Caesar the Linguist: the Debate about the Latin Language PDF

Preview

Summary

  Caesar the Linguist: The Debate about the Latin Language Giuseppe Pezzini The Evidence Recall to your mind and ponder the fact that C. Caesar, while engaged in a most formidable war in Gaul, wrote . . . two books of the most meticulous character On Analogy, discussing amid flying darts the...

Description

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Caesar the Linguist: the Debate about the Latin Language Giuseppe Pezzini

Related papers

Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

"Caesar. A St yle of Choice,” in: Grillo, L. & C.B. Krebs (eds.), T he Cambridge Companion t o Julius… Christ opher Krebs "Caesar's Poet ry in It s Cont ext ," in L. Grillo, C. Krebs (eds.), T he Cambridge Companion t o t he Writ ings o… Sergio Casali August us on St yle and Language (a reassessment of some fragment a and t est imonia) Ramón Gut iérrez González

 

Caesar the Linguist: The Debate about the Latin Language Giuseppe Pezzini

The Evidence Recall to your mind and ponder the fact that C. Caesar, while engaged in a most formidable war in Gaul, wrote . . . two books of the most meticulous character On Analogy, discussing amid flying darts the declension of nouns, and the aspiration of words and their classification mid the blare of bugles and trumpets (Fro. Parth.  transl. Haines).

In a letter to the emperor Marcus Aurelius, the grammarian and rhetorician Fronto refers to Caesar to encourage his former pupil to dedicate some of his time to intellectual activities. Fronto’s passage is one of the few testimonies to Caesar’s linguistic interests, which culminated in the writing of a treatise in two books, De Analogia. Suetonius (Iul. ) reports the episode in less romanticized terms, confirming the title and the number of books of the work, and also adding detail about its composition, namely that it was written “while crossing the Alps and returning from Cisalpine Gaul, where he had held the assizes.” Caesar’s treatise is also mentioned by Quintilian (..) and Gellius, who also transmits two important quotations. The first (..) is a fortunate aphorism: [fr. ] Avoid, as you would a rock (scopulum), every unheard and unusual word (inauditum atque insolens verbum).

The second piece, quoted by Gellius, is found in an anecdotic passage (..–), in which the same Fronto, engaged in a grammatical discussion, invites his audience to read an excerpt of De Analogia. The passage

I am grateful to Jim Adams, Alessandro Garcea, Barney Taylor, Wolfgang de Melo and Anna Roland for comments, criticisms, and suggestions.  Quotations and translations of fragments of De Analogia, unless specified, are from Garcea’s recent edition ().  Macrobius (Sat. ..) quotes the same line; but, interestingly, with infrequens instead of inauditum (cf. also Garcea (, –)).



Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The University of St Andrews, on 29 Mar 2018 at 15:16:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139151160.013



G. PEZZINI

quoted is a rhetorical question, in which Caesar apparently opposes a naturalistic conception of language: [fr. B] Surely you do not think that it happens from the nature of these things that we say “one land” and “several lands” . . . and that we cannot convert quadrigae into a singular nominal form or harena into a form of the plural, do you?

Another important testimony to De Analogia is found in Cicero. In his rhetorical work Brutus (), finished in  , Cicero attests that in the midst of the most absorbing activities (in maxumis occupationibus) Caesar wrote with great care (accuratissume), and dedicated to Cicero himself a treatise on the method of “speaking correct Latin” (de ratione latine loquendi). Cicero also quotes two passages from the text. The first, short and paraphrased, is a summary of what seems to be Caesar’s theory of eloquence as presented in De Analogia (fr. A “[Caesar] affirmed that the choice of words is the source of eloquentia”), to which Cicero makes further allusion in a later passage (Brutus  = fr. C). The second quotation, in Caesar’s own words (his verbis), is a convoluted and flattering (and probably ironic) extract from Caesar’s dedication to Cicero: [fr. B] And if, to the task of giving brilliant expression to their thought, some have devoted study and practice – and we must recognize that you [i.e. Cicero] have deserved well of the name and prestige of the Roman people as almost the pioneer and inventor of this resource – yet are we now to consider that the knowledge of this easy and everyday speech may be neglected (facilem et cotidianum novisse sermonem nunc pro relicto est habendum)?

The dedication to Cicero and the reference to rhetoric are important elements for the reconstruction of the work. They suggest that the treatise was somehow related to Cicero’s rhetorical discourse, and in particular, as will be discussed below, that in all likelihood De Analogia is a “response” to De Oratore (published in ). Combining these elements with the information on the assizes reported by Suetonius (which excludes  and ), one can suggest the spring of   as a probable date of composition. The final piece of evidence for De Analogia consists of a number of passages from grammatical works quoting Caesar’s linguistic views. This slight yet intriguing evidence raises some crucial questions. Why did Caesar dedicate some of his precious time, in such a momentous period, to write a grammatical treatise? What was the content of this work? 

In the winter of  Caesar did not leave Gaul, and in  he had to rush back from Italy in order to face Vercingetorix’s rebellion (cf. Garcea (, –), Hendrickson (, –), Lomanto (–, )). For different views see Radin (, ), Butler and Cary (, –), van den Hout (, ).

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The University of St Andrews, on 29 Mar 2018 at 15:16:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139151160.013

Caesar and the Debate about the Latin Language



What was its background? What grammatical theory did he adhere to and why? Is there any relation between Caesar’s grammatical stance and his other cultural enterprises, such as his reform of the calendar or his supposed Epicureanism? Did De Analogia have a role in Caesar’s political agenda? In this chapter I will address these questions: first I will analyze the fragments of De Analogia and discuss the grammatical background in order to reconstruct the content and aims of the treatise. I will then explore the relation of these with Caesar’s other intellectual achievements and with the rhetorical, philosophical, and political discourse of the late Republic, focusing in particular on the position of De Analogia in the controversy with Cicero.

The Text of De Analogia Excluding the passages quoted by Cicero and Gellius, the extant text of De Analogia consists of about three dozen fragments, mostly transmitted by late-antique grammarians. Several fragments are problematic: many of them consist of brief paraphrases rather than actual citations, often without explicit reference to the work; in some cases the attribution to De Analogia is controversial, since the fragments refer to Caesar’s usage rather than to a grammatical precept. Moreover, fragments are often corrupt, and the text printed by editors is sometimes conjectural. In other cases the attribution of the fragment may be faulty. The fragments are 

   



As far as content is concerned, the topics covered are: alphabet (fr. ); phonology (fr.  I as semi consonant; fr.  the sonus medius i/u; fr.  continuants; fr.  plosives); derivative adjectives (fr. ), morphological criteria (fr. ), gender and number (fr.  crinis masculine, fr.  cinis feminine; fr.  harena only singular, quadrigae only plural); morphological standardization (fr.  lacer not lacerus; fr. – ablative in -i for neuter nouns in -l, -e, and -ar and feminine in -is; fr.  Samnis not Samnitis (nom. sing.); fr.  pubis not puber/pubes (nom. sing.); fr.  pollen not pollis; fr.  turbonem not turbinem; fr.  panium not panum; fr.  partum not partium; fr.  genitive in -us and dative in -u for nouns of the fourth declension; fr.  accusative plural fagos not fagus; fr.  genitive singular die and specie; fr.  latinization of Greek nouns; fr.  nominative singular isdem not idem; fr.  perfect memordi, pepugi, and spepondi; fr.  mortus not mortuus); syntax (fr.  sese as subjective of a reflexive infinitive); remarks on other forms (fr.  participle ens; fr.  sirempse; fr.  luta). Cf. fr.  “in his books on analogy, Caesar recommends the genitive plural partum.” Cf. fr.  “this form was approved by Caesar,” and fr. , , . Cf. fr.  “Caesar was accustomed to pronounce and to write words like these . . .,” and fr. , . Cf. fr.  laceris codd. nonn. edd.: lacer cett. edd.;  singulariter idem pluraliter isdem codd.: singulariter isdem pluraliter idem nonn. edd. E.g. Priscian (fr. ) reports that Caesar approved the spelling Pompeiii; this bold and unattested form, usually regarded as excessive for Caesar and thus construed as a sort of reductio ad absurdum (cf. Garcea (, –)), is however found in a passage ascribable to Caesellius (at GL .) as one of his own proposals. On Caesellius see Vitale ().

