Connolly, J. 2001. “Reclaiming the Theatrical in the Second Sophistic.” Helios 28: 75–96.
de Borries, J., ed. 1911. Phrynichi Sophistae Praeparatio Sophistica. Leipzig.
Debrunner, A., and A. Scherer. 1969. Geschichte der griechischen Sprache II: Grundfragen und Grundzüge des nachklassischen Griechisch. 2nd ed. Berlin.
Deferrari, R. J. 1916. Lucian’s Atticism: The Morphology of the Verb. Princeton, NJ.
de Foucault, J.-A. 1972. Recherches sur la langue et le style de Polybe. Paris.
de Groot, A. W. 1919. A Handbook of Antique Prose-Rhythm I. Groningen and The Hague.
de Groot, A. W. 1921. Der Antike Prosarhythmus. Groningen.
de Groot, A. W. 1926. La prose métrique des anciens. Paris.
de Jonge, C. C. 2008. Between Grammar and Rhetoric: Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Language, Linguistics and Literature. Leiden and Boston.
de Jonge, C. C. 2014. “The Attic Muse and the Asian Harlot: Classicizing Allegories in Dionysius and Longinus.” In Valuing Antiquity in Antiquity, edited by J. Ker and C. Pieper, 388–409. Leiden and Boston.
de Lannoy, L. 2003. “L’atticisme de Philostrate II: Atticisme linguistique et admiration pour le passé grec.” In Constructions of Greek Past: Identity and Historical Consciousness from Antiquity to the Present, edited by H. Hokwerda, 69–77. Groningen.
Delarue, F. 1982. “L’asianisme à Rome.” Rev. Ét. Lat. 60: 166–185.
Desideri, P. 1978. Dione di Prusa. Un intellettuale greco nell’impero romano. Messina and Florence.
de Romilly, J. 1975. Magic and Rhetoric in Ancient Greece. Cambridge, MA.
Dihle, A. 1957. “Analogie und Attizismus.” Hermes 85: 170–205.
Dihle, A. 1977. “Der Beginn des Attizismus.” A&A 23: 162–177.
Dihle, A. 2011. “Greek Classicism.” In The Struggle for Identity: Greeks and their Past in the First Century, edited by T. Schmitz and N. Wiater, 47–60. Stuttgart.
Donadi, F. 2000. “Il caso Egesia. Sulla possibilità e convenienza di una nuova edizione del De compositione verborum di Dionigi d’Alicarnasso.” In Letteratura e riflessione sulla letteratura nella cultura classica, edited by G. Arrighetti, 327–343. Pisa.
Dörrie, H. 1964. Der Königskult des Antiochus von Kommagene im Lichte neuer Inschriften-Funde. Göttingen.
Dürr, K. 1899. Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu den Dialexeis des Maximus von Tyrus. Tübingen.
Ek, S. 1942. Herodotismen in der Archaeologie des Dionys von Halikarnass. Lund.
Erbse, H. 1950. Untersuchungen zu den attizistischen Lexika. Berlin.
Fairweather, J. 1981. Seneca the Elder. Cambridge.
Ferguson, C. 1959. “Diglossia.” Word 15: 325–340.
Fischer, E., ed. 1974. Die Ekloge des Phrynichos. SGLG 1. Berlin and New York.
Gelzer, T. 1979. “Klassizismus, Attizismus und Asianismus.” In Le classicisme à Rome aux Iers siècles avant et après J.-C., edited by H. Flashar, 1–41. Geneva.
Giangrande, G. 1990. “On the Text of Plutarch’s Non posse suaviter vivi.” In Contributi di filologia greca, edited by I. Gallo, 61–90. Naples.
Giangrande, G. 1992. “La lingua dei Moralia di Plutarco: Normativismo e questioni di metodo.” In I Moralia di Plutarco tra filologia e filosofia, edited by I. Gallo, R. Laurenti, and A. Barigazzi, 29–46. Naples.
Gleason, M. W. 1995. Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome. Princeton, NJ.
Goggin, M. G. 1951. “Rhythm in the Prose of Favorinus.” YClS 12: 149–201.
