BRISCOE - The Language and Style of The Fragmentary Republican Historians

The Language and Style of the Fragmentary Republican Historians
University Press Scholarship Online
British Academy Scholarship Online
Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose

Tobias Reinhardt, Michael Lapidge, and J. N. Adams
Print publication date: 2005

Print ISBN-13: 9780197263327
Published to British Academy Scholarship Online: January 2012
DOI: 10.5871/bacad/9780197263327.001.0001

J. Briscoe
DOI:10.5871/bacad/9780197263327.003.0003
Abstract and Keywords

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

THE EARLIEST ROMANS to write history, Q. Fabius Pictor, L. Cincius Alimentus, and P.
Cornelius Scipio (the son of Africanus), did so in Greek.1 So too, but after Cato had founded
Latin historiography with his Origines, did A. Postumius Albinus (cos. 151) and C. Acilius, a
senator in the 150s and 140s.2 Obviously, even if any verbatim fragments had survived, they
would have no relevance for the present subject. For the rest, what we call ‘fragments’ fall into
two categories. The first contains non-verbatim paraphrases of what the author said, cited for
their content, particularly by subsequent historians and the Vergilian scholiasts; a large
proportion come from Livy, though it is comparatively rarely that he indicates his source. These
cannot be used as evidence for the style of the cited author, even if we may sometimes suspect
that the citing author has reproduced the actual words of his source.3
Page 1 of 20
PRINTED FROM BRITISH ACADEMY SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright
British Academy, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single
chapter of a monograph in BASO for personal use (for details see: www.britishacademy.universitypressscholarship.com/page/privacy-
policy/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice ). Subscriber: University of Oxford; date: 16 March 2019
The evidence which we can use is that of the verbatim fragments. A large proportion of these
come from grammatical or lexicographical writers, particularly Charisius, Nonius Marcellus,4
and Priscian. It has been calculated that the citations of those who preceded Sallust (i.e. all
those contained in Peter’s first volume (p.54) with the exception of Aelius Tubero)5 are
equivalent, in total, to some seventeen pages of an Oxford text, five of which are accounted for
by the fragments of Cato (Lebek 1970a: 207). Although this is a far from negligible body of
material, it is, of course, only a small proportion of the total output of the writers concerned, and
that must be borne in mind when evaluating arguments based on it, especially those that
concern the first appearance of a word or usage. And since many of the verbatim fragments are
cited for their linguistic interest, it does not follow that similar phenomena were to be found in
all parts of the work.
In two well-known passages, De orat. 2.52 ff. and Leg. 1.5–7, Cicero complained that those who
had written history in Latin had, with the partial exception of Coelius Antipater, Sisenna, and
Licinius Macer, done so without ornamentation.6 I can here do no more than state my view that
Cicero, as is generally held, was talking about style, not content.7 He was referring, in
particular, to the historians’ simple sentence structure, and shows no interest in the aspect on
which our fragments provide the most evidence, and to which, as we shall see, many of the lost
historians did devote care, namely vocabulary.8 There are, however, a number of longer
fragments which enable us to evaluate Cicero’s judgement in the case of Cato, Cassius Hemina,
Piso, and Claudius Quadrigarius.
2. Previous views
Remarks on the style of individual writers will be found in the work of a number of scholars,9 but
only two have dealt in any detail with the whole period from Cato to the early Ciceronian age.10
(p.55) Badian (1966), in what was a pioneering and influential article, did not present a
systematic account, attaching his remarks to his treatment of the various historians. His position
appears to be that beginning with Fannius,11 and with the exception of Antias, there came into
existence a ‘historical style’, which was characterized by deliberate archaism, in order to write
in the way in which Cato had written,12 neologism, and what Badian insisted on calling
‘oddities’, by which he meant grammatical features which deviated from Ciceronian norms.
For Badian characteristics of this historical style are adjectives/adverbs ending in -osus/-ose,
adverbs ending in -im, the third-person plural of the perfect ending in -ere rather than -erunt,13
and the passive form of posse (he ought to have added ‘with the passive infinitive’).14
Unfortunately Badian mistook phenomena which were common in early Latin as peculiar to
historiography; no one meeting them would immediately have concluded that the author in
question was making ‘a deliberate claim to be writing history’.15 They were stylistically neutral,
and could be used in any genre.
Thus the suffix -osus was an extremely common way of forming an adjective, ‘with the meaning
“provided with, rich in”, or “resembling”’16 from a noun.17 Of the twenty-nine instances that
appear for the first time in Cato, only two are in the Origines.18 Later Scipio Aemilianus (Or. frg.
17) used uinosus and uirosus (the latter is found also in Laberius and Lucilius).
Adverbs in (-a)(t)im abound in early Latin,19 and the fact that there are instances in Coelius,20
Scaurus, Quadrigarius, and, particularly, Sisenna (below, p. 71) does not make them a
characteristic of historical style.
Page 2 of 20
(p.56) The third-person plural perfect in -ere was and remained the choice form.21 In Cato it is
the predominant form in both the Origines and the speeches, while the form in -erunt is used on
the three occasions where that part of the verb occurs in the De agricultura.22
The passive form of posse with the passive infinitive, found in Coelius 7, Scaurus 4, and
Quadrigarius 33, 47, occurs also in Ennius, Pacuvius, Cato Agr., the speeches of Scipio
Aemilianus and Gaius Gracchus, the repetundae law of the tabula Bembina (Crawford 1996: I 72
line 66), and Lucretius. The usage may indeed have been an archaism for Quadrigarius, taken
over from his predecessors, but it is quite likely that in the last third of the second century it was
perfectly regular. In a period when all our evidence is fragmentary, other usages which seemed
‘odd’ to Badian may in fact have been normal at the time.
Lebek (1970a: 194–290) took a totally different position. He believed that Sallust was the first
Latin historian to indulge in deliberate archaism on a large scale, and therefore sought to
minimize the alleged archaisms in Sallust’s predecessors. He presents the detailed evidence in
each case with scrupulous fairness, but, in Oakley’s words (1997: 145 n. 179), ‘the evidence
presented by Lebek suffices to refute his own conclusions’.
This was caused, firstly, by his refusal to accept as an archaism anything except expressions
which never occur in first-century writers before Sallust.23 Secondly, Lebek believes (this
particularly affects his view of the language of Quadrigarius) that historians were taking usages
from the colloquial Latin of their time.24 He holds that if a usage in a fragmentary republican
historian is found otherwise only in Late Latin, that is evidence for its continued existence in the
spoken language. That is not a necessary conclusion even if the usage survived into Romance.
And even if it is the case that a usage found in early Latin and a fragmentary historian but
absent or virtually absent from Cicero and Caesar was part of the spoken Latin of the historian’s
time, it is still possible that he took it from earlier literature. Indeed, given the fact that Sallust
and Livy, to different degrees, employed archaisms and poeticisms, it is much more likely that he
was doing the same rather than going out of his way to take usages from the spoken language,
something which Sallust and Livy avoided.25
(p.57) 3. Archaisms and neologisms

In what follows I shall refer to a number of usages which are absent, or virtually absent, from
Cicero and Caesar:26 some of these are found in Latin—primarily, of course, in poetry—of a time
before that of the historian concerned, while others occur for the first time in the author in
question. In discussing Sallust or Livy, it is not profitable to make a sharp distinction between
‘archaisms’ and ‘poeticisms’:27 in the case of the fragmentary historians, we might have to do
with a usage which occurred previously only in Cato, while a usage occurring otherwise only in
first-century poetry cannot be classified as a poeticism for the historian.28 I shall talk, therefore,
only of ‘archaisms’.
Page 3 of 20
As far as the second category is concerned, it should be stressed that when so much Latin has
been lost, both verse and prose, we can talk only of usages not being attested before the author
in question, and there can be no certainty that any particular usage did not occur earlier. Two
considerations, however, indicate that the compilation of lists of such usages is not totally
pointless. Firstly, Horace says that Roman writers had always been free to invent new words and
talks of Ennius and Cato enriching the Latin language with neologisms:29 it is likely that Cato’s
successors in historiography followed his practice.30 Secondly, despite the uncertainty about any
given usage, when, as in the case of Claudius Quadrigarius and Sisenna, the number of such
usages occurring for the first time in the author in question is high, it is likely that a proportion
of them are indeed coinages. It is not an objection that the number of such usages in
Quadrigarius and Sisenna is merely a function of the large number of citations from those two
historians by Aulus Gellius and Nonius respectively: for it was precisely the presence of unusual
vocabulary that led Gellius to show so much interest in Quadrigarius and Nonius (or his source)
to make lists of words found in books 3 and 4 of Sisenna.31
(p.58) In discussing the successors of Cato I shall refer to all the evidence in the case of those
writers for whom there are only a few verbatim citations: I do not, however, mention usages
which occur first in Coelius, Quadrigarius, or Sisenna (the last two are contemporary with the
early Cicero), but are found more than once in Cicero and Caesar.
4. Cato32
It is disputed whether Cato revised his speeches for publication and saw himself as creating
oratory as a conscious literary genre (in any case, he clearly took trouble over what he said), but
as far as historiography is concerned there is no such doubt. And since he included some of his
own speeches in the Origines,33 no clear distinction can be drawn between his oratory and his
history.34 That is not to say, though, that Cato created historical narrative out of nothing.
Generals had long sent reports to the senate and set up dedicatory inscriptions recording their
achievements,35 and features of these can be seen in the military narrative at Plaut. Amph. 186–
261, itself containing what were archaisms for Plautus.36
The structure and general character of Cato’s prose emerge from 83, the fragment concerning
the exploits of a military tribune during the First Punic War,37 and 95, the extracts from the
Rhodian speech. Badian (1966: 10) talks, with particular reference to the former, of the sentence
structure being ‘rudimentary and monotonous, subordination slight’, while Leeman (1963: 71)
commented on ‘endless repetitions of the cases of is and of -que, which co-ordinate hypotactical
thoughts of all kinds’.38
With regard to the Rhodian speech, citing the first sentence of the fragment, scio solere
plerisque hominibus rebus secundis atque prolixis atque prosperis animum (p.59) excellere
atque superbiam atque ferociam augescere39 atque crescere, Badian talks of ‘pleonastic
synonyms’, by which he must mean secundis…prolixis…prosperis, superbiam…ferociam,
augescere…crescere: what is particularly remarkable is that these are linked together with a
fivefold use of atque, one of which links not a pair of synonyms, but the two infinitive clauses
(rebus…excellere and superbiam…crescere). The passage represents an extreme example of
Cato’s fondness, in both the speeches and the Origines, for the use of atque, before both vowels
and consonants, as the conjunctive particle.40 The use of synonyms also allows the effect of
assonance, particulary in augescere…crescere.41
Page 4 of 20
The fact that there is no Latin prose literature before Cato makes evaluation of his vocabulary
difficult. As we have seen (p. 57), Horace talks of Cato enriching the language by the invention
of new words, but Till’s list (1935: 42–50 = 1968: 78–90) of 163 words which appear for the first
time in the fragmentary works of Cato—a far larger number, of course, are found in the De
agricultura—is meaningless, being merely a consequence of the loss of much early verse and our
ignorance of the spoken language of the time. Fronto42 wrote of the care which Cato took in
searching for vocabulary (quaerendi). While this does not exclude neologisms, the implication is
that Cato took words from earlier writers, i.e. from poets. Till (1935: 15–21 = 1968: 38–46) listed
a number of such items, but they are to be seen as the result of Cato’s lexicological search, not
as words chosen for being poetic. Thus the fact that inclutissimae in 83 is an ‘epic and tragic
word’ (Badian 1966: 10), much favoured by later historians as such,43 does not mean that Cato
used it in his account of the exploits of the military tribune for that reason. It is there preceded
by claritudinis, a word also found in 63 atque in excelsissimam claritudinem sublimauit. As
Badian observed (loc. cit.), sublimare is used by Ennius, and since both fragments have a marked
trochaic rhythm (though neither forms a continuous piece of trochaic verse), one might expect to
find claritudo in early verse. In fact it occurs first in Cato, next in Sisenna 49, and not at all in
Latin verse of any period.
(p.60) A writer of any age can, in principle, use words which were obsolete at his time44 just
because they were so obsolete, but it is impossible to identify any usages of Cato, found in the
poets or not, which fall into this category.45 It is better to see Cato, as Fronto implies, as just
seeking the means to write impressively, be it by neologizing or by using words he found in
poetry, or, perhaps, words not used by the poets which had gone out of use.
5. L. Cassius Hemina, Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus, L. Calpurnius Piso

The small surviving amount of the prose of Cassius Hemina, Cato’s immediate successor,46
makes it difficult to say much about his style. As has been observed,47 13 (Numa’s provision that
scaleless fish should not be used for sacrifices) exhibits sentence structure of a complexity
unparalleled either in Cato or in any other second-century writer, while 37 combines a terse
narrative style with a series of accusative and infinitives.48 He will, like Cato, have taken trouble
over vocabulary, without conspicuously seeking for archaisms.49 At 29 (in campo Tiburte ubi
hordeum demessuerunt) Hemina adopted the language, including the word order, of Cato 57 (in
campo Tiburti ubi hordeum demessuit, idem in montibus serit, ubi hordeum idem iterum
metit).50
Of the two verbatim fragments of the history of Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus (cos. 142), one
(1) has agrum macerrimum litorosissimumque: macer was used of soil in Cato Agr. 6.251 (it is
later common in agricultural writers), litorosus occurs elsewhere only in Pliny the Elder. It may
be that Servilianus too was seeking impressive vocabulary, taking macer from Cato and coining
litorosus. The other fragment (3) has apisci used passively, found also in Fannius 8; while Fabius
could (p.61) have taken the usage from earlier writers (it occurs at Plaut. Trin. 367), it could
equally have been current in the second half of the second century.52
Page 5 of 20
There are only seven verbatim fragments of L. Calpurnius Piso (cos. 133): 8, 17–19, 27, 36, 40;53
three of them, 17 allicuit, 18 ignosciturum, and 19 Tarquinio nomine esset, all unparalleled in
classical Latin, are cited for matters of grammar; 8, 19, and 27 come from Aulus Gellius, and
since neither he nor anyone else cites Piso for his vocabulary, it is a reasonable inference that he
constituted an exception in not making a particular effort in that regard.54 In citing 8 and 27
Gellius talks of Piso writing simplicissima suauitate et rei et orationis (8) and of res perquam
pure et uenuste narrata (27). He is speaking of the very simple sentence structure, which Cicero
regarded as exilis (‘lacking body’)55 but which he admired.
6. C. Fannius and Cn. Gellius

As we have seen (p. 55), Badian thought that Fannius (who may, or may not, have been the
consul of 122) was the first writer to archaize deliberately, creating ‘the custom of the genre’.
That is a lot to build on four verbatim fragments, one of which (3) concerns the form of a proper
name. Badian was influenced principally by biber as the infinitive of bibo in 2, which had also
been used by Cato (121). Fannius may have taken it from Cato, but if he did, his decision derives
from a search for the unusual, not from a desire to imitate the first writer of history in Latin. It
may be, however, that at least in combination with dare, biber was an accepted form at his
time.56 For the rest, inpraesentiarum (1) occurs at Cato Agr. 144.4, but also in the Rhetorica ad
Herennium and Nepos, while, as we have seen, apisci used passively may have been a current
usage.
(p.62) I come next to Cn. Gellius,57 probably to be identified with the monetalis of 138. Of the
fifteen58 verbatim fragments, no fewer than ten are cited by Charisius for their morphological
interest, and seven of these are cases of feminine plurals in -abus.59 Such forms were regarded
by grammarians as justified when it was necessary to make it clear that a feminine was meant.60
In early Latin, however, they occur when this was not the case,61 and in Gellius all but deabus
fall into this category. Whether Gellius’ predilection for them was a deliberate archaism62 or
simply an unusual affectation is not clear. Lebek’s claim (1970a: 216) that he took them from the
living language, perhaps unconsciously, is implausible.
In 26 Gellius uses ossum rather than os for ‘bone’, in 31 regerum and lapiderum rather than
regum and lapidum as the genitive plural of rex and lapis respectively, and in 32 forum rather
than forus for ‘ship’s gangway’. The first of these, found also in Accius (Carm. frg. 4), may have
been a form in use in Gellius’ time,63 the others examples of the desire for striking
morphological forms manifested in the use of forms in -abus. But Lebek (1970a: 217) is right to
observe that, given the length of Gellius’ history,64 we should beware of taking these fragments
as characteristic of the work as a whole.65
The prayer of Hersilia (15) is the one continuous piece of Gellius’ prose preserved:
Neria Martis, te obsecro, pacem da, te uti liceat nuptiis propriis et prosperis uti, quod de
tui coniugis consilio contigit uti nos itidem integras raperent, unde liberos sibi et suis,
posteros patriae pararent.
(p.63) I beseech you, Neria wife of Mars, give us peace, I beseech you that we may enjoy
long-lasting and successful marriages, because it was the plan of your husband that
brought it about that they should seize us in the same way, when we were virgins, from
whom they could acquire children for themselves and their relations, and future
generations for their fatherland.
Page 6 of 20
The prayer consists of a single sentence containing four subordinate clauses, the first depending
on obsecro,66 the second causal, depending on the first, the third consecutive, depending on the
second, the fourth relative, depending on the object of the third. This simple and perfectly clear
piece of Latin was no doubt intended by Gellius as a deliberate evocation of prayer formulae.67
7. L. Coelius Antipater
Cicero regarded the style of Coelius Antipater, who wrote a history of the Hannibalic War in
seven books, as representing a considerable improvement on his predecessors.68 Unfortunately,
there is not a verbatim fragment of sufficient length to enable us to test Cicero’s judgement.69
When Fronto70 wrote that of the poets Ennius devoted the greatest effort to the search for
vocabulary, and that Coelius emulated him assiduously, he meant, of course, that Coelius, like
Ennius, paid a great deal of attention to vocabulary, not necessarily that he imitated that of
Ennius. It is with Coelius, though, that the clash between the conceptions of Badian and Lebek
can be seen at its sharpest.71
(p.64) What emerges from study of the evidence72 is that Coelius employed words or usages
which (1) are unique: 5 bellosus, 8 dissentior, 16 tractare = ‘drag out’, 27 nucerum genitive
plural,73 32 discessus active*, 45 ante…ferri in tmesis, 46 exfundare, 6274 depeculari passive*;
(2) occur first in or contemporaneously with Coelius, and not in Cicero or Caesar (in several
cases only in his successors who were probably imitating him): 9 dedicare = ‘indicate’, 15 longe
= longitudine, 22 dextimus, 26 nullae dative, 30 dubitatim (Sisenna 75), 44 congenuclare
(Sisenna 33), 48 indulgitas (Sisenna 46), 58 delinquere = ‘fail’, ‘be lacking’ (Tubero 13); (3)
occur before Coelius, but not, or very rarely, in Cicero or Caesar: 2 arbitror passive*, 3–4 alii
genitive, 4 antequam with pluperfect in positive clause, 7 passive form of posse with passive
infinitive (above, p. 56), 12 verb of motion+infinitive to express purpose (above, n. 54), 25
diequinti, clearly taken from Cato 86, 36 oportet in plural, morbosus, 38 finis feminine, 43
paucies, 45 solui as perfect of soleo, 47 topper,–75 tempestas = ‘time’.76
While some of the items listed under (1) and (2) may have been innovations, and some of those
under (3) usages deliberately taken from earlier literature, there is no reason to think that in the
case of arbitror, alii, the passive form of posse, and dedicare we are not dealing with usages
which were current in the Latin of the last third of the second century. In any case, Coelius was
not observing what had become the rules of Latin historiography: he was, as Fronto indicates,
searching for appropriate vocabulary in order to write as impressively as he could.
8. Sempronius Asellio and the autobiographers

Cicero (Leg. 1.6) thought that Sempronius Asellio, whose history went down to at least 91 (11),
marked a step backwards from Coelius. The two fragments from his preface (1–2) exhibit a
sentence structure of some complexity: Cicero, however, was presumably referring to Asellio’s
narrative, which was doubtless much (p.65) plainer. Fragment 1 contains two instances of
resumptive is (annales libri tantum modo quod factum quoque anno gestum sit, ea
demonstrabant; nobis non modo satis esse uideo quod factum esset, id pronuntiare), a
colloquialism common in early Latin, though found occasionally in the late Republic.77 Probable
archaisms occur at 4 glisceretur78 and 7 uirile secus.79 2 iterare = ‘say’ occurs elsewhere only in
(mainly early) verse (TLL VII/2 549.9 ff.). Not found before Asellio are 3 plerum for plerumque, 5
necessitudo = ‘compulsion’, 10 facundiosus (hapax), 11 crepidarius (hapax),80 12 secus = post.13
artificiosus, found several times in the Rhetorica ad Herennium. and Cicero’s rhetorical and
philosophical works, occurs, also as an adverb, contemporaneously in Rutilius Rufus 7, 14
pilatim in Aemilius Scaurus 6.
Page 7 of 20
Scaurus (cos. 115) and Rutilius (cos. 106) were two of the four autobiographers of the first two
decades of the first century. The verbatim fragments of the former exhibit instances of the
passive forms of posse (4),81 what appears to be the only example of fruor with the genitive (2),82
and the earliest one of the participle (-)fictus (5), rather than (-)fixus, even though it is the
original form.83
Rutilius, in addition to artificiose, uses lectica to mean ‘mattress of straw’ (13): its normal
meaning ‘litter’ occurs first in a speech of Gaius Gracchus (Or. frg. 49).84
There are no verbatim fragments of Q. Lutatius Catulus (cos. 102). Aulus Gellius cites verbatim
two passages of the autobiography of Sulla (2, 3), the second of which exhibits a complex, but
tight, sentence structure. The only other verbatim fragment (20) is cited for the indeclinable
future participle in oratio obliqua;this occurs also in both Quadrigarius (43, 79) and Antias (59),
and since the latter, like Sulla, attracted little interest from the grammarians, it is a reasonable
inference that it was an accepted usage at the time.
(p.66) 9. Q. Claudius Quadrigarius