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The University of St Andrews, on 29 Mar 2018 at 15:16:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139151160.013



G. PEZZINI

often obscure and ambiguous, and scholars sometimes provide interpretations very different from the literal sense.

Caesar and the Latin Grammatical Tradition With the caution required in dealing with a problematic corpus, one can make some observations on Caesar’s grammatical contribution as it emerges from the fragments of De Analogia. Apart from a few obscure pieces dealing with “theoretical” matters (cf. e.g. fr. , ) and syntax (fr. ), most of the fragments follow the standard pattern of the grammatical quaestio: for a single word, two or more forms are presented as possible, and the writer opts for one of the two, usually mentioning his criterion and comparing the choice of other grammarians, among them Caesar. The cause of a quaestio is the absence of a standardized language and the consequent proliferation of various forms: this situation is attested in Latin from the beginning of its literary history (third to second century ), a period characterized by phonological changes, regional variations, and foreign influence. For instance, in early Latin there are several attested forms for the genitive singular of dies: the older diēi, its reduced forms die˘ i and dięi and their evolutions die (perhaps regional at some stages) and dii, and finally a problematic dies, probably archaizing. The issue started to be treated at a theoretical level in the second half of the second century: in  , the Greek grammarian Crates, head of the school of Pergamum, arrived at Rome, setting the foundations of Latin grammatical studies. Whatever his doctrine was, Crates brought with him an echo of the grammatical controversy between the promoters of analogia and of anomalia. Aristarchus, head librarian at

 



 

 Cf. in particular fr.  (see previous note) and also fr. , . Cf. Adams (, –). On the genitive forms of the fifth declension cf. Gellius . and see Neue and Wagener (–, I.–), Leumann (, –), Meiser (, ), Garcea (, –). See also Skutsch (, ) on Ennius Ann.  dies. Grammatical precepts are found in Lucilius (cf. –, , –; see, briefly, Adams (, ), Chahoud in Pezzini and Taylor (fourthcoming)); also the poet Accius proposed grammatical reforms (cf. Dangel (, –)). For an overview of Republican grammarians see Suet. Gram. – and Rawson (, –, –). In Caesar’s era, Nigidius Figulus and Varro occupy a special place (cf. Rawson (, –)). Cf. Suet. Gram. . The traditional view of Crates as an anomalist (cf. e.g. Dahlmann (, –), (, –), Siebenborn (, –)), based on his description in Varro’s De Lingua Latina, has been recently challenged, amoung others, by Blank (, ) (followed by Willi (, )).

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The University of St Andrews, on 29 Mar 2018 at 15:16:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139151160.013

Caesar and the Debate about the Latin Language



Alexandria, was one of the exponents of the former group, which favored the regularization of linguistic forms on the basis of morphological symmetries (analogia). On the other side, the anomalists accepted “irregular” forms developed by usage, regardless of the impossibility to insert them into a uniform pattern (anomalia). Although the dichotomy between analogists and anomalists is probably artificial and reductive, these Hellenistic notions influenced the first Latin grammatici, the men in charge of the education of the elite, and their pupils with them. These theories are clearly in the background of De Analogia. Apart from its title, one of its interlocutors was Varro, as explicated in some fragments (e.g. fr. , ), who dedicated some books of his De Lingua Latina (, , ) to the analogia/anomalia debate and presumably dealt with it also in other lost works (such as De Similitudine Verborum or De Utilitate Sermonis). Moreover, one of Caesar’s teachers, Antonius Gnipho, was considered an analogist grammarian and, appropriately, was said to have been educated at Alexandria (cf. Suet. Gram. ).

Linguistic Standardization and its Criteria De Analogia is to be placed within the Latin grammatical tradition, whose aim, although often impracticable and confused, was linguistic standardization, that is the artificial selection of a form as standard in order to reduce optional variants: for instance, Caesar is said to have prescribed the form die (fr. ), thus eliminating the optionality of the other forms (see above). The nature of the variance may be morphological (about affixes, as in fr.  panum vs. panium and  memordi vs. momordi), morphosyntactic (as in  crinis masculine or feminine), phonological and/or orthographical (cf. fr.  maxumus vs. maximus). In some extreme cases, the grammarian could also introduce (or at least postulate) a new form in order to fill a supposed gap in the system. For instance, according to Priscian (fr. ), Caesar proposed (protulit) a participle ens on the model of the attested participle potens. The nature and terminology of 



