Your assignment is to identify and discuss stylistic phenomena in the following passages from Cato the Elder. What stylistic phenomena are is an open question. Style is, I suppose, the manner of expression as opposed to the right-and-wrong rules of a language. Style is in some ways as much how you receive a text as it is how the text actually is or how the author delivered the text. Look for things like word choice, absences (are there adjectives? subordination?, etc.), glaring omissions (i.e. what is not being said), rhetorical effects (or their absence), sentence structure, anything unusual/interesting/surprising. You suffer from the same thing as I, namely not being a native speaker of Latin and not having the same huge databank of Latin material available in your brain as a native speaker would have. And yet, you also have advantages. Namely your distance and lack of biases should enable you to see things that are interesting.

What I expect is 1) roughly a page of data, observations: a bulleted list with an English label for what you observed and instances of it identified in Latin; and 2) a discussion of those data and observations and what you think they mean in terms of Cato's style.

Style is NOT grammar, punctuation, spelling, morphology, sentences, paragraphs: it is how an author uses and structures those and all the other aspects of language.

Style occurs at the level of individual words as well as thoughts, sentences as well as themes, paragraphs as well as overall argument/structure.

Yes, you will be in the dark trying to find a light as you do this exercise. But no one really agrees what style is, and there is no right answer. There are good and better answers. There are good and better observations.

Please look up translations of the following two passages to help you out, but don't be guided by the style of the translation.

The proem to Cato's de Agri Cultura

Est interdum praestare mercaturis rem quaerere, nisi tam periculosum sit, et item f[o]enerari, si tam honestum sit. maiores nostri sic habuerunt et ita in legibus posiuerunt: furem dupli condemnari, f[o]eneratorem quadrupli. quanto peiorem ciuem existimarint 5 f[o]eneratorem quam furem, hinc licet existimare. et 2.1 uirum bonum quom laudabant, ita laudabant: bonum agricolam bonumque colonum; amplissime laudari 3.1 existimabatur qui ita laudabatur. mercatorem autem strenuum studiosumque rei quaerendae existimo, uerum, ut supra dixi, periculosum et calamitosum. at ex 4.1 agricolis et uiri fortissimi et milites strenuissimi gignuntur, maximeque pius quaestus stabilissimusque consequitur minimeque inuidiosus, minimeque male cogitantes sunt qui in eo studio occupati sunt. nunc, ut ad rem 5 redeam, quod promisi institutum principium hoc erit.

Speech in the senate for the Rhodians, fr. 163-169 Malcovati
Read up a little about Cato (234-149 BCE). He was known for his oratory in his own time. The speech pro Rhodiensibus apparently persuaded Rome not to go to war with Rhodes.

What we have of this speech is preserved in Aulus Gellius, 6.3: Gellius talks about the speech but he also talks about Cicero's secretary Tiro's comments on the speech. Gellius had Cato's text available, although he apparently relied on Cicero's amanuensis Tiro for some of his information: verba adeo ipsa ponemus Catonis, quoniamTiro ea praetermisit.

Later, Cato had a reputation in Cicero's time and later still in Quintilian's time for roughness of style: orationes eius autem ut illis temporibus valdelaudo: significant enim formam quandam ingeni, sed admodum impolitam et plane rudem. (Cicero, Brutus 294).

From Gellius, we know that Tiro objected to Cato's approach: 1. Cato should not have suggested that the Senators' judgement was clouded. One should win one's audience over first, not castigate and judge them. Gellius, however, thinks that as Censor, Cato was advising the Senate from a position of considerable seniority, not trying to persuade them as a lawyer would, and so a high-handed approach was not inappropriate. 2. Tiro further objected that Cato admits that the Rhodians did wrongly in not wanting Rome to win. Gellius counters first that Cato presents that as his opinion, not a fact, which lends him credibility for being open, and that in the end, he turns the 'admission' to the Rhodians' favor: in spite of not wanting the Romans to win, they stayed loyal to Rome and did not help Perseus. 3. Tiro objects to the logic of quod illos dicimus voluisse facere, id nos priores facere occupabimus and says that of course Rome would do it first. It's dog eat dog out there: do unto others before they do unto you. Gellius answers that the world is not always like that and that Roman Senators would not mind being called to clemency. 4. Tiro suggests that wanting more property is not comparable to betrayal. Gellius points out that Cato nonetheless hides the weak argument and prepares for it well.

Cato Pro Rhodiensibus

Gel. N.A. 6.3.14    
scio solere plerisque hominibus rebus secundis     163.1
atque prolixis atque prosperis animum excellere atque    
superbiam atque ferociam augescere atque crescere. quo    
mihi nunc magnae curae est, quod haec res tam secunde    
processit, ne quid in consulendo advorsi eveniat, quod     5
nostras secundas res confutet, neve haec laetitia nimis    
luxuriose eveniat. advorsae res edomant et docent, quid    
opus siet facto, secundae res laetitia transvorsum trudere    
solent a recte consulendo atque intellegendo. quo maiore    
opere dico suadeoque, uti haec res aliquot dies proferatur,     10
dum ex tanto gaudio in potestatem nostram redeamus.    
Gel. N.A. 6.3.16    
atque ego quidem arbitror Rodienses noluisse nos     164.1
ita depugnare, uti depugnatum est, neque regem Persen    
vinci. sed non Rodienses modo id noluere, sed multos    
populos atque multas nationes idem noluisse arbitror atque    
haut scio an partim eorum fuerint qui non nostrae con-     5
tumeliae causa id noluerint evenire: sed enim id metuere,    
si nemo esset homo quem vereremur, quidquid luberet    
faceremus, ne sub solo imperio nostro in servitute nostra    
essent. libertatis suae causa in ea sententia fuisse ar-    
bitror. atque Rodienses tamen Persen publice numquam     10
adiuvere. cogitate, quanto nos inter nos privatim cautius    
facimus. nam unusquisque nostrum, si quis advorsus    
rem suam quid fieri arbitrantur, summa vi contra nititur,    
ne advorsus eam fiat; quod illi tamen perpessi.    
Gel. N.A. 6.3.26    
ea nunc derepente tanta beneficia ultro citroque,     165.1
tantam amicitiam relinquemus? quod illos dicimus vo-    
luisse facere, id nos priores facere occupabimus?    
Gel. N.A. 6.3.36    
qui acerrime advorsus eos dicit, ita dicit: hostes     166.1
voluisse fieri. ecquis est tandem, qui vestrorum, quod ad    
sese attineat, aequum censeat poenas dare ob eam rem,    
quod arguatur male facere voluisse? nemo, opinor; nam    
ego, quod ad me attinet, nolim.     5
Gel. N.A. 6.3.37    
quid nunc? ecqua tandem lex est tam acerba,     167.1
quae dicat: si quis illud facere voluerit, mille minus dimi-    
dium familiae multa esto; si quis plus quingenta iugera    
habere voluerit, tanta poena esto; si quis maiorem pecuum    
numerum habere voluerit, tantum damnas esto? atque     5
nos omnia plura habere volumus, et id nobis impoene est.    
Gel. N.A. 6.3.38    
sed si honorem non aequum est haberi ob eam     168.1
rem, quod bene facere voluisse quis dicit, neque fecit    
tamen, Rodiensibus oberit, quod non male fecerunt, sed    
quia voluisse dicuntur facere?    
Gel. N.A. 6.3.50    
Rodiensis superbos esse aiunt id obiectantes quod     169.1
mihi et liberis meis minime dici velim. sint sane superbi.    
quid id ad nos attinet? idne irascimini, si quis superbior    
est quam nos?