theory of style of Diogenes,that
made ŋuoμós its goal, which sought to avoid ooλoikiσμós
(faults in syntax),ẞapßapioμós (faults in spelling and pronunci-
'Keil, I: 453, 21 ff.
'Ibid., V: 327, 31 ff.
'Polybius, rhetorician, contemporary of Herodian. Nauck, Lexicon
Vindobonense, 285,13 ff.
Ibid., 297.
8
SMILEY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 217
ation), and ȧkupoλoyía (the inaccurate use of words),is in its es-
sence grammatical.
The earliest presentation of this theory in Latin literature is
to be found in the fragments of the satires of Lucilius. The
Stoic character of these fragments has already been pointed out
by Striller; and it seems a reasonable inference that the source
of the doctrine was Panaetius,the pupil of Diogenes, who was
associated with Lucilius as a member of the Scipionic Circle.
In the ninth book, the two hundred and forty-fourth fragment,
Lucilius says that there are one hundred different kinds of
"soloecismi." (Herodian seems to have found only eighty-nine
varieties.) Pompeius who preserves this fragment, says that
Lucilius not merely asserted that there were one hundred differ-
ent kinds but that he actually enumerated them. There are
fifteen fragments in the ninth book which have to do with the
avoidance of “barbarismus," and four fragments which show
that Lucilius had a very definite interest in the avoidance of
ȧkupoλoyía. In the fifty-sixth fragment of the second book, he
ἀκυρολογία.
finds fault with a speech of Albucius, which he compares to a
tessellated pavement, the nicely balanced clauses corresponding
to the blocks set with mathematical precision. His dislike for
this style which made ornamentation its chief goal, is further
illustrated in the one hundred and forty-fifth fragment of the
fifth book, in which he declares that he will not waste his time
on oμoloréλevra and the other rhetorical devices of the school of
Isocrates. He characterizes these as "petty, silly, childish"
(ληρῶδεσque simul totum ac συμμειρακιώδες).
In the American Journal of Philology for 1905, in an article
in which he discusses the origin of the three styles, Professor
G. L. Hendrickson has pointed out the fact that the Stoic theory
of style prevailed in the Scipionic Circle, and that this theory
was represented subsequently at Rome by a succession of dis-
tinguished orators - Rutilius Rufus, Catulus, Cotta, Calvus. In
a later article on the de Analogia, in the second number of
Classical Philology, he has shown that the Atticism of Cicero's
time was but the reappearance under a new name of the old
218
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
Stoic theory. As has already been stated, it is the purpose of
this paper to show that the Stoic theory persisted as a strong
literary influence at Rome for a period of two hundred years
after the death of Cicero, and that it was ever at war with what
may be called the Ciceronian or rhetorical style. The evidence
on this point has been collected from the writings of Dionysius,
Quintilian, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Fronto, Aulus Gellius,
and Sextus Empiricus, and is here presented.
SMILEY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE.
219
CHAPTER II.
THE INFLUENCE OF THE STOIC THEORY ON DIONYSIUS OF
HALICARNASSUS.
About thirteen years after the death of Cicero and some
twenty-five years after the publication of the de Oratore,
Dionysius of Halicarnassus settled at Rome as a teacher of
rhetoric. The treatises which he has left and his formal letters
dealing with questions of literary criticism, afford much illumi-
nation for our discussion. Indeed these writings show quite
clearly that Dionysius' theory of style was in no way founded
on Cicero's conception which made "copiose et ornate dicere"
the "summum bonum," but had rather for its basis the Stoic
view which made purity of diction (Latinitas or Annouós) the
one thing most to be desired in a speaker or writer. That this
thought of "integritas et sanitas sermonis" was ever upper-
most in his mind, would be made quite plain by the frequency
with which he uses κalaρá in connection with punveía and the
other words for style, even if we did not have the following ex-
plicit statements:
De Isocrate Iudicium, Chap. 11: πρúτηv µèv тoívvv ëþηv åperòv elvai
λόγων, τὴν καθαρὰν ἑρμηνείαν. De Lysia Iudicium, Chap.2: καθαρός
ἐστι τὴν ἑρμηνείαν πάνυ, καὶ τῆς ᾿Αττικῆς γλώττης ἄριστος κανών, and then
later he adds that none of the contemporaries of Lysias sur-
passed him in that ὅπερ ἐστὶ πρῶτον καὶ κυριώτερον ἐν λόγοις, λέγω δὲ τὸ
καθαρεύειν τὴν διάλεκτον. Ad Pompeium, Chap.3: πρώτη τῶν ἀρετῶν
γένοιτ᾽ ἄν, ἧς χωρὶς οὐδὲ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν περὶ τοὺς λόγους ὄφελός τι, ἡ καθαρὰ
τοῖς ὀνόμασι καὶ τὸν Ἑλληνικὸν χαρακτῆρα σῴζουσα διάλεκτος.
The four virtues of style, καθαρὰ ἑρμηνεία, ἀκρίβεια, σαφήνεια, συντομία,
220
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
which Dionysius designates as ἀρεταὶ ἀναγκαῖαι, distinguishing
them from the ἀρεταὶ ἐπίθετοι, are all included within the limits of
the ἀρεταὶ λόγου named by Diogenes the Stoic of Babylon. These
ἀναγκαῖαι, he says, must be present ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς λόγοις, and when
they have been secured, then and not till then may some atten-
tion be given to the ἐπίθετοι. De Thucyd. Histor. Iudicium,
Chap. 22: καὶ ὅτι τῶν καλουμένων ἀρετῶν αἱ μέν εἰσιν ἀναγκαῖαι, καὶ ἐν ἅπα-
σιν ὀφείλουσι παρεῖναι τοῖς λόγοις˙ αἱ δ᾽ ἐπίθετοι· καὶ ὅταν ὑφεστῶσιν αἱ πρῶ-
ται, τότε τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἰσχὺν λαμβάνουσιν, εἴρηται πολλοῖς πρότερον, ὥστ᾽ οὐ-
δὲν δεῖ περὶ αὐτῶν ἐμὲ νυνὶ λέγειν. Dionysius never grants high
praise to any orator without first ascribing to him these ἀρεταὶ
ἀναγκαῖαι. In fact he witholds the highest praise from Isocrates
because in his excessive use of figures he has failed to attain
συντομία, and from Thucydides because in striving for συντομία he
has sacrificed σαφήνεια. Two citations from the περὶ τῆς λεκτικῆς
Δημοσθένους δεινότητος may serve to illustrate the preceding state-
ments. Chap. 18 (concerning the style of Isocrates): καθαρεύει
τε γάρ, εἴ τις ἄλλη, τοῖς νοήμασι, καὶ τὴν διάλεκτόν ἐστιν ἀκριβής. φανερά
τ᾽ ἐστὶ καὶ κοινή· καὶ τὰς ἄλλας ἀρετὰς ἁπάσας περιείληφεν˙ ἐξ ὧν ἂν μάλισ-
τα γένοιτο διάλεκτος σαφής· πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τῶν ἐπιθέτων κόσμων ἔχει. Then
Dionysius explains at some length how Isocrates lacks συντομία.
Chap. 13 (after a long passage from Demosthenes): ταῦτα οὐ
καθαρὰ καὶ ἀκριβῆ καὶ σαφῆ καὶ διὰ τῶν κυρίων καὶ κοινῶν ὀνομάτων κατεσκευ-
ασμένα, ὥσπερ τὰ Λυσίου; ἐμοὶ μὲν γὰρ ὑπάρχειν δοκεῖ. τί δ᾽ οὐχὶ σύντομα, καὶ
στρογγύλα, καὶ ἀληθείας μεστά, καὶ τὸν ἀφελῆ καὶ ἀκατάσκευον ἐπιφαίνοντα
φύσιν καθάπερ ἐκεῖνα; πάντων μὲν οὖν μάλιστα. Special attention may be
3
υν
1
'Ad Pompeium, Chap. 3: πρώτη τῶν ἀρετῶν γένοιτ᾽ ἄν, ἧς χωρὶς οὐδὲ
τῶν ἄλλων τῶν περὶ τοὺς λόγους ὄφελός τι, ἡ καθαρὰ τοῖς ὀνόμασι καὶ τὸν Ἑλ-
ληνικὸν χαρακτῆρα σῴζουσα διάλεκτος. ταύτην ἀκριβοῦσιν ἀμφότεροι·
Ηρόδοτός τε γὰρ τῆς Ἰάδος ἄριστος κανὼν Θουκυδίδης τε τῆς ᾿Ατθίδος. τρίτην
ἔχει χώραν ἡ καλουμένη συντομία· ἐν ταύτῃ δοκεῖ προέχειν Ηροδότου
Θουκυδίδης. καίτοι λέγοι τις ἄν, ὡς μετὰ τοῦ σαφοῦς ἐξεταζόμενον ἡδὺ φαίνεται
τὸ βραχύ. ἐνάργεια μετὰ ταῦτα τέτακται πρώτη μὲν τῶν ἐπιθέτων ἀρετῶν.
Cf. Chap. 23 of de Thucyd. Histor. Iudic.
2 De Admir. Vi Dicendi in Demosth., Chap. 18.
'Ad Ammaeum, Il: 2.
2
SMILEY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 221
given to the expression διὰ τῶν κυρίων καὶ κοινῶν ὀνομάτων κατεσκευασ-
μένα, because it calls to mind Caesar's “sermo cotidianus”,
and refers to an excellence in style which Dionysius seems to
have regarded almost as ἀναγκαῖα. Hefrequently praises Lysias
for using τοῖς κυρίοις καὶ κοινοῖς ὀνόμασιν. Isocrates is praised for a
similar reason; Xenophon and Herodotus are commended be-
cause they choose ὀνόματα συνήθη, and Isaeus because his style is
κυρία. De Lysia Iudicium, Chap. 3 (in an enumeration of
Lysias' virtues in style) : ἡ διὰ τῶν κυρίων τε καὶ κοινῶν καὶ ἐν μέσῳ
κειμένων ὀνομάτων ἐκφέρουσα τὰ νοούμενα. ἥκιστα γὰρ ἄν τις εὗροι Λυσίαν
τροπικῇ φράσει χρησάμενον. And again in the same chapter he
praises Lysias because he can make things seem περιττὰ, σεμνὰ
καὶ μεγάλα by using κοινοτάτοις ὀνόμασι καὶ ποιητικῆς οὐχ ἁπτόμενος κατα-
σκευῆς. The expressions, ἥκιστα γὰρ ἄν τις εὗροι Λυσίαν τροπικῇ φράσει
χρησάμενον and ποιητικῆς οὐχ ἁπτόμενος κατασκευῆς, seem to indicate
that Dionysius held the same attitude towards the embellished
style as the Stoics.
It may be well however to investigate more thoroughly
Dionysius' views concerning the ornamented style, for the
purpose of showing that he recognized a sharp line of demarca-
tion between the simple style which was the embodiment of
the Stoic theory, and the embellished style of such an orator as
Isocrates, and that he gave his approval to the former. It has
already been observed that Isocrates was censured because he
sought the adornment of a figurative diction at the expense of
συντομία. Indeed it may be laid down as a general principle for
Dionysius that he disapproved of any adornment of style for
which purity, precision, clearness, or conciseness mustbe sac-
rificed. He gives his approval to Lysias who found a certain
embellishment in a skillful use of the language of every day life,
de Lysia Iudicium, Chap. 4: τὸν δὲ κόσμον οὐκ ἐν τῷ διαλλάττειν τὸν
ἰδιώτην, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ μιμεῖσθαι, λαμβάνει, while he censures those like
Gorgias who sought ornamentation from other sources. De
Lysia Iudicium, Chap.3: οἱ βουλόμενοι κόσμον τινὰ προσεῖναι τοῖς ὅλοις
ἐξήλλαττον ἰδιώτην, καὶ κατέφευγον εἰς τὴν ποιητικὴν φράσιν μεταβολαῖς τε
πολλαῖς χρώμενοι, καὶ ὑπερβολαῖς καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις τροπικαῖς ἰδέαις, ὀνομάτων
-
222
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
•
τε γλωττηματικῶν καὶ ξένων χρήσει, καὶ τῶν οὐκ εἰωθότων σχηματισμῶν τῇ
διαλλαγῇ καὶ τῇ ἄλλῃ καινολογίᾳ καταπληττόμενοι τὸν ἰδιώτην.
Dionysius' attitude towards the Gorgianic figures seems to
have been the same as that of the Stoics. In four different
instances he refers to them as μειρακιώδη σχήματα, using the
same disparaging adjective that had been employed by Lucilius
in criticising Isocrates' use of ὁμοιοτέλευτα.* Two citations will
perhaps illustrate the view of Dionysius:
De Admir.Vi Dicendi in Demosth.,Chap. 21: (Demosthenes)
καὶ πέφευγε τὰ ψυχρὰ καὶ μειρακιώδη σχήματα, οἷς ἐκείνη (of Isocrates)
καλλωπίζεται πέρα τοῦ μετρίου. Ibid., Chap. 25: ἔπειθ' ὥσπερ τὰ μειρά-
κια, καταβὰς ἀπὸ τῶν γενναίων καὶ μεγαλοπρεπῶν ὀνομάτων τε καὶ σχημάτων,
ἐπὶ τὰ θεατρικὰ τὰ Γοργίεια ταυτὶ παραγίνεται.τὰς ἀντιθέσεις καὶ τὰς παρισώσεις
λέγω· καὶ διὰ τῶν λήρων τούτων κοσμεῖ τὴν φράσιν.
In the first and second chapters of this same essay on
Demosthenes, Dionysius draws a sharp contrast between the
embellished style of Thucydides and the plain style of Lysias.
Ibid.,Chap. 1: ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐξηλλαγμένη καὶ περριττὴ καὶ ἐγκατάσκευος, καὶ
τοῖς ἐπιθέτοις κόσμοις ἅπασι συμπεπληρωμένη λέξις, ἧς ὅρος καὶ κανὼν ὁ
Θουκυδίδης. That Dionysius does not approve of the style of
Thucydides is made plain in his second letter to Ammaeus.
Ibid.,Chap. 2: ἡ δὲ ἑτέρα λέξις ἡ λιτὴ καὶ ἀφελής, καὶ δοκοῦσα κατασκευήν
τε καὶ ἰσχὺν τὴν πρὸς ἰδιώτην ἔχειν λόγον καὶ ὁμοιότητα, πολλοὺς μὲν ἔσχε καὶ
ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας προστάτας συγγραφεῖς τε καὶ φιλοσόφους καὶ ῥήτορας. The
fact that he assigns the supremacy in this style to Lysias (ère-
λείωσε δ᾽ αὐτὴν καὶ εἰς ἄκρον ἤγαγε τῆς ἰδίας ἀρετῆς Λυσίας)makes per-
fectly clear what he means by ἡ δὲ ἑτέρα λέξις ἡ λιτὴ καὶ ἀφελὴς, for
in several places he enumerates the ȧperaí of Lysias. De Lysia
Iudicium, Chap. 13 (an enumeration of the virtues of the style
of Lysias): τὸ καθαρὸν τῶν ὀνομάτων, ἡ ἀκρίβεια τῆς διαλέκτου, τὸ διὰ τῶν
κυρίων καὶ μὴ τροπικῶν κατασκευῶν ἐκφέρειν τὰ νοήματα, ἡ σαφήνεια, ἡ συν-
τομία, τὸ συστρέφειν τε καὶ στρογγυλίζειν τὰ νοήματα, τὸ ὑπὸ τὰς αἰσθήσεις
ἄγειν τὰ δηλούμενα, τὸ μηδὲν ἄψυχον ὑποτίθεσθαι πρόσωπον, μηδὲ ἀνηθοποίη-
τον, ἡ τῆς συνθέσεως τῶν ὀνομάτων ἡδινή, μιμουμένη τὸν ἰδιώτην, τὸ τοῖς
4 De Isocrate Iud., Chap. 13;
Chap. 20; Ibid., 21; Ibid., 25;
De Admir. Vi Dicendi in Demosth.,
Ibid., 28; Ad Ammaeum,II: 17.
SMILEY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 223
ὑποκειμένοις προσώποις καὶ πράγμασι τοὺς πρέποντας ἐφαρμόττειν λόγους,
ἡ πιθανότης, καὶ ἡ χάρις καὶ ὁ πάντα μετρῶν καιρός. That he regarded
this style quite distinct from the μεγαλοπρεπής is clear from
his concluding statement: ὑψηλὴ δὲ καὶ μεγαλοπρεπὴς οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ
Λυσίου λέξις. The style of Lysias, as thus delineated, while de-
viating in some respects from the Stoic ideal (particularly in
the amplification of the idea of τὸ πρέπον ), in the main adheres
to the Stoic theory and so presents an antithesis to Cicero's
conception of style which laid the special emphasis on "copiose
et ornate dicere." It may be well however to quote a passage
from Dionysius, in which he describes the plain style in such
a way that it comes entirely within the limits of the Stoic ideal.
De Thucyd. Histor. Iudicium, Chap. 5: The contemporaries
of Thucydides λέξιν τε ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ τὴν ἀυτὴν ἅπαντες ἐπετήδευσαν,
ὅσοι τοὺς αὐτοὺς προείλοντο τῶν διαλέκτων χαρακτῆρας, τὴν σαφῆ καὶ κοινὴν
καὶ καθαρὰν καὶ σύντομον καὶ τοῖς πράγμασι προσφυῆ, καὶ μηδεμίαν σκευωρί-
αν ἐπιφαίνουσαν τεχνικήν.
It is perhaps worth while to present one more passage in
which the plain and embellished styles are contrasted. Ibid.,
Chap. 23: οἱ μὲν οὖν ἀρχαῖοι πάνυ, καὶ ἀπ' αὐτῶν μόνον γινωσκόμενοι τῶν
ὀνομάτων ποίαν τε λέξιν ἐπετήδευσαν, οὐκ ἔχω συμβαλεῖν, πότερα τὴν λιτήν,
καὶ ἀκόσμητον καὶ μηδὲν ἔχουσαν, περιττὸν ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὰ τὰ χρήσιμα καὶ ἀναγκαῖα.
ἢ τὴν πομπικὴν καὶ ἀξιωματικὴν καὶ ἐγκατάσκευον, καὶ τοὺς ἐπιθέτους
προσειληφυῖαν κόσμους.
It may be well to close the discussion of this topic by referring
to Dionysius' account of Plato's failure in his attempt to fuse
the two styles. The account is given in the second chapter
of the letter to Pompeius. He says in part: "The language of
Plato as I have said before, aspires to unite two several styles,
the elevated and the plain, (τοῦ τε ὑψηλοῦ καὶ ἰσχνοῦ). But it does
not succeed equally well at both. When it uses the plain, sim-
ple, and unartificial mode of expression(τὴν ἰσχνὴν καὶ ἀφελῆ καὶ
ἀποίητον ἐπιτηδεύῃ φράσιν),it has an extraordinary charm and at-
traction. It is altogether pure (καθαρά) and translucent, like
the most transparent of streams, and it is correct and precise
(ἀκριβής τε καὶ λεπτή) beyond that of any writer who has adopted
224
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
this mode of expression. It pursues familiar words and culti-
vates clearness,disdaining all extraneous ornament (rǹv ouþýveiav
ἀσκεῖ πάσης ὑπεριδοῦσα κατασκευῆς ἐπιθέτου). The gentle and imper-
ceptible lapse of time invests it with a mellow tinge of antiquity
(πívos & Tηs άρXórηтos); it still blooms in all its radiant vigor and
beauty; a balmy breeze is wafted from it as though from
meadows full of most fragrant odors; and its clear utterance
seems to show as little trace of loquacity as its elegance of dis-
play. But when, as often happens, it rushes without re-
straint into unusual phraseology and embellished diction, it
deteriorates greatly, for it loses in charm, in purity of dic-
tion (kákιov éλλŋvičovoa),in lightness of touch. It obscures what
is clear (μeλaíva Tò σapés) and makes it like unto darkness; it
conveys the meaning in a prolix and circuitous way. When
concise expression is needed it lapses into tasteless periphrases,
displaying a wealth of words. Contemning the regular terms
found in common use, it seeks after those that are newly-
coined, strange or archaic(áруаιожреπn). It is in the sea of fig-
urative diction that it labors most of all, for it abounds in
epithets and in ill-timed metonymies. It is harsh and loses
sight of the point of contact in its metaphors. It affects long
and frequent allegories devoid of measure and fitness. It revels
with juvenile and unseasonable pride, in the most wearisome
poetical figures, particularly those of Gorgias."
In the preceding passage Dionysius does not absolutely
condemn the ornate style, but he clearly indicates in what di-
rection his preference would lie, if he were compelled to choose
between the two styles.
It may be worth while now to present the evidence that
Dionysius was possessed of the Stoic view, that diction to be
ideal must be in harmony with nature, that ev λéyew is åλŋ0ŵs
Aéyew. It will further appear from the passages to be cited
that these two Stoic ideals were realized in the simple and
unadorned style. De Isaeo Iudicium, Chap. 16: (Isaeus) avrò
τοῦτο ἀγνοῶν, ὅτι τῆς τέχνης τὸ μιμήσασθαι τὴν φύσιν αὐτῆς μέγιστον ἔρ-
...Transla
Translation of W. Rhys Roberts.
SMILEY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 225
T
γενἦν. De Thucyd. IIistor. Iudicium, Chap. 53: (Demosthenes)
καὶ οὐδὲ τῶν σχημάτων τὸ πεπλανημένον ἐκ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν ἀκολουθίας καὶ
τὸ σολοικοφανὲς ἠγάπησεν, De Admir. Vi Dicendi in Demosth.,
Chap. 9: (a criticism of the style of Thucydides) τουσὶ δ᾽ ἔστι τὸ μὴ
κατ᾽ εὐθεῖαν ἑρμηνείαν ἐξενηνέχθαι τὰ νοήματα, μηδ᾽, ὥς ἐστι τοῖς ἄλλοις
σύνηθες, λέγειν ἁπλῶς καὶ ἀφελῶς ἀλλὰ ἐξηλλάχθαι καὶ ἀπεστράφθαι τὴν
διάλεκτον ἐκ τῶν ἐν ἔθει καὶ κατὰ φύσιν, εἰς τὰ μὴ συνήθη τοῖς πολλοῖς,
μηδ᾽ ὡς ἡ φύσις ἀπαιτεῖ. De Isocrate Iudicium, Chap. 12: τῆς
μέντοι ἀγωγῆς τῶν περιόδων τὸ κύκλιον, καὶ τῶν σχηματισμῶν, τῆς λέξεως
τὸ μειρακιῶδες, οὐκ ἐδοκίμαζον, δουλεύει γὰρ ἡ διάνοια πολλάκις τῷ ῥυθμῷ
τῆς λέξεως, καὶ τοῦ κομψοῦ λείπεται τὸ ἀληθινόν· κράτιστόν τ᾽ ἐπιτήδευμα
ἐν διαλέκτῳ πολιτικῇ καὶ ἐναγωνίῳ τὸ ὁμοιότατον τῷ κατὰ φύσιν. βούλε-
ται δὲ ἡ φύσις τοῖς νοήμασιν ἔπεσθαι τὴν λέξιν, οὐ τῇ λέξει τὰ νοήματα·
There follows a criticism of τὰ κομψὰ καὶ θεατρικὰ καὶ μειρακιώδη.
Then comes the acknowledgment that he is not the first to
advance such views, but that they have been previously pre-
sented by Philonicus, the Stoic dialectician. Ibid., Chap. 2:
(Isocrates) οὐδὲ τὴν σύνθεσιν ἐπιδείκνυται τὴν φυσικὴν καὶ ἀφελῆ καὶ ἐν-
αγώνιον, ὥσπερ ἡ Λυσίου. De Admir. Vi Dicendi in Demosth.,
Chap. 9: (after a detailed criticism of "Thucydidean" passages
in Demosthenes in which the sentence structure is faulty) τί δὴ
πάλιν ἐστὶν ἐν τούτοις τὸ συνταράττον τὴν κατὰ φύσιν ἀπαγγελίαν; De
Compositione Verborum, Chap. 4: ἐσκόπουν δ᾽ αὐτὸς ἐπ᾿ ἐμαυτοῦ γε-
νόμενος, εἴ τινα δυναίμην εὑρεῖν φυσικὴν ἀφορμήν, ἐπειδὴ παντὸς πράγμα.
τος καὶ πάσης ζητήσεως αὕτη δοκεῖ κρατίστη εἶναι καὶ ἀρχή. Ibid.,
Chap. 5: ἐδόκει δή μοι τῇ φύσει μάλιστα ἡμᾶς ἑπομένους οὕτω δεῖν ἁρ
μόττειν τὰ μόρια τοῦ λόγου, ὡς ἐκείνη!the Stoie θεωρία ) βούλεται. In
chapter three of this treatise he says that before beginning the
περὶ συνθέσεως ὀνομάτων he had carefully read the works of
Chrysippus on that subject, expecting to find there a proper
basis for his own book. But even after he had found the re-
sults of Chrysippus' work entirely inadequate, he still (Stoic-
fashion)follows nature and seeks to find the φυσικὴν ἀφορμήν, ες
is attested by the two preceding citations, and by the following
sentences from the eighth chapter of the de Lysia: τὴν ἀλήθειαν
οὖν τις ἐπιτηδεύων καὶ φύσεως μιμητὴς γίνεσθαι βουλόμενος, οὐκ ἂν ἁμαρ-
as
226
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
τάνοι τῇ Λυσίου συνθέσει χρώμενος. ἑτέραν γὰρ οὐκ ἂν εὗροι ταύτης
åλnleσrépav. De Compositione Verborum, Chap. 16: μeɣáλŋ ToÚ-
των(the poets and historians) ἀρχὴ καὶ διδάσκαλος ἡ φύσις. De
Isocrate Iudicium, Chap. 20: (a general statement concerning
the style of Isocrates) ποιητικώτερα μᾶλλόν ἐστιν, ἢ ἀληθινώτερα. Ibid.,
Chap. 18: Isocrates is praised because in some of his speeches
he is ἀκριβὴς καὶ ἀληθινος καὶ τῷ Λυσίου χαρακτῆρι ἔγγιστα μὲν προσελη-
λυθώς. De Isaeo Iudicium, Chap. 18: ὅτι μοι δοκεῖ Λυσίας μὲν τὴν
ảλýleiav diwkeiv pâλλov. Ibid., Chap. 3: The style of Lysias ʼn µèv
γὰρ ἀφελής τε καὶ ἠθικὴ μᾶλλον ἐστίν. σύγκειταί τε φυσικώτερον καὶ
éoxyµátiotai å…λoúσтepov. De Admir. Vi Dioendi in Demosth.,
Chap. 4: καὶ ἐις μὲν τὸ διδάξαι τὸν ἀκροατὴν σαφέστατα, ὅ τι βούλοιτο,
τὴν ἁπλὴν καὶ ἀκόσμητον ἑρμηνείαν ἐπιτηδεύει τὴν Λυσίου.
It is to be observed in this last citation that Dionysius
recognized the appropriateness of the plain style for the orator
who seeks to instruct his audience, and it is to be remembered
that this ability (didáğa) would be regarded by the Stoics as the
chief function of an orator.
But that Dionysius was thoroughly imbued with the Stoic
conception of style, is perhaps shown best by his criticisms of
the writings of Thucydides, particularly by those which are
contained in the second letter to Ammaeus. These criticisms
are almost without exception such as would be made by one
who adhered to the Stoic theory of style. In the second chap-
ter of the letter he enumerates the "instruments, so to say, of
the style of Thucydides,-the artificial character of the vocab-
ulary, the variety of the constructions, the roughness of the
harmony, the speed of the narrative." And each one of these
characteristics results in a fault in style. To speed of narra-
tive clearness (σapývea) is sacrificed, for in this same chapter
Dionysius says: "The most obvious of his characteristics is
the attempt to indicate as many things as possible in as few
words as possible, to combine many ideas in one, and to leave
the listener expecting to hear something more. The conse-
quence is that brevity becomes obscurity." The "roughness
of harmony" calls to mind Lucilius' demand for words that
SMILEY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 227
were cupova. But it is in seeking for variety of constructions
that Thucydides sins most against the Stoic ideal of Envioμós,
for says Dionysius, "there will be found in him a large num-
ber of constructions which by changes of person and variations
of tense, and by the strained use of expressions denoting place,
differ from ordinary speech and have all the appearance of
solecisms." Eleven of the seventeen chapters of the letter to
Ammaeus are devoted to a discussion of the different kinds of
σoλokioμoί of which Thucydides has been guilty. This same
stricture on the style of Thucydides, that it was not sound in
its diction, had been made by Dionysius in his earlier critical
treatise on the writings of the historian. Two citations from
the twenty-ninth chapter may serve to illustrate: "Eorariášeto
οὖν τὰ τῶν πόλεων”” ὑγιέστερον γὰρ ἦν εἰπεῖν “Ἐστασιάζον ἇι πόλεις.”