The large number of verbatim citations from Quadrigarius, together with the fact that five (10b,
41, 57, 81, 85) are passages of some length,85 means that we have a considerable body of
evidence for evaluating his language and style.86
Aulus Gellius was clearly fascinated by Claudius. Of the thirty-four fragments cited from or
assignable to book 1, twenty-two come from Gellius 17.2.87 He found much of linguistic interest
in Claudius, and admired his plain style, quoting Fronto as calling him ‘uir modesti atque puri et
prope cotidiani sermonis’88 and prefacing his citation of 10b by saying that it was written
‘purissime atque inlustrissime simplicique et incompta orationis antiquae suauitate’.89
Claudius’ history is contemporary with the early works of Cicero (and the Rhetorica ad
Herennium), and the fragments contain a large number of instances of vocabulary, morphology,
and syntax which are absent or virtually absent from Cicero and Caesar. Some are to be found in
earlier Latin, others make their first or only appearance in Claudius.90
The following are found before Claudius: 2 sanctitudo, 3 occasus used actively, 10b pausa,
extemplo, cum uoce maxima, genere gnatus (also 15), scuto scutum, subuertere, 15 adprime, 20
arrabo, 23 frunisci, 33, 47 passive of posse with passive infinitive, 35 propere, 37 ignauiter, 38
desubito,91 39 amplexare, 43, 79 indeclinable future participle (see p. 65), 45 noctu, 46 delectare
= entice, 60 aliquantisper, 73–4 prior neuter,92 77 grundire, 85 interrogative clause preceding
interest, spargere = discharge, 88 auariter.
The following occur for the first or only time in Claudius: 5 commutatio = ‘communication’, 6
consermonari, 7 cumprime, exsuperabilis used actively, 8 uiaticum = resources, 10b facies gen.
(also 30), exsertare, perdolitum est, cantabundus, (p.67) haurire = pierce, sanguinulentus,93 11
exspolari, 19 prouolare, 22 inlatebrare, 24 copiari, 25 in medium relinquere, 28 otium plural, 29
arboretum, 30 facii gen., 32 galearis, 36 offendere with both direct object and accusative and
infinitive, 39 conprehensare, 41 ciuitates = the world, 48 praeclariter,94 50 alternatim, 51
urguere = insistere, 55 recordare active, 58, 70 quin for ut, 61 habentia, 71 ospicari, 72
murmurari deponent, 78 hinnibundus, 81 tempore magno = diu, 85 defendere a = ward off from,
87 cum partim followed by ablative and accusative, 88 misericorditer, 93 congermanescere,
facere exemplum+gen., 94 pluuia imber, 96 interitus used actively.
Page 8 of 20
Lebek (1970a: 260) states that there is not a single archaism or poeticism in Claudius. Rather,
he believes, in the case of both the usages which are found before him95 and in many of those
which are not96 Claudius was drawing on the colloquial Latin of his time. As we have seen (p.
56),97 this view is based on the false assumption that the occurrence of a usage found in both
Claudius and Late Latin is proof of its continued existence in the spoken language, and it is
much more likely that he was deliberately seeking to write in the way that history had been
written before him. In the case of usages which do not occur before Claudius, there are only two
instances, 7 cumprime, found in Cassius Felix in the sense ‘for the first time’ and 29 arboretum
(in fact a technical term), which survives in Romance, where Lebek can produce what he
regards as evidence that they were or may have been taken from the spoken language. The
probability is that Claudius neologized and used words in new senses, and the evidence suggests
that he did so to a far greater degree than any of his predecessors.
The character of Claudius’ prose can be judged only from the longer fragments, above all from
10b, the combat of Manlius and the Gaul (the numerals indicate the section numbers in Gellius
9.13):
cum interim Gallus quidam, nudus praeter scutum et gladios duos, torque atque armillis
decoratus processit, qui et uiribus et magnitudine et adulescentia simulque uirtute ceteris
antistabat. (8) is, maxime proelio commoto atque utrisque summo studio pugnantibus,
manu significare coepit utrisque, quiescerent. (9) pugnae facta pausa est. (10) extemplo,
silentio facto, cum uoce maxima conclamat, si quis secum depugnare uellet, uti prodiret.
(11) nemo audebat propter magnitudinem atque inmanitatem facies. (12) deinde Gallus
inridere coepit atque linguam exsertare. (13) id subito perdolitum est cuidam Tito Manlio,
summo genere gnato, tantum flagitium (p.68) ciuitati adcidere, e tanto exercitu neminem
prodire. (14) is, ut dico, processit, neque passus est uirtutem Romanam ab Gallo turpiter
spoliari. scuto pedestri et gladio Hispanico cinctus contra Gallum constitit. (15) metu
magno ea congressio in ipso ponti, utroque exercitu inspectante, facta est. (16) ita ut ante
dixi constiterunt, Gallus sua disciplina scuto proiecto cantabundus; Manlius, animo magis
quam arte confisus, scuto scutum percussit atque statum Galli conturbauit. (17) dum se
Gallus iterum eodem pacto constituere studet, Manlius iterum scuto scutum percutit atque
de loco hominem iterum deiecit; eo pacto ei sub Gallicum gladium successit atque
Hispanico pectus hausit; deinde continuo humerum dextrum eodem concessu incidit,
neque recessit usquam donec subuertit, ne Gallus impetum icti haberet. (18) ubi eum
euertit, caput praecidit, torquem detraxit eamque sanguinulentam sibi in collum inponit.
(19) quo ex facto ipse posterique eius Torquati sunt cognominati.
Oakley (1998: 120–1) complains of the lack of variation,98 particularly with regard to word order,
though he himself notes the chiasmus in §7 nudus praeter scutum et gladios duos, torque et
armillis decoratus,99 and we may add pugnae facta pausa est in §9100 and the placing of maxima
and magno after uoce and metu respectively in §§10 and 15.101
Page 9 of 20
The structure is simple, with little subordination.102 As von Albrecht says,103 ‘clauses are
connected by means of demonstratives, relatives, and parataxis, in so far as there is any
connection at all’. It is this which Gellius admired as old-fashioned, and which Cicero regarded
as the major fault of historical writing as it existed before his time (see p. 54). Combined with
this is a certain awkwardness and inconcinnity. Thus at 10b §14 is, ut dico, processit, Claudius
has not previously said that Manlius came forward, and the parenthesis serves merely for
emphasis.104 At 10b §16 ut ante dixi refers back to §§7 and 14 and ita does not look forward to
the contrast between Gallus and Manlius: it is either to be taken with ut or is merely resumptive.
Despite this, Claudius continues, contrasting Gallus sua disciplina and Manlius animo magis
quam arte confisus, as if he had intended ita to look forward, and, what is more, the second limb
of his contrast ‘drifts from description to narrative’ (Courtney 1999: 148). Similarly, in 19
propinqui is the subject of the subordinate, parentes of the main clause, in 33 Claudius writes
putaretur uictoria esse, when uictoria esset would have sufficed, in 41 neue apparently depends
on (p.69) negauimus, but is in fact an ellipse for et monuimus ne, in 57 we expect et quod to be
introducing a second reason for Fabius’ unwillingness to dismount, when in fact it introduces a
causal clause going with the second main clause, in 93 eorum and illis do not have the same
reference (the treatment of the former will make it clear that the people being addressed are
joining the latter), though it would be no less awkward if they did.
Such things may also have appeared to Fronto to be characteristic of sermo cotidianus.105 One
wonders, though, whether they were a deliberate affectation rather than mere artlessness, an
attempt to reproduce the characteristics of earlier historians. Similar considerations may apply
to dislocations of word order which appear to serve no purpose, as with 10b §8 maxime, 38
ipsorum, and 39 conprehensare.
A consequence of all this is that it is quite unjustified to emend the transmitted text because it
presents a usage which is unparalleled or appears ‘surprising’ or ‘weak’.106 Examples of
readings assailed by such conjectures are 7 exsuperabilem, 10b §14 ut dico (discussed above),
§17 concessu, 13 ex uictoria inerti, 36 loca munita res omnes habere, 93 facite exempla eorum,
94 pluuia imbri.
10. Valerius Antias

There are only nine verbatim fragments of Valerius Antias.107 Both the small number and their
content indicate that he made no effort to employ archaic usages or to neologize. Badian (1966:
22, 36 n. 111) wrongly saw archaisms in 16 prior neuter108 and ‘a fad for reduplicated verb
forms’ (speponderant (57), peposcit (60), and descendidit (62)).109 Nouissime is attested in 14
and 58: nouissimus, according to Varro (LL 6.59), was a neologism, widely used in the
Ciceronian period (several times by Cicero’s correspondents), but avoided by Cicero himself
(Gell. 10.21.1). Fragment 59 is an example of the indeclinable future participle (see pp. 65–6),
while 61 is cited for adultus as the participle of adoleo (neither it nor any other form occurs
elsewhere: TLL I 793–4).
(p.70) 11. L. Cornelius Sisenna

Cicero (Leg. 1.7, Brut. 228)110 regarded Sisenna (pr. 78) as far superior to all other historical
writers, though well short of the attainable peak; he says at Leg. 1.7 that Sisenna seemed to
have read no Greek historian other than Clitarchus and to have had the sole aim of imitating
him. The latter comment probably refers to both the content and the style of Sisenna’s work:
Clitarchus was noted both for his exaggerated descriptions and for his inflated style.111
Similarly, Fronto (134), who might have been expected to admire Sisenna’s archaizing (see
below), thought he was long-winded.
Page 10 of 20
The fact that Nonius, or his source, had and made full use of a text of Sisenna’s third and fourth
books means that we have a great deal of evidence for Sisenna’s linguistic usages. All the
fragments preserved by Nonius, however, are extremely short and no other writer comes to our
rescue with a passage long enough to enable us to form a judgement about the structure of
Sisenna’s prose.112 What the fragments do show is that Sisenna, like Quadrigarius, wrote Latin
which was markedly different from that of the early Cicero and the Rhetorica ad Herennium.
Usages found earlier, but absent or virtually absent from Cicero and Caesar, include:113 3
obtruncare, 13 mittere = excludere, 18 confodere as an agricultural term, 25, 104 occipere, 27,
69 protelare, 31 manipulatim, 33 congenuclare, 42, 135 potiri+accusative,114 46 indulgitas, 47
immissa for demissa, 49 claritudo, fortassean, 50 impotentia, 54 fluuia, 58 constare = ‘stand
together’, 59 finis feminine, 63 componere = praeparare, 74 amoliri, 75 dubitatim, 80 uirile ac
muliebre secus,115 89 integrare for redintegrare, 93 concubia nocte, 98 necessitudo =
‘compulsion’,116 101 uti+accusative, 103 innoxius, labrum = ‘edge’, ‘extremity’, 104 caecos
fluctus prouoluere, 105 proris, 108 proloqui, 111 malum publicum, 112 suum genitive plural, 123
diui, 130 stare = plenum est, 137 properatim.
The following occur for the first or only time in Sisenna: 3 iuxtim as preposition, 8 proiectus of
branches (95 proicere of speech),117 8 arbor +name of species, 9 remulcare, 11 fragmen, 12
sagarius, 14 agilis, 16 adesus, 23 manualis, 26, 72 sonu (p.71) ablative, 30 certare+dative, 35
dispalari, 36 numerus+genitive of number, 43 in populum producere, 55–6 populabundus,
adjective in -bundus with direct object, 60 ferus = ‘uncultivated’, 64 conglobare of soldiers and
70 certatio in military context,118 72 molimentum, 81 catafracta (-es), 82 harpaga, 84 expedire =
‘work free’, 84, 91 periclitari+physical object, 85 permittere = praecipitare, 90 contendere =
‘tighten’, ‘twist’, 91 machinamentum, 92 talentarius, 100 uoto damnare, 102 frustrari passive,
104 persubhorrescere, 107 centones, cilicia in naval context, 115 granditas, 116 exhaurire of
alcohol, 117 praefestinatim, 119 iusso for iussu, 121 silentium oritur, 122 crebritudo, 123
laetiscere, supernus, 126 celatim, 127 saltuatim, uellicatim, 131 sibilu ablative,119 139
semionustus, 140 patres familiarum, 141 mediterreus.
The probability that a proportion of these words were neologisms is increased by the fact that
Sisenna was famous for using unheard-of words in court (Cic. Brut. 259–60) and had a penchant
for analogy (Varro ap. Gell. 2.25.9, Quint. Inst. 1.5.13). Gellius, in the passage (12.15) which
constitutes 126–7, 137, notes his fondness for adverbs in -im,120 citing cursim, properatim,121
celatim, uellicatim, saltuatim; the lists above contain, in addition, dubitatim, festinatim (see n.
118), iuxtim (though as a preposition), manipulatim, praefestinatim, and uicatim.122
12. C. Licinius Macer123

