CHAPTER THREE

CHRONOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF STYLE

ORATIONS

E. Norden, referring to U. v. Wilamowitz, warns us against hasty conclusions about chronology based on differences of style. 1 This warning was justified in view of the purely statistical approach preva­ lent at that time. On the other hand, T. Zielinski,2 in a no less biased way, subordinates genre to chronology. Considering Norden's warning, it seems to be safer to exhaust all the other possibilities before resorting to chronological explanation. 3 Even so, a whole series of phenomena remains for which chronology furnishes the most plau­ sible rationale. In order to understand what follows one should keep in mind the different periods of Cicero's development. Parzinger makes the fol­ lowing division: I until 66 BC, II until 60 (or 59), III until 50, IV until 43. The cPro Marcello to Pro Rege Deiotaro; X the Philippics. On the whole, this division is plausible; the disadvantage that some periods (the 8th, for example) are longer than others is made up for by the fact that Zielinski lists each single oration separately.

1 Norden, Kunstprosa, Vol. I, 'Nachtriige' p. 4 (to Norden's p. 12); for a critical discussion of statistical methods and of chronological conclusions drawn from sta­ tistics: Ax 228-245. ' Zielinski, 'Rhythm us.' 1 This has not always been done, for instance, by Parzinger: among the brilliant exceptions are Laughton and Laurand. 1 Laughton. Particijile 32. 98 III: CHRONOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT

Whoever tries to assign common linguistic and stylistic features to certain periods should not forget that generic influences often inter­ fere with chronological ones. Nevertheless, it is possible to trace some lines of development in Cicero's work. It is an established fact, for instance, that Cicero's early orations have in common some stylistic features which tend to disappear in his later works. Nor is there any doubt that certain elements of style are typical of his mature orations. On the other hand, the 'Atticism' of Cicero's 'Caesarian' orations has been overstated. The same is true of some attempts to separate the vocabulary of the Philippics from that of the other orations. 5

Language and Sryle qf Cicero's Early Orations

Stylistically, the early orations form a well-defined group.6 A few striking features of phonetics and morphology come to notice. In the early oration Pro Tullio (15. 36), we find unae rei ('for a single case'), which should be uni rei in classical Latin. However, this usage is not limited to Cicero's early period, since aliae appears twice in the De Divinatione (2. 13. 30). On the other hand, the genitive form nulli con­ silii ('of no reflection whatever') seems to be confined to the early period (Pro Q Roscio Comoedo 16. 48, this is an oration striving for closeness to colloquial speech; moreover, in this passage, the use of the ending -i is conditioned by preceding similar forms). Contracted verb-forms (such as amarunt) are clearly more frequent in Cicero's early orations and in the De lnventione than in his later works, but the use of such forms largely depends on considerations of rhythm as welU In the Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino (45. 131), Gellius (9. 14. 19) read the genitive form pemicii ('of destruction'), whereas our manu­ scripts have pemicie; in the same oration (50. 145), the genitive form metuis (scilicet causa), 'because of fear,' is transmitted, but the text is uncertain in this reading.8

·' On Cicero's 'late style,' see the 'Excursus' at the end of this chapter. 6 Cf. Li.ifstedt 2, 302, n. 3. The following works are still valuable idespite some exaggerations in detail): Nikl: Ernst; see esp. Landgra[ De CiceronLr elomtione; Landgraf, Rede 5-7; Hellmuth, De sermonis . .. deals with the orations from 81-69 BC: Thielmann 347-463. 7 Parzinger II 47-49. " For phonetics and accidence in the early orations cf. also Landgraf. De Ciceroni.\ elomtione 35-36.