Grandjean, Y. 1975. Une nouvelle arétalogie d’Isis à Maronée. Leiden.
Hall, J. M. 1981. Lucian’s Satire. New York.
Hansen, D. U., ed. 1998. Das attizistische Lexikon des Moeris: Quellenkritische Untersuchung und Edition. SGLG 9. Berlin and New York.
Hendrickson, G. L. 1926. “Cicero’s Correspondence with Brutus and Calvus on Oratorical Style.” AJPhil. 47: 234–258.
Herbst, W. 1911. Galeni Pergameni de Atticissantium studiis testimonia. Leipzig.
Hernández Lara, C. 1994. Estudios sobre el aticismo de Caritón de Afrodisias. Amsterdam.
Hidber, T. 1996. Das klassizistische Manifest des Dionys von Halikarnass. Die Praefatio zu “De oratoribus veteribus”. Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar. Stuttgart.
Holford-Strevens, L. 2003. “Archaism and Atticism.” In Aulus Gellius: An Antonine Scholar and his Achievement, 354–363. Oxford.
Hopkinson, N., ed. 2008. Lucian: A Selection. Cambridge.
Horrocks, G. C. 1997. Greek: A History of the Language and Its Speakers. London.
Hose, M. 1999. “Die zweite Begegnung Roms mit den Griechen oder: Zu politischen Ursachen des Attizismus.” In Rezeption und Identität. Die kulturelle Auseinandersetzung Roms mit Griechenland als europäisches Paradeigma, edited by G. Vogt-Spira und B. Rommel, 274–288. Stuttgart.
Hunter, R. 1983. A Study of “Daphnis and Chloe”. Cambridge.
Hunter, R., and D. A. Russell, eds. 2011. Plutarch: How to Study Poetry (De audiendis poetis). Cambridge.
Hutchinson, G. O. 2015. “Appian the Artist: Rhythmic Prose and Its Literary Implications.” CQ 65: 788–806.
Hutton, W. 2005. Describing Greece: Landscape and Literature in the “Periegesis” of Pausanias. Cambridge.
Jannaris, A. N. 1903. “The True Meaning of the Κοινή.” CR 17: 93–96.
Jones, C. P. 1972. “Two Enemies of Lucian.” GRBS 13: 475–487.
Jones, C. 2008. “Aristides’ First Admirer.” In Aelius Aristides between Greece, Rome, and the Gods, edited by W. V. Harris and B. Holmes, 253–262. Leiden.
Kaibel, G. 1885. “Dionysios von Halikarnass und die Sophistik.” Hermes 20: 497–513.
Kaczko, S. 1993. “La koiné.” In Storia delle lingue letterarie greche, edited by A. C. Cassio, 357–392. Milan.
Kennedy, G. A. 1972. The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World. 300B.C.–A.D.300. Princeton, NJ.
Kiehr, F., ed. 1907. Lesbonactis sophistae quae supersunt. Leipzig.
Kim, L. 2010. “The Literary Heritage as Language: Atticism and the Second Sophistic.” In A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language, edited by E. J. Bakker, 368–482. Chichester and Malden, MA.
Kim, L. Forthcoming. “Asian Oratory and Greek Identity from the Hellenistic Period to the Second Sophistic.” In Rethinking Late Hellenistic Greek literature and the Second Sophistic, edited by J. König and N. Wiater.
Laplace, M. 2007. Le roman d'Achille Tatios: discours panégyrique et imaginaire romanesque. Bern, Berlin, Brussels, Frankfurt am Main.
Lasserre, F. 1979. “Prose grecque classicisante.” In Le classicisme à Rome aux Iers siècles avant et après J.-C., edited by H. Flashar, 135–163. Geneva.
Leeman, A. D. 1963. Orationis ratio: The Stylistic Theories and Practice of the Roman Orators, Historians, and Philosophers. Vol. 1. Amsterdam.
Lightfoot, J. L., ed. 1999. Parthenius of Nicaea. Oxford.
López-Eire, A. 1993. “De l’attique à la koiné.” In La koiné grecque antique. Vol. 1, Une langue introuvable, edited by C. Brixhe, 41–57. Nancy.
Manetti, D. 2009. “Galen and Hippocratic Medicine: Language and Practice.” In Galen and the World of Knowledge, edited by C. Gill, T. Whitmarsh, and J. Wilkins, 157–174. Cambridge.
Mann, E. 1896. Über den Sprachgebrauch des Xenophon Ephesius. Kaiserslautern.
Niehoff-Panagiotidis, J. 1994. Koine und Diglossie. Wiesbaden.
Noël, M.-P. 1999. “Gorgias et l’«invention» des γοργίειασχήματα.” Rev. Ét. Grec. 112: 193–211.
Norden, E. 1898. Die antike Kunstprosa vom VI. Jahrhundert v. Christus bis in die Zeit der Renaissance. 2 vols. Leipzig.
O’Sullivan, N. 1997. “Caecilius, the Canons of Writers, and the Origins of Atticism.” In Roman Eloquence: Rhetoric in Society and Literature, edited by W. J. Dominik, 32–49. London.
Palm, J. 1955. Über Sprache und Stil des Diodoros von Sizilien: Ein Beitrag zur Beleuchtung der hellenistischen Prosa. Lund.
Papanikolaou, D. 2
009. “The Aretalogy of Isis from Maroneia and the Question of Hellenistic ‘Asianism.’” ZPE 168: 59–70.
Papanikolaou, D. 2012. “IG V.2, 268 (= SIG3 783) as a Monument of Hellenistic Prose.” ZPE 182: 137–156.
Pasquali, G. 1913. “Die schriftstellerische Form des Pausanias.” Hermes 48: 161–223.
Pérez Molina, M. E. 1994. “Características léxicas en la obra de Plutarco.” In Estudios sobre Plutarco: Ideas religiosas, edited by M. García Valdés, 291–303. Madrid.
Pernot, L. 1981. Les discours siciliens d’Aelius Aristide (Or. 5–6): Étude littéraire et paleographique, édition et traduction. New York.
Pernot, L. 1993. La rhétorique de l’éloge dans le monde gréco-romain. 2 vols. Paris.
Pfister, F. 1951. Die Reisebilder des Herakleides. Vienna.
Radermacher, L. 1899. “Studien zur Geschichte der antiken Rhetorik. IV. Ueber die Anfänge des Atticismus.” Rh. Mus. 54: 351–374.
Radici Colace, P. 2000. “Dai testi ai vocabolari tra ricordo e nostalgia.” In Letteratura scientifica e tecnica greca e latina: atti del Seminario internazionale di studi: Messina, 29–31 ottobre 1997, edited by P. Radici Colace and A. Zumbo, 267–283. Messina.
Reardon, B. P. 1971. Courants littéraires grecs des IIe et IIIe siècles après J.-C. Paris.
Redondo, J. 2000. “The Greek Literary Language of the Hebrew Historian Josephus.” Hermes 128: 420–434.
Robling, F.-H. 1992. “Asianismus. II.” In Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, vol. 1: A-Bib, edited by Gert Ueding, cols. 1120–1121. Tübingen.
Rohde, E. 1886. “Die asianische Rhetorik und die zweite Sophistik.” Rh. Mus. 41: 170–190.
Rohde, E. 1876. Der griechische Roman und seine Vorlaüfer. Leipzig.
Ruiz-Montero, C. 1991. “Aspects of the Vocabulary of Chariton of Aphrodisias.” CQ 41: 484–489.
Rutherford, W. G. 1881. The New Phrynichus. London.
Rydbeck, L. 1967. Fachprosa, vermeintliche Volkssprache und Neues Testament. Uppsala.
Schmid, W. 1887–1897. Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern von Dionysius von Halikarnass bis auf den zweiten Philostratus. 5 vols. Stuttgart.
Schmitz, T. A. 1997. Bildung und Macht: Zur sozialen und politischen Funktion der zweiten Sophistik in der griechischen Welt der Kaiserzeit. Zetemata 97. Munich.
Sexauer, H. 1899. Der Sprachgebrauch den Romanschriftstellers Achilles Tatius. Karlsruhe.
Shewring, W. H. 1930. “Prose-Rhythm and the Comparative Method.” CQ 24: 164–173.
Shewring, W. H. 1931. “Prose-Rhythm and the Comparative Method. II.” CQ 25: 12–22.
Sirago, V. A. 1989. “La seconda sofistica come espressione culturale della classe dirigente del II sec.” ANRW 2.33.1: 36–78.
Skimina, S. 1937. État actuel des études sur le rythme de la prose grecque, I. Krakow.
Spawforth, A. J. S. 2012. Greece and the Augustan Cultural Revolution. Cambridge.
Staab, G. 2004. “Athenfreunde unter Verdacht: der erste Asianist Hegesias aus Magnesia zwischen Rhetorik und Geschichtsschreibung.” ZPE 148: 127–150.
Strobel, C. 2005. “The Lexicographer of the Second Sophistic as Collector of Words, Quotations and Knowledge.” In Selecta colligere, vol. 2, edited by R. M. Piccione and M. Perkams, 131–157. Alexandria.
Strobel, C. 2009. “The Lexica of the Second Sophistic: Safeguarding Atticism.” In Standard Languages and Language Standards: Greek, Past and Present, edited by A. Georgakopoulou and M. Silk, 93–107. Aldershot.
Strobel, C. 2011. Studies in Atticistic Lexica of the Second and Third CenturiesAD. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Oxford.
Swain, S. 1996. Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World,AD50–250. Oxford.
Thumb, A. 1901. Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus. Strasbourg.
Tonnet, H. 1988. Recherches sur Arrien: Sa personnalité et ses écrits atticistes. 2 vols. Amsterdam.
Tosi, R. 1997. “Osservazioni sul rapporto fra Aristofane di Bisanzio e l’Antiatticista.” In Scritti per G. Morelli, 171–177. Bologna.
Tosi, R. 2007. “Polluce: struttura onomastica e tradizione lessicografica.” In L’Onomasticon di Giulio Polluce. Tra lessicografia e antiquaria, edited by C. Bearzot, F. Landucci, and G. Zecchini, 3–16. Milan.
Trapp, M. 1997. “Philosophical Sermons: The ‘Dialexeis’ of Maximus of Tyre.” ANRW 2.34.3: 1945–1976.
Tröger, G. 1898–1899. Der Sprachgebrauch in der pseudolonginianischen Schrift Peri Hupsous und deren Stellung zum Atticismus. Vol. 1. Burghausen.
Usher, S. 1960. “Some Observations on Greek Historical Narrative from 400 to 1 BC: A Study in the Effect of Outlook and Environment on Style.” AJPhil. 81: 358–372.
Usher, S. 1982. “The Style of Dionysius of Halicarnassus in the ‘Antiquitates Romanae.’” ANRW 2.30.1: 817–838.
Valley, G. 1926. Über den Sprachgebrauch des Longus. Uppsala.
Versteegh, K. 2002. “Dead or Alive? The Status of the Standard Language.” In Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact and the Written Word, edited by J. N. Adams, M. Janse, and S. Swain, 52–74. Oxford.
Wahlgren, S. 1995. Sprachwandel im griechisch der frühen römischen Kaiserzeit. Göteborg.
Waldis, J. 1920. Sprache und Stil der großen griechischen Inschrift vom Nemrud-Dagh in Kommagene (Nordsyrien). Ein Beitrag zur Koine Forschung. Heidelberg.
Wegehaupt, J. 1896. De Dione Chrysostomo Xenophontis sectatore. Gothae.
Weissenberger, B. 1895. Die Sprache Plutarchs von Chaeronea und die pseudoplutarchischen Schriften. Straubing.
Whitmarsh, T. 2005. The Second Sophistic. Oxford.
Wiater, N. 2011. The Ideology of Classicism: Language, History, and Identity in Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Berlin and New York.
Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, U. von. 1900. “Asianismus und Atticismus.” Hermes 35: 1–52.
Wisse, J. 1995. “Greeks, Romans, and the Rise of Atticism.” In Greek Literary Theory after Aristotle: A Collection of Papers in Honour of D. M. Schenkeveld, edited by J. G. J. Abbenes, S. R. Slings, and I. Sluiter, 125–134. Amsterdam.