Cicero (Leg. 1.7) was dismissive of Macer (tr. pl. 73, ?pr. 68); he granted that his loquacitas
possessed some argutiae, but said that it derived from Latin librarioli, not Greek learning.124 The
surviving verbatim fragments are all short, and do not allow us to evaluate Cicero’s verdict.
Page 11 of 20
6 luculentus, found before Macer in Plautus, Terence, and Afranius, occurs several times in
Cicero’s correspondence and twice in the Philippics.7 quies as an adjective occurs otherwise
only in Naevius and Apuleius.125 In 21, a very obscure (p.72) fragment, reluere, which occurs
in Caecilius in the sense of ‘redeem’ (sc. something mortgaged), appears to mean ‘cleanse’;126
lues (? = ‘contagion’) is found before Macer only in the Carmen Aruale: it is rare in prose but
occurs once in Cicero. 22 neglegi perfect is unattested before Macer, and its use by Sallust (Cat.
51.24, Iug. 40.1)127 was probably a deliberate imitation. 24 clipeum (for clipeus) is a form first
found in Pomponius, but used several times by Livy in passages of no great moment, while 25 se
contendere is a hapax. The evidence, limited as it is, suggests that Macer too strove for effect
both by taking words from earlier writers and by innovation.
13. Conclusion
We have seen that most of the lost historians took a good deal of trouble over their vocabulary,
using words which they found in earlier writers, both poets and their own predecessors, creating
new ones, mostly by the use of common prefixes and suffixes, and using words in new senses.
Their aim was to write impressively, not to imitate Cato or follow supposed conventions of the
genre. In the early first century, however, Quadrigarius and Sisenna did this to an extent which
suggests that they were aiming to write history in the way in which it had been written in the
past, and in so doing they created something which was very different from the Latin of the
contemporary young Cicero.
The surviving longer fragments, with a few exceptions, exhibit a simple sentence structure, with
a minimum of subordination. In Quadrigarius we find this combined with what may be a
deliberate awkwardness. Cicero wanted history to be written in a different way, one which
resembled oratory: it was left to Livy to fulfil Cicero’s wish.
Notes:
Proceedings of the British Academy, 129, 53–72. © The British Academy 2005
Note. I write as a member of the team which, under the direction of Tim Cornell, is preparing a
new edition of the fragments of the otherwise lost historians, both republican and imperial, with
English translation and commentary. The aim is to replace Peter (1914, 1906). For the moment
Peter’s work, one of the great monuments of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century
scholarship, remains the basis of study, and in what follows individual fragments are referred to
by their number in Peter. The views expressed in this paper are not to be taken as those of the
team as a whole. All dates are BC.
I am very grateful to Jim Adams for help which went well beyond his duties as an editor of the
volume.
(1) Fabius is one of the authors whose style was criticized by Cicero (see below) and there are
four fragments cited for their Latinity (2, 3, 4, 6; Peter 1914: 112–13). The work was probably a
translation of the Greek, not a separate history by another Fabius; cf. Badian (1966: 30 n. 27).
(2) See Broughton (1986: 1).
(3) e.g. Coelius 34 perterebrare, exterebrare, and bucula, Quadrigarius 64 inaestimabilis.
(4) The principal source of the fragments of Sisenna (118 out of 145); see p. 70.
Page 12 of 20
(5) This statement depends on the view that the historian was the jurist Q. Aelius Tubero, not his
father and friend of Cicero L. Aelius Tubero; cf. Ogilvie (1965: 16–17), Lebek (1970a: 151 n.
130), Briscoe (1990: 190).
(6) See in particular De orat. 2.53 ‘hanc similitudinem scribendi multi secuti sunt, qui sine ullis
ornamentis monumenta solum temporum hominum locorum gestarumque rerum reliquerunt…
talis noster Cato et Pictoret Piso, qui neque tenent quibus rebus ornetur oratio…et dum
intellegatur quid dicant, unam dicendi laudem putant esse breuitatem’; Leg. 1.6 ‘nam post
annales pontificum maximorum, quibus nihil potest esse ieiunius, si aut ad Fabium aut ad eum
qui tibi semper in ore est, Catonem, aut ad Fannium, quamquam ex his alius alio plus habet
uirium, tamen quid tam exile quam isti omnes?’
(7) Thus Woodman (1988: 76–95), discussing only the De oratore passage.
(8) In the case of Cato, the apparently contradictory judgement at Brut. 66 is not to be taken at
face value (cf. Douglas 1966: 56).
(9) e.g. Leo (1913: 299–300, 325–46), Schanz and Hosius (1927: 187, 193–209, 316–28), Leeman
(1963: 67–88).
(10) I accept the evidence of Velleius 2.9.6 that Valerius Antias was a contemporary of Sisenna
and Claudius Quadrigarius, against the view (e.g. Wiseman 1979: 104–39; 1998a: 75–89) that he
belongs to the 40s BC. The case will be argued in detail by John Rich in our forthcoming edition.
Sisenna died in 67, Macer in 66; they, Claudius Quadrigarius, and Antias were probably all
writing in the 70s (I regret my earlier habit of referring to Claudius and Antias as ‘Sullan
annalists’ (e.g. 1973: 12 n. 2, 65)).
(11) Badian places Gellius and Piso before Fannius.
(12) At (1966: 11) Cato’s style is said to have become ‘a model in a new genre’, but at (1966: 14)
Fannius’ aim was ‘to achieve dignitas and perhaps evoke Cato’. Coelius is the first writer for
whom Badian can adduce a substantial amount of evidence; he is also the first whom he
discusses after Fannius, but nevertheless claims that ‘he did not depart from what had become
the custom of the genre’ (1966: 17).
(13) In the case of Scaurus Badian (1966: 37 n. 124) adduced what was in fact a fragment of a
speech (Or. frg. 7), not of his autobiography, printed by Peter (1914: 186) under the heading
orationum reliquiae.
(14) Cf. Badian (1966: 33 nn. 77, 80, 37 n. 124).
(15) Badian (1966: 37 n. 124), of Scaurus.
(16) Langslow (2000a: 340; 340–5 for its use in medical Latin).
(17) Cf. Ernout (1949), Leumann (1977: 341), Rosén (1999: 54–6).
(18) 34 industriosissime, 65 sentinosus. Nineteen are in the De agricultura and five in fragments
of speeches, while consiliosus, disciplinosus, and uictoriosus are cited by Aulus Gellius (4.9.12)
as words used by Cato, with no indication in which work(s) they occurred. I take this material
from the list in Till (1935: 42–50 = 1968: 78–90).
Page 13 of 20
(19) See Bergsland (1940), Cupaiuolo (1967: 47–58). The only such adverb whose first
appearance is in Cato is minutim at Agr. 123; it occurs elsewhere in republican literature only in
Lucilius.
(20) One of which, 57 pedetemptim occurs also in Plautus, Terence, a speech of Cato, Pacuvius,
Lucilius, Quadrigarius (92), Lucretius, and eight times in Cicero.
(21) Cf. Bauer (1933), Oakley (1997: 146–7).
(22) Cf. Calboli (1986: 1089 n. 14).
(23) Just as he refuses to accept as poetic anything except usages which occur in republican
verse and do not occur in republican prose (cf. Lebek 1970a: 207–9).
(24) At (1970a: 261) Lebek talks of ‘die umgangsprachliche, familiäre oder vulgäre
Ausdruckssphäre’.
(25) Cf. Oakley (1997: 148).
(26) In some cases, of course, the expression is one that Cicero and Caesar would not have had
occasion to use.
(27) Cf. Briscoe (1973: 15–16), Oakley (1997: 144). That is not to deny that there are individual
cases which are clearly one rather than the other.
(28) That is not to deny the possibility that such a usage was in fact taken by a historian from
earlier verse.
(29) Ars 46–59. The vast majority were compounds and, as Jim Adams points out to me, some may
not have struck those who encountered them as particularly ‘new’. On the very large number of
such words in early Latin, greatly reduced by the Ciceronian period, see Rosén (1999: 41–84).
(30) On Fronto 56 see pp. 59, 63.
(31) On Nonius’ methods cf. Lindsay (1901), White (1980). It should be observed that in a few
instances usages which do not occur earlier are found in two writers whose chronological
relationship to each other cannot be determined (longe = longitudine in Coelius 15 and Lucilius
114, artificiosus (-e) in Asellio 13 and Rutilius 7, pilatim in Asellio 14 and Scaurus 6, scutum
proicere in Quadrigarius 10b and Sisenna 7, funditor in Quadrigarius 85 and Sisenna 19,
uerminare in Quadrigarius 49 and Pomponius Atell. 56, festinatim in Sisenna 65 and Pomponius
Atell. 13, suffragare in Sisenna 132 and Pomponius Atell. 106).
(32) On the language of Cato see Till (1935 = 1968).
(33) Cato 95 (the speech in defence of the Rhodians), 106–9 (the speech against Ser. Sulpicius
Galba).
(34) The De agricultura, being essentially a technical treatise, falls into a different category.
(35) Cf. Livy 40.51.5–6, 41.28.8–9.
(36) Cf. Fraenkel (1960: 226–31, 332–5).
Page 14 of 20
(37) Only the passage explicitly said by Aulus Gellius to be a verbatim citation from Cato (3.7.19),
together with the use of uerruca for a hillock (3.7.6), can legitimately be taken into
consideration, even if one may reasonably suspect that the rest of the non-verbatim paraphrase
(3.7.3–17) in fact retains some elements of the original.
(38) For other analyses of the fragment cf. e.g. Holford-Strevens (2003: 248–9), von Albrecht
(1971: 38–50 = 1989: 21–32), Calboli (1996: 17–22), Courtney (1999: 74–80). On the frequent
use of demonstratives to connect clauses and sentences, which we find also in Cato 24, Hemina
37, Piso 27, and Quadrigarius 10b, as well as in Plautus and Terence, cf. Laughton (1951: 37),
Fraenkel (1951a: 54–5 = 1964: II 57), Hofmann (1951: 119).
(39) It is this to which Badian (1966: 11) is referring when he says ‘including inceptives’. There
is, in fact, no other example in the fragment, and augescere (found also at Ennius Ann. 466V =
495 Skutsch) is probably not inceptive (cf. Leumann 1977: 538–9, Haverling 2000: 4–6). On the
poetic tone of verbs in -sco see Langslow (1999: 216). Quadrigarius 93 has congermanescere,
found elsewhere only in Apuleius (with a sexual meaning), and Sisenna 104 persubhorrescere, a
hapax.
(40) Cf. Astin (1978: 147). Plautus also used atque before consonants in couplings which linked
near synonyms or were alliterative; cf. Bacch. 763, Cas. 382, 402, Cist. 10, Curc. 649, Men. 829,
Mil. 10.
(41) Alliteration and assonance continued to be an obvious way of creating an effect, as can be
seen particularly in Quadrigarius and Sisenna. But Santini (1995: 67–8) goes too far in finding
examples in Hemina 9, 21, 24, 27, 37, and 42, though he is probably right to do so in 10. In
general see the cautionary remarks of Goodyear (1972: 336–41). For such effects in ritual
language see Langslow, below, pp. 290–2.
(42) 56; see n. 30 above. The fact that Fronto refers to Cato as an orator does not mean that his
remarks do not apply to the Origines.
(43) Cf. Oakley (1997: 494–5).
(44) Cf. Fraenkel (1935: 438), concerning Livius Andronicus and Naevius, and p. 57 above.
(45) The items listed by Till (1935: 2–12 = 1968: 16–33) under the heading ‘Das Archaische’ are
those which were archaic for the generation of Cicero.
(46) I follow the common view that 31 bellum Punicum posterior implies that Hemina wrote (or at
least began) book 4 before the Third Punic War, against the argument of Forsythe (1990: 327–9)
that he could have been writing in the 130s or 120s.
(47) Leeman (1963: 72); cf. Bardon (1952: 76).
(48) Scholz’s description (1989: 179) of 13 and 37 as clumsy shows a lack of perspective (cf.
Bardon 1952: 77, talking of ‘gaucherie’ in 37).
(49) 1970ahumanitusTLL VI/3 3097.81–3
(50) See further n. 41 above; equally dubious are Santini’s claims (1995: 67–8) to discern the
influence of official and para-official texts on Hemina’s style (similarly Leeman 1963: 72, 87).
Page 15 of 20
(51) Alsoofavineat Agr. 37.3.
(52) The jejune evidence for the Latin version of Fabius Pictor (see n. 1), if it indeed belongs to
this period, contains nothing of value for the present purpose.
(53) See the brief remarks of Forsythe (1994: 36–8). The oratio recta attributed to C. Furius
Cresimus in 33 cannot safely be taken as a verbatim citation.
(54) Occipit in 36, if it is what Piso wrote, may well not have been seen as archaic at his time; see
Lebek (1970a: 214), Oakley (1997: 438–9). 27, though it is not cited for this reason, contains ad
collegam uenisse uisere aegrotum; such infinitives to express purpose after verbs of motion are
common in verse from Ennius onwards, but in prose the only other occurrences in republican
Latin are Coelius 12 and two passages of Varro’s Res rusticae (cf. K–S I 680–1, H–S 344–5; Lebek
1970a: 220 quotes only passages with mittere). Either Piso or Coelius may have been influenced
by the usage of the other (they may well have been writing at around the same time; Piso’s
position in Peter 1914 is simply a reflection of the date of his consulship).
(55) Leg. 1.6, cited in n. 6.
(56) Cf. Titinius Com. 78, Lebek (1970a: 215). On such forms cf. Leumann (1977: 92).
(57) There are no verbatim fragments of C. Sempronius Tuditanus (cos. 129).
(58) I regard 29 portabus…oleabus, 31 regum…lapiderum, and 33 deliquium…deliquionem as