“καὶ τὰ ἐφυστερίζοντά που” δυσείκαστόν ἐστι. σαφέστερον δ᾽ ἂν ἐγένετο
ῥηθὲν οὕτω * * * *
The fourth characteristic and fault in the style of Thucydides
was the "artificial character of his vocabulary." Dionysius
frequently refers to this and at the beginning of the third
chapter ad Ammaeum gives in illustration several express-
ions from the historian, which because of their artificial char-
acter are obscure (dvσeíkaσra). The last chapter of this letter
is devoted to a criticism of Thucydides' use of the Gorgianic
figures. His attitude towards these μειρακιώδεις σχηματισμοί, as
he calls them, was, as has already been stated, the same as
that of Lucilius.
To make my position still more secure it seems necessary to
correct a view presented in an article on the Tepì Xéews of
Theophrastus, that appeared in the Rheinisches Museum for
1899. Radermacher, the author of the article, entirely ignores
the influence of Stoicism upon Dionysius, and even goes so far
as to intimate that the first fourteen chapters of the de Lysia are
but a transcript of a portion of the πepì léέews. I will quote the
summary of the arguments on which he bases this supposition.
Page 378: "Ich will nun noch einmal kurz sagen, wie die Sache
liegt; dann mag sich ein jeder nach Belieben seinen Vers darauf
228
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
machen. An mehreren Stellen zu Anfang der Schrift de Lysia
wird Theophrast Tepi léέews von Dionys unmittelbar citirt. In
einem Kapitel liegt er zu Grunde, ohne dass sein Name ge-
nannt würde. In weiteren Kapiteln folgt Dionys einer Doktrin,
die älter ist als die zu seiner Zeit herrschende, jünger als
Aristoteles. Nun mag man sich ja immer noch sperren und
behaupten, dass Dionys noch eine zweite Quelle benutzt; ein
Unbefangener aber wird doch wohl zugeben, dass die angeführt-
en Indizien genügen, um Theophrasts Buch als Unterlage für
das Ganze zu erweisen." Let us take up these arguments singly.
(1) Dionysius cites Theophrastus "an mehreren Stellen"; "meh-
reren" means two; and in both places Dionysius quotes
Theophrastus only to contradict him. In the sixth chapter
Dionysius asserts that Lysias and not Thrasymachus, as
Theophrastus claims, was the first to perfect a certain virtue of
style. In the fourteenth chapter Dionysius expresses wonder-
ment that Theophrastus should accuse Lysias of seeking a tu-
mid and poetical diction, and he then proceeds to defend Lysias
against the charge. In both of these instances it is clear that
he is simply using Theophrastus as a foil. (2) Radermacher's
claim that Dionysius in the third chapter de Lysia is quoting
the view of Theophrastus, is based upon the fact that the
words περιττὰ καὶ σεμνὰ καὶ μεγάλα φαίνεσθαι τὰ πράγματα ποιεῖ which
appear in this chapter, correspond to the words év yiveтai Tò
μέγα καὶ σεμνὸν καὶ περιττὸν ἐν λέξει in the third chapter de Isocrate,
where the view of Theophrastus is being presented. At first
sight this claim seems reasonable. But a careful examination
of the content of the two chapters in question, reveals the fact
that Dionysius is not following, but taking issue with Theo-
phrastus. In the chapter of the de Isocrate the view of Theo-
phrastus is quoted to the effect that the style becomes μéya kai
σεμνὸν καὶ περιττόν through three instrumentalities, viz., ἐκλογὴ
τῶν ὀνομάτων, ἡ ἐκ τούτων ἁρμονία, and σχήματα. Directly counter to
this view of Theophrastus, is the one offered by Dionysius in
the third chapter de Lysia, for there he declares that in Lysias
he has an orator who can make things seem περιττὰ καὶ σεμνὰ καὶ
SMILEY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 229
μεγάλα by using the common words of every-day life(τοῖς κονιοτά-
τοις χρώμενος ὀνόμασι)and without touching embellishment of the
poetical sort (ποιητικῆς οὐχ ἁπτόμενος κατασκευῆς). So here again
he is in disagreement with the view of Theophrastus. (3) The
third argument standing alone seems rather frail. It is this.
Radermacher has discovered in the eighth chapter of de Lysia
a doctrine which seems to him to have originated in the period
between Aristotle and Dionysius. He concludes, without fur-
ther proof, that Theophrastus must have been the origina-
tor of the doctrine, thus tacitly assuming that the Peripa-
tetic philosopher was the only person capable of originating
an idea during this period. And so Radermacher's argument
when reduced to its lowest terms, assumes this form: In the
first fourteen chapters of the de Lysia Dionysius three times.
presents the views of Theophrastus that he may attack and
overthrow them. No further mention is made of Theophrastus.
Therefore Dionysius must have used him as a source through-
out his whole work. It would be just as reasonable to assert
that I everywhere had followed the views of Radermacher
because in this one instance I have cited his view in order that
I might disprove it.
The following summary of the arguments of the whole chap-
ter will show at a glance that not only in the de Lysia but also
in all his other rhetorical treatises, the preponderant influence
with Dionysius was not Peripatetic but Stoic:
(1)The ἀρεταὶ ἀναγκαῖαι of Dionysius, viz., καθαρὰ ἑρμηνεία, ἀκρίβεια,
σαφήνεια, συντομία, are essentially the same as the ἀρεταὶ λόγου of
Diogenes the Stoic of Babylon. All other virtues of style are
characterized as rífero by Dionysius.
(2) The style in which he lays the greatest emphasis upon
the ἀρεταὶ ἀναγκαῖαι, he calls τὸ ἰσχνόν. He points out Lysias as
the best representative of this style.
(3) The embellishment of rò ioɣvóv is such as may be derived
from a careful use of the words of everyday life, and is entirely
within the limits of the Stoic conception of κατασκευή, viz., κατα-
σκευή = κυριολογία(ἀκρίβεια) + εὐσυνθεσία. Dionysius in giving Lysias
230
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
highest commendation for his word-arangement, says that his
σúvocous is in perfect harmony with nature.
(4) The Stoic Kaтà púow seems to be a watchword throughout
all of Dionysius.
6
(5) Lysias is free from the use of the papakiúdŋ σxýμaтa, the
Gorgianic figures, which Dionysius everywhere speaks of with
depreciation bordering on contempt. Our author admits that
Philonicus, the Stoic dialectician, has expressed similar views
concerning the figures of Gorgias. Isocrates is severely cen-
sured because in the use of these figures he has sacrificed the
Stoic virtue συντομία.
(6) Plato, who receives unmeasured praise when he uses the
simple, unadorned style (rò loxvóv), is criticised when he essays.
the opposite style, because Kákov éλλnvíovoa he sacrifices the
Stoic virtues σαφήνεια and συντομία.
(7) Thucydides, the canon of this opposite style, is likewise
censured for the lack of σapývea. The strictures on Thucyd-
ides in the second letter to Ammaeus, are all from the Stoic
view-point. The main purpose of the letter seems to be to show
how Thucydides has failed to attain the true ¿ŋuoµós; two-
thirds of its pages are devoted to an exposition of the different
types of σoloikioμoí of which he has been guilty.
(8) Even Demosthenes does not escape censure for his "Thu-
eydidean" passages; and he receives his highest praise for those
speeches, where his style like that of Lysias is based on the
åpeтai ȧvayκaîαι. It everywhere appears that the "middle style"
of Demosthenes is far nearer to the style of Lysias than
to the opposite style of Thucydides.
As a fitting conclusion of this discussion of Dionysius' con-
6 At only one point does Dionysius take direct issue with the Stoics in
their harmony-with-nature doctrine: When this doctrine develops into
an archaizing tendency and into a search for the "verba antiqua", he
objects that the Stoic theory is at war with itself, in so far as the "verba
antiqua" are obsolete and unintelligible. For himself, he holds fast to
the other Stoic virtue, perspicuity. His position is made clear in the
seventh section of the tenth chapter of the Ars Rhetorica.
SMILEY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 231
ception of style, there may be quoted a sentence from the third
chapter of ad Pompeium: πρώτη τῶν ἀρετῶν γένοιτ' ἄν, ἧς χωρὶς οὐδὲ
τῶν ἄλλων τῶν περὶ τοὺς λόγους ὄφελός τι, ἡ καθαρὰ τοῖς ὀνόμασι καὶ
τὸν Ἑλληνικὸν χαρακτῆρα σῴζουσα διάλεκτος. This clearly is the Stoic
ideal of ἑλληνισμός or Latinitas as a theory of style.
232
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
CHAPTER III.
QUINTILIAN'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS LATINITAS,
About a century after the death of Dionysius, Quintilian
wrote his de Institutione Oratoria. In this treatise we again
have a sure proof of the strong establishment of the Stoic the-
ory. Although Quintilian professed to be and was a follower
of Cicero in his stylistic theory, he seems to have been com-
pelled to give a larger place in his treatise to Stoic principles
than Cicero had been willing to give. The subject of Latinitas
had been dismissed summarily by Cicero with a page or two
in the de Oratore. Quintilian carefully elaborates it in twenty-
five pagos, and throughout his whole treatise we find proof
that the Stoic theory was a factor that had to be considered.
"Quid enim tam necessarium quam recta locutio?" In I: 8, 13
he says the pupil must first be taught "quae barbara,- quae
impropria, quae contra leges loquendi sint posita"; again in
I: 5, 5: "Prima barbarismi ac soloccismi foeditas absit." And
what are the laws by which speech may be tested and the rank
fault of "barbarismus" and "soloecismus" avoided? In I:6, 1
he establishes the standard when he says: "Sermo constat ra-
tione vel vetustate, auctoritate, consuetudine. Rationem praestat
praecipue analogia, nonnumquam et etymologia." We have
here nothing more nor less than Varro's definition of Latinitas.
Quintilian twice repeats this statement.' And yet his nostility
¹ Quint. IX: 3, 2: Esset enim orationis schema vitium, si non peteretur
sed accideret. Verum auctoritate, vetustate, consuetudine plerumque de-
fenditur saepe etiam ratione quadam. Ibid. I: 5, 5: Prima barbarismi
ac soloecismi foeditas absit. Sed quia interim excusantur haec vitia aut
consuetudine aut auctoritate aut vetustate aut denique vicinitato virtut-
um; nam saepe a figuris ea separare difficile est. Ibid. I: 6, 20.
¡
SMILEY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 233
to Latinitas as an ideal of style is manifest in his detailed dis-
cussion of these four standards of correct speech. He takes great
pains to show how each may be pressed too far, intimating that
there were those among his contemporaries who did press them
too far. After he has shown how the law of analogy fails in the
case of such imperatives as "fac" and "die", in the declension
of "lepus" and "lupus", in the formation of the perfect for the
two verbs which have "volo" in the present indicative, he adds
"the law of analogy was not let down from heaven when men
were first created, to establish for them a correct form of
speech." (This is clearly a thrust at the Stoic view that the
earliest speech was the purest.) Concerning "vetustas", he
admits that the "verba antiqua" bring to speech a certain
"maiestas", "delectatio" and "novitas", but he bids the young
orator beware of such ancient words as "topper", "antegerio”
and "prosapia" which have to be interpreted.³ Regarding
"auctoritas" he says no one would use "lodices" even on the
authority of Pollio, or “gladiola" and "parricidatum”, which
appear in the speeches of Messalla and Caelius." "Consuetudo"
2 Ibid. I: 6, 12; I 6, 21. Ibid. I: 6, 16: Non enim, cum primum fin-
gerentur homines, analogia demissa caelo formam loquendi dedit, sed
inventa est, postquam loquebantur, et notatum in sermone, quid quomo-
do caderet. Itaque non ratione nititur sed exemplo, nec lex est lo-
quendi sed observatio, ut ipsam analogiam nulla res alia fecerit quam
consuetudo.
Ibid.I: 6, 39: Verba a vetustate repetita non solum magnos assertores
habent sed etiam afferunt orationi maiestatem aliquam non sine delecta-
tione; nam et auctoritatem antiquitatis habent et, quia intermissa sunt,
gratiam novitati similem parant. Sed opus est modo, ut neque crebra
sint haec neque manifesta, quia nihil est odiosius affectatione, nec utique
ab ultimis et iam oblitteratis repetita temporibus, qualia sunt topper et
antegerio et exanclare et prosapia et Saliorum carmina vix sacerdotibus
suis satis intellecta. Sed illa mutari vetat religio et consecratis uten-
dum est; oratio vero cuius summa virtus est perspicuitas, quam sit viti-
osa, si egeat interprete.
4 Ibid. I: 6, 42: Similis circa auctoritatem ratio. Nam etiamsi potest
videri nihil peccare, qui utitur his verbis, quae summi auctores tradide-
runt, multum tamen refert non solum, quid dixerint sed etiam quid
persuaserint. Neque enim tuburchinabundum et lurchinabundum iam
in nobis quisquam ferat, licet Cato sit auctor, nec hos lodices, quam-
234
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
which he calls the "surest rule of speech", he limits by saying
"consuetudinem sermonis vocabo consensum eruditorum."
Quintilian devotes three pages to a discussion of "soloecis-
mus". Concerning the number of varieties, he indicates that
there was a disagreement among the authorities of his day.
His own view of "soloecismus" is essentially the same as that of
the Stoic Diogenes, i. e. it consists in a fault in syntax. Indeed
Quintilian's "soloecismus" by "adiectione", "detractione", in-
versione", "transmutatione" finds exact equivalents in
Herodian's terminology. Quintilian gives detailed account of
how a noun may suffer from "soloecismus" in gender, num-
ber, and case; and so on with the other parts of speech.
In making his illustrations in four instances he uses the same
words that Lucilius had used as illustrations more than two
hundred years before.* And doubtless if we had the whole of
the ninth book of Lucilius, there would be many similar things
to prove the continuity of the Stoic tradition.
Concerning "barbarismus" Quintilian has a four page dis-
cussion, to which may be properly added three pages de Ortho-
graphia. In the latter he seems to have depended largely on
Lucilius, for he twice cites that author as an authority; in the
former his views are in harmony with those of Herodian, i. e.
"barbarismus" is a fault in pronunciation or spelling.'
