63 Colloquial and Li.. - Ganino.com

250 jan felix gaertner
semper, mane and post(ea) is probably not a colloquialism but an artificial
mannerism. 55 Moreover, expressions such as maiores augebantur copiae (1.4)
or cum celeri festinatione (2.1) closely resemble the poetic techniques of prolepsis
(cf. H–S 414) and ‘amplificatory pleonasm’, 56 and other iuncturae
(e.g. 29.2 planities aequabatur, 57 40.7 rursus...recurrit 58 ) are paralleled
even in classical prose. Thus, the fact that an expression is a pleonasm cannot
prove that it has a colloquial ring. 59 Likewise, other emphatic devices
such as the use of intensive verbs (adflictare, intentare, occultare, agitare),
simplicia pro compositis (prehendere, sequi) orcomposita pro simplicibus
(convallis, deurere, deposcere, depugnare) only reveal the author’s striving
for expressiveness. 60
In the end, few usages can be justly called colloquial or substandard.
61 The adverb intro (41.5), 62 belle habere (‘to be well’, 32.7), 63 the
use of suus for eius and vice versa (8.6, 31.4), 64 hoc for ideo/ita (‘consequently’,
1.5), 65 homo for is (18.1), 66 cum...ut (8.6), 67 renuntiare quod (36.1) 68
and the phraseological contaminations at 3.7 responditutsileatverbum
55 Klotz (1927b: 42) rightly emphasises that the author also employs the adverbs, e.g. noctu (6.1, al.).
56 Cf. Diggle 2005: 643 and F. Bömer 1969–86 on Ov. Met. 6.66 for parallels and literature.
57 Cf. Cic. Ver. 4.107.
58 Cf. e.g. the use of rursus with revertere, se recipere and reducere at Caes. Gal. 4.4.5, 5.34.4, 6.3.3. In
view of these parallels, 4.1 ante praemisit, too, must seem perfectly acceptable (but cf. the different
construction at Caes. Gal. 7.9.4 multis ante diebus . . . praemiserat).
59 Cf. also 29.8 propius appropinquassent (Pascucci suspects contamination of propius accedere and magis
appropinquare, butpropius may indicate a relative degree (‘fairly closely’)) and 35.4 rursus . . . denuo
(paralleled only at Pl. Poen. 79, but not necessarily colloquial in the 40s bc, cf. Adams et al. 2005: 7
n. 8).
60 Apart from depostulabant (1.5,cf.TLL s.v. 593.1–9), all the verbs adduced by Diouron (1999: lxxv) are
common in classical prose. Moreover, the use of simplicia pro compositis and composita pro simplicibus
is also typical of Roman poetry, and intensiva are characteristic of old Latin and Sallust (cf. Kroll
1927: 293). This squares well with the author’s poeticising and archaising tendencies.
61 The military expressions gathered by Diouron (1999: lxxvi–lxxvii) are unparalleled in classical prose,
but not colloquial/substandard features; the same holds for Canali’s (1966: 135) list of words which
are unparalleled in the remaining Corpus Caesarianum.
62 Cf. TLL s.v. 54.33–9: ‘sermonis humilioris’; the closest parallels in prose are Cato Agr. 157.14 and
Col. 9.12.1.
63 Cf. Pascucci 1965: 342; TLL s.v. habeo 2452.14–36.
64 Klotz (1927b: 60) compares Cic. Quinct. 85; see Meusel 1887–93: ii.321–2 and Kroll 1927: 296 for
parallels in Caesar and Sallust.
65 Cf. 41.5 hoc Fleischer, hac SRTV. Most parallels come from comedy and Horace’s satires, see TLL
s.v. hic 2745.57–2746.19.
66 Cf. H–S 198, Pascucci 1965: 249, TLL s.v. 2882.13–53, and Quad. hist. 10b: dum se Gallus . . . constituere
studet, Manlius . . . de loco hominem iterum deiecit.
67 Cf. H–S 620. E.Löfstedt (1936: 66) criticises Wölfflin and Miodonski (1889), R. Schneider (1905)
and others for eliminating similar accumulations of subjunctions at B. Afr. 4.3, 40.5, 50.3.
68 This construction is exceptional within the Bellum Hispaniense (cf. nuntiare + accusative and
infinitive at 18.6) and can be compared to dicere quod at Pl. As. 52, CatoFil. 1 p. 77.1–2 Jordan and
in Silver Latin and later authors (cf. TLL s.v. dico 985.80–986.24, Marx1909: 444). praeterire quod
at 10.2 conforms with Ciceronian usage (cf. e.g. Clu. 188).