63 Colloquial and Li.. - Ganino.com

The style of the Bellum Hispaniense 245
at 1.1, 12.6, 27.2 are likely to result not from the author’s incompetence but
from the fata libelli. 12
Finally, there is also a methodological point, which concerns the development
of Latin prose style and the opposition of ‘classical/standard’ vs
‘non-classical/substandard/colloquial/vulgar’ Latin. The traditional verdict
on the author’s style presupposes that already in the 40s bc there was a
commonly accepted notion of what constituted ‘good’ or ‘exemplary’ Latin.
However, this is far from certain. In fact, it is even fairly improbable given
the non-classical styles of well-educated first-century writers such as Varro,
Nepos or Sallust and given the contemporary debates on proper Latin
usage. 13 Hence, the traditional characterisation of the Bellum Hispaniense
is based on a retrojection of the classical norm.
The preceding remarks show that a careful reexamination of the linguistic
evidence is needed. On the following pages, I shall first discuss those
features which have been used to prove the colloquial/substandard style
of the work; 14 in so doing, I shall demonstrate that most of the alleged
substandard usages are attested also in Cicero and Caesar or in Latin
historiography or poetry and can thus hardly be classified as colloquial or
non-literary phenomena. 15 In a second step I shall develop a more plausible
1965 ad loc.), and in the latter passage the genitive depends on the implied subject Cornelia: see
Mayer 1981: 106–7 for discussion and parallels. A closer parallel could be Lex XII 3.1, butseeH–S
142 against Marx 1909: 447, Klotz 1927b: 68.
12 The poor transmission may also be responsible for 1.3 contra cludebant (SURT, claudebant NMV,
cf. 27.6 contra clausisset), 42.4 gentium et civiumque (cf. TLL s.v. et 906.38–42; contra:H–S523), and
the use of licet + pluperfect subjunctive attested at 16.3 (MURTV transmit not licet (SN) but et,
which could suggest etsi;onlicet + pluperfect subjunctive see TLL s.v. liceo 1364.83–1365.17). At 22.7
the train of thought is bumpy, and the transmitted text (including the construction of quod with
accusative and infinitive) is probably corrupt (but see Pascucci 1965: 271 with Sal. Jug. 100.5 (quod
del. Eussner), Liv. 26.27.12). The same holds for dum . . . distenti essent (23.2): Wölfflin (1898: 369)
compares cum . . . distenti essent at 12.5, 27.1 and rightly suspects that the text is corrupt (however,
dum + imperfect subjunctive is attested at Nep. Timol. 1.4 and in Livy (1.40.7, al.), cf. TLL s.v. dum
2219.34–2220.28). Cf. also Heubner 1916: 39 and Pascucci 1965: 183 on 6.3.
13 Cf. Adams 2005b: 95; Willi, this volume pp. 231–4;andSuet.Aug. 86–7 with Ferri and Probert, this
volume pp. 29–30. On the relation of colloquial and standard languages see Clackson, this volume
pp. 10–11.
14 Cf. imprimis Heubner 1916: 34–9; Faller 1949: 138–59; Pascucci 1965: 46–60; Richter1977: 218–19;
Diouron 1999: lxx–lxxxiii.
15 I shall not discuss features which are not securely attested (see n. 12). Also, there is no need to
dwell on passages that have been misinterpreted by previous scholars: contrary to what Pascucci
(1965: 220) andDiouron(1999: lxxiii–iv) claim, propter quod (13.6, cf.Cic.Ver. 4.135, Tusc. 3.74)
and nocte tota (16.2, cf.Caes.Gal. 1.26.5, Civ. 1.81.3) conform with classical Latin. Pascucci’s (1965:
178) and Diouron’s (1999: lxxiii) view that at 6.1 quoniam means ‘just as’ seems improbable, because
this usage is attested only in a few late texts (cf. H–S 628) and the common use of quoniam for
‘given that’, ‘since’ perfectly suits the context. castra contra ad oppidum posuit (34.1) is interpreted
by Pascucci (1965: 349–50) andDiouron(1999: lxxii) as an anticipation of the colloquial tendency
to accumulate prepositions, but see TLL s.v. contra 741.54–5 where this passage is rightly cited next