Before taking up in Quintilian the other evidence that the
Stoic theory was strongly established in his time, it may be of
advantage to show briefly how closely Quintilian himself fol-
lowed Cicero's theory. (1) He makes the same divisions of
rhetoric as Cicero, viz., "inventio", "dispositio", "elocutio”,
"memoria", "actio".s (2) Like Cicero he maintained that
the function of au orator is three-fold: to teach, to delight, to
quam id Pollioni placet, nec gladiola, atqui Mesalla dixit, nec parricida-
tum quod in Caelio vix tolerabile videtur, nec collos mihi Calvus persuase-
rit quae nec ipsi iam dicerent.
Ibid. I: 6, 45.
Ibid. I: 5, 50. Cf. Lucilius, 245, 250, 256, 263 (Baehrens).
"Ibid., I: 5, 6 ff.
(Ibid., III: 3, 1.
SMILEY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE.
235
"
·
·
move.' (3) He believed in "copia" rather than in "brevitas",
συντομία
σUVTOμía,10 (4) Like Cicero he lays special emphasis on "ornatus",
giving to that more attention than to all the other virtues of
speech combined." "For" he adds "scant is the reward of
those who simply speak correct Latin and clearly." This
last is but one of many thrusts at the Stoic ideal. In the
prooemium of book five he says: "There have been indeed dis-
tinguished authorities who have felt that the function of an
orator was simply to teach; for they thought that all feeling
should be excluded for a two-fold reason (1) because every-
thing that perturbed the mind was an evil, and (2) because the
judge ought not to be diverted from the truth by pity, grati-
tude and similar emotions." Here we have without question
the Stoic doctrine of årábua as a basis of the Stoic theory that
made "docere” its goal,¹³ for the attainment of which "Latine
et plane dicere" was the sole requisite. But it was not simply
the doctrine of "apathy", but also the Stoic desire to be in
harmony with nature. There are four passages in Quintilian
which bear on this point. In XII: 10, 40 he says: "Certain
ones think that no eloquence is in harmony with nature except
13
'Ibid., III: 5, 2: doceat, moveat, delectet.
10 Ibid., III: 4, 5: Eloquentia quoque non mediocri est opus, ut de una-
quaque earum, quas demonstravimus, rerum dicat proprie et copiose.
11
¹¹ Ibid., I: 5, 1: Iam cum omnis oratio tres habeat virtutes, ut emendata,
ut dilucida, ut ornata sit (quia dicere apte, quod est praecipuum, pleri-
que ornatui subiiciunt).
¹º Ibid., VIII: 3, 1: Venio nunc ad ornatum, in quo sine dubio plusquam
in ceteris dicendi partibus sibi indulget orator. Nam emendate quidem
ac lucide dicentium tenue praemium est. Ibid., XII: 2, 25: Stoici, sicut
copiam nitoremque eloquentiae fere praeceptoribus suis defuisse conce-
dant necesse est, ita nullos aut probare acrius aut concludere subtilius
contendunt.
13 Ibid., Prooemium, Book V: Fuerunt et clari quidam auctores, qui-
bus solum videretur oratoris officium docere; namque et effectus duplici
ratione excludendos putabant, primum quia vitium esset omnis animi
perturbatio, deinde quia iudicem a veritate pelli misericordia, gratia, si-
milibusque non oporteret, et voluptatem audientium petere cum vincen-
di tantum gratia diceretur, non modo agenti supervacuum sed vix etiam
viro dignum arbitrabantur. Ibid., VIII: 3, 86: Non tamen satis eloquen-
tiae est, ea, de quibus dicat, clare atque evidenter ostendere.
236
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
that which is most like the speech of every-day life (cotidiano
sermoni) which we use in talking with friends, wives, children,
servants, in which we are content to express simply the will
of the mind, calling in nothing extraneous and seeking nothing
elaborate; whatever is in addition to this, savors of affectation
and ambitious vaunting.”¹ Here we have not only the Stoic.
desire to be in harmony with nature, but also, linked with it, a
protest against the "copia" and "ornatus" of Cicero. Again
(IX: 4, 3): "Nor am I ignorant that there are certain ones who
put aside all painstaking care in the matter of sentence struc-
ture, who maintain that the rough style of speech that flows
haphazard, is not only more in harmony with nature but also
more virile. But if they say that is in harmony with nature
which first sprang from nature and existed before there was
any culture, they subvert the whole art of oratory." This
recalls Lucilius' protest against the well-balanced sentences and
the Gorgianic figures of Isocrates. This harmony with nature
in speech was to be attained by a reading of ancient writers.
In X: 1, 43 Quintilian says: "For certain ones maintain that
only the ancient writers are to be read, and they think that in
no others is there an eloquence to be found in harmony with
nature." This thought is repeated in XII: 10, 42: "Denique
antiquissimum quemque maxime secundum naturam dixisse.
contendunt."
14Ibid., XII: 10, 40: Ad hoc quidam nullam esse naturalem putant elo-
quentiam, nisi quae sit cotidiano sermoni simillima, quo cum amicis, con-
iugibus, liberis, servis, loquamur, contento promere animi voluntatem ni-
hilque et arcessiti et elaborati requirente; quidquid huc sit adiectum, id es-
se affectationis et ambitiosae in loquendo iactantiae, remotum a veritate
fictumque ipsorum gratia verborum, quibus solum natura sit officium
attributum, servire sensibus. Cf. Plutarch,de Com. Not., 1297, 8 ff. (Didot)
Ibid., IX: 4, 3: Neque ignoro quosdam esse, qui curam omnem composi-
tionis excludant, atque illum horridum sermonem, ut forte fluxerit, mo-
do magis naturalem modo etiam magis virilem esse contendant. Qui si
id demum naturale esse dicunt, quod a natura primum ortum est et quale
aute cuitum fuit: tota haec ars orandi subvertitur.
15 Ibid., X: 1, 43: Nam quidam solos veteres legendos putant neque in
ullis aliis esse naturalem eloquentiam et robur viris dignum arbitran-
tur.
SMILEY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 237
The four passages just quoted call to mind "natura", "con-
suetudo", "auctoritas", three of the standards which Varro
set up in his definition of Latinitas.
16
This harking back to antiquity for a vocabulary, this apply-
ing of rigid tests to every word, in the opinion of Quintilian,
robbed speech of its power. He was never tired of warning
his pupils against the pitfalls that lie before those who set up
such a rigid standard." He tells them that if with too great
admiration they read Cato and those like him, they will become
"horridi et ieiuni."'18 He fleers at those who having brought
forth "horride atque incomposite" a style that is "frigidum et
inane", feel that they are equal to the ancient Attici." He
jibes at Sallust, because the historian has stolen many ancient
words of Cato.20 He ridicules those who search out single
words, and then measure the words they have found with a
yardstick or weigh them with a balance."¹ Certain others he
taunts with vexing their souls over single syllables, declaring
that after they have found words that are the very best, they
will search for something "magis antiquum, remotum, inopi-
natum.''22
This search for the word is the Stoic κυριολογία,
16 Ibid., X: 7, 14.
"Ibid., Prooemium, Book VIII.
18 Ibid., II: 5, 21: Duo autem genera maxime cavenda pueris puto: u-
num ne quis eos antiquitatis nimius admirator in Gracchorum Catonisque
et aliorum similium lectione durescere velit; fient enim horridi et ieiuni.
19 Ibid., X: 2, 17: Ideoque qui horride atque incomposite quamlibet il-
lud frigidum et inane extulerunt, antiquis se pares credunt; qui carent
cultu atque sententiis, Atticis scilicet; qui praecisis conclusionibus ob-
scuri, Sallustium atque Thucydidem superant; tristes acieiuni Pollionem
aemulantur.
20 Ibid., VIII: 3, 29: Et verba antiqui multum furate Catonis,
Crispe, Iugurthinae conditor historiae.
21 Ibid., Prooemium, Book VIII: Quasi vero sit ulla verborum nisi rei
cohaerentium virtus; quae ut propria sint dilucida et ornata et apte col-
locentur, si tota vita laborandum est: omnis studiorum fructus amissus
est. Atqui plerosque videas haerentes circa singula, et dum inveniunt
dum inventa ponderant ac dimetiuntur.
22 Ibid.,
Prooemium, Book VIII: Quibusdam tamen nullus
est finis calumniandi se et cum singulis paene syllabis commoriendi,
qui etiam, cum optima sunt reperta, quaerunt aliquid, quod sit magis
antiquum, remotum, inopinatum.
238
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
of Herodian, and they who carry it to the extreme, speak "cu-
riose” and not "Latine", says Quintilian.
23
The baleful effect of this overscrupulous care in the selection
of words, Quintilian sets forth in the twenty-seventh section of
the introduction to the eighth book where he says: "Quod si
idcirco fieret, ut semper optimis uterentur: abominanda tamen
haec infelicitas erat, quae et cursum dicendi refrenat et calor-
em cogitationis extinguit mora atque diffidentia. Miser enim
et, ut sic dicam, pauper orator est, qui nullum verbum aequo
animo perdere potest."
It remains to show that this Stoic theory against which
Quintilian protested, was but a continuation of the Atticism of
Cicero's time. Quintilian says (X: 1, 115): "I have found
those who place Calvus above all other orators" and then,
after repeating Cicero's estimate of Calvus, he adds, "Imitator
est Atticorum." The two adjectives which Quintilian uses to
characterize the "Attici", in distinguishing them from those
who follow the Asian style, are "pressi et integri." "Integri”
recalls the "integritas sermonis" of Catulus and represents
the Stoic "sermo incorruptus", Latinitas. "Pressi" is the
Stoic brevity, the ovvrouía of Diogenes.25 Quintilian points
out that this brevity in the case of the Atticists has resulted in
a style that is meagre (tenue). In X: 1, 44 he says: "Even of
those who wish to follow a true style of speech, there are some
who think that style is sound and truly Attic, which is pressum
23 Ibid., VIII: 1, 2: Multos enim, quibus loquendi ratio non desit, in
venias, quos curiose potius loqui dixeris quam Latine. Ibid., VIII: 2,
21: Pervasit iam multos ista persuasio, ut id iam demum eleganter atque
exquisite dictum putent, quod interpretandum sit.
24 Ibid., X: 1, 115: Inveni qui Calvum praeferrent omnibus, inveni qui
Ciceroni crederent, eum nimia contra se calumnia verum sanguinem
perdidisse; sed est et sancta et gravis oratio et custodita et frequenter
vehemens quoque. Imitator est Atticorum, fecitque illi properata mors
iniuriam, si quid adiecturus sibi, non si quid detracturus fuit.
26 Ibid., XII: 10, 16: Et antiqua quidem illa divisio inter Atticos atque
Asianos fuit, cum hi pressi et integri; contra inflati illi et inanes habe-
rentur.
SMILEY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 239
and tenue and least removed from the usage of daily life.”2
Again (XII: 10, 21): "Wherefore they seem to me greatly to be
deceived, who believe that the only true Attici are those who
are tenues et lucidi et significantes, who are contented with a
certain meagre style of eloquence and who always keep their
hand beneath their mantle."27 (The last phrase "ac semper
manum intra pallium continentes" has a strong savor of Stoic
apathy.) Again (XII: 10, 25): "What is the reason therefore,
why those whose speech flows in a slender stream through a
stony barren soil, think they possess the true Atticum sapo-
rem. ''28
Quintilian warns his pupils that it is not sufficient
merely "dicere presse aut subtiliter aut aspere",29 and he warns
them that they must avoid "illa Sallustiana brevitas et abrup-
tum sermonis genus." In VI: 3, 107 he says the real ȧTTIKIO-
μós which carries with it "Athenarum proprium saporem" rests
not so much "in singulis verbis" as "in toto colore dicendi."""1
From various allusions it is plain that Lysias, who had been
regarded as the ideal orator by the Atticists, continued to be
the ideal for those who followed the Stoic theory in Quintilian's
day. For our author in attempting to point out one of the
great Athenian orators as the one true Attic type (and in show-
ing the futility of such an attempt), is careful to begin his enu-
meration with Lysias. "Who then shall be this Attic orator?"
26 Ibid.,X: 1, 44: Ipsorum etiam qui rectum dicendi genus sequi vo-
lunt alii pressa demum et tenuia et quae minimum ab usu cotidiano re-
cedant, sana et vere Attica putant.
27
Ibid., XII: 10, 21: Qua propter mihi falli multum videntur, qui solos
esse Atticos credunt tenues et lucidos et significantes et quadam elo-
quentiae frugalitate contentos ac semper manum intra pallium conti-
nentes.
28 Ibid., XII: 10, 25: Quid est igitur, cur in iis demum, qui tenui venu-
la per calculos fluunt, Atticum saporem putent?
29 Ibid., II; 8, 15: Non enim satis est dicere presse tantum aut subtiliter
aut aspere.
* *
30 Ibid., IV: 2, 45: Quare vitanda est etiam illa Sallustiana
81 Ibid., VI: 3, 107: Ut non tam sit in singulis dictis quam in toto colo-
re dicendi, qualis apud Graecos άrriиióμòs ille reddens Athenarum
proprium saporem.
240
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
he says, and then rejoins :"Let it be Lysias."32 With this must
be compared his characterization of Lysias in an earlier chap-
ter in which he calls him an orator "subtilis atque elegans",
than whom you would seek nothing more perfect, “if it is suf-
ficient for an orator merely to teach." The clause "si oratori
satis est docere", brings us again face to face with the Stoic
theory.
It will now perhaps be fitting to sum up the characteristics
of this school of stylists which Quintilian so vigorously
opposed.
(1) Their teaching was identical with, or at all events very
similar to the theory of the Atticists.
(2) They held the Stoic conception that the function of the
ideal orator is merely to teach. (Cf. Cicero's "docere, delectare
movere.")
(3) They held the Stoic doctrine of "brevitas" (ovvrouía),
in contrast to Cicero's "copia."
(4) They held the Stoic view of the embellished style i. e, that
'nothing extraneous, nothing elaborate" should be added to
the "sermo cotidianus."
(5) They held the Stoic doctrine of kupioλoyía in the careful
search for the word.
(6) They held the Stoic doctrine that speech must be in har-
mony with nature, and so sought their vocabulary from the
ancients whose speech was nearer to the primitive and natu-
ral diction.
(7) They applied to all their words the tests of "analogia,
etymologia, auctoritas. consuetudo", Varro's tests for
Latinitas.
9
(6
(8) They followed the Stoic theory in seeking to avoid So-
loecismus" and "barbarismus"; such avoidance is Latinitas.