Woerther, F. 2015. Caecilius de Calè-Actè. Fragments et temoignages. Paris.
Wooten, C. 1972. A Rhetorical and Historical Study of Hellenistic Oratory. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Wooten, C. 1975. “Le développement du style asiatique pendant l’époque hellénistique.” Rev. Ét. Grec. 88: 94–104.
CHAPTER 5
LATINITAS
W. MARTIN BLOOMER
LATINITAS is the quality of writing and speaking a pure Latin. The concept of Latinitas has a long and complex history for three chief reasons. The first is the process by which Latin became a standard language, for the city of Rome, for Latium, and eventually for the Roman Empire. Related to this process, a second complex development was the formation of a Kunstsprache, sophisticated prose and verse styles, in great part spurred on by Roman intellectual ambitions to have a literary language that emulated Attic Greek and by the increasingly sophisticated practices of Latin literature, which pushed the language to new expressive potentialities. There were additional symbolic and real interests driving the development of a high standard Latin, both the needs of social distinction within Roman society and the needs of governmental, legal, and religious institutions for written communication. A final factor is simply the long tradition of teaching and learning standard Latin.
The last sphere, the scholastic, has given us the term Latinitas, but here great care is needed. The schoolmen of Rome taught pupils of varied background and were themselves of varied background. The first recorded teachers of the mid-third century BCE were themselves bi- and trilingual. Later there would be schools in the provinces and schoolmen from the provinces coming to Rome. The grammarians of the Roman Empire devoted careful attention to what seems to posterity a colossus, the tradition of the Latin grammar. In the successive polities and schools that sought to impart Latin, Latinity became
the criterion of linguistic correctness, often for those whose native language was not Latin. From the time of the great teacher of Roman style, Quintilian, at the end of the first century CE, there has been anxiety, in his case acknowledgment, that the language has changed and that it is only with great care and industry that Latinity can be learned.
Latinity can thus be understood as a properly socio-linguistic term or a prescriptive (or critical) stylistic term (or at times both). The spheres of application for the two usages are quite diverse. For the former it is not simply that one group says it speaks Latin while its neighbors speak a different language. By the time the abstract noun Latinitas is used, perhaps even by the time that linguistic difference was thought to be somehow significant, there were varieties of Latin. Latinity thus did not simply distinguish speakers of Latin from the speakers of the other chief languages of the ancient Italian peninsula (Greek, Etruscan, Oscan, Umbrian). Rather, it seems to mark “good” Latin usage from less good versions, less good as contaminated by contact with other languages or perhaps as rural, immigrant, colloquial, or low class. Here it could of course be as much a social as a regional distinction. Second, as a prescriptive term, Latinitas reflects the self-confidence among the literate about the stylistic level of Latin literature, prose and poetry. This self-confidence is also a gesture of distinction: with a sense of Latinity, Roman culture has now a correspondent to Hellenismos, that excellence of language that marked for Greek speakers their ancestral, literary patrimony.
A recurrent difficulty in trying to understand how the ancients understood or applied principles of linguistic and stylistic correctness is their lack of systematicity. Principles were advanced, but from the first extant censor of Latin usage, the satirist Lucilius, through the literary figures of the Antonine age, the masters of Latin style will allege that they employ taste and judgment and not mere system. They will admire the old stylists and search the old literature for words but will not undertake a program to purify language by returning it to some pristine era. They will follow usage and yet admit the old expression. They will follow Cicero but avoid his fullness or Cato but avoid his aridity. The metaphorical terms employed likewise are not of much help. Further, there is a strong self-serving element in claims that the present author is the true judge or exemplar of Latinity. Targets can include foreigners, slaves, freedmen, women, provincials, lower classes, the less educated (Bloomer 1997; of course, the elite writer could employ a low register, see Ferri and Probert 2010, 14–15). And finally, the Roman writers, despite recycling a definition of Latinity from Varro and ultimately from Stoic theory of language, in fact proceed by making individual observations. In the hands of the school grammarians, these will devolve to lists of approved and disapproved words. Pronunciation, syntax, and style fade away as the search for Latinitas comes to resemble a mania for Latin diction.1
The Oxford Handbook of the Second Sophistic Page 11