Quur igitur in latinis non idem efficiemus, quandoquidem iam nulla natio est, quae latine aut graece loquatur? Stylus exercendus est diligenter hic enim, ut Marcus Tullius ait, est egregius dicendi magister hic uere nos docebit communi sensu illos carere, qui linguam latinam in plateis, aut etiam in gymnasiis, miris modis conantur dilacerare. Non discimus hebraea uel graeca, ut loquamur, sed ut docti efficiamur. ![]() Hortor igitur sacri uerbi concionatores -quando polite et apposite de suggesto loqui non ultima laus est- ut etiam hispane loquentium coetus fugiant quam paucissima loquantur ipsi patianturque uel mutos et elingues in confabulationibus appellitari, dum ex scripto et meditato doctorum hominum aures ducant in admirationem. Quicumque enim aliquando peritiam linguae latinae est assequutus, Petrum Bembum dico, aut Osorium, aut nostrum Pincianum, non loquendo, sed scribendo, meditando et imitatione id sunt assecuti. At ego, apud quem pluris est rectae rationis pondus quam multorum praescriptum, assero nihil pestilentius posse iuueni linguae latinae cupido euenire quam aut uerbis latinis effutire cogitata, aut loquentium profluentiae interesse. Quis enim est, non dico in Hispania, sed etiam in tota Europa -quatuor aut sex doctos excipio- qui non et sentiat et praecipiat uerbis latinis exercendam linguam, ut prompte et celeriter possis, quae male cogitaueris, expromere? Quis porro ludi magister grammaticus non subinde pueris crepat -honor sit auribus doctorum- "Vel male uel bene, loquere cum Marco"? Tanta est stultorum hominum ignorantia, peruersitas et pertinacia. Timui enim, ne, si hoc remedium in libri fronte proponeretur, omnes medicinam, licet saluberrimam, auersarentur. Ultimum posuimus ad linguam latinam praecipuum documentum, quia magna uulnera debent arte atque dolo bono tractari. The author was a great polemist and Grammarian (he also influenced the Port Royal Grammar) in his times as a teacher of Rhetoric (1573), and Greek (at 1576 got his Chair) in Salamanca. I copy it below in order to make you know it. Related to a topic of which you are discussing, there is a writing of a famous Spaniard scholar, whose name is Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas (1522-1600). A good Latinist can weave his own tapestry. I know many of the 19th century Latin composition books actually make fun at inept students who can only parrot Cicero and Caesar. You see, when all you do is imitate the Classics, you've become stagnant, unable to achieve anything of worth of your own. Certainly he has attracted the praise of most Neo-Latinists of the Renaissance, but there were some who disagreed, and many in real Neo-Latin circles actually opt for Plautine speech for their oral, everyday Latin, and a good thorough mix of the ancients even to the point of it being authentically theirs, for their prose. But I don't think that Cicero can claim to be the exemplar Linguae Latinae. Catullus is a poet par excellence, but I guess we're restricting it to prose - not really sure here. The crowds were cheering for Hortensius before Cicero and Caesar during Cicero.Īctually, Caesar in my opinion is a nice read, as is even Sallust. Perhaps you meant to say that we should advocate the Latin prominent at the end of the Republic? Cicero is merely a part of the movement, albeit one of the earliest types, and his being a prolific writer made him popular. I wrote a paper on the very subject not too long ago. This really only became en vogue after the advocacy of Quintilian over a hundred years later. Lewis and Short refer to this sort of usage as "the accessory idea of intellectual action, of written composition of every kind, to write, write down, compose, describe, depict to draw up, communicate, announce in writing.But your claim is that we should emulate Cicero's Latin. To describe to anyone the form and situation of a farm. A notable example of this is " forman et situm agri alicui scribere," which in English would be better translated with the word "describe": 1, 8, 2 1, 9, 2 et saep.Īlthough the forgoing resembles the English usage, the accusative is also used in senses that are not quite consistent with English. ![]() Hermae tui Pentelici, de quibus ad me scripsisti, Cis. Scriberem ad te de hoc plura, si Romae esses, Cic. In Catone Majore, qui est scriptus ad te de senectute, Cic. Scripsi etiam versibus tres libros de temporibus meis, Cic. Quoniam de re publicā multa quaesierint et scripserint, Cic. Often the accusative is used together with the ablative phrase, referring both to the material and the subject matter of the material: In all the examples they give, the prepositional phrase, de + abl., refers to the subject matter of what was written. According to the entry in Lewis and Short, the accusative often refers to what was specifically written as "a line" or "a written composition, writing, treatise, book, work, etc."
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |