Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:37:49.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Observations on the Style of Varro1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

E. Laughton
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield

Extract

Ancient and modern scholars are so unanimous in their condemnation of Varro as a writer, that a study of his ‘style’ may seem to be valueless. Cicero paid ready tribute to his great contemporary's learning, but studiously forbore to say anything about his writing, a fact which was observed by Augustine, who admitted Varro's inferiority in this respect. Quintilian, in a guarded way, makes the same criticism; for him Varro is ‘plus scientiae collaturus quam eloquentiae’. In recent times Norden has castigated the De, Lingua Latina as exhibiting the worst Latin style of any prose work, and his opinion of the Res Rusticae is not much higher.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 1 note 1 Civ. 6. 2.

page 1 note 3 Inst. 10. 1. 95.

page 1 note 4 Die antike Kunstprosa, i. 195 f.Google Scholar

page 1 note 5 Keil, H., Commentarius in Varronis Rerum Rusticarum libros tres (Leipzig, 1891).Google Scholar

page 1 note 6 Krumbiegel, R., De Varroniano scribendi genere (Leipzig, 1892).Google Scholar

page 1 note 7 Heidrich, G., Der Stil des Varro (Melk, 1892). There appears to be no copy of this work in the British Isles.Google Scholar

page 1 note 8 Heurgon, J., ‘L'effort de style de Varron dans les Res Rusticae’, Rev. de Phil. xxiv (1950), 5771.Google Scholar

page 1 note 1 A.K. i. 197.Google Scholar In an earlier article (Rhein. Mas. N.F. xlviii [1893], 547–51), to which further reference will be made, he quotes two of these examples (ling. 5. 5 and 6. 96) with the remark: ‘Talia passim obvia in Varronis operibus’. One might add that, if one reads the whole context of Att. 12. 6. 1 in conjunction with Cicero's other references to Hegesias (Or. 226, 230; Brut. 286), one is bound to conclude that for Cicero the characteristic feature of H.'s style was, not concinnity, but unnatural disjointedness of utterance.Google Scholar

page 6 note 1 Heidrich, , op. cit., p. 22.Google Scholar

page 6 note 2 Schmalz-Hofmann, , Lat. Gramm. 5 (1928), pp. 654 f.Google Scholar

page 6 note 3 Professor Woodcock suggests that this may be due to the conflation, not unnatural in informal utterance, of ‘eos disperituros’ with ‘fore ut’, and quotes an analogous incongruity with the Supine+iri in Quin-tilian, inst. 9. 2. 28 reus parrkidii… damnation iri videbatur.

page 6 note 4 As a matter of convenience I use the term ‘antecedent’ for that element to which the relative clause refers, irrespective of its position.

page 8 note 1 Cf. Kühner-Stegmann, , Ausfiihrliche lateinische Grammatik, ii. 2. 281. 5.Google Scholar

page 8 note 2 Examples are not lacking in Plautus: e.g. Most. 1046 ostium quod in angiporto est horti, patefeci fores.

page 9 note 1 Op. cit. ii. 2. 286. 9.Google Scholar

page 9 note 2 e.g. in three instances (Caesar, , B.G. 7. 59.Google Scholar 2; Sall. Cat. 48. 1; Tac. Ann. 1. 74. 1) the separating element is an ablative absolute phrase, and therefore easily isolated. In other cases it coalesces with noun or verb in its clause, in such a way as to form virtually a single idea: Caesar, , B.G. 1. 44.Google Scholar 3; 7. 50. 1 (adverbial phrase); Cic. Mux. 7; Fam. 9. 15. 1 (dependent genitive). The principle assumed by K.-S. would appear to be justified in Sall. lug. 46. 2 and 81. 1, and (if the relative clause is genuine) in Cic. Tusc. 1.3.

page 10 note 1 Schmalz-Hofmann, , Lat. Gramm. 5 (1928), pp. 624–6;Google ScholarHofmann, , Lat. Umgangssprache, pp. 169 ff.Google Scholar

page 10 note 2 Schmalz-Hofmann, , p. 844; Umgangs-prache, pp. 168 f.Google Scholar

page 10 note 3 Ernout, A., Recueil de textes latins archaïques, p. 114.Google Scholar

page 11 note 1 R.E.L. xvii (1939), 201–2.Google Scholar

page 11 note 2 Löfstedt, E., Peregrinatio Aeiheriae, p. 304.Google Scholar

page 13 note 1 sus appears twice in the immediately following context with a feminine adjective.

page 15 note 1 Collart, J., Varron de lingua Latino, Lime V (Paris, 1954).Google Scholar

page 16 note 1 Lewis and Short give no instance of this use of the neuter pronoun with appello. However, cf. Seneca, , Contr. 2. 2. 3 socer—hoc enim te appellabo quamdiu vixero.Google Scholar

page 17 note 1 The Latin text of the early part of the sentence here translated is quoted on p. 5 above.

page 17 note 2 Hermes, lxxxv. 1. 126–8.Google Scholar

page 17 note 3 In the article referred to I included under predicate-agreement rust. 1. 8. 4 in tubulos fictiles cum fundo pertuso, quas cuspides appellant, quas, however, is Keil's emendation of the manuscript reading quos, which, if we retain it, as we probably should, is an example of ‘normal’ agreement (cf. Schmalz-Hofmann, 636, sect. 210b). Professor W. S. Watt kindly pointed out to me this oversight, and I am glad to take the opportunity of correcting it.Google Scholar

page 24 note 1 Cf. Cicero, , Or. 166 semper haec, qua Graeci nominant, cum contrariis opponuntur contraria, numerum oratorium necessitate ipsa efficiunt etiam sine industria.Google Scholar