Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

affected by Fannius and Scipio himself, could hardly have failed to exercise some influence upon Lucilius. In the case of Horace, indeed, partly as the result of the poet's temperamental refinement and partly as the result of the intensive development of Atticism in the Ciceronian period, we find a satirist whose humor and style, far more than is the case with Lucilius, are in almost complete harmony with the conception of the eïpwv and with the tenets of the Roman Atticists.

So firmly are the characteristics of Lucilian satire fixed in our consciousness as a carmen maledicum ad vitia hominum car pendum that at first sight it seems almost like a paradox to seek to find in his critical theory, not even to speak of his satirical practice, any traces of sympathy for the more restrained type of humor, which we associate with the plain style. Upon closer examination, however, the matter will appear in a somewhat different light.

In the first place, there exists a considerable mass of ancient literary criticism, which not only regards Lucilius as an example of the plain style in the narrower sense of vocabulary, grammar, and diction, but which describes his humor in the same technical vocabulary of rhetoric which we have found Cicero and Panaetius applying to the liberal type of humor. To anyone who has studied the stylistic epithets employed with almost meticulous accuracy to indicate the plain style, this evidence carries complete conviction.

Over against such passages, to be sure, we have a strong mass of criticism which differentiates the xapakтýp Lucilianus from the xapakтhρ Horatianus. More important still, we have the evidence of our own critical judgment, which convinces us that here we have a conception of satire, a wit and humor, standing in strong contrast to that of Horace. To the explanation of this apparent enigma, which really involves no contradiction between the canons of ancient and modern taste, I now turn.

It is true that in indifference to stylistic finish and in the type of humor he often employs, Lucilius shows a marked divergence from the more finished interpretation of the plain style exemplified in the works of Terence, (par excellence puri sermonis amator) and in the more serious writings emanating from the Scipionic circle, and in Horace. These divergencies are

partly due to the aggressive temperament of the man; yet it can be shown, I think, that they rest in part upon a freer and looser tradition of the nature and limits of the plain style than we find elsewhere in the Scipionic circle. Naturally, the free satiric form of Lucilius demanded a less rigorous interpretation of the plain style than that affected by Terence in so finished a genre as the New Comedy. Still when all has been said, it comes as a distinct surprise to us who are familiar with the stylistic strictures of Horace upon Lucilius to find that ancient literary criticism almost uniformly groups his writings under the category of the plain style. For the most part, the terms characterizing the style of Lucilius are found in the technical vocabulary which ancient literary criticism employs to give objective characterization to the plain style.

Thus, Lucilius is the model of gracilitas, a term reserved for the plain style.48 Humilitas, another common attribute of the plain style, which does not soar, but is a sermo repens per humum19 is applied to him by Petronius. Lucilius is doctus and urbanus.50 The former designation is appropriate in view of his wide acquaintance with Greek and Latin literature, with Greek philosophy and rhetoric.51 Hence, find Cicero52 quoting Lucilius as advocating a broad culture and training for the orator. Lucilius' wit justifies the application to him of the adjective urbanus, not perhaps as judged by the strict puristic standards of the later Atticists and of the Augustan age, but certainly as judged by the standards of his own time, and those dominant in the minds of his archaizing

we

48 On the stylistic position of Lucilius in general, see the testimonia de vita et poesi C. Lucili in Marx's Prolegomena pp. cxxv-cxxxiv, also the article Molle atque facetum by C. N. Jackson, in the Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, XXIV:117-137, and the article Horace, Catullus, Tigellinus by B. L. Üllman, C. P., X: 270-296. On gracilitas see A. Gellius VI:14, 6. Marx, testimonia, no. 73; Fronto, p. 113 N. Marx, testimonia no. 74.

9 Petronius 4. Marx, testimonia no. 77. On schedium see infra p. 101. 50 See Cicero, de oratore I:72; Quintilian X:1, 94. Marx, testimonia nos. 58 and 62.

51 On the officia oratoris which may be connected with the adjective doctus, see Cicero, de oratore II:115; Quintilian V praef. 1, also Hendrickson on the Origin and Meaning of the Ancient Characters of Style, A. J. P., XXVI:260, and especially note 3.

52 Cicero, de oratore 1:72. Marx 1241. I can see no valid reason why Marx should be averse to regarding this passage as representing the belief of Lucilius.

admirers in the Augustan age and later empire. To Lucilius, also, are applied the epithets politus, eruditus, elegans,53 which in the rhetorical works of Cicero are used to designate the calm. revision, sound scholarship, and discrimination in word and phrase, which play so prominent a part in the ideals of the plain style.

In the judgment of both Cicero and Horace, Lucilius is facetus. Horace, it will be remembered, describes him as facetus and emunctae naris. Cicero54 connects this quality of facetiae with the Stoic conception of the purus sermo, the goal of the plain style as cherished by the Atticists. Such early Latin writers as Granius, Lucilius, Crassus, and Laelius are cited as combining facetiae with sal or pungent wit.

This latter quality of sal, indeed, borders on acerbitas. Thus, in Horace, Satire I:10, 30, Lucilius is said to have rubbed down the city sale multo, and in Quintilian X:1, 94, we read: nam eruditio in eo mira et libertas atque inde acerbitas et abunde salis. In a sense, therefore, this quality marks the transition from the plain style in the narrower sense of the term to the element of invective, which is associated rather with the grand style.

