Abstract
The notion of linguistic correction (Latinitas) with which Augustine of Hippo introduced his Ars pro fratrum mediocritate breuiata seems central to the philosopher's grammatical discussion, not only because of the various examples that Augustine offers about the definitions of barbarism and soloecism at the end of this treatise, but also because the subject of correction (Latinitas) and, consequently, of the deviations of language (barbarismus and soloecismus), are also presented in other non-grammatical works: The confessions, De ordine and De doctrina Christiana. In this article, we propose to evaluate the conceptual outlines of the notions of barbarism and solecism in the work of Augustine, considering, on the one hand, the definitions present in the Ars breuiata, and, on the other, the way in which Augustine also presents them in his philosophical work. We propose that the normative orientation contained in the text of ars must be relativised by ethical questions that arise from the comments present in the Confessions, the De ordine and the De doctrina Christiana.
Highlights
The idea that the grammarian was a kind of guardian of language, who should protect language against the terrible vices of barbarism and solecism was implicit in the old reflection on Latinitas, a concept derived from Rhetoric, but since the first century BC, attributed to the competence of Grammar.1 passages in Cicero alreadyTHE NOTION OF LANGUAGE DEVIATIONS IN ST
We propose to evaluate the conceptual outlines of the notions of barbarism and solecism in the work of Augustine, considering, on the one hand, the definitions present in the Ars breuiata, and, on the other, the way in which Augustine presents them in his philosophical work
As far as the treatment given to the phenomena of language correctness (Latinitas) goes, Augustine reflections could be summarised as follows: 1) Augustine’s grammatical treatise, the Ars breuiata, is limited to dealing with the language deviations: the barbarism and solecism
Summary
The idea that the grammarian was a kind of guardian of language, who should protect language against the terrible vices of barbarism and solecism was implicit in the old reflection on Latinitas, a concept derived from Rhetoric, but since the first century BC, attributed to the competence of Grammar. passages in Cicero already. 354430 AD), the Ars pro fratrum mediocritate breuiata, we aim at describing the way Augustine dealt with the notion of ‘language deviation’, here understood as the phenomena of barbarismus and soloecismus To this end, we seek to understand the philosopher's particular treatment given to the subject, relating it to the way barbarism and solecism are dealt with both in his ars grammatica and. Our text is divided in two parts: in the first one we address some issues related to the text of the Ars breuiata itself and to the subject of linguistic correctness (Latinitas); we try to show how the notion of language deviation in the Ars breuiata (barbarismus and soloecismus) must be understood in relation to the way in which these themes are treated in the Confessions, De ordine, and in the De doctrina Christiana. Unlike the work of Donatus, Augustine provides us with a full definition of Latinitas (‘language correctness’), as we see in the comparison between the thematic structure of the Ars breuiata and the Ars maior:
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
