Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-w5hgh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T16:57:54.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Elocvtio Novella

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Leofranc Holford-Strevens
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
Affiliation:
115 Kingston Road, Oxford
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of this note is to banish for ever from our histories of Roman literature the term elocutio nouella as a description of the style preached and practised by Cornelius Fronto.

Commenting on a speech recently delivered by the Emperor Marcus, Fronto declares (De eloquentia 5. 1 = p. 146. 13 van den Hout):

Pleraque in oratione recenti tua, quod ad sententias attinet, animaduerto egregia esse; pauca admodum uno tenus uerbo corrigenda; non nihil interdum elocutione nouella parum signatum.

The standard interpretation of the last clause is that given by Haines (ii. 81): ‘some parts here and there were not sufficiently marked with novelty of expression’. It is my contention that it means: ‘some parts here and there were insufficiently clear through new-fangled diction’.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , May 1976, pp. 140 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 The application, of late-Victorian origin, seems largely but not wholly confined to English-speaking writers: e.g. W. Pater, Marius the Epicurean, c. 5; Mackail, J.W., Latin Literature, 235;Google ScholarBrock, M.D., Studies in Fronto and his Age, 109;Google Scholar A.S. Owen in his and H.E. Butler's edition of Apuleius' Apologia, p. xlvi; Duff, J. Wight, A Literary History of Rome in the Silver Age, 651 (2nd edn., p. 522);Google ScholarDalton, J.F., Roman Literary Theory and Criticism, 320;Google ScholarAtkins, J.W.H., Literary Criticism in Antiquity, ii. 343;Google Scholar J.W. Denniston in OCD, p. 313 (2nd edn., p. 381); R.G.C. Levens, ibid. p.372 (2nd edn., p.449); Marache, R., La Critique littéraire de langue latine et le d´veloppement du goût archaïsant au IIe siècle de notre ère, 135;Google ScholarPortalupi, F., Marco Cornelio Frontone, 38, 81, 112;Google ScholarGrube, G.M.A., The Greek and Roman Critics, 320;Google ScholarRose, H.J., A Handbook of Latin Literature3, 519 (eloquentia nouella!).Google Scholar

2 §18 = p. 154. 20 v.d.H. I should prefer to read {ac} commodatius in harmony with concinnius and congruentius; for commodatus cf. especially Quint. 10. 1. 17 ‘uox, actio decora, commodata ut quisque locus postulabit pronuntiandi … ratio’.

3 For obsoletus = tritus see Cic. 2 Verr. 5. 117, Sen. Contr. 4. pr. 9, Fronto eloq. 4. 12 = p. 146. 10 v.d.H., Gell. 16. 7. 4, 17. 2. 12.

4 Cf. Sidon. Ep. 4. 3. 3 ‘noua ibi uerba quia uetusta’–a compliment; Cic. Or. 12.

5 §3 = p. 146. 28 v.d.H.: ‘alterum proprium “comes”, alterum translatum “opifex”.’

6 Gellius also uses consignatus (1. 15. 12 1. 25. 8) and significans (1. 15. 17, 1. 25. 8, 17. 2. 11); the latter is employed by classics authors (e.g. Cic. Fam. 3. 12. 3 ‘acrius, apertius, significantius dignitatem tuam defendis sem’) and especially by Quintilian (e.g. 8. 2. ‘proprie dictum, id est, quo nihil inueniri possit significantius’).

7 Both in general thesis and in detail this admonition resembles Gel. 11. 7: the Frontonian semidoctus is recalled by Gellius' warning against (§3); his lack of taste is shared by the Gellian apirocalus (§7). The Atticists, too, who were trying to revive a bygone style as a whole rather than in flosculi, needed reminding– (Phiostratus V.S. 503)–that their ideal was (the to Aristid. Or. 30 Keil, lines 11–13).