Elaine Fantham - Comparative Studies in Republican Latin Imagery

COMPARATIVE STUDIES IN REPUBLICAN LATIN IMAGERY

Of all stylistic devices, imagery has the greatest appeal to the imagination, but is also the most likely to offend, either by staleness or by tasteless excess. This volume establishes some of the limitations which govern figurative language in Latin speech and prose by exploring such questions as these: From what physical or social contexts is Latin imagery derived? To what extent is it influenced by the primacy of Greek as a cultural language and the derivation of the earliest Latin literature from Greek models? How are the metaphors expressed in terms of syntax, through verb, noun, adjective, or a combination of syntactical forms? How are the form and content of imagery related to the literary genre?

In this study Professor Fantham analyses in detail the conservative imagery of Terence and of Ciceros letters, contrasting this naturalistic language with the fantasies of Plautus and the formalization of Ciceros speeches. A separate chapter on the de Oratore shows how the thematic and structural use of metaphor and analogy provide balance and continuity, giving Latin prose imagery its full role in a mature classical work of art. Numerous illustrative passages from Greek New Comedy, Terence, Plautus, and Cicero are reproduced in the text.

ELAINE FANTHAM is Assistant Professor of Classics at Trinity College, University of Toronto.

PHOENIX

JOURNAL OF THE CLASSICAL ASSOCIATION

OF CANADA

REVUE DE LA SOCIETE CANADIENNE

DES ETUDES CLASSIQUES

SUPPLEMENTARY VOLUME X

TOME SUPPLEMENTAIRE X

ELAINE FANTHAM

University of Toronto Press 1972
Toronto and Buffalo
ISBN 0-8020-5262-2
Microfiche ISBN 0-8020-0130-0
LC 77-185710

DIS MANIBUS PIISSIMAE MATRIS

ROSAMUND CROSTHWAITE

The abbreviations used in the text are, for Latin authors, those of the Oxford Latin Dictionary. Greek authors are abbreviated as in Liddell and Scott (9th ed.). Quotations are taken from the Oxford Classical Texts, where not otherwise specified. I have cited Menander from Koerte-Thierfelder (vol. I , ed. 3; Leipzig 1957) and Koerte (vol. II , ed. 2; Leipzig 1953), and the Oxford Classical text of Dyskolos; the fragments of Middle and New Comedy are cited from Kock (indicated as KII or KIII ), whom I have found more convenient for use and verification than Meineke. Since I have referred often to modern works for minor points, and have made repeated use only of well-known studies, it seemed superfluous to add to the bulk of the book by a misleadingly large bibliography. I have therefore omitted a bibliography, giving full references in the first citation of each work or article consulted.

The title of this monograph calls for an apology, which may perhaps serve as an explanation of the book itself. I have used the word Republican merely as a time-indicator in the hope that students of Augustan and Silver Latin will not reach for the book and be disappointed. My interest is prose spoken and written and I believe that Latin prose can be said to have reached maturity by the end of the Republic; this is the reason for my time-limit. The word imagery can also be misleading; readers familiar with studies of imagery in English literature or Latin epic may be led to expect a discussion of image as symbol or leit-motif; but prose-imagery is more limited in intent and application, and my sights must be set lower than either C. Day Lewiss in The Poetic Image or Viktor Pschls in Virgils Poetische Dichtkunst. Like others I have resorted to imagery as a shorthand for all forms of figurative language which arise in my chosen field. These are predominantly metaphor, in which a word or words from another sphere of activity are substituted for the literal word of the context, and analogy, in which statements drawn from another sphere are used comparatively to explain and animate the literal statement of the writer. These overlap in the form of the metaphor : we can say either in the race of life the old man has run his last lap and is approaching the finishing post, or as a runner when he races his last lap draws near to the finishing post, so the old man draws near to the end of life. The former is a metaphor, the latter a comparison or analogy.

Simile is rare in Latin prose; the simplest form, Aristotles he rushed like a lion, is too weak to be effective, and is used in Latin chiefly where the identification implied by metaphor is felt to be too bold or embarrassing: the full Homeric form, which adds decorative context to the simile, is inappropriate to prose. The only common form of simile is the formal comparison illustrated above. I could not call this work Studies in Prose Imagery, since the comic dramatists wrote in verse: yet they are the only extensive evidence for the figurative language of good colloquial Latin. For this reason I have attempted to relate the practice of Terence, and to some extent Plautus, to that of Cicero in familiar, rhetorical, and literary prose. The questions I want to ask are:

From what physical or social contexts is Latin imagery commonly derived?

To what extent is the choice of context influenced by the primacy of Greek as a cultural language and the derivation of the earliest Latin drama from Greek models?

How are the metaphors expressed in terms of syntax, through verb, noun, adjective, or a combination of syntactical forms?

How is the choice of imagery and its content related to the literary genre?

How is the form of imagery the development of its expression related to the literary genre?

I hope to establish by this approach some of the limitations which govern figurative language in Latin speech and prose.

I have read and benefited from several studies of metaphor as an element of English style, but their value to me has been chiefly indirect, in suggesting questions to be asked. I hope the authors will forgive a lack of specific acknowledgment. I am conscious of an immense debt to scholars in my own field. From Eduard Fraenkel I learned, as an undergraduate, how to read and appreciate Latin, although I know how far I must fall short of the standards he required. Gordon Williams taught me when I was a naive new graduate, and has helped and sustained me ever since with a generosity that only his colleagues and pupils can fully appreciate. In particular, he has patiently read and advised on the manuscript at two different stages in its growth. I have also profited greatly from helpful and stimulating discussions with Neville Collinge and George Grube, and would like to thank them, as much for their patience as for their erudition. Any errors or perversities in the text are my own. Since I approached Alexander Dalzell with my manuscript he has constantly shown the greatest kindness in giving his advice and technical assistance. Finally, Miss Jean Jamieson and the staff of the University of Toronto Press have made it a pleasure for an inexperienced author to work with them.

This book was published with the help of grants from the Humanities Research Council, using funds provided by the Canada Council, and from the Publications Fund of the University of Toronto Press, to whom I wish to express my thanks.