Revisiting Cicero: Atticist vs. Asiatic

According to the Bizzell text, Cicero, in his work, Brutus, claimed that there are two standards of style: "Atticist" and "Asiatic" (284). The Atticist "distrusted the influence on later Greek rhetoric on Roman Culture" --(think of the word "Greeklings"); "[t]hey argued for the purity of diction and simplicity of syntax;" "[t]hey wished to establish a standard 'Latinity' for Roman oratory" and would resolve question of grammar and usage by referring to the earliest Latin authors" (284). This sounds very similar to me to the movement in the U.S. to standardize English and make it the official language of our country. There are some hardcore, self-proclaimed traditionalists out there who hope to establish a one-language country and force out foreign influence, reverting to the old isolationist doctrine once followed before our involvement in World War I. Although there was no push (that I'm aware of) to force everyone to speak English during that time, the idea of resisting foreign influence and creating a strong American identity was very popular. Actually, with the problems we are having in controlling the "immigration" across our southern border, this movement is once again gaining steam. The integration of other languages and styles into English is something that English language Atticists do not want.

To return to the Bizzell text and Cicero, the "Asiatic stylists...sought epigrammatic terseness or florid emotionalism, after the manner of the Greek Sophistic Movement" (284). Although the text claims that "Cicero vehemently denied affiliation with the Asiatics because he saw them as ignorant of philosophy," he did not agree with the Atticists' style because he felt they "limited the rhetorician's resources. Let the usage of contemporary, educated men and women--not ancient models--set the standard, he argued" (285). Considering this, I think it would be interesting to see where Cicero would stand on the language issues that we face today. I believe that we should not limit ourselves in terms of the evolution of our language, whether that be the integration of other languages or the morphing of language to suit region and/or culture in modern America. Some may argue that Cicero's claim that contemporary usage must indeed be an educated usage, but I believe that the current language shifts are informed changes, informed by the powerful influence of cultures, both foreign and domestic. Let today's people set the standard, argued Cicero. So why fight it?