The comitas "geniality" of Lucilius is a quality related to his urbanitas. It is recognized by Horace in satire I:10, 64 as a quality commonly attributed to the earlier satirist. Like urbanitas, it is in rhetorical theory contrasted with severitas, which is associated rather with the grand style, or at least with serious discourse.

Indeed, a comparison of the de officiis II:48, the de officiis I:132, the de oratore III: 177, and the orator 64 shows that comitas, adfabilitas sermonis, mollitudo, are characteristics of the plain style, the style suited to conversation, to the serious philosophic dialogue, to the half-humorous, half-serious dialogues of Cynics and Stoics, and so progressively to the Latin satirical sermones.

The sermo was the frank, informal conversational idiom, the unassuming literary form which Lucilius employed. His books,

53 Cicero, de oratore 1:72; Horace, Sat. I:10, 64 perhaps merely an argumentative concession, but implying the prevalence of such a view even in the Augustan period. Porphyrio, ad Hor. serm. I: 3, 40 says: Luciliana urbanitate usus.

54 Cicero, epist. ad famil. IX:15, 2; Horace, Sat. I: 4, 7.

as even Horace acknowledges, are self-revelations. They, therefore, like the works of so many writers of the Socratic school, most notably perhaps Xenophon, belong to the category οἱ ὑπομνήματα or memoirs:55

ille velut fidis arcana sodalibus olim

credebat libris neque si male cessarat usquam

decurrens alio neque si bene: quo fit ut omnis
votiva pateat, veluti descripta tabella

vita senis.

But beside these qualities of tone and mood, the plain style, as we have seen, made exacting claims upon the grammatical and rhetorical scholarship of its followers. Let us briefly summarize the evidence on these points revealed by a study of the surviving fragments of Lucilius.

We find Lucilius thoroughly conversant with the principles of the Stoic grammatical rhetoric as taught by Diogenes of Babylon. The ninth book affords ample evidence of this, but we may supplement its testimony by other evidence. Thus in fragment 1100, Lucilius says there are 100 different kinds of solecisms and apparently listed them as an aid to a standard of correct usage.56 Also in this book we have 16 fragments dealing with barbarisms, mistakes in spelling or pronunciation, with detailed discussion upon the proper spelling of verbal endings or case endings.57 We have two humorous fragments 963 and 1130 in which points of pronunciation are discussed; the pronunciation of pertisum instead of pertaesum in the former case, the rustic pronunciation of pretor for praetor in the latter case.

In etymology Lucilius shows much interest. This must in large measure be due to the sensitiveness to the accurate use of words resulting from the Stoic interest in etymology. Hence, in 437 we find Lucilius deriving tragoedia from trux. In 452 the etymology of iners from ars is explained. In 1160, Lucilius gives the correct etymology of praetor (prae-itor) from praeire.

We have three fragments in which Lucilius shows his interest in kuptoλoyia the technical Stoic designation for verbal accuracy. In addition, most of the word plays of which Lucilius was fond 55 Horace, Sat. II: 1, 30ff.

56 See Marx comment ad loc.

87 Viz., on vowels 351, 356, 357, 358, 362, 364, 367, 369, 371; on prepositions in composition 373, 374, 375; on consonants 377, 379, 381, 382.

may be referred to this category.58 In 1190 Lucilius criticizes the metaphorical use of horrere in Ennius. Ennius applied the term, the literal meaning of which is "to have the goose flesh", to a battlefield bristling with arms. Lucilius ridicules this trope by saying why not add algere "shivers". In 1215 we find an exposition of the difference between intro and intus, apud and ad. In 519, perhaps in jest, he seems to allude to the legal definition of the terms mundus and penus.

In technical grammar, therefore, it is beyond question that Lucilius was vitally interested in the study of the three faults reprobated by the Stoic grammarians, σολοικισμός, βαρβαρισμός and ȧkupoλoyia. Moreover, the discussion upon pertisum or pertaesum suggests that, like Panaetius, Lucilius gave only limited adherence to the Stoic principle of analogy.

Finally, we have two fragments, 1111 and 1241, which demand more detailed study. The first seems to imply that Lucilius, in spite of his apparent carelessness of finish was strongly in sympathy with the best classical models, the oi εὐδοκιμοῦντες Ἕλληνες of the rhetoric of Diogenes. Such study was an indispensable prerequisite for the carefully developed simplicity of the plain style. In fragment 1111 we read:

59

archaeotera . . . unde haec sunt omnia nata.

Here Lucilius seems to be following in the footsteps of Panaetius, whose interest in the minute study of Homer and of the works of Plato was profound. Among such ancient classics Homer occupies a central position. Lucilius shows traces of his influence in at least twelve passages.60 In the second passage 1241,"1 a quotation from Cicero (de oratore I:72), we have a dictum of Lucilius demanding a training for the orator in all the arts. The eloaywyn to Junius Congus, which is related to the Ars Poetica of Horace, also contained a discussion upon the choice of words.

Turning now from grammar to the broader aspects of rhetoric, we find Lucilius as a satirist emphasizing the importance of sincerity, frankness, informality, rather than the rhetorical

58 Viz., 33, 171, 204, 1128, 1134, 1284.

59 See supra, pp. 75 f.

60 I hope to discuss Lucilius' use of Homer later in a separate treatment of Lucilius' relation to his Greek sources.

1 See supra, p. 90, note 52.

« ForrigeFortsæt »