32 Ibid., XII: 10, 21: Nam quis erit hic Atticus?
Sit Lysias.
33 Ibid., X: 1, 78: His aetate Lysias maior, subtilis atque elegans et
quo nihil, si oratori satis est docere, quaeras perfectius.
SMILEY—LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 241
CHAPTER IV.
TRACES OF THE INFLUENCE OF LATINITAS IN PLINY THE
YOUNGER.
2
In spite of the strenuous efforts of Quintilian and his master-
ful presentation of the Ciceronian theory of style, it seems
plain from the letters of Pliny the Younger that the Stoic theo-
ry of Latinitas still obtained. Pliny himself, while he pro-
fessed to be an emulator of Cicero,' and an imitator of the fig-
urative style of Demosthenes, frequently finds fault with the
type of oratory which prevailed in his day. The complaints
which he makes against it are the same which Quintilian
registered against the Stoic theory. They are: (1) It sought
for “brevitas” rather than "copia." Pliny gives his full ap-
proval to Isaeus, who, he says, fulfills the three functions of
Cicero's ideal orator, "docet, delectat, adficit"" This end
the orator attains through a style that is characterized by "co-
pia et ubertas." In the twentieth letter of the first book, Pliny
further praises "ubertas" by declaring that Pericles' stood for
"copia" and then he adds that he himself desires to stand mid-
way between the two extremes, on the one hand, that which
is expressed "ieiune et infirme" and on the other, that which
is spoken "immodice et redundanter." In his effort, however,
3
1
Pliny's Letters, I: 5, 12: Est enim, inquam, mihi cum Cicerone aemu-
latio, nec sum contentus eloquentia saeculi nostri.
2 Idid., I: 2, 2: Temptavi enim imitari Demosthenem.
8
* *
³ Ibid., II: 3, 1 and 3: (concerning Isaeus) Summa est facultas, copia,
ubertas; sermo Graecus, immo Atticus * *. Proemiatur apte, nar-
rat aperte, pugnat acriter, colligit fortiter, ornat excelse; postremo do-
cet, delectat, adficit.
* Ibid., I: 20, 18 ff.
242
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
to attain a full-rounded style, he seems to have fallen into the
fault of tumidity. At least he writes a long letter to Lupercus,
defending himself against strictures on this score. A single
sentence from the letter will indicate Pliny's attitude: "Quia
visus es mihi in scriptis meis adnotasse quaedam ut tumida
quae ego sublimia; ut improba, quae ego audentia; ut nimia,
quae ego plena arbitrabar." The whole letter has for its text
an account of a discussion "cum quodam docto homine et pe-
rito, cui nihil aeque in causis agendis ut brevitas placet."
Pliny says that there are many who hold this ideal of "brevi-
tas”, and he admits that it perhaps has a place "in angustissi-
mis causis", yet for himself he would choose the copious style
of Ulysses rather than the thin attenuated style of Menelaus."
(2) Pliny objects to the tendencies of those stylists who, like
their predecessors, the Atticists, would make Lysias the su-
preme model, and who looked to the orations of the most an-
cient Romans as the most perfect examples of Latin style.' He
protests that Cicero surpasses Cato and the Gracchi, and that
Demosthenes is to be imitated rather than Lysias.
(3) In the twenty-sixth letter of the ninth book, Pliny makes
a long defense against those who attack the ornamented style.
He adverts to the fact that Aeschines had censured Demosthenes
for his bold metaphors and figurative language. He affirms
and would prove by numerous citations that this use of figures
was the secret of Demosthenes' superiority over Aeschines.
The letter is plainly a retort to Lupercus and others who have
criticized Pliny's attempt to realize an embellished style.
.5
Ibid., IX: 26, 5.
Ibid., I: 20, 11: Quam praestare, nisi in angustissimis causis, non
potest brevitas. Ibid., I: 20, 21 and 22. With this may be compared Quint.,
XII: 10, 64, and Gellius, VI:14, where Ulysses and Menelaus are used in
a similar way, as examples of opposite types of oratory.
'Ibid., I: 20, 4: Hic ille mecum auctoritatibus agit ac mihi ex Graecis
orationes Lysiae ostentat, ex nostris Gracchorum Catonisque quorum
sane plurimae sunt circumcisae et breves; ego Lysiae Demosthenen,
Aeschinen, Hyperiden, multosque praeterea, Gracchis et Catoni Pollionem
Caesarem, Caelium, in primis M. Tullium oppono.
SMILEY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 243
(4) The following account which Pliny gives of a typical ora-
tor of the class of those who strove for Latinitas, reminds
one of Cicero's description of Calvus. We have in this ac-
count an orator "rectus et sanus", one who is over-scrupulous
in his careful use of language, one whose only fault is the fault
of being faultless. Pliny further places on him the mark of
Stoicism, by branding his style as apethetic: "Dixi de quodam
oratore saeculi nostri, recto quidem et sano, sed parum grandi
et ornato, ut opinor, apte 'Nihil peccat, nisi quod nihil peccat.'
Debet enim orator erigi, attolli, interdum etiam effervescere,
efferri, ac saepe accedere ad praeceps." An interesting side
light on this type of orator, is afforded by the fourteenth letter
of the second book, in which Pliny speaks of an amusing cus-
tom that was introduced by Largius Licinius and adopted by
the younger advocates of his class. This was the Largius
Licinius who was so devoted to the Stoic Kupioλoyía, that he
wrote the Ciceromastix, scourging the great orator for
his lack of precision, and his inaccurate use of words. It seems
that Licinius' style of oratory was not altogether popular and
did not win for itself an enthusiastic hearing, and so he found
it necessary to employ certain persons to attend court and give
their applause at the proper times while he was speaking. One
day Domitius Afer was passing the courts, so Pliny says, and
heard the applause which this subsidized audience was giving
to Licinius. When he inquired what it meant, and the situa-
tion was explained to him, he declared that eloquence was dead
at Rome. As a comment on this, there may be cited a sentence
from another letter (II: 19, 6) in which Pliny says: "Et sane
quotusquisque tam rectus auditor quem non potius dulcia haec
et sonantia quam austera et pressa delectent."
Although Pliny bemoans his own style as "pressus demissus-
que", he betrays the fact that he has been influenced by the
Stoic ideal and has in a measure adopted it as a canon of style.
He praises Pompeius Saturninus for his use of the "verba an-
* Ibid., IX: 26, 1.
244
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
tiqua" and the wife of Saturninus because the diction of her
letters is like that of Plautus and Terence.' Approving of the
style of Antoninus, he says "Quam antiqua! quam arguta!
quam recta!"" Again in commenting on the literary work of
Maximus he speaks of it as "elegans, purum. Of the style
of Terentius Junior he says: "Quam tersia omnia! quam Lati-
na." The three books which the "elegans et disertus Fannius"
has written, Pliny characterizes as "subtiles et diligentes et
Latinos.''¹
In the ninth letter of the seventh book he says
that pressus sermo purusque" is to be expected in letters. In
one and the same sentence he mentions Demosthenes and
Calvus as models in style. He even goes so far in a letter to
Severus, as to pray that the day may come when the florid
style may yield precedence to severe and chaste composition
(austeris severisque).16
"
11 Ibid., IV: 3, 4.
12 Ibid., IV: 20, 2.
18 Ibid., V: 5, 3.
14 Ibid., VII: 9, 8.
15 Ibid., I: 2, 2.
15
Ibid., I: 8, 5.
1º Ibid., I: 16, 6: (Saturninus) legit mihi epistulas quas uxoris esse di-
cebat. Plautum vel Terentium metro solutum legi credidi.
16
1º Ibid., III:18, 10ff.
2912
SMILEY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 245
CHAPTER V.
EVIDENCE CONCERNING LATINITAS IN TACITUS.
There is much in the Dialogus of Tacitus to reinforce the
testimony of Pliny that the Stoic theory of style still enjoyed
a quiet but secure ascendancy. In describing the diction of two
of the interlocutors in the dialogue, Tacitus uses the words.
which a Stoic would have used in giving highest praises. Of
the style of Aper he says "accuratissimus sermo Apri nostri";"
of Secundus: "nam et Secundo purus et pressus et, in quantum
satis erat, profluens sermo non defuit." This is unconscious.
testimony on the part of Tacitus that the doctrines of Latinitas
still prevailed. In the thirty-first chapter he marks the differ-
ent types of oratory that were fostered by the different schools of
philosophy, and while he does not mention the Stoics by name,
he begins with the Stoic type, thus seeming tacitly to indi-
cate that he regarded it as worthy of first consideration. This
is the characterization he gives it: "sunt apud quos adstrictum
et collectum et singula statim argumenta concludens dicendi
genus plus fidei meretur: apud hos dedisse operam dialec-
ticae proficiet. While Tacitus does not give his own approval
to such a style in the Dialogus, in his later writings he seems in
a measure to have adopted it. In two passages of the Dialogus
he makes clear the conditions of life at Rome which made the
adoption of such a style necessary to those who were public
speakers. In the courts the judges insisted on Stoic brevity,
3
1 ¹ Dialogus, 14, 9. References are made to the lines in Gudeman's
Dialogus.
2 Ibid., 2, 13.
³ Ibid., 31, 22.
246
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
requiring the advocates to hew to the line, thus taking the
Stoic position that the function of an orator is simply "docere"
and not "docere, delectare, movere." Again Tacitus shows
how under the long quietude of the reign of Augustus, by the
"continuum populi otium et adsidua senatus tranquillitas et max-
ime principis disciplina" even eloquence herself along with all
else has been subdued.
Our subject, however, will be illuminated best by a brief
outline of some of the more important points of chapters.
XVIII, XXI, XXII, XXIII, of the Dialogus. In these chap-
ters Aper severely criticises the tendency of orators of his
time to hark back to antiquity for their models.
In the eighteenth chapter he shows how this tendency to de-
preciate the new and exalt the old, had been common to every
period; he does not doubt that there were those who gave more
admiration to Appius Caecus than to Cato. He declares that
the ancients who were the models of Calvus were "impoliti,
rudes, informes." In describing the development of Roman
oratory and the contributions of various orators to that devel-
opment, he says that Messalla improved on Cicero in that he
was in verbis magis elaboratus." He repeats the criticism
against Cicero that was made by the Atticists: "satis constat
ne Ciceroni quidem obtrectatores defuisse quibus inflatus et
tumens nec satis pressus, sed super modum exsultans et super-
fluens et parum Atticus videretur," also Cicero's criticism
against the Atticists: "facile est deprehendere Calvum quidem
Ciceroni visum exsanguem et aridum, Brutum autem otiosum
atque diiunctum."5
،،
In the twenty-first chapter he speaks of this whole school as
an "infirmary" in which the patients show their bones and
general emaciation too much to please his taste. In the twenty-
one books of orations which Calvus had left there is only one
speech which meets with his full approval. Of the speeches
of Caelius he says: 'sordes autem illae verborum et
'Ibid., 18, 20.
'Ibid., 18, 22.
-
"
SMILEY- -LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 247
hians compositio et inconditi sensus redolent antiquitatem;
nec quemquam adeo antiquarium puto, ut Caelium ex ea parte
laudet qua antiquus est.” He visits upon the other Atticists
similar censure, granting that Caesar and Brutus had each
left but one speech worthy to survive. Asinius, he says,
“videtur mihi inter Menenios et Appios studuisse "—and then
he adds that in imitating Pacuvius and Accius, Pollio has at-
tained a style that is "durus et siccus." His concluding sen-
tence sounds like an echo of Cicero's criticism of the Atticists:
oratio autem, sicut corpus hominis, ea demum pulchra est in
qua non eminent venae nec ossa numerantur, sed temperatus
ac bonus sanguis implet membra et exsurgit toris ipsosque
nervos rubor tegit et decor commendat."
The next chapter (the twenty-second) begins with this state.
ment: "I come now to Cicero who had the same battle with
his contemporaries that I am having with you: for they gave
their admiration to the ancients." Further on in the chapter
Aper says that the earlier speeches of Cicero were not withou
the blemishes of antiquity, and that the true orator will reject
""
the antiquated phrase, and whatever is covered with the rust
of time." There is one paragraph in the twenty-third cùa p-
ter that may well be quoted entire: "There are certain pre-
tenders to taste who prefer Lucilius to Horace, and Lucretius
to Virgil; who hold the eloquence of your favorite Bassus or
Nonianus in the utmost contempt when compared with that of
Sisenna or Varro; in a word who despise the productions of
our modern rhetoricians, yet are in raptures over those of Cal-
We see these men posing in the courts of judicature after
the manner of the ancients (as they call it), till they are de-
serted by the whole audience, and are scarcely supportable
even to their very clients; so dreary and squalid they are; so
much is their boasted healthy sobriety an evidence of a sickly
habit and valetudinary abstinence. No physician would call
that a sound constitution, which requires constant care and
46
"Ibid., 21, 16.
248
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
anxiety of mind; it is spirits, vivacity and vigor that I require.
Prope abest ab infirmitate in quo sola sanitas laudatur." In
the words "sola sanitas" we meet again face to face the Stoic
doctrine of Latinitas which made the sermo purus et incor-
ruptus" the supreme ideal of style.
"C
'Ibid., 23, 5.
SMILEY -LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE 249
CHAPTER VI.
THE INFLUENCE OF THE STOIC THEORY ON FRONTO.
2,9
About half a century later the correspondence of Fronto fur-
nishes very full information concerning the oratorical tendencies
of that period. From certain statements that can be gathered
from the letters, it would almost seem that Cicero's ideal of
oratory had been rehabilitated. Fronto speaks of Cicero as
the fountain-head of Roman eloquence;¹ he further says that
the best type of eloquence is that which can speak “de sublim-
ibus magnifice, de tenuioribus frugaliter, a view indentical
with that of Cicero; he recognizes the three styles, and while
he admits that rò ioxvóv (which may fairly be called the Stoic
style) is very necessary in courts, he says that it has no place
in epideictic utterances which demand embellishment and alli
the trappings of ornamentation. He even goes so far as to
repudiate the Stoic principle that the function of an orator is
simply to teach (docere), and asserts that Chrysippus (what-
ever the Stoic theory may have been) in practice was not con-
tent merely "docere, rem ostendere, definire, explanare." In
the face of these statements it would seem at first thought that
the Ciceronian type of oratory was the vogue; but on nearly
every page of Fronto there is the imprint of the Stoic theory.