each constituting two fragments.
(59) For what follows see especially Leumann (1977: 422).
(60) Thus Charisius 67–8 and Priscian Gramm. II 294, citing Hemina 32.
(61) Livius Andronicus Carm. fr. 29 deque manibus dextrabus, Cato Agr. 152 scopas…eabus,
Hemina 32 qui cum eabus stuprum fecerat (we also find masculines in -bus at Ennius Var. 30V,
Plaut. Curc. 506, Mil. 74, and Pompon. Atell. 70). In the fragment of Hemina, the form may have
been motivated by a desire to contrast the scriba and the Vestal virgins who were his sexual
partners.
(62) When Fraenkel (1951b: 193 = 1964: II 133) described 29 portabus and oleabus as
‘pseudoarchaisms’, he meant that Gellius was using an archaic form, but that there were no
previous examples of it for porta and olea.
(63) Cf. Lebek (1970a: 216). It is unclear whether deliquium and deli(n)quio for ‘eclipse’ (33) are
innovations or words in current use (thus Lebek 1970a: 217). 26 caluaria (for calua) occurs in a
fragment of Varro and nowhere else in republican and Augustan Latin.
(64) At 29 doubt has been cast on the xcvii of the Naples manuscript of Charisius (Cuyck’s lost
manuscript had xxvii), but since 26 (an event of 216) is cited from book 33 and Gellius continued
to at least 146 (28), the work was of substantial length.
(65) Sedauit in 30 is an example of the not uncommon phenomenon of an active verb being used
reflexively; cf. K–S I 91–3, H–S 395–6, Feltenius (1977: 36). Lebek’s apparent implication (1970a:
216) that Gellius intended it as a colloquialism is misleading.
Page 16 of 20
(66) I adopt Hertz’s da, te for the manuscripts’ date.
(67) See the material collected by Appel (1909; Hersilia’s prayer is at p. 43 no. 93). Note the
alliteration in propriis et prosperis, coniugis consilio contigit, and posteros patriae pararent (cf.
n. 41). For te in the initial position in its clause cf. Cato Agr. 134, 141. Integra of a virgin occurs
elsewhere in republican and Augustan Latin at Plaut. Truc. 821, Ter. Hec. 150, Catul. 61.36, and
Hor. Odes 3.4.70; it is not found again in prose before Sen. Contr. 1.2.20. It is conceivable that
Gellius took it from Ennius, who seems also to have related the episode (cf. Skutsch 1968: 134–6;
1985: 245–7).
(68) De orat. 2.54, Leg. 1.6, Brut. 102.
(69) Though note how at 25 Coelius has altered Cato’s brusque paratactic imperative plus future
indicative (86 mitte mecum Romam equitatum: diequinti in Capitolio tibi cena cocta erit) to a
conditional sentence (si uis mihi equitatum dare et ipse cum cetero exercitu me sequi, diequinti
Romae in Capitolio curabo tibi cena sit cocta). I do not here deal with Coelius’ statement (1) that
he will not dislocate word order in order to achieve a clausula unless he cannot avoid it. I hope
to contribute to the introduction to the proposed edition some remarks on prose rhythm in the
fragmentary historians.
(70) 56; cf. pp. 57, 59.
(71) For Badian see n. 12 (his categories (1966: 33 n. 77) ‘odd features of accidence and
construction’ and ‘solemn and unusual words or unusual uses of common words’ are confused
and misleading). Lebek (1970a: 223) held that there was only one archaism (57 topper), but
admitted that 45 ductor may derive from Ennius.
(72) See Lebek (1970a: 217–23). Words marked with an asterisk in what follows are not
discussed by Lebek.
(73) Cf. Gellius 31 (p. 62).
(74) It is not certain that the fragment belongs to Coelius.
(75) Cic. De orat. 3.153, excluded by Peter because he thought that in oratione meant ‘in a
speech’, when it in fact means ‘in prose’. It was rightly restored to Coelius by Fraenkel (1951b:
194 =1964: II 136). Lebek (1970a: 26 n. 19, 1970b) pointed out that the transmitted reading in
Cicero is Laelius, and attributed the fragment to a speech of C. Laelius (cos. 140), but Fraenkel’s
position is convincingly defended by Calboli (1978: 54–6). For its use elsewhere see Lebek
(1970a: 27).
(76) I exclude 12 celox, found in Ennius, Plautus, Turpilius, Varro’s Menippeae, and three times
in Livy, since the word is technical and the distribution—its use being determined by the subject
matter—therefore not significant. 45 ductor and 64 ocior (the fragment may belong to Gellius
rather than Coelius) remained choice, but occur in Cicero; cf. Oakley (1998: 245–6, 384–5).
(77) Cf. K–S I 625, H–S, 187, Adams and Mayer (1999b: 6). At Quadrigarius 7 the usage is
regular, since a relative clause intervenes.
(78) See Oakley (1997: 516–17).
Page 17 of 20
(79) See Briscoe (1973: 151), where. however, passages without ac/et muliebre are omitted;
Plaut. Rud. 107 has uirile sexus used in the same way. The idiom occurs also at Sisenna 80.
(80) TLL IV 1167.24 ffcrepidarius
(81) See pp. 55–6.
(82) uectigaliumTLL VI/1 1424.4–5
(83) Cf. Lebek (1970a: 226), Leumann (1977: 616).
(84) 15 presents the first instance in prose of ostentare, found frequently in early verse, but
common in Cicero and Caesar. The fragment of a speech which Diomedes, immediately following
15, appears to assign to Rutilius in fact belongs to Cato (Orat. 209).
(85) There is no reason to regard 12 as belonging to Quadrigarius; see Oakley (1998: 124, 231 n.
2).
(86) It is a reflection of the amount of evidence that Lebek (1970a: 227–61) devoted considerably
more space to Claudius than to any other historian. See also Badian (1966: 20).
(87) Another six come from elsewhere in Gellius.
(88) Gell. 13.29.2; cotidianus has the sense of ‘colloquial’, ‘conversational’; cf. Cic. Orat. 109,
Quint. Inst. 11.1.6.
(89) For other value judgements by Gellius see 15.1.4, 17.2.3, 6, 10, 23, 26.
(90) On a number of occasions Lebek rightly criticizes Wölfflin (1908) or Zimmerer (1937) for
categorizing usages as poeticisms (mainly Wölffin) or archaisms (Zimmerer). It should be said
that Zimmerer’s discussion of Claudius’ language and style (1937: 88–127), though diffuse and
hard to use, contains a number of perceptive remarks; in particular she well emphasizes the
number of places where Claudius has introduced deliberate stylistic effects. There are detailed
treatments of the three longest fragments (10b, 41, 57) by Courtney (1999: 144–52) and of 10b
by Schibel (1971: 14–28, 63–9).
(91) There is no justification for Lebek’s claim (1970a: 245) that when Cicero used desubito at
Rep. 6.2, he was imitating the speech of an earlier generation.
(92) This, occurring also in Antias 16, could have been an accepted usage in the Sullan period
(Badian 1966: 36 n. 111 declares that ‘it must surely have been quite intolerable by the time of
Cicero’).
(93) On § 16 scuto proiecto cf. n. 31.
(94) On 49 uerminare see n. 31.
(95) cum uoce maximacumK–S I 510, Courtney (1999: 147)
(96) I take this to be Lebek’s position: he is not explicit.
Page 18 of 20
(97) Though he does not himself use the argument, Lebek’s view might appear to be supported
by the description of Claudius as uir…prope cotidiani sermonis (see above). Fronto and Gellius,
however, could not have known what was and what was not part of the spoken language in the
80s and 70s.
(98) Von Albrecht (1971: 117–18 = 1989: 93) is more impressed by the variation that he finds
(e.g. §16 disciplina…ars, §§16–17 percussit…percutit, §§17–18 suuertit…euertit). Schibel (1971:
27) notes the variations on a root in §17 successit…concessu…recessit and §§17–18 incidit…
praecidit.
(99) For other examples of chiasmus in the fragments see Zimmerer (1937: 115–16), citing 23,
24, 58, 81, 88.
(100) For the separation of facta and est cf. Adams (1994: 42).
(101) See Courtney (1999: 148). On maxime in § 8 see below.
(102) Cf. Oakley (1998: 122).
(103) Loc. cit.; I cite Adkin’s translation.
(104) Cf. Courtney (1999: 148).
(105) Cf. n. 88.
(106) Thus Courtney (1999: 147, 149) on 10b § 8 maxime (‘surprisingly prominent position’) and §
17 usquam (‘seems a little weak’).
(107) It cannot be assumed that the oratio recta in 6 reproduces the text of Antias, as Badian
(1966: 36 n. 111) appears to think. Leeman (1963: 82) analysed the Latin of Orosius in 63 as if it
was that of Antias.
(108) See n. 92.
(109) Spepondi and peposci were the original forms, but Gellius, who cites the fragments, says
that the former was used by Cicero and Caesar (it can be seen as a legal archaism; cf. Adams
1990: 244). The statement by Leumann (1977: 586) that depeposcit occurs at R. Gest.diu.Aug.
25.2 is erroneous. Descendidit, for which Gellius also cites Laberius, was formed on the analogy
of compounds of dare (Lebek 1970a: 262).
(110) Cicero’s failure to mention Sisenna in the De oratore, of course, is due to the need to
preserve the illusion created by the dramatic date.
(111) Cf. Rawson (1979: 338–43 = 1991: 378–83).
(112) Badian’s talk (1966: 26) of ‘sound-painting, to produce startling effects’ refers to 104.
Hyperbaton can be seen in 50, 61, 71, 76, 114.
(113) Lebek (1970a: 267–86) admits only two archaisms, occipere and diui. Cf. Badian (1966: 26,
38 nn. 144–7).
(114) Rhetorica ad HerenniumTLL X/2 334
Page 19 of 20
(115) Cf. n. 79.
(116) Perhaps taken by Sisenna from Asellio 5 (see p. 65).
(117) On 7 scutis proiectis cf. n. 31.
(118) Cf. Claudius 59. On 65 festinatim see n. 31.
(119) On 132 suffragare see n. 31.
(120) See p. 51, Barabino (1966).
(121) cursimproperatimRhetorica ad HerenniumproperatimComCIL VI 25703
(122) The fragments also contain the common partim (60, 83), paulatim (34), and statim (42, 100).
In 87 passim is a conjecture.
(123) See Lebek (1970a: 287–8). Walt’s discussion (1997: 142–8) is largely doxographical.
(124) The text of the second part of Cicero’s judgement is corrupt, but there is no doubt that he is
talking about the speeches in Macer’s history, not Macer as an orator.
(125) Lebek (1970a: 287) is willing to admit that it was an archaism for Macer, but in n. 53 he
canvasses the implausible idea that quietes is in fact a noun, the subject of an accusative and
infinitive (sc. milites is the subject of uolebant).
(126) OLD
(127) Lebek’s scepticism about the readings (1970a: 288) is unjustified: stemmatics might appear
to eliminate it, but it has clearly been altered to the normal form in most manuscripts.
Access brought to you by:
Page 20 of 20

