63 Colloquial and Li.. - Ganino.com

424 michael winterbottom
(4) et mane primo ingressus ad me, ac dicta super me oratione, vocavit me
nomine meo, et quasi de somno gravi excitatum interrogavit si nossem
quis esset qui loqueretur ad me. at ego aperiens oculos aio: ‘etiam: 18 tu
es antistes meus amatus.’ ‘potes’ inquit ‘vivere?’ et ego ‘possum,’ inquam
‘per orationes vestras, 19 si voluerit Dominus.’ (5.6.2 (290–1))
The conversation is affecting; neither Herebald nor the bishop harks
back to their difference of opinion before the accident, and amatus is
strong. There is some resonance of tu es filius meus dilectus (Mark 1:11 =
Luke 3:22). The simplicity contrasts with a firm speech of the bishop a little
later, where in formal language he expresses his disapproval of the priest
who had baptised Herebald. 20
To generalise from these passages: Bede can attribute formal language
to high persons even in private conversation; but they may speak as simply
as the low. What is decisive is not so much status as situation and content.
Assertion of heroic values or argument on important matters of church
custom is phrased elaborately. Solemn words between night vision and
dreamer, bishop and loving disciple, are simply phrased. But whether the
style is elevated or plain, colloquialism seems to be absent. Naturally there
are elements characteristic of conversation: addresses (2, 3), etiam = ‘yes’
(4). That is a different matter: is ‘yes’ a colloquial word in modern English?
3cues
Bede’s ability to match words with occasion may be tested in a number of
places where the narrator prompts us as to the tone of the direct speech.
The emotion of the speaker may be commented on. An Irish scholar
dying of a plague inter egra tremens suspiria flebili voce talia mecum querebatur
(3.13.2 (152–3)). He insists in elaborate style on his past shortcomings
and future fate, 21 but his words are not particularly emotional; nisi
‘Eala, bro∂er Ecgbyrht, eala, cwae∂ he, hwæt . . . ’), and the remarkable exclamation at 5.14.2 (314)
o quam grandi distantia . . . Bede is there commenting in his own person on a vision of hell; the
paragraph is notably emotional, and ends with a wish introduced by utinam, a word only once
found elsewhere in the book, and at the beginning of this same chapter.
18 So in a public exchange at 3.25.11 (188)). Cf. 5.2.3 (284); when the same John says to a dumb youth:
dicito aliquod verbum; dicito ‘gae’, Bede comments: quod est lingua Anglorum verbum adfirmandi
et consentiendi, id est ‘etiam’ (see above, p. 420). For the negative, see 5.12.4 (307) non, non hoc est
regnum caelorum (contrast §2 (305) non hoc suspiceris; non enim . . . ).
19 tu has preceded. So the prayers of the monks are included (so at 4.14.3 (234)).
20 ‘I know him’, he says ominously (§3). novi governs first eum, thenaquia clause, with some sense
of asyndeton. The quia clause is phrased in decree-like language, with rhythm. See further below,
p. 425 n. 27.
21 One wonders if his words audivimus autem, et fama creberrima, quia . . . , with their echo of Verg.
Ecl. 9.11 audieras, et fama fuit, are meant to reflect the learning of the speaker (doctus...virstudio