Emphasis is continually laid on clearness, brevity, accuracy
and precision of speech; the royal pupil of Fronto is everywhere
3
¹Fronto, 63, 2. References are to the pages of S. A. Naber's Fronto,
Leipsig, 1867.
2 Ibid., 127, 5.
³ Ibid., 125, 5.
4Ibid., 54, 10 ff, Ibid., 146, 19 ff. With this should be compared Fronto's
praise of the style of Zeno, 114, 10: Zeno ad docendum planissimus.
250
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
admonished t search e ancient orators for the best words,
and the best models of pure Latinity. The criticisms that are
made of Cicero are the same as those that were made by the
Atticists, and are all from the Stoic view point.
66
195
Perhaps it may be well to present the more important pas-
sages from the letters, which illustrate this attitude. The doc-
tine of "brevitas" is clearly set forth in a letter in which
Fronto praises a certain speech which had been delivered by
the Emperor. As a climax of high compliment on the style.
of the speech, he says: "You expressed the whole matter
with such force and such conciseness that everything which
the case demanded was contained in the fewest words possi-
ble."a
Clearness and perspicuity as an ultimate aim of
the orator is likewise emphasized by Fronto. "Truly let the
orator be bold" he says as Ennius demands; but let him
nowhere turn aside from a clear expression of that which he
wishes to say.'
This clearness of statement and that preci-
sion of speech which is closely allied to it, are emphasized
again and again by Fronto, who enjoins upon his pupil the
necessity of searching with diligence after the very best words.
To Marcus he writes: "I rejoice especially that you do not lay
hold of words that chance in your way, but search after the
best. For there is this difference between the greatest orator
and those of mediocre quality, the fact that the rest are easily
content with good words, while the greatest orator is not con-
tent with the good, if there are any better." The best words,
in his opinion, are those which express the speaker's thought
with precision. The ability to differentiate words, a knowledge
of their more subtle shades of meaning, a knowledge of what
Fronto calls the "modum atque pondus verbi" reveals, he de-
clares, the "elegantia" of the speaker, and distinguishes the
4º Deinde ita breviter rem omnem atque ita valide elocutus es, ut pau-
cissimis verbis omnia quae res posceret, continerentur.
'Ibid., 66, 4 ff: Sit sane audax orator, ut Ennius postulat; sed a sig-
niñcando, quod volt eloqui, nusquam digrediatur.
Ibid., 98 and 99.
SMILEY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 251
""
66
7
* *
doctus" from the semidoctus" and "semiperitus." Of
the semidoctus" he says "nec verba dare diutius potest
quin se ipse indicet verborum ignarum esse, eaque male pro-
bare, et temere existimare et inscie contrectare, neque modum
neque pondus verbi internosse. Again in this same letter the
whole of which might well be called an essay on the Stoic
virtue of style, Kupioλoyía, he says: "Una plerumque littera
translata aut exempta aut inmutata vim verbi ac venustatem
commutat et elegantiam vel scientiam loquentis declarat.
Nolim igitur te ignorare syllabae unius discrimen quantum
referat." The severest criticism that Fronto passes on Cicero
is that he does not make these nice distinctions in the use of
words. The great orator is very far removed he says, from
that painstaking care which searches diligently after the word;
as a result of this negligence we seldom find in his speeches
the "verbum insperatum atque inopinatum," the word which
so perfectly expresses the thought that no other word may be
substituted for it without loss. In his discussion de Eloquentia,
addressed to Marcus, Fronto says: "just as in time of war
when there is need of mustering in a legion, we enroll not only
the volunteers, but even hunt out of their hiding places those
of military age, so when there is need of a defense of words, we
will use not only volunteers which present themselves of their
own accord, but will lure forth those that are in hiding, and will
track them out that they may do our bidding.' * * * *
"We must not stand gaping, waiting to see when the word will
rain down upon our tongue like a palladium from the sky, but we
must know the haunts, the glades which the words frequent in
order that, when there is need of searching them out, we may ad-
vance in our search over a well known way rather than through
a pathless region." The glades that are the haunts of these
rare best words, are the writings of the ancient orators and
9
8
..
'Ibid., 62, 9 ff.
Ibid., 64, 6 ff.
'Ibid., 63.
10 Ibid., 140, 1 ff; 140, 8 ff; 62, 17 ff.
9910
252
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
،،
poets. First in the list, Fronto places Cato the Elder, and after
him Sallust who was his imitator; Plautus and Gracchus are
often named. While Fronto had his note book at hand ready
to jot down the "verba notabilia et elegantia," the two authors
first mentioned, Cato and Sallust, seem to have been the most
abundant sources of such words. This is made plain by the
frequency in the letters of such sentences as Catonis multa
legi," "
partim legi ex agricultura Catonis partim scripsi;"
"legi Catonis orationem de bonis Dulciae."'¹³ Two sentences
may be quoted to show that Cato was regarded as the supreme
model of style. "Enim vero fandi agendique laudibus longe
praestantissimus omnium Cato Porcius." "Uni M. Porcio
me dedicavi atque despondi atque delegavi."5 In another
letter, in praising the speech of his pupil he says, “prope per-
fecte; ut poni in libro Sallusti possit." All this is an exempli-
fication of the Stoic tendency to hark back to antiquity for per-
fect models and of the Stoic view that the true λŋvioµós was
to be found only in Homer and in the language of the pre-
Homeric Greeks, and the pure Latinitas only in the most an-
cient Latin authors and their imitators. Fronto writes to
Marcus in the de Orationibus, "scis verba quaerere, scis reperta
recte collocare, scis colorum sincerum vetustatis appingere
and again in the de Eloquentia, "ut prisco verbo adornares col-
orem vetusculum adpingeres.""
Besides four letters in which the fault of "barbarismus" is
mentioned' there are two passages in two different letters
which in the light of citations already made, would seem to
show conclusively that the doctrine of Latinitas still continued
to constitute a well defined ideal of style. In both passages
12 Ibid., 69, 10.
13 Ibid., 68, 11.
14 Ibid., 203, 6.
15 Ibid., 36, 12.
16 Ibid., 48, 15.
17 Ibid., 151, 8.
18 Ibid., 242, 4, 14.
¹ Ibid., 24, 24.
12
""
SMILEY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 253
the perfection of Fronto's style is praised by those who have
studied under him. In each instance meaning and connota-
tion are so plain that it is perhaps only necessary to quote
them.
"Nam de elegantia quid dicam? nisi te Latine loqui nos
ceteros neque Graece neque Latine"."
"Facilius quis Phidian, facilius Apellen, facilius denique
ipsum Demosthenen imitatus fuerit, aut ipsum Catonem quam
hoc tam effectum et elaboratum opus. Nihil ego umquam
cultius, nihil antiquius, nihil conditius, nihil Latinius legi."20
As an addendum to this chapter, I wish to call attention to
certain statements made by Professor Robinson Ellis in his
lecture on Fronto, a lecture delivered in December, 1903, be-
fore the students of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. On pages
11-18 of this lecture he seems without question to have mis-
apprehended the significance of the facts which he there pre-
sents. On page fifteen, he says: "It was no part of the Stoic
training to think much of rhetoric or busy oneself with ques-
tions of style: so the Emperor himself confesses in his Reflex-
ions (I: 7)." Now this is not quite what the Emperor says,
but granting that he said something very much like it, let us
pass on for the moment to another statement made by Profes-
sor Ellis. On page seventeen he says: With the study of
grammar, the study of rhetoric advanced pari passu." There
can be no question about the truth of this statement; but it
fails to harmonize with the first statement quoted. The author
seems to have forgotten that grammar had its origin with the
Stoics, and that for Stoicism, grammar constituted the back-
bone of a theory of style. The Stoics had given themselves to
a thorough study of grammar and had invented an elaborate
grammatical terminology, with this one purpose in view, viz.,
that their speakers and writers whose sole function was to
speak the truth and impart instruction, might have at their
command language that was pure and in harmony with nature,
language that would serve as a proper vehicle for the pre-
19 Ibid., 101, 22 f.
20 Ibid., 28, 10 ff.
(6
254
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
cise and accurate transfer of thought. That this was the real
purpose of the earlier grammatical studies of the Stoics, there
can be no doubt. And even in the days of Fronto, when the
real purpose that had given birth to them both had almost been
forgotten, grammar was still wedded to the Stoic theory of
style. This is proved by the fact that in the grammatical trea-
tise de Barbarismo et Soloecismo, which Herodian dedicated to
the Stoic Marcus Aurelius, a prominent place is given to an
enumeration of the aperai λóyou, which constituted a theory of
style almost identical with that which had been enunciated
three hundred years earlier by Diogenes the Stoic of Babylon.
It has been shown already in the preceding chapter that Fronto,
in giving precepts on style, clung to these åperaì Xóyov of He-
rodian: κυριολογία, συντομία, and σαφήνεια. It may be well,
however, in disproof of Professor Ellis' assertion that "it was
no part of the Stoic training to busy oneself with questions of
style," to gather from his own lecture such citations from
Fronto as will serve to refute his own statement.
On page eleven he says: "It is clear that with him (Fronto)
oratory depended for its success almost wholly on the choice
of words." Then he devotes more than a page to quotations
from Fronto, establishing this statement. But this fine differ-
entiation of synonyms, this search after the word is the Stoic
κυριολογία.
On page thirteen he comments at length on Fronto's fond-
ness for the pre-Ciceronian writers and his archaizing tenden-
cies. He says: "Nor must we suppose that Fronto contented
himself with merely lauding these antiquated worthies; he got
copies to be made of them and dispatched them to his imperial
pupil." In pointing out this very marked characteristic of
Fronto, Professor Ellis has failed to observe in it but an ex-
ample of the general archaizing tendency of the Stoics, which
was based upon the belief that the earliest speech was the purest
and that the best models of style were those ancient writers
who were nearest that Golden Age when all speech was in har-
mony with nature.
SMILEY-
LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 255
C
On pages thirteen, fourteen and fifteen he calls attention to
Fronto's criticism of the "copious and exuberant" diction of
Seneca and of the "Neronian affectation of repeating the same.
idea in many different forms." He quotes at length, conclud-
ing with the following passage from Fronto's criticism of
Lucan: "At the beginning of his epic he has illustrated in the
first seven lines one single idea a more than civil war.”
Then Professor Ellis adds: "With this Neronian verbiage he
rightly contrasts the condensation of Appollonius Rhodius,
who in the four hexameters with which his Argonautica open,
sums up five separate circumstances, the heroes who sailed,
the course they took, the king who commanded the voyage,
the purpose of the voyage, the ship which carried the Argo-
nauts." This looks very much like a plea on the part of Fronto
for the Stoic συντομία.
On page fifteen he speaks at length of Fronto's "undisguised
admiration" for Sallust, the chief characteristic of whose style
was ouvrouía. Quintilian, who took the opposite view of style,
had warned his pupils that they must avoid the “brevitas Sal-
lustiana."
Pages sixteen, seventeen and eighteen he devotes to a further
discussion of the archaizing tendencies of Fronto and his Age.
It seems clear that the Stoic åperaì λóyov dominated the literary
activities of Fronto and his contemporaries, and gave the im-
pulse to the grammatical and lexicographical studies for which
the age was noted. It must be admitted, however, that, al-
though these ȧperać were dominant, the purpose which had
given rise to the formulation of the theory and to each of
these virtues of style,-had largely been forgotten.
It is quite evident that Fronto in seeking for σvvroμía did
not have in mind the avoidance of extraneous and artificial em-
bellishment, but rather the fear of wearying his auditors with
a style that was too copious. Again it must be admitted that
while the early Stoic sought Kupioλoyía because of his desire to
state the truth with precision, Fronto seems to have sought it
chiefly as a means of rhetorical embellishment. His search
Mga p
256
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
for the "verbum inopinatum et insperatum" was prompted
by a desire to produce in his hearers a certain intellectual titil-
lation and delectation. Even in following the Stoic archaizing
tendency, Fronto may not have been influenced altogether by
the early Stoic motive, i. e., a desire for the oldest, purest words.
It is likely that here too he had in mind somewhat the embel-
lishment of his style. For as Quintilian says, the "verba
antiqua" have about them a certain "novitas," "delectatio"
and "maiestas." We read in the letters of Dante Gabriel Ros-
setti how the poet read the early English ballads in search of
"stunning old words" that would enchain attention and lend
a certain dignity and charm of strangeness to his verses.
So this theory of style which was formulated by those who
sought simply "docere" has in the age of Fronto been seized
and appropriated by those whose chief object is "delectare."
And although its ȧperaì λóyou remain practically unchanged,
the theory which in its origin was wholly at enmity with all
that savored of rhetoric, has itself degenerated into a style as
truly rhetorical as was that of Gorgias or Cicero.
But to return to Professor Ellis' statement: "It was no part
of the Stoic training to think much of rhetoric or busy one's
self with questions of style; and so the Emperor himself con-
fesses in his Reflexions (1:7)." The real statement of the Em-
peror is that he has been taught by Rusticus "to abstain from
rhetoric and poetry, and fine writing." But on the very next
page (I: 10) he says that he learned from "Alexander, the
grammarian, to refrain from fault-finding, and not in a re-
proachful way to chide those who uttered any barbarous or
solecistic or strange-sounding expression; but dexterously to
introduce the very expression which ought to have been used.
This seems to indicate that the Stoics still clung to their theory
of Latinitas, even though they might not approve of the rhetor-
ical uses to which it has been put.
SMILEY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 257
CHAPTER VII.
Ma
EVIDENCE CONCERNING LATINITAS IN AULUS GELLIUS.
""
The testimony of Fronto is thoroughly corroborated by Aulus
Gellius. The evidence of the Stoic theory of style in the
Noctes Atticae is so varied and so voluminous that it is diffi-
cult to give it a full and effective presentation. On nearly
every page there is some phrase to remind one of the sermo
purus et incorruptus" which constituted the Latinitas of
Varro and his predecessors. Gellius is continually citing the
authority of those "qui purissime,- "qui integre,- "qui rectis-
sime,- "qui probe,- "qui elegantissime,- locuti sunt." Like
Fronto, to be sure, he names Cicero as the foremost of orators.
"Non dubium est quin M. Tullius omnium sit eloquentissi-
mus."2
He defends him against the "rhetores" who charge
him with soloecismus;" he enters the lists against those
"monstra "-those "verborum pensitatores subtilissimi" who
insist that Cicero has spoken "parum integre atque impro-
prie atque inconsiderate." This defense of Cicero in itself,
even if the writings of Gellius were not saturated with the
Stoic terminology, would be evidence that there were those in
this age who held an ideal of style, directly opposed to that of
Cicero. That this opposite ideal was Stoic, is made plain by
the following passage in which Gellius brings the two ideals
into contrast:
(C
"Haec M. Tullius atrociter, graviter, apte, copioseque misera-
tus est. Sed si quis tam agresti aure ac tam hispida, quem lux
¹A collection of these expressions will be found at the close of this
chapter on Gellius.