BRISCOE - The Language and Style of The Fragmentary Republican Historians

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

BRISCOE - The Language and Style of The Fragmentary Republican Historians

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Language and Style of the Fragmentary Republican Historians

University Press Scholarship Online

British Academy Scholarship Online

Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose

Print publication date: 2005

The Language and Style of the Fragmentary Republican Historians

Abstract and Keywords

1. The nature of the evidence

(p.57) 3. Archaisms and neologisms

5. L. Cassius Hemina, Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus, L. Calpurnius Piso

6. C. Fannius and Cn. Gellius

8. Sempronius Asellio and the autobiographers

(p.66) 9. Q. Claudius Quadrigarius

10. Valerius Antias

(p.70) 11. L. Cornelius Sisenna

12. C. Licinius Macer123

(2) See Broughton (1986: 1).

(3) e.g. Coelius 34 perterebrare, exterebrare, and bucula, Quadrigarius 64 inaestimabilis.

(11) Badian places Gellius and Piso before Fannius.

(14) Cf. Badian (1966: 33 nn. 77, 80, 37 n. 124).

(15) Badian (1966: 37 n. 124), of Scaurus.

(21) Cf. Bauer (1933), Oakley (1997: 146–7).

(22) Cf. Calboli (1986: 1089 n. 14).

(25) Cf. Oakley (1997: 148).

(30) On Fronto 56 see pp. 59, 63.

(32) On the language of Cato see Till (1935 = 1968).

(35) Cf. Livy 40.51.5–6, 41.28.8–9.

(36) Cf. Fraenkel (1960: 226–31, 332–5).

(43) Cf. Oakley (1997: 494–5).

(47) Leeman (1963: 72); cf. Bardon (1952: 76).

(49) 1970ahumanitusTLL VI/3 3097.81–3

(51) Alsoofavineat Agr. 37.3.

(55) Leg. 1.6, cited in n. 6.

(57) There are no verbatim fragments of C. Sempronius Tuditanus (cos. 129).

(58) I regard 29 portabus…oleabus, 31 regum…lapiderum, and 33 deliquium…deliquionem as

(59) For what follows see especially Leumann (1977: 422).

(66) I adopt Hertz’s da, te for the manuscripts’ date.

(68) De orat. 2.54, Leg. 1.6, Brut. 102.

(70) 56; cf. pp. 57, 59.

(73) Cf. Gellius 31 (p. 62).

(74) It is not certain that the fragment belongs to Coelius.

(78) See Oakley (1997: 516–17).

(80) TLL IV 1167.24 ffcrepidarius

(81) See pp. 55–6.

(82) uectigaliumTLL VI/1 1424.4–5

(83) Cf. Lebek (1970a: 226), Leumann (1977: 616).

(87) Another six come from elsewhere in Gellius.

(93) On § 16 scuto proiecto cf. n. 31.

(94) On 49 uerminare see n. 31.

(95) cum uoce maximacumK–S I 510, Courtney (1999: 147)

(96) I take this to be Lebek’s position: he is not explicit.

(101) See Courtney (1999: 148). On maxime in § 8 see below.

(102) Cf. Oakley (1998: 122).

(103) Loc. cit.; I cite Adkin’s translation.

(104) Cf. Courtney (1999: 148).

(105) Cf. n. 88.

(108) See n. 92.

(111) Cf. Rawson (1979: 338–43 = 1991: 378–83).

(114) Rhetorica ad HerenniumTLL X/2 334

(115) Cf. n. 79.

(116) Perhaps taken by Sisenna from Asellio 5 (see p. 65).

(117) On 7 scutis proiectis cf. n. 31.

(118) Cf. Claudius 59. On 65 festinatim see n. 31.