 

On analogia in the Greek grammatical tradition see e.g. Erbse (, –), Callanan (, –), Probert (). For an overview of the controversy between analogists and anomalists in the Latin grammatical tradition see e.g. Collart (), Siebenborn (, –). On the unreliability of late antique grammarians cf. e.g. Holford-Strevens (, –). On linguistic standardization see Georgakopoulou and Silk (), Milroy and Milroy (). For Latin see in particular Petersmann (), Adams (), (, –), Clackson and Horrocks (, –), Clackson (b). Cf. also Rosén ().

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The University of St Andrews, on 29 Mar 2018 at 15:16:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139151160.013



G. PEZZINI

the criteria used for the standardization are variable. By convention one can refer to the list of criteria given by Varro (at GL .): analogia, natura, auctoritas, consuetudo. The first notion, already introduced, is analogia (proportio, comparatio, also referred to by the concepts of ratio “proportion” or veritas “truth”). This is the principle of similarity in the inflexion of forms that share similar features (similium similis declinatio or conparatio similium). For instance in fr.  the plural accusative form fagos “beeches” (inflected like an o-stem), is preferred over the form fagus (inflected like an u-stem) by analogy with forms such as populos, ulmos. This criterion, eponymous of Caesar’s treatise, is at the core of his grammatical doctrine and is traceable in most fragments. The analogical criterion is at the foundation of the system of declensions. This system is now taken for granted, but its features were far from obvious in the Roman Republic. The fragments of Analogia show that Caesar was much concerned with identifying morphological classes: in fr.  he is said to have indicated a series of factors for evaluating the similitudo between nouns. Fragments also transmit some of his practical proposals: for instance, two accusatives of turbo were attested, turbinem and turbonem. Caesar (fr. ) prescribes the form turbonem by analogy with Cato, Catonis. Among the morphological classes, Caesar appears to have been particularly interested in the systematization of the problematic stems in -i (e.g. panis) and consonant (e.g. pars): stems in -ni- should be masculine (fr. ), neuter nouns in -e and -ar should have the ablative in -i (fr. , , ), as well as feminine nouns in -i (fr. ). In some cases, Caesar’s intervention might betray a nationalistic trend: Greek names should take Latin endings, such as Calypsonem (fr. ). The second criterion is natura. Although often elusive, the term evokes the theory of a meaningful relation between natural referents and linguistic forms and/or structures (linguistic naturalism). Forms of linguistic naturalism are present in Pythagorean, Platonic, Stoic, and Epicurean



   



For an overview of the criteria of the Latin grammatical tradition see Siebenborn (, –). Cf. also Giannini (), Schironi (). On this fragment see Cavazza (, –), Lomanto (–, –), Garcea (, –). Gellius ., in the section entitled “quid Graeci analogian, quid contra anomalian vocent.”   Pompeius at GL .. Cf. Garcea (, –). Cf. Garcea (, –). On Caesar’s avoidance of Greek words in the Commentarii see Eden (, –). On his interaction with Gaul native speakers and the learning of Latin in the Gaul elite see Adams (a, , ). On his knowledge and usage of Greek see Adams (a, –, –). On the Latinization of Greek names see Adams (a, –). Cf. Siebenborn (, –), Willi (, –).

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. The University of St Andrews, on 29 Mar 2018 at 15:16:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139151160.013

Caesar and the Debate about the Latin Language



doctrines, and, through these, reached the linguistic debate at Rome. This is not the place to discuss this complex and fascinating notion; here one might simply note that, in a grammatical context, linguistic naturalism might imply the possibility of referring to an extra-linguistic criterion in order to regulate linguistic forms: for instance, according to Varro (Ling. .) words such as acetum or plumbum should always be in the singular given their non-countable status. Caesar appears to be distant from this naturalistic approach of language, as suggested by a passage (fr. , see above) that arguably reveals conventionalist views. The third Varronian criterion is auctoritas, the example of earlier, authoritative, writers. The attitude of Caesar towards auctoritas would seem ambiguous: in some cases the standardized form appears in contrast with the auctoritas of archaic writers. For instance, crinis, which according to Caesar should ...