2 Noctes Atticae, XVII: 13, 2.
Ibid., I: 4, 1; I: 7, 1.
"Ibid., XVII: 1, 1 and 3.
17
258
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
ista et amoenitas orationis verborumque modificati parum de-
lectat, amat autem priora idcirco, quod incompta et revia et non
operosa, sed nativa quadam suavitate sunt quodque in his umbra
et color quasi opacae vetustatis est, is, si quid iudicii habet con-
sideret in causa pari M. Catonis antiquioris hominis, orationem,
ad cuius vim et copiam Gracchus nec adspiravit. Intelleget,
opinor, Catonem contentum eloquentia aetatis suae non fuisse
et id iam tum facere voluisse, quod Cicero postea perfecit."5
Of this style which Gellius here seems to repudiate, he does
not always speak so unfavorably. In the thirteenth chapter
of the ninth book he approves Quadrigarius for his simple un-
adorned style that has about it the sweet flavor of antiquity-
a style which aims at clearness and purity of diction.
"'*
""
**Q. Claudius primo annalium purissime atque
inlustrissime simplicique et incompta orationis antiquae sua-
vitate descripsit." Again in the fourteenth chapter of the sixth
book he clearly defines this type of speech in describing the
"oratio modesta et sobria" of Diogenes the Stoic of Babylon.
He characterizes the style as "gracilis "; its virtues are ve-
nustas et subtilitas "; its faults are exemplified by those "ieiu-
nidici et squalentes" who fall short in their attempt to be
graciles"; as an example of this type among the orators
Menelaus is mentioned whose name had been used in a similar
way by both Quintilian and the Younger Pliny; among the
poets the representative given is Lucilius who, three hundred
years before, had presented the Stoic views of style in the
ninth book of his satires. With regard to embellishment, the
thing in respect to which the Ciceronian and Stoic styles di-
verged the most, Gellius seems to have held almost the same
view as Lucilius. He believed in ornamentation but it must
be "castus et pudicus";" he seems to have approved Castri-
cius, the rhetor, who when reading a speech of Gracchus,
warned his pupils that they must not care more for rhythm and
sound than for sense; his attitude towards the Gorgianic fig-
7
""
5 'Ibid., X: 3, 14 and 15.
Ibid., VI: 14, 11.
'Ibid., XIII, 1.
6
SMILEY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 259
ures was identical with that of Lucilius;- in fact the uncom-
plimentary remarks that he makes about them in the eighteenth
book, are but a restatement in prose of what Lucilius had said
in the fifth book of his satires.
“Ομοιοτέλευτα et ἰσοκατάληκτα et πάρισα et ὁμοιόπτωτα ceteraque
huiusmodi scitamenta quae isti apirocali, qui se Isocratios
videri volunt, in conlocandis verbis immodice faciunt et
rancide, quam sint insubida et inertia et puerilia, facetissime
hercle significat in quinto saturarum Lucilius."
On the three Stoic virtues of style, rapývaa (perspicuity),
συντομία (conciseness), κυριολογία (precision and aecuracy of
speech), it is the last which receives special emphasis in Gel-
lius. There is however, definite expression with regard to the
first two. Concerning perspicuity the most definite utterance
is to be found in the tenth chapter of the first book, where
Favorinus holds up the power to speak "plane et dilucide" as
an ideal for a stripling who had been over zealous in his
search for the "verba vetera." It seems that this youth was
in the habit of incorporating in his daily speech many "priscas
voces" that were so old as to be unintelligible. Favorinus tells
him that he speaks as if he were talking with the mother of
Evander, and as if he wished no one to understand what he
said. He concludes his criticism by giving the young man a
motto from the first book de Analogia of Julius Caesar: "ut
tamquam scopulum, sic fugias inauditum atque insolens
verbum." Fronto gave this same caution to his pupil' and
Gellius repeats it again in the seventh chapter of the eleventh
book.¹0
It can hardly be said that Gellius himself stood for the doc-
trine of ovvrquía or brevitas, but nevertheless there are very
clear traces of it in his writings as may be seen from the fol-
lowing passages:
X: 3, 4: brevitas sane et venustas et mundities orationis est
qualis haberi ferme in comoediarum festivitatibus solet.
Ibid., XVIII: 8, 1.
Naber's Fronto, 64, 1 & 2.
10N. A. XI:7, 1 & 2
260
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
XIX: 11, 1 and 2: The verses of Plato are praised "quod
sint lepidissimi et venustissimae brevitatis."
I: 3, 12: Concerning the writings of Theophrastus: "pensi-
culate et enucleate scripta."
I: 3, 21: Theophrastus autem in eo, quo dixi, libro inquisi-
tius quidem super hac ipsa re et exactius, pressiusque quam
Cicero disserit.
XX: 1, 4: Concerning the twelve tables: "Eas leges cum
Sex. Caecilius inquisitis exploratisque multarum urbium legi-
bus eleganti atque absoluta brevitate verborum scriptas diceret."
A very strong though indirect argument for "brevitas," is
found in the doctrine of Kupioλoyía, for where extreme attention
is given to accuracy of speech, the diction is not likely to be
copious. In the pages of the Noctes Atticae so much is said
about precision of speech that Kupioλoyía seems almost to be the
disease of the age. When Gellius and his friends walk through
the city on their "constitutionals," they discuss the exact
meaning of the words in the public inscriptions;""" when they
go to visit Fronto who is ill with the gout, they and certain
other “viri docti” sit about him and discuss fine distinctions
in color and seek out suitable words for such distinctions;¹2
when they are entertained at dinner by Favorinus, while the
food is being served, a slave stands by and reads from Gavius
Bassus de Origine Verborum et Vocabulorum—and this reading
is followed by a discussion of the etymology of "parcus";" when
they wait in the vestibule of the palace of Caesar to give the
Emperor a morning greeting, Favorinus and others discuss the
genders and cases of nouns; the word "penus" is discussed.'
14
Gellius concludes his account by saying "civibus Romanis
Latine loquentibus rem non suo vocabulo demonstrare non
minus turpe est quam hominem non suo nomine appellare."
In the sixth chapter of the eighteenth book there is a review
of the work of Aelius Melissus de Loquendi Proprietate.
¹¹ Ibid., XIII: 25, 1 ff.
12 Ibid., II: 26.
13 Ibid., III: 19, 1.
Ibid., IV: 1, 1.
SMILFY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 261
▸
Gellius says that the very title of the book lures one on to read
it, but that the content is unworthy of the name, because the
distinctions between words are too fine spun. He illustrates
this by showing the distinction Melissus had drawn between
mater" and "matrona," and between "sus" and "scrofa."
Throughout the whole work of Gellius there are pages and
chapters devoted to this subtle differentiation of words. The
following passages may be presented as illustrations:
..
XVI: 14: A discussion of the difference between pro-
perare" and "festinare.”
XVI: 13: Distinction between municipium" and "colo-
nia."
III: 14: Varro prefers "dimidiatum "
dimidiatum" to "dimidium."
XIII: 3, 1: Grammarians distinguish between "necessitas "
and "necessitudo."
XIII: 25, 1: Difference between praeda" and "manu-
biae."
XI: 11, 1: Distinction between
Distinction between "mentiri" and
mentiri" and "menda-
cium dicere.'
III: 10, 2: Nigidius' nice distinction between "erraticas"
and "errones."
X: 26: Asinius Pollio finds fault with Sallust for his use of
66
""
66
66
transgressus."
II: 16: Sulpicius Apollinaris' discussion of Vergil's use of
"longaevo."
II: 19: Chapter on the meaning of "rescire."
IV: 15: Chapter on Sallust's use of "arduum."
VII: 16: Catullus' unusual use of "deprecor" is justified
by citations from Cicero and Ennius.
VI: 17: Three pages are devoted to a discussion of "obnox-
ins" with a certain "grammaticus."
I: 22, 9: Julius Paulus exquisite igitur et comperte dicebat.
Closely allied to Kupoλoyía, in fact almost identical with it,
is the word "elegantia," a term which in both Cicero and Gellius
seems to connote purity, clearness and precision of diction,
and furthermore a term which has been used in describing the
262 BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
style of Laelius and all of those who after him followed the
Stoic theory of style. Closely akin to "elegantia" is the
"venustas" which Gellius pointed out as one of the virtues of
the "gracilis" style of the Stoic Diogenes of Babylon. The
frequency with which Gellius uses these two terms in praising
the diction of various writers, is another evidence that the
Stoic idea has a strong hold upon him and his age. The fol-
lowing passages may be cited as illustrating this:
V: 11, 12: Gellius praises Q. Ennius for his use of a "per-
quam eleganti vocabulo"; the term was "stata" which Ennius
had applied to a woman who was neither beautiful nor homely.
IV: 15, 1: Elegantia orationis Sallustii verborumque fingendi
et novandi studium.
XIX: 12, 1: Concerning Herodes Atticus: "elegentia vocum
longe praestitit."
XII: 2, 1: Concerning L. An. Seneca: "Alii vero elegantiæ
quidem in verbis parum esse non infitias eunt."
II: 22, 27: After a discussion of the names of the winds.
"Hacc nobis Favorinus in eo, quo dixi, tempore apud mensam
suam summa cum elegantia verborum totiusque sermonis com-
itate atque gratia denarravit."
II: 26, 20: Concerning Fronto's "verborum elegantia."
X: 24: Die pristini, die crastini et die quarti et die quinti,
qui elegantius locuti sint, dixisse, non ut ea nunc volgo di-
cuntur.
V: 20, 3: Cum Graecum autem vocabulum sit "soloecis-
mus" an Attici homines, qui elegantius locuti sunt, usi eo sint,
quaeri solet.
XVIII: 10, 7: A physician is told that he is "elegantior in
medendo quam in dicendo."
X: 17: versus Laberii pure admodum et venuste facti.
II: 23, 2: Comoediae lepide et venuste scriptæ.
I: 23, 1: Concerning the style of Cato: cum multa quidem
venustate atque luce atque munditia verborum."
IX: 3, 3: Feruntur adeo libri epistularum eius (Philip of
Macedon) munditiae, et venustatis et prudentiae plenarum.
(6
SMILEY—LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 263
XX: 9, 10: Tum (A. Iulianus) resupinus capite convelato,
voce admodum quam suavi versus cecinit Valerii Aeditui,
veteris poetae, item Porcii Licinii et Q. Catuli, quibus mundius,
venustius, limatius, tersius, Graecum Latinumve * *.
veterum eorum qui electius locuti sunt.
veterum elegantissimi locuti sunt.
XVIII: 7, 2:
III: 16, 19:
XIX: 8, 6: Concerning Plautus: "linguae Latinae decus."
VI: 17, 4: Concerning Plautus: "homo linguae atque elegan-
tiae in verbis Latinae princeps."
I: 7, 17: Plautus verborum Latinorum elegantissimus.
2216
From the last three citations it is plain that Gellius and his
contemporaries, following the Stoic tradition, looked to the
ancients for models in "elegantia" of diction, and that Plautus
still continued to be the standard in this respect for those who
sought the Stoic ideal in style. It was an age in which "ve-
tustas" was "reverenda," and the highest sanction for any
usage was "omnis vetustas sic locuta est. Even a man of
affairs who did not trouble himself about words, was, accord-
ing to the story of Gellius, so thoroughly steeped in the litera-
ature of ancient writers that he cites Cato, Q. Claudius, Valerius
Antias, L. Aelius, P. Nigidius and M. Varro, justifying his
use of the form "pluria" which had been censured by a certain
"reprehensor audaculus verborum." This method of justi-
fying usage by citations from ancient writers, is so common
in the Noctes Atticae that it is hardly necessary to multiply
examples. Of the four tests which Varro set up for Latinitas,
the tests of "natura" (etymology), "analogia," "consuetudo"
and "auctoritas," it is the last that is most frequently applied
by Gellius; yet the other three are recognized. Mention has
already been made of the dinner party that found diversion in
discussing the etymology of "parcus" after having listened
to a chapter from Bassus' book de Origine Verborum et Vocab-
15 Ibid. XVIII: 5, 11.
16 Ibid. X: 21, 4.
17 Ibid. V. 21, 20.
-
264
LULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
ulorum. The following passages will further illustrate Gel-
lius' interest in etymology:
I: 18: Some false etymologies from Aelius and Varro.
I: 25: Varro's discussion of the meaning of "indutiae"
from the standpoint of etymology.
II: 6: Gellius defends a usage of Vergil that has been cen-
sured, justifying it by etymology and "auctoritas."
X: 5: Figulus' etymology of "avarus."
X: 11: Figulus' etymology of "mature."
XII: 14: Figulus' etymology of "saltem."
XIII: 10, 4: Figulus' etymology of "frater."
XII: 3: Etymology of "lictor."
XIX: 13, 3: Ratione etymologiae adhibita.
On seven occasions Gellius uses "analogia" as a test for
Latinitas. In the twenty-fifth chapter of the second book he
makes a brief statement of the ground of controversy between
those who held that "analogy" should determine usage and
those who held that "anomaly" was the only guide to a pure
diction. He concludes this chapter by showing that Varro in-
corporated both principles as standards of correct usage in the
“de Lingua Latina." A good illustration of the application
of the principle of analogy is found in the ninth chapter of the
fifteenth book where Gellius shows that "frons," in order to be
consistent with other third declension nouns ending in "ons,"
must be masculine. A sentence or two from the third and
fourth sections of this chapter may well be quoted: "quanta,
inquit, licentia audaciaque Caecilius hic fuit, cum fronte hilaro,
non fronte hilara dixit et tam immanem soloecismum nihil
veritus est? Immo, inquam, potius nos et quam audaces et
quam licentes sumus, qui frontem inprobe indocteque non
virili genere dicimus, cum et ratio proportionis, quae analogia
appellatur et veterum auctoritates non hanc, sed hunc fron-
tem debere dici suadeant."
The views of Caesar concerning correct forms are cited five
times from the de Analogia,
SMILEY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 265
IX: 14, 25: Sed C. Caesar in libro de Analogia secundo
"huius die" et "huius specie " dicendum putat.
XIX: 8, 6 and 7: Sed enim "harenas" parum Latine dici
quis, oro te, alius aut scripsit aut dixit? Ac propterea peto, ut,
si Gai Caesaris liber prae manibus est, promi iubeas, ut quam
confidenter hoc indicat, aestimari a te possit. Tunc prolato
libro de Analogia primo verba hacc ex eo pauca memoriae
mandavi.
1
IV: 16, 9: Concerning the dative form of the fourth declen-
sion: "In libris quoque analogicis omnia istiusmodi sine i
littera dicenda censet."
XIX: 8, 3: Gaius Caesar, vir ingenii praecellentis, sermonis
praeter alios suae aetatis castissimi, in libris quos ad M. Cicero-
nem de Analogia conscripsit "harenas" vitiose dici existimat.
I: 10, 4. Has been previously quoted.
"
Very little is said by Gellius concerning consuetudo" as a
test of Latinitas. It seems to have yielded precedence to auc-
toritas." In one place however it overbalanced ancient usage:
X: 20, 10: Sallustius quoque proprietatum in verbis retinen-
tissimus consuetudini concessit et privilegium quod de Cn.
Pompei reditu ferebatur legem appellavit.
The negative side of Latinitas, the avoidance of the faults of
"barbarismus" and "soloecismus," is not passed by in silence
by Gellius. In chapter six of the thirteenth book he discusses
the nature of "barbarismus," while in the twentieth chapter
of the fifth book he gives the usual definition of "soloecismus:"
"Soloccismus est impar atque inconveniens compositura par-
tium orationis."
It now remains to present those sentences and clauses gath-
ered here and there through the Noctes Atticae, that will go to
show that Gellius had continually in mind the doctrine of
Latinitas, the "sermo purus et incorruptus," the "incorrupti
loquendi observatio secundum Romanam linguam."
V: 21, 11: In ea epistula rationes grammaticas posuit per
quas docet 'pluria' Latinum esse 'plura' barbarum.
XIV: 5: Concerning the vocative of "egregius."
""
266
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
IV: 17: Concerning the pronunciation of certain compounds
of "iacio."
IV: 16: Concerning the proper spelling of the genitive
singular in the fourth declension.
II: 14: Cato upheld against his "emendatores" in his use of
"stitisses."
VI: 7: Concerning the proper spelling of "affatim."
VI: 9: Concerning reduplicated perfects in ancient writers.
XIII: 23, 3: Qui proprie locuti sunt primam syllabam cor-
reptam dixerunt.
VII: 15, 2: Those who made the e short in "quiesco" "bar-
bare eum dixisse opinatus est."
XIII. 21, 20: Sic igitur "in manifesto peccatu" dixit, ut "in
manifesto incestu" veteres dixerunt, non quin Latinum esset
"peccato" dicere, sed quia in loco isto positum subtilius ad
aurem molliusque est.
I: 16: The use of "mille" with a singular verb.
VI: 2, 3: Concerning the gender of "cor."
X: 13: Use of "partim" with a partitive genitive.
X: 14: Citations from Cato to show that "iniuria mihi fac-
tum itur" may be said.
I: 24, 4: Epigramma Pacuvi verecundissimum et purissi-
mum dignumque eius elegantissima gravitate.
IX: 14, 21: In casu autem dandi qui purissime locuti sunt
non "faciei” uti nunc dicitur sed "facie" dixerunt.
II: 20, 5: Sed quod apud Scipionem omnium aetatis suae
purissime locutum legimus "roboraria."
VII: 9, 1: Eaque res perquam pure et venuste narrata a
Pisone.
XIII: 19, 2: vir modesti atque puri ac prope cotidiani ser-
monis.
XIX: 8, 1:.
sermonibus eius (Fronto) purissimis
fruebar.
XIX: 8, 3: "Morbo quidem," inquit "cares, sed ver bi vitio
non cares."
XIII: 6, 4: Itaque id vocabulum quod dicitur vulgo barbar-
•
SMILEY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 267
ismus, qui ante divi Augusti aetatem pure atque integre locuti
sunt, an dixerint, non dum equidem inveni.
VI: 9,2: Sed veterum hominum qui proprie atque integre
locuti sunt "leves" dixerant, quos volgo nunc "viles" et nullo
honore dignos dicimus.
XIII: 31, 9:
verba corrupte pronuntiabat.
II: 20, 8: "Apiaria," a word used amoung the vulgar, but
never used by those "qui incorrupte locuti sunt."
III: 14, 20:
I: 7, 5: .
XIII: 17, 1:
usi sunt.
.. qui probe locuti sunt.
. Ciceronem probe ac vetuste locutum.
Qui verba Latina fecerunt quique his probe
. . . . qui rectius locuti sunt.
XX: 3, 1:
XX: 6, 14: qui rectissime loqui volet "vestrum" potius
dixerit quam "vestri."
268
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE STOIC THEORY IN SEXTUS EMPIRICUS.
A careful examination of the fourteen pages'which Sextus
Empiricus wrote concerning Annouós, in his fulmination pòs
τοὺς γραμματικούς, affords strong confirmation of many of the
statements that have been made concerning Latinitas as a the-
ory of style. From such an examination it appears (1) that
¿Mŋvoµós did constitute a well defined theory of style; (2) that
all ornamentation was extraneous to this style; (3) that the the-
ory in its fundamental conception was Stoic, aiming at speech
that was sound (vys) and unperverted (ådiáπTros) and in harmo-
ny with nature (kaтà Tỳν þúσw); (4) that the four tests for λλŋvio-
pós as presented by its advocates, were the same which had
been offered by Varro in his definition of Latinitas, viz., natu-
ra, analogia, consuetudo, auctoritas.
2
We will take up the last of these considerations first. Sextus
insists that it is impossible to establish any absolute test for
ἑλληνισμός, that συνήθεια(consuetudo)is the only test that can be
applied at all, and that ovvýbea varies with each generation, lo-
cality, and class of society. So the one rule, he says, for the
speaker or writer who wishes to be understood and to be free
from ridicule, is to follow the ovvýbea of the audience to which
he addresses his thought. Thus frankly admitting that ovvýbe‹α
ig ἀνώμαλός τε καὶ ἄστατος, he presses the Stoic view of anomaly
to its farthest limit. The larger part of his discussion, however,
3
4
1 ¹ All references will be to the pages and lines of Bekker's Sextus Em-
piricus, Berlin, 1842.
2
Sextus Empiricus, 641, 12 ff; 650, 24 ff; 648, 22; 652, 10 ff.
3 Ibid., 651, 21 ff.
Ibid., 652, 15 ff.
SMILEY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 269
he devotes to the inconsistencies of those who held ávaλoyía to
be the true basis of noμós. It has already been pointed out
in our first chapter that Diogenes recognized ávaλoyía as such a
basis. Indeed it is reasonable to suppose that there were Stoics
who held that language was absolutely regular in its forms, in
its declension of nouns and conjugation of verbs, in that earliest
Golden Age when all things were perfect. Sextus, by present-
ing three nouns ῎Αρης, Χάρης, χάρτης which are analogues in their
nominative forms, but dissimilar in their genitive endings, shows
how the analogists have not followed their theory to its legit-
imate conclusion." He further shows that some word must be
taken as the basis of the analogy, and that the acceptance of
this form must rest ultimately on the authority of usage (ovvý-
Ocia). He devotes a page to what Varro calls "auctoritas",the
view of those who maintained that the diction of the most an-
cient writers was the proper basis for Anvioμós. To Sextus
the impossibility of finding that most ancient writer, Toû akpws
¿λŋvíčovтos, seemed plain, inasmuch as there had been poets,
before Homer, whose work had perished. He declares that it
is absurd to think of using ἡ ἀρχαιοτάτη ἡ Ὁμήρου ποιήσις as a
standard of diction, and that anyone who would use such an
expression as the Homeric oπáρтa λéλvvrai,' would be ridiculed.
Moreover Homer must have been governed in his diction by
the ovvýca of the men of his time. A page and a half of the
πρὸς τοὺς γραμματικούς is devoted to a refutation of the view of
those who δι᾿ ἐτυμολογίας κρίνειν θέλωσι τὸν ἑλληνισμόν. Sextus shows
by practical example that etymology may be a test for λλŋvio-
μός, provided it is etymology backed up by συνήθεια 9
σ
8
Since he believes that συνήθεια is the only true basis for ἑλληνισ-
uós, it is not strange that some reference is made to it in his defi-
"Ibid., 652, 20 ff.
6 Ibid., 645, 19 ff; 646, 2.
'Ibid., 646, 11f.
"Ibid., 646, 19 ff.
'Ibid., 653, 16 f; 654, 21 ff.
7
270
BULLETIN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
nitions of σολοικισμός and βαρβαρισμός 10 ὁ βαρβαρισμὸς παράπτωσίς
ἐστι παρὰ τὴν κοινὴν συνήθειαν ἐν μιᾷ λέξει θεωρούμενος.
That to the mind of Sextus the doctrine of ἑλληνισμός constitu-
ted a well defined theory of style will be made plain by some
half dozen citations. The theory is most clearly enunciated in
the following sentence: ὅ τε ἑλληνίζων ἱκανός ἐστι πρὸς τὸ σαφῶς ἅμα
καὶ ἀκριβῶς παραστῆσαι τὰ νοηθέντα τῶν πραγμάτων." The adverbs
σαφῶς and ἀκριβῶς seem to indicate that clearness and precision
of speech constituted the "summum bonum" of this style; this
of course is in entire harmony with the Stoic view that the func-
tion of an orator is simply to teach. In another passage Sextus
says that the more usual forms of the word Ζεύς, i. e. the irreg-
ular anomalous forns(Ζηνός, Ζηνί)are more acceptable than the
regularly made analogical forms, because they are σαφές;" then
he adds that such a form as pepnow formed by analogy with
ποιήσω must be rejected on the ground that it is ἀσαφές. In
the paragraph in which he asserts that a speaker must adjust
his language to the ovvýbea of his audience, he declares that
those who are aiming at clearness(στοχαζόμενοι τοῦ καλῶς ἔχοντος
καὶ σαφῶς)" are not to use a philosopher's vocabulary in address-
ing the common people, but they may use any word that is
intelligible to their audience even εἰ βάρβαρόν ἐστι. Still another
sentence emphasizes this thought of clearness: εἰ δ᾽ οὐ δυσχεραίνου
σιν ἀλλ᾽ ὡς σαφέσι καὶ ὀρθῶς ἔχουσι συμπεριφέροιντο τοῖς λεγομένοις, καὶ
ἡμεῖς αὐτοῖς ἐπιμενοῦμεν 15 But the most significant sentence of
the whole discussion is one in which this plain style which
aims at clearness is differentiated from the more ornate and
embellished style: διόπερ εἰ καὶ ὁ ἑλληνισμὸς διὰ δύο μάλιστα προηγού-
μενα ἔτυχεν ἀποδοχῆς, τήν τε σαφήνειαν καὶ τὴν προσήνειαν τῶν δηλου-
μένων (τούτοις γὰρ ἔξωθεν κατ᾿ ἐπακολούθησιν συνέζευκται τὸ μεταφορι-
κῶς καὶ ἐμφατικῶς καὶ κατὰ τοὺς ἄλλους τρόπους φράζειν), ζητήσομεν
1+
10 Ibid., 647, 17 f.
11 Ibid., 640, 6 f.
12 Ibid., 644, I.
18 Ibid., 644, 7.
14 Ibid., 652, 1ff.
15 Ibid., 643, 11 ff.
*
13
SMILEY-LATINITAS: THE STOIC THEORY OF STYLE. 271
οὖν ἐκ ποτέρας ταῦτα μᾶλλον' περιγίνεται, ἆρά γε τῆς κοινῆς συνηθείας ἢ
τῆς ἀναλογίας, ἵνα ἐκείνῃ προσθώμεθα 1 It does not seen to be press-
ing the meaning of the parenthesis with its τούτοις γὰρ ἔξωθεν συν-
έζευκται too far, to say that we have here a conception and theo-
ry of style to which the whole idea of ornamentation and em-
bellishment was originally extraneous.
It has already been observed (1)that the four tests applied for
ἑλληνισμός are essentially Stoic, (2)that clearness and precision
of speech very naturally constituted the main consideration
with those who held the Stoic view that the function of an or-
ator was merely "docere." It now remains to present the
other evidence from Sextus that this conception of ἑλληνισμός
is fundamentally Stoic. The words ὀρθῶς and προσήνειαν which
have appeared in the previous citations, prepare one for such
expressions as τὸ ἑλληνιστὶ ὑγιῶς διαλέγεσθαι, "and τοῦ γὰρ ᾿Αττικοῦ
τὸ τάριχος λέγοντος ὡς ἑλληνικὸν καὶ τοῦ Πελοποννησίου ὁ τάριχος προ-
φερομένου ὡς ἀδιάστροφον,land for the statement that the diction of
Homer may not be regarded as the λόγος ὑγιής.19 Here manifest-
ly we have a trace of the Stoic striving after speech that is
sound and unperverted. There is also evidence of the Stoic
principle that all things should be in harmony with nature. In
one passage Sextus says: οὐκ ἄρα ἐναργές ἐστι τὸ ἑλληνίζειν. ἄδηλον
δὲ εἴπερ ἐστί, πάλιν ἐπεὶ τὸ ἄδηλον ἔκ τινος ἑτέρου γνωρίζεται, ἤτοι φυ-
σικῷ τινὶ κατακολουθητέον κριτηρίῳ, ἐξ οὗ διαγιγνώσκεται τί τὸ ἑλληνικὸν
καὶ τί τὸ ἀνελλήνιστον 20 Again he says that those who use ἐτυ-
μολογία as a test for ἑλληνισμός must trace their word clear back
to one of those words τῶν φυσικῶς ἀναφωνηθέντων 21 In his devo-
tion to clearness and perspicuity he says that a speaker must
find words that are intelligible to his audience ὁποῖόν ποτ᾽ ἂν ᾖ
κατὰ τὴν φύσιν.24
αν
1º Ibid., 643, 22 ff.
17 Ibid., 648, 20.
18 Ibid., 642, 14 ff.
19 Ibid., 646, 12.
20 Ibid., 642, 8 ff.
21 Ibid,, 653, 23 ff.
22 Ibid., 651, 25 ff; 640, 32 f; 642, 31.
اد
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
•
¦
8/29/97
DATE DUE
APR 2 8 2000
PATENTED
JAN. 21 1900
M
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 03667 7410
Des
*...
1
2
: