&m' '-- C2A • - ■^.'./^ : ♦ :;'^ v.>l LIBR^RV OF THE University of California. GIFT OF^ Class M-A- THE QUEROLUS, A Syntactical and Stylistic Study A DISSERTATION IN THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY BY GEORGE WESLEY JOHNSTON Lecturer on Latin in the University of Toronto or The ' - **S.^?-/rr)-3w\K TORONTO : The Publishers' Syndicate, Limited 1900 CONTENTS. PAGE Introduction ix. Bibliography xv. 1. SYNTAX. A. SIMPLE SENTENCE. 1. DECLARATIVE SENTENCES. (a) The Subject. § 1. Subject Expressed 1 § 2. Imperaonal Verbs 2 (b) Thk Predicate. (a) General. § 3. Present Participle with Copula 3 § 4. Verb Omitted 3 (/3) Agreement. § 5. In Number 4 § 6. In Gender 4 (7) Tensen. § 7. Historical Present 5 § 8. Periphrastic Present 5 § 9. Gnomic Present 5 § 10. Imperfect in Narrative 6 § 11. Periphrastic Future » 6 § 11. Participle in -ndus for Fut. Pass 6 § 12. Volo with Infinit. for Future 6 § 12. Ibo with Supine foi Future 6 § 13. Interchange of Tenses 6 § 14. Compound Tenses 8 § 15. Fut. Pf . . . .Fut. Pf. ; Fut. Pf . . . .Fut 8 (5) Moods. §§ 16-19. Indicative Substituted for Subjunctive 9 2. Subjunctive. § 20. Optative 9 § 21. Potential Subjunctive 9 § 22. Jussive Subjunctive 10 IV CONTENTS. PAGE 3. Imperative. § 24. Future Imperative 11 § 25. Two Imperatives with Connective 12 § 26. Future Indicat. for Imperative 12 4. Infinitive. § 27. Infinitive as Substantive 1.3 § 28. Infinitive in Exclamations 1,3 («) Voice. § 29. luror, Act. and Depon. Forms 13 § 30. Middle use of Verbs 13 § 31. Def unctus = Mortuus 13 (c) Attribute. § 32. Adverb as Attribute 13 § 33. Substantive as Attribute 14 (d) Apposition. § 34. Phrase as Appositive 14 § 35. Accusat. and Infinit. as Appositive 14 § 36. Other Cases 14 (e) Cases. 1. Nominative. § 37. Nominative in an Exclamation 14 2. Vocative. § 38. Mingling of Nominat. and Vocat 14 3. Accusative. § 39. With Verbs of Motion 15 § 40. Transitive Accusative 15 § 41. Duration of Time ' 16 § 42. Predicate Accusative 16 § 43. Double Accusative 16 § 44. Accusative of Exclamation 16 § 45. Final Accusative 17 4- Oenitive. § 46. Partitive Genitive 17 § 47. Genitive of Quality 17 § 48. Appositional Genitive 18 § 49. Objective Genitive 18 § 50. Subjective Genitive 18 § 51. Possessive Genitive 18 § 52. Genitive with Adjectives 19 CONTENTS. V PAGE § 53. Genitive with Similis 19 § 54. Genitive with Causa 19 § 55. Genitive of Value 19 § 56. Genitive of the Charge 19 § 57. Genitive with Verbs 19 §§ 58-60. Other Genitive Constructions 19 5. Dative. § 61. Dative with Intransitives 20 §62. Dative with Compound Verbs 20 § 63. Dative of Interest 20 § 64. Final Dative 21 § 65. Dative of Possession 21 § 66. Ethical Dative 21 § 67. Dative of Relation 21 § 68. Dative with Adjectives 21 § 69. Dative Indicating Connection With 21 § 70. Final Locative 21 6. Ablative. § 71. Ablative of Cause • • 22 § 72. Ablative of Manner 22 § 73. Ablative of Respect 22 § 74. Ablative of Price 22 § 75. Ablative of Comparison 23 § 76. Ablative of Measure 23 § 77. Ablative of Quality 23 § 78. Ablative of Means 23 § 79. Ablative Denoting Time When 24 § 80. Ablative Denoting Place NVhere 24 § 81. Ablative of Separation 25 § 82. Ablative Absolute 25 § 83. Other Ablative Constructions 26 7. Locative. § 84. Domi, peregre, mane, vespere, tempore 26 (/) Participles, Geruxd, Etc. 1. Participles. § 85. Present Participle with quasi ; with Copula, etc 27 2. Gerund. § 86. Accusative of Gerund with in ( = ad) 27 3. Gerundive. % 87. Gerundive as Attribute 28 § 88. Gerundive with Copula Omitted 28 4. Supine. § 89. Supine in -um with ibo 28 VI CONTENTS. PAGE 2. INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES. § 90. Particle frequently Lacking ' 28 § 91. Use of Nonne, ne and -ne 29 § 92. Numquid, numquidnara 30 § 93. Forms of Quisnam 30 § 94. Cur, quare, quid, qualiter, quanti 30 § 95. Direct Disjunctive Questions 31 B. SUBORDINATE SENTENCE. I. SUBORDINATION WITHOUT RELATIVE PRONOUN OR PARTICLE. (a) Paratactic Constructions. § 96. Parataxis with Verba Sentiendi et Declarandi 32 § 97. Parataxis with Verbs of Entreating 33 § 98. Parataxis with volo, nolo 34 § 99. Final Parataxis 35 §100. Consecutive Parataxis 35 §101. Causal Parataxis 36 §102. Conditional Pai-ataxis 38 § 103. Concessive Parataxis 38 §104. Temporal Parataxis 38 (b) Infinit. and Accusat. with Infinit. §105. Objective Infinitive 38 § 106. Infinitive with Adjectives 39 §107. Simple Infinitive as Subject 39 §108. Accusative with Infinitive 39 §109. Accusative with Infinitive as Subject 41 §1 10. Other Uses of Infinitive 41 2. SUBORDINATION BY MEANS OF RELATIVE PRONOUNS AND CONJUNCTIONS. §111. Indefinite and Generic Relatives 41 §1 12. Epexegetical Quod Clauses 42 §113. Relative Clauses expressing Cause 42 §114. Relative Clauses of Characteristic Result 42 §115. Relative Clauses of Design 42 §116. Relative Clauses ot Concession 42 §117. Accusative Conjunctions 42 §1 18. Locative Conjunctions 45 C. INDIRECT QUESTIONS. §119. Simple Question 51 §120. Disjunctive Question ^ CONTENTS. Vll D. THE USE OF PARTS OF SPEECH. 1. Nouns. page §121. Abstract Nouns in -io 53 §122. Abstract Nouns in -tas, -tudo 53 §123. Nouns in -men, -mentum 53 §124. Nouns in -sor, -tor, -trix . . 53 §125. Plural of Abstracts 54 §126. Plural of Concretes 54 §127. Concrete used as Abstract 54 §128. Abstract used as Concrete 55 §129. Diminutives 55 2. Adjectives. §130. Adjectives in -alis and -bills 55 §131. Adjectives and Participles as Substantives 55 §132. Comparison of Adjectives -. . . 56 3. Pronouns and Adjective Pronouns. §133. Emphatic Forms 56 §134. Change of Number 56 §135. Reflexive Pronoun 56 §136. Demonstrative Pronouns 56 §137. The Pronoun ipse 57 §138. Indefinite Pronouns 57 §139. Interrogative Pi'onouns 57 §140. Adjective Pronouns 57 §§141-143. Noteworthy uses of Adverbs, Particles and Prepositions . . 58, 59 7. Verbs. §144. Frequentatives 57 II. ASYNDETON. §145. General 60 §146. Asyndeton Enumerativum 60 §147. Asyndeton Adversativum 61 §148. Asyndeton Explicativum 61 §149. Asyndeton Disiunctivum . 61 §150. Asyndeton Summativum 61 §151. As5'ndeton in Questions 62 §152. " Das achte " Asyndeton 62 §153. Asyndeton with Anaphora 62 §154. Asyndeton and Coordinating Particles 62 III. LEXICAL. §155. Important Lexical Phenomena 63 INTRODUCTION. In this stud}' of the peculiar but interesting comedy of the late Latin period, the Querolus or Aulularia, the au- thor's aim has been to examine the phenomena of Syntax and Style. He has not proposed to himself any seiious attempt to remove the uncertainty which exists as to the authorship of the play, its date, place and form. These questions have all received moie or less attention from scholars for generations, even for centuries, and yet, despite the labours more especially of Klinkhamer, Havet and Dezeimeris, few will be found to say that much real light has been thrown upon these perplexing problems. From a comment of Donatus on Terence, Andria 716, it is clear that even in the fourth century after Christ, Comedy was wont to be seen upon the stage ; and the inference is peihaps warranted that the plays of Plautus, Terence and other less able and less fortunate writers had never ceased to be presented. Even if this could be established it would not be a j)roof that Comedy still con- tinued to have its writers, that the creative genius had not been lost generations, perhaps centuries, before. Ch. Magnin, however, in an article, "La Come'die au IV.« Sie- €le,"^ maintains the thesis that this kind of literary pro- duction enjoyed an uninterrupted existence up to the fourth century of our era. and declares : " I can present to you two complete comedies of the fourth century, of which one at least was acted." These are the Ludus Septem Sapientum of Ausonius, and " Une grande et belle Comedie intitulee Querolus une grande et vraie "Comedie du IV.^ Siecle." Of about the same date prob- ^ Revue des Deux Mondes, 1835, Vol. II., pp. 633-673. 1 X INTRODUCTION. ably as the Querolus was the Delirus of Axius Pauluh\ whicli Dezeimeiis- conjectures was a comedy. Fulgentius also, iMytholog. III. 8 (p. 725 Van Staveren), mentions a certain Sutrius as " Comoediarnm Scriptor," and says^ " Sutrius in Comoedia Piscatoria." Of this Ritschl writes thus*: " Extitit quidem Sutri alicuius Piscatoria comoedia quaedam, quam usurparet Fulgentius : non fnit autem ea priscae aetatis, verum niedii aevi. . . .eiusdem generis at- que Querolus." The slight knowledge we possess of the later historj' of Roman Comedy does not greatly aid us in determining to what country the author of our play belonged, a question on which, as on those of the authoi'ship and date, no information can be obtained except what may be drawn from the work itself. Dezeimeris and Havet* refer it to Gaul; Teutfel ( — Schwabe), 11., p. 372 (English edition) is of the same opinion, and this may be said of Sittl also, the reviewer' of the works of Dezeimeris and Havet. Other scholars have expressed the opinion that it is a pro- duct of African latinity. But if this view be accepted it will be difficult to explain how the reference 16, 22 — 17, 2 (all citations are made in accordance with the pages and lines of Peiper's edition, 1875), to the freedom of life that obtained in the region of the Liger would be intelligible to an African audience. Moreover, the extremes of heat and cold to which allusion is made (page 17), and of which, it may be inferred, the writer had knowledge gained from personal experience, caimot be said, as Havet remarks on page 4, to be so characteristic of Africa as of a moie northerly country. The African origin of the play is * See Ausouius, Ep. XI., Praef. ^ Etudes sur le Querolus, Bordeaux, 1881. ' Expositio Sermon. Antiq. p. 566, 7. * Parerga, p. 29. ' La Querolus, comedie latine anonyme, Paris, 1880. ® Jahresbericht lib. Class. Alterthumswissenschaft, Vol. 59 (1889), p. 47ff. INTKODUCTION. XI advanced by Bucheleri on the j^round that the pes clodus which the author employs seems to be peculiar to African inscriptions-', and in this position he is supported by Gaston Paris^. But apart from this single consideration, there is not, so far as I have been able to discover, any peculiarity \7hich makes in favour of Africa rather than Gaul. It will be evident from the following investigation that our author's usage is in many I'espects in harmony with that of African writers, but I do not think that any- thing can be said to be distinctively African, and not at least equally characteristic of Gallic Latin. The date of our comedy cannot be placed very early, as is evident from the fact that mention is made of Plautus and Cicero, and that among other writers Seneca, Martial, Juvenal. Lucan and Statins are laid under contribution. That it belongs to the late Empire, to the fourth-fifth century, as Teuffei thinks, seems attested by the peculiar character of the dialogue, and especially by the ]Momin- ence given to astrology and magic in II. 3 and III. 1, a kind of learning which was very general in Gaul during the fourth and fifth centuries. Many words also argue a late date, e.g., praestigium, commessatio, transfusio, dibac- chatio, antelucandum est, iuris conditores (= coci), colle- gium, solidus, tubulus, etc. Havet and Dezeimeris believe that on p. 16 f. our author makes direct reference to the revolt of Armorica* of 407 A.D. (Zozimus, Hist. I. 6), or to some similar uprising in the early years of the fifth century", during which a state of lawlessness and anarchy prevailed in the region about the (lower) Loire. Accordingly Havet thinks the piece was written some time in the first quarter of the fifth cen- tury, while Dezeimeris assigns it to the year 407 A.D,,_ 1 Rh. Mus. XXVII. , p. 474. ' Cf. C. I. L. VIII., 646, 647, 648. 3 Revue Critique, 1875, p. 374 fif. * Dezeimeris, 1. 1., p. 15. ^ Havet, 1. 1., p. 6. xn INTRODUCTION. or 408 A.D. Sittl (I 1.) asserts, however, with reason, that he cannot see in the passage cited any reference to a revolt, or to robbers and freebooters. The play may very well have been of the beginning of the fifth century, but an exact date can scarcely be established. In his Etudes sur le Querolus Dezeimeris makes a serious attempt to fix the authorship upon a friend and colleague of Ausonius, Axius Paulus, and in the course of his argu- ment adduces not a few words and phrases, which he contends show a literal imitation of the style of Ausonius. The writer supports his position with considerable skill and ingenuity, but few will be convinced that he has made out a clear case. Indeed, it seems quite improbable that anything certain will ever be discovered as to the name and personality of the author^ The form of the Querolus has given rise to much dis- cussion and disagreement among scholars. Critics of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, with the exception of Cannegieter and Orelli, were of the opinion that it was a prose work. G. I. Voss and Tho.s. Reinesius called it a drama j^Tosaicum, or fahula prosa ; Fabricius, Ritters- haus and Cannegieter explained the pes clodas as indi- cating a sermo poeticus or oratio soluta. C. Barth ditfered from these in describing it as a drama semi'poeticuin, and Salmasius seems to have thought it partly prose and partly ver.se^. On the other hand there have been not a few who see in the Querolus a comedy in verse ; indeed, in this num- ber are to be included almost all the scholars of the two last centuries whose opinion is known. But even they are not at one. Wernsdorf^, Bticheler, Umpfenbach*, Peiper^ . ^ The question is treated with some fulness by Wernsdorf (Peiper, p. XXX. flf.) and Havet, ). 1., p. 7 ff. * For the views of these scholars, and also of Koen, see Klinkhamer's edition, p. xiii. f. ' Peipei's edition, p. xxxvii. * In his edition of Terence, p. xlix. INTRODUCTION. Xlll G. Parish say it was written in very free verse, and Dezei- meris (1. 1. p. 52) asserts " est ecrit en un langage rhythm^, podtique. . . .C'est une forme demi-indtrique." The African inscriptions to which Bticheler refers- are found in the Corpus Inscript. Latin. VIII., 646, 647, 648. A note of Studeniund's, quoted by the editor of the volume, shows that he, too, thought that comparison was to be made between the compositio rhythmica of the Querolus and the clausulae jjeriodoruvi of these inscrip- tions^. It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that our author was a man of so little learning and culture as the writer of these epitaphs. Klinkhamer, Quicherat* and Havet maintain that the play was composed in accordance with regular metrical laws ; and believing that these were destroyed by some paraphrast or redactor of the Middle Ages, Klinkhamer in 1829, and more recently Havet in 1880, attempted to restore it to its original form. The latter says (p. 40) " volontairement mis en prose par un remanieur du haut moyen age," admitting, however, that there are not many examples of Latin texts that have been treated in this way. Havet's " haut moyen Sge " must refer to some time before the ninth century, inas- much as Ms, V is believed to be of that date. It is strange, although of course not impossible, that all Mss. of the play in verse should have so completely disappeared, and that excerpts should all have been made from the Mss. in prose. It is strange, too, that the redactor should have given his attention so much more to changing the beginning of the verse or period than the close. In his rdsum^ (p. 148 ff.) Havet seems to lay himself open to the charge of being carried away by his theory. He sa^'s 1 Revue Critique, 1875, p. 376. ^ Rh. Mus. xxvii., p. 474. ^ See also this scholar's review of Peiper's edition, Jenaer Literatur- zeitung, 1875 (No. .35), p. 622. * Melanges de Philologie, p. 158 f. XIV INTRODUCTION. (|). 149) : Peut etre operait-il d'instinct, reproduisant sans en avoir conscience une ordonnance que ses lectures lui avaient rendue familiere. Other passages might be cited to much the same effect. But surely this does not add much strength to his position. Why may we not with much better reason accept the truth contained in the above citation as making in favour of the contention that our play has not undergone a change of form ? The naturalness and clearness of the " ordonnance que ses lec- tures lui avaient rendue familiere" as contrasted with the inversions, insertions and omissions to which recourse must be had in order to make even unsatisfactory verse, are just the features which are likely to be regarded as prov- ing that the Querolus was written in prose. Post Scriptum. — When much the greater part of this work was already in type, I was suprised to learn of the existence (in Ms.) of a study entitled "Querolus fabula quando et ubi scripta sit, sermonis potissimum inquisi- tione definiatur," by Dr. E. Miillenbach of Bonn. It is with the greatest pleasure that I here record my appreciation of the author's courtesy and kindness in offering for my free use the results of his investigation. It is only, however, in the section on the vocabulary that I have been able to derive much profit from his labor ; but in this part I am greatly indebted to his carefal and exhaustive work, all the more valuable because it is to a study of the language that Dr. Miillenbach especially addresses himself. The author of the Querolus, according to Dr. Miillenbach, was a man of education and culture, of the legal profession — witness the number of legal terms. His language in general is more in agreement with that of writers of Gaul, especially Salvianus and Sulpicius (to the latter of whom he is superior), and has much in common with that of authors of the 4th century and the beginning of the 5th century of our era. On the whole no more probable date can be assigned than the middle of the 4th century, say 364-380 A.D. , and no more probable country than Southern Gaul. BIBLIOGRAPHY. Editions. There have been six editions of the Querolus : The Editio Princeps of Peter Daniel, Paris, 1564 ; re- printed in the edition of Plautus published by Cominus, Padua, 1764. A second edition was prepared by Daniel, but was never publi.shed, and is now in the library at Berne. Daniel's notes, as well as those of Rittershaus and Gruter, were published in The edition of H. Commelin, 1595. The edition of Ph. Pareus, an appendix to his edition of Plautus, Frankfort, 1610; reprinted with the omission of the preface in the Collectio Pisaurensis, 1766, Vol, IV., p. 201 tf. The edition of S. C. Klinkhamer, Amsterdam, 1829, containing the prose text of the Mss. and also a restora- tion (the first) in verse. The prose text was reprinted in 1832 as an appendix to Plautus in the Bibliotheca Latina (Lemaire), Vol. III., p. 545 fl. The edition of Rudolph Peiper, Leipsic, 1875. This contains a complete description of earlier editions and notices of studies (not published) in the Querolus by several scholars, an inaccurate description of four Mss., a valuable apparatus criticus, and an index. The edition of Louis flavet, Paris, 1880, Texte en vers restitue d'apres un principe nouveau et traduit pour la premiere fois en fran^ais. This is preceded by an " examen litteraire," and an excellent chapter on the Mss. As an appendix are added collations of Mss. R (Parisinus) and B (Brussels), and variant readings of Mss. J. C. Wernsdorf (1732-1793) undertook the preparation of an edition, parts of the prooemium of which have been XVI BIBLIOGKAPHY. embodied in the work of Peiper. These exti-acts deal with the authorship of the comedy, and with the pes clodus, to which reference has already'' been made. Edi- tions seem to have been contemphited by H. Cannegieter (1723-1804), G. Koen (died 1767) and J. C. Orelli, the results of whose labours, as also of those of Barth, Tur- nebe, Scaliger, Gronovius, Salmasius and others, have been duly made use of by subsequent editors. During the Middle Ages the Querolus was recast in elegiac verses by a poet Vitalis\ whose work was printed together with the Querolus itself, by Rittershaus in 1595. It has somewhat recently appeared, in Bonn, 1885 : Comoediae elegiacae, ed. comm. crit. instr., proleggom. scrips. E. Miillenbach. In addition to these may be noticed an Italian trans- lation by Berengo : Querulo ossia Aulularia, di auctore incerto, commedia togata tradatta per la prima volta, Venezia, 1851. Articles bearing on the Querolus have been published by Ch. Magnin (cited above) ; Louis Quicherat, Revue de rinstruction publique, August, 1859 ; R. Dezeimeris, Sur I'Auteur de Querolus, Bordeaux, 1870, and Etudes sur le Querolus, 1881. The edition of Peiper was re- viewed by P. Thomas, Revue de ITnstruction publique ....en Belgique, 1875, pp. 287-292, who offers some emendations and gives some readings from a Brussels Ms. ; W. Studemund, lenaer Literaturzeitung, August 28, 1875, p. 621 f. (see above); Gaston Paris, Revue critique d'His- toire et de Litterature, 1875, p. 374 ff. ; Wilhelm Wagner, Literarisches Centralblatt, June 5, 1875. Notices of Havet's edition are found in Teuffel-Schwabe II., p. 372 (trans.) ; Dezeimeris, Etudes etc., p. 56 f. ; Bursian's Jah- resbericht. Vol. 59 (1889), p. 47 f. (K. Sittl). I have con- sulted also J. J. Ampere, Histoire litteraire de la France ^ See Hist, litter, de la France xv., pp. 428-434 ; Peiper, p. xxi. v? n. *'' BIBLIOGRAPHY. XVU avant le douzieme Siecle I. pp. 2G0 ff., and E. du M^ril, Oriffines latines du theatre moderne. Manuscripts. These also are six in number : V Rome, Vaticanus 4929, ninth century. L Lej^den, Leidensis Vossianus, Q. 83, tenth century. P Rome, Palatinus-Vaticanus 1615, eleventh century. R Paris, Parisinus 81 21 A, eleventh-twelfth century. B Brussels, twelfth century. S Rome (incomplete), twelfth century. V was first collated and used by Peiper for his edition, and to it together with L (the Ms. used for the Editio Prin- ceps) he assigns the highest value. Havet, however, riffhtlv maintains that a reading common to R P, the only others used by Peiper, is to be preferred to one common to V L, and that R has preserved the greatest number of <^ood readings. It is to this Ms. that B, collated by Thomasi, seems most clo.sely related. S contains several good readings, and would perhaps be an important Ms. if it were complete. On page xiii. Peiper notices several Ms.s. containing extracts of the Querolus, but makes use of only one, the Florilegium Berolinense of the fourteenth century. 1 1. 1., p. 228 ; see also Havet 1. 1., p. 28. 3 I. SYNTAX. A. The Simple Sentence. 1. Declarative Sentences. (a) The Subject. § 1. The Subject expressed in the First and Second Person. — The pronoun occurs with great frequency, and in many instances is not required for emphasis or clearness. This is quite in harmony with the usage of Comedy and the Vulgar Speech. It is to be remarked especially in the sing, of the pronoun of the first person; the pronoun of the second person occurs with about equal frequency, but with perhaps more reason. Not infrequently, however, these pronouns are emphatic, the emphasis often being heightened by antithesis more or less marked. (1) Ego. — Used to declare identity: fi, 1, Ego sum custos et cultor domus cui fuero adscriptus ; cf. 6, 3 ; 8, 20, 2o, 24 ; 22, 14; 47, 20 ; 52, 2. In some of these, emphasis too is discernible. Emphatic. — Often combined with dutem, at, quoque, not without antithesis: 35, 12, Ego quoque, si opus fuerit, operam praestabo; 31, 20, Ego autem ipsum vidi Cerberum. Also 25, 20 ; 51, 11. A good example of ego in anaphora is found in 50, 12-14: Egone manibus meis praesidium paternum ut efferrem de domo, ego conderem ? Ego obvi- arem thesauro ? Ego in repeated question : 49, 20, Quid ego dico nunc fieri ? Further examples : 23, 21 ; 46, 15 ; 50, 6, 8 ; 54, 4; 55, 6; 43, 7 ; 48, 24 ; 56, 20 ; 35, 19 ; 45, 27. Antithetical. — In these the antithesis is more decided : 24, 15, Ego trado gaudia, retia vosmet obsidete ; 39, 24, Ego nudam teneo quam domino vestitam vix videre licet. (Ego lustro, ego metior, etc.) ; 46, 2, and elsewhere. Ego with omission of verb. — In replies : 42, 14, Ego vero ac libens (so. abibo); 43, 8, neque ego (sc. credam); so 43, 2. In a question: 48, 21, Sed quid ego? {Cf. 7, 15, Ecquid ego nunc facio ?) (2) Tii. — It is not unusual to find this pronoun expressed with the Imperative in the speech of the people, and to this usage our author shows a tendency. It is found more often than ego in emphatic positions, and often with anti- thesis. Such particles as irtinio, autem, ergo, igititr, are sometimes added. Emphatic. — 9, 1, immo, tii cave; 10, 22, men rogas ? Quasi tu nescias. So, too, 42, 3 ; 52, 16 ; 5(J, G, and else- where. The relative frequency of the occurrence of tu is about 1:4. It is rarely, if ever, omitted when we should look for its presence, and on the other hand, in most of the instances of its occurrence, some justification may be discovered. In questions, as with the Imperative, it is very common, owing no doubt to the desire for greater directness and vivacity: 21, 3, Tu nunc, quo tendis ? 34, G, Heus tu, amice, tun Querolus diceris ? 54, 8, Hancine mihi tu domi fidem praedicabas, in which the juxtaposition of ■niihi and tu will be observed, as also in 51, 19 ; 52, 12, 22 ; 13, 7 ; 12, 9 ; 28, 23, and in other passages. This is in keeping with the usage of Plautus and Terence. Further occurrences are 53, 23 ; 47, 15 ; 50, 1. For examples other than those given above of tu with the Vocative, see 24, 2, 14 ; 33, 25 ; 46, 2. Antithetical. — 35, 24, Tu praecede, nos tecum simul; IS, 22, Habet hoc ille cuius tu sortem petisti ; also 9, 11 ; 24, 24 ; 43, 25 ; 46, 2 , 58, 22. (3) The use of plural forms of the pronouns of the first and second person calls for no remark. The pronoun of the first person is much inore frequently expressed, and both are sometimes necessary for reasons similar to those given under ego and tu. §2. Impersonal Verbs. — The following are found: apparet, 50, 3 ; 24, 7 ; convenit, 24, 21 ; 60, 6 ; datum est, 34, 1 ; expedit, 20, 9 ; factum est, 50, 17 ; 55, 19 ; fiat, 34, 6 ; 35, 8 ; licet, 27, 12 ; 30, 19 ; 31, 12; 80, 1 ; litandum, 31, 14; opus est, 35, 14; 40, 11; 52, 5; opus fuit, 43, 3; placet, 27, 4 ; placeat, 27, 13 ; placuit, 60, 5 ; 60, 6 ; super- est, 15, 16; vacat, 25, 21; 27, 5; vacuum esset, 26, 9; ventum est, 24, 6. 3 (b) The Predicate. (a) GeNEKAL. §3. Pkesent Participle with copula. — Of this con- struction only one occurrence can be cited from our author: 49, 5, nos iactantes non sunius ; in tsibi sufficiens fuit, 6, 0, sufficiens is to be regarded as an adjective as in the icti, Tertull. and others. This periphrasis seems to have been a favorite one in popular^ and biblicaP Latin, but is found to some extent in writers of the classical and ante-classical periods, as is .shown by Holtze^ Nagelsbach- Muller*, and other grammarians. §4. Verb Omitted. — (1) A verb of saying: 26, 3, De mago nescio quid vos audivi; 26, 1, Quid vos, secretumne aliquod ? and cf. 10, 20, 24; 82, I. In 10, 21, attat etiam hoc ? hoc may be felt in an ob- jective sense. (2) A Verb of motion: 26, 21, Nos iliac una simul ; cf. 35, 21 ; 43, 8 (pergamus). Hac atque iliac, tantum ad secretum locum; 48, 6; 51, 16. For metrical reasons Havet omits venias of the Mss. in 26, 7, te rogo, ut iliac venias mecum una simul, and emends te to tu. Movere omitted : 53, 19, Tu nusquam hodie pedem (Ter. Ad. 227 nusquam pedem) ; 46, 19, ne umquam inde movisses pedem ; see also 55, 8 ; 55, 12, (3) Omission of forms of esse. — Exceedingly common. (a) In the Indicat: 20, 4, Fures mihi ac praedones cui bono? 56,19, Temptandum via (but expressed 56,12). Cf. 50, 1 ; 51, 20; 26, 14 and observe also the omission of the predicate in descriptive clauses forming part of a dia- logue, e.g., 24, 5, Sacellum in parte, argentaria ex diverse ; 24, 19 ; 24, 7 ; 33, 14. Other examples 19, 18 ; 7, 5. In exclan)ations or sententious lemarks : 11, 1, Ecce generalia 1 12, 4; 14, 5 ; 59, 11 ; 27, 18 ; 36, 19. ^ Very frequent in Vitruviu.s ; see Kohler, Acta Erlang. I., p. 449f. ^ See Kilroy, The Participle iu the Vulgate N. T. , and Hartel, Lucifer von Cagliari uni seiu Latein, Wolttlin's Archiv III., p. 37. ^ Syntaxis Prise. Script. Latin,, II., p. 5. * Lateiniscbe Stilistik ftir Deutsche^, §72. (6) In the Infinitive, copulative : 57, 13, Tegnien non vidisti plumbeum ? 19, 8: 50, 19; 51, 22; 56, 9; 43,20. There are seven occurrences of the Fut. Inf. Act., one of these being /ore ; of the six in-rinn only one has esse, and five omit it. This is in harmony with classical usage^. [Esse is omitted three times in the Pei'fect Infinit. : 3, ]3 ; 50, 7 ; 55, 26.) (4) Omission of other verbs. — 57, 17, Unde illi thesaurum homini pauperi ? (sc. esse putas .?) ; 59, 9, Viaticum ego vobis quonam pro merito ? (sc. aspergam.) In dialogue a verb is often omitted, but as a rule is readily supplied from a previous statement or question : 22, 13, Sed quos homines ? (sc, venor.) See further 53, 22,24, 25; 54, 16. In exclamations: 34, 9, Omnes per deos (c/. 55, 16, luro per deos). Also 51, 18 ; 53, 6. (/3) Agreement. § 5. In Number. — (1) Plur. subj. with sing. pred. : 39, 1, Voltus, aetas et color nobilitas gravitas ad scriptulos quaeritur. Cf. also 5, 22 ; 17, 14 ; 52, 13. In all these the subjects precede the predicate ; but in one instance the pre- dicate precedes: 22, 12, Quanto mihi maius est ingenium et lucrum ! Otdy one subject precedes in 59, 16, Quodsi et tumor fuerit et livor. (2) Collective noun with sing., followed by a relat. clause with plural: 21, 19, Ubinam ilia est cohors quae habitant .... ambulant. . § 6. In Gender. — (1) Neuter for masculine : 8, 25, Ego sum Lar Familiaris, fatum quod vos dicitis (destiny, as you say ; the relat. is attracted to the gender of the pre- dicate, as frequently happens). In 18, 20, Suscipe quod exoptas, quod, although referring in a general way to l^saltrias et concubinulas, is to be taken in close connec- tion with the verb, " your prayer." (Of. 53, 3.) (2) Neut. pron. with feminine predicate : 14, 7, non enim hoc parva hereditas. This is the only example, and in ^ See J. P. Postgate, The Fut. Inf. Act. iu Latin, Indogerm. Forech. IV., pp. 252-58. this it must be noted that hoc refers to the general idea of the preceding statement. On the whole our author adheres closely to the classical norm, e.g. : 5, 22, Querolus an Aulularia haec dicatur fabiila, vestrum hinc indicium, vestra erit sententia, and in half-a-dozen other passages. (3) Neut. pron. as modifier of infinitive : 8, 3, Istud cui bono have dicere ? (4) Adjective agreeing with nearest subject : 33, 11, Neque mores, neque facultates vestras didici. (5) A striking instance of agreement is seen in a passage cited above, §5 (2). The relat. pron. c^uae preserves the gender of the antecedent cohors, although the masculine would be more usual. (Havet reads qui). Somewhat similar is 35, 22, Hora est synastria ; istaec mihi placet, inasmuch as the neuter istud would seem more natural. The writer's thought, however, may very well have been " That is the time " (istaec est hora). It should be ob- served, too, that one Ms. (P) reads placent, evidently understanding istaec as neut. pi. (7) Tenses. §7. Naturally there is Ijut little narrative in our play ; where it is found the tense most frequently used is the Historical Present : 4, 20, Postea parasitus revolat et petit . . . .confitetur, . . . .non docet, violator est reus. Perfect and present : 4, 14, sed ubi prinium inspexit, decipitur dolo. Plpf. and pres. : 4, 10. Other examples are 4, 11, 12, 15, 18; 6, 11; 6, 19; 7, 2. Histor. pres. and perfect : 6, 16, Peregre moriens rem in- dicavit, de busto nihil exponit. [In the lines immediately preceding it will be observed that there are six instances of the perfect, and one of the imperfect ; this latter (celabat) is probably conative.] Note. — Our author shows a marked disregard of sequence of tenses. §8. Periphrastic Present. — One example, 49, 5, O sapiens Euclio, nos iactantes non sumus. § 9. Gnomic Pres. : 13, 15, Semper dives diligens, contra pauper neglegens ; 23, 19, Funus ad laetitiam spectat, lacrimae ad risum pertinent. 6 § 10. Thk Imperfect in Narrative. — The force of the Imperf.is well illustrated on p. 23, in the narrating of two or three dreams : 23, 5, Videbam thesaurum quern spera- bamus nobis in manus venisse... Videbam solidos...Erant uneinuli. Videbam ... ferebamus ... deflebamus ... Dicebat nescio quis, etc. §11. The Periphrastic F.uture. — Of this there are several examples : 45, 21, Quonam redituri sumus ? 20,6, Et quem admodum habiturus sum ? and 5, 9. In subord. clauses. — 49, 12, Ilium furem inlaqueari volo, qui, continuo rediturus est. So 37, 18; 25, 16. The Particip. pass, in -ndus for the lut. pass, is found thiee times : 6, 8, pro meritis reddendum bonis non putatis, and 21, 1 ; 40, 22. This usage is, according to Miillenbach, verj^ fi-equent in Ammian., Sulp. Sev, and Salvianus. § 12. Volo with Infinit. instead of a future tense. — One occurrence : 7, 8, Tamen ne frustra memet videritis, ex- ponere quaedam volo (c/. Plaut. Most. 66, ego ire in Piraeum volo, and Hor. Sat. I. 9, 47, haberes magnum adiutorem hunc hominem velles si tradere). This was a charac- teristic of the Sermo Vulgaris ; cf. Serv. Sulpic. Rufus in Cicero Ad. Fam. IV. 5, 4, volo tibi commemorare, and Schmalz^ thereon. For this and other substitutes for the future see Ph. Thielmann^. Note. — iho with the Supine = future : 25, 1, deambu- latum ibo. § 13. Interchange of Tenses. (1) Perf. Infinit. for Pres. with memini : 3, 13, meministine ridere tete solitum? with coepit : 10, 22, Quando lieitum esse coepit ? (In a similar way licitatn est is used for licet: 9, 17, lieitum est nosse ; 30, 1, neque abesse lieitum est nee adire tutum.) Perhaps 45, 3, Plus est hoc quam hominem perdidisse, but here the infinit. looks to the completion of the act. (2) Perf. for Impf. : 10, 16, adulescens quaedam feci laudari quaesolent; cf. Plaut. Bacch. 410, Feci istaec in adulescentia. (3) Fut. Imperat. for Pres. is of very common occur- rence : 12, 19, inter miseros vivito {cf. 16, 25); 25, 22 salvus esto (esto seems equivalent to sit ; cf. 27, 22 ; 42, 8) ; 9, 19, expromito ; 16, 16, facito (cf. 20, 8) ; 13, 1, discito ; 13, 3, ' Blatter, f. d. Gymn., Bd. 35, (1881), p. 116. ' Habere mit d. Infinit. u. d. Entstehung d. roman. Fut , Archiv II., pp. 168, fl'. nectito ; 82, 24, scitote ; 35, 1. promito; 11, 7, saltern hoc dicito. This is used sevei-al times instead of die ; 13, 19 ; 16, 2 ; S3, 9 ; 47, 14 ; 33, 22. Dicito is usually followed by an object, as illud, hoc, ea, — but with an Accusat and Infinit. 47, 14, and without object 15, 11, — whereas die is almost always accompanied by ergo, quaeso or similar words, and a dependent clause. Die raihi introduces a direct question, 15, 1 ; 11, 4. Die is used once with accusat. of a neut. pron., 14, 10, Die ergo aliud. When, however, the plur. is used the tense is the present, dicite ; 56, 16, Vos, quae.so, dicite vicissim. So also 56, 22. A mixture of Fut. Imperat. and Pres. Imperat. occurs 17, 22, In summa pauper esto et reporta aliquid pecuni- arum ; 18, 12, Conscende mai-ia, te undis credito, with which cf. 20, 9 ff. credito. . . .accommoda. . . .excipe, and 18, 5. In 16, 22, vade ad Ligerem vivito, vade is only a particle of exhortation. Age with another imperative is common in Plautus^. See also Moods — Imperative, § 24. (4) Present for Future. — 22, 7, Ego me intus refero, hominem pioferam (At refero the action is perhaps suited to the M'ord) ; 16, 22, habes quod exoptas ; 23, 13, ego te iam nunc explode. Other examples : 10, 18 ; 36, 3 ; 47, 23 ; 15, 15; 42, 22. The change of tense in 23, 2 will be observed: Qnando haec discere potestis ? quando intel- legetis ? docebitis ? This characteristic of the popular speech was quite marked in early Latin-, and indeed it is a quite familiar usage of our own language. (5) Pluperfect for Perfect or Impeifect. — 9, 1, Prae- monuerani de tridente — called forth by the threatening action of the othei-, after the warning ; 28, 5, non consti- tueram (i.e., " before you suggested it ") ; 54, 18, Nescio quid paulo ante hie proferri iusseram (some time has elapsed since then). Other examples are 15, 20 lam superius dixerara ; 26, 6, Ut dixerara (classical — Cicero. Caesar) ; 21, 24 Intei-dictum fuerat; 58, 12, devoveram ; 28, 27 ; 46, 5 audieram (" but I have since come to doubt the correctness of it"). The idea of "intervening cii'curastances " is not so marked in dereliquerat 53, 3, and especially exciderat 1 See Holtze, II., p. 135. 2 See Holtze, II., pp. 67-69 ; Draeger, Hist. Syntax l.^, 286-7. 4 {= excidit) 35, 25. This use of tlie pluperfect occurs fre- quently in Plant, and Terence, and in early Latin (iti the case of some verbs) seems scarcely to differ from the Impf. or Perf. There was a reaction, however, against it in clas- sical Latin. Traces are found in Silver Latin, hut it was in Africa that it first rained a firm foothold in the second half of the second century. Two centuries later it was well established in Gaul and Italy. Gf. Holtze\ Schmalz', and especially Blase'. (6) Fut. Perf. for Fut. — One occurrence, 42, 19, Tara- quam pro memet fecero. (But see § 22, d. end.) — Holtze* notices this usage as belonging especially to Comedy. Cf. Ter. Phor. 882, Quia ergo rape me. Fecero. See also, Thomas^. (Classical Latin made, little use of it {cf. how- ever, the very close use of the tense in Caesar B. G. IV. 25. Ego certe meum officium praestitero), but it doubtless was at home in the Folk-speech, and in late Latin it is very frequent in Fronto*. (On the Fut. Perf. see Fr. Cramer, in Archiv, IV. 594-8.) §14. CoMPOUiND Tenses. — Such passive forms as ausus fui are not numerous, nor do they seem to differ in ineaningi from the more usual forms : 6. 1, cui fuero adscriptus ; 59, 13, In convivio si fuerit discissus accipiat (this passage belongs to the decreturti parasiticum) ; 54, 19, Partes in quibus titulus inscriptus fuit. Cf. 54, 22 ; 42, 2 ; 21, 24. §15. It may be remarked that our author is fairly con- sistent in his use of fut. pf. . . .fut. pf. and fut. pf . . . .fut. e.g., in 40, 8, Tantum servis de vita abstuleris, quantum de nocte abscideris. Observe the mixture of tenses in 25, 13, Ubi te aspexerit, primum te revocat nomine, dein familiam exponet. Revocat might have been future, or exponet pre- sent, but the future marks a stage subsequent (dein) to that of revocat. 1 Holtze, II., 80 ff. - Schinalz, Latein. Syntax p. 404 (MuUer's Hdbch, d. Klass. Alter- thumswissenschaft, Bd. II.). * H. Blase, Gesch. d. Plusquam perfekts in Latein, Giessen, 1894. Some of Blase's statements as regards the use in Afric. writers of the Impf. and Plpf. Subj. are denied for TertuUian by H. Hoppe De Sermone Tertull. quaestiones Select. 1897, p. 52 ff. * 1. 1. II.,S6-88. * Syntax du futur pass^ de Ter., p. 19 ff. « A. Ebert, De Corn. Frontonis Syntaxi, Erlangae, 1880, p. 31 f. (S) Moods. 1, Indicative. §1(1. The Indicative for the Subjunctive in unreal con- ditions. — 50, 6, Non credideram, nisi quod in.spexi locum; 57, 20 (si sapiebat) illi crediderat loco ? (See § 118, (1), (d).) § 17. Predicate expres"r')), deesse, obesse, supeiesse, prodesse, contingere (9, 16, nemini con- tioit ; 14, 2 ; 14, 52 ; this verb is used with the accusative O 7 '7 ' 7 also, which see), obstare, incumbere, denegare, occurrere, imprecari (with male), ostendere, convenire. (b) With verbs whose simple form is transitive. — accom- modare : 10, 8, meritis meis sensum accommodare ; (46, 21, fidem accommodare,) deferre, obligare, adsignare, subicere, sufficere, impendere, edere, obsequi, admiscere, auferie, praestare,satisfacere, inicere, committere,pracdicare, inferre, congerere, imponere, devovere, aspeigere. § 63. Dative of the Person TNTERESTED(commodi et in- commodi). — Instances are numerous and of the usual ordei-; naturally pronouns are most frequent. A few exam]iles are : 9, 22, iniu.stis bene est, iustis male ; cf. 50, 24 ; 53, 4; 40, 6, Vae illis ! 40, 8, tantum servis abstuleris, cf 6, 22 ; 21. 12 ; 52, 8, ne furtum tibimet tieret ; 48, 7, ne nobis nas- catur malum ; 46, 18, utinam tibi crura enervasset ; 53, 10, mihi fidem servasti ; 26, 9, si vacuum esset mihi (with vac. esset cf. non vacat, 8, 10) ; 48, 22, restat mihi ; 23, 6, nobis venisse in manus. A striking instance is 20, 14, Fures milii ac praedones cui bono ? in which "inihi is clearly dependent upon cui bono, which is the so-called final Dative, " of what benefit is it to me ? " It is evident, therefore, that our author treats cwi as a modifier of bono, and not as dependent upon it, thereby showing that he did not understand the old jurist's question. The same ex- planation is to be given of the use of cui bono, 8, 3 : Istud cui bono tot hominibus hac atque iliac haue dicere ; but in this passage hominibus should be taken with dicere. 21 Klinkhamer (p. 23 of his edition) has the following note on this passage : " Quaerit ciii bono, i.e., cuinam usui, sibi sit haec saUitatio." §64. Final Dative.— 3, 16, nos fabeUis atque niensis hune libeUum scripsimus ; 8, 3 and 20, 14 cui bono ? See § 63. § Go. Dative of Possession is Comparatively Infre- quent ; 14, 24, vicinus mihi est ; 40, 13, nobis nuptiae ; 30, 7, quibus cygnea sunt capita, cf. 31, 4; 34, 18, servus est tibi, 21, 24, spes mihi nulla est. ^66. Ethical Dative.— One instance: 48, 3, Ecce tibi thesaurum, Querole ! Ecce tibi was rare in the dramatic poets but common in all subsequent literature i. (For the accusative cf. Plaut. Stich. Atque eccum tibi lupum in sermone ! ) § 67. Dative of Relation. — Is closely connected with . Ethical Dative ; one occurrence : 34, 23, Porticus est tibi in dextra. §68. Dative WITH Adjectives. — (ct) Notus (cognitus)', ignotus, molestus, similis [9, 5, vero simile (est, Havet) ; cf. verisimile, § 53]; familiaris ; 36, 5, bonum, faustum, felix sit huic domui ; alienus, 57, 15, noii sum alienus vobis, and 51, 6 {cf. Fronto, p. 23, 17 F, poeta mihi non alienus.) This construction would seem not to have been used by the early writers. Cicero and Sallust l)oth have the genitive, but the former the dative also. (b) Adjectives with Dative and Intinit. — 6, 21, facile nobis ostendere, and 19, 27, difficile nobis facere ; 28, 15, mihi dicere est utile ; 44, 6, vobis naturale odis.se. The Dative with opus esse. — 40, 11, numquidnam tibi opus est ut, etc. §69. Dative indicating connection with or rela- tionship. — 4, 4, parasitum tilio coheredem instituit ; in this the dative depends upon con, or cum in composition ; cf. Hor. Sat. II. 5, 54, Solus, multisne coheres. §70. Final Locative. — Instances are not numerous : 32, 15, mensis advolant ; 50, 23, tibi bene venerunt omnia, perhaps with some slight force of advantage ; so also 41, 20, mihi ipsi hoc praeter spem venit {cf. Ter. Audr. 436, 1 Kohler, A., Die Partikel ecce, Archiv V., p. 26. 22 evenit). Similar are 50, 16, renitenti ventura mihi omnia bona; 22, 16, odorem mihi ventus detulit, dortii = in domuni : 51, 6, raorfcimm esse coniectum domi, 6. Ablative. §71. Ablative of Cause.— Infrequent and meriting no remark : 12, 1, vitio tuo ; 33, 29, igni, ferro, flumine ; 32, 14, cur vis timendos unguibus. The preventing cause with prae: 43, 1, prae gaudio. § 72. Ablative of Manner. — An attributive vs^ord seems to be rarely omitted: {a) With Attribute: 14, 18, uno genere puniuntur'; 21, 6, iure optimo ; 28, 23, manifesta fide; 24, 13, alia via ; 25, 18, ratione qualibet ; 31, 10, multisono latratu ; 47, 5 and 13, mirificis inodis {cf. 57, 26); 28, 1, (and 50, 24) tuo (suo) merito ; 12, 11, brevibus (sc. verbis) dari ; 18, 19, tota mente rogas {cf. Verg. Aen. IV., 100). (h) Without Attribute : 39, 7, casu, (consulto) ; 28, 23, nuineris rotant ; 18, 24, nemo gratis bellus est (a proverbial saying) ; 22, 10, vestigiis insequuntur {cf. Tacit. Agric. 26, vestigiis insecutu.s). Preposition with Ablat. : 34, 9, de clepsydra respondi.sse ; ex transverso (20, 2 = praeter spem); ex consilio. (c) Accompanying Circumstances : (a) with c^/.77l : 5, 24, cum clodo pede ; 30, 16, diris cum clangoribus, both having attributive word also ; 33, 12, cum tormentis exigunt. (/3) Without c?tm, but with an attributive word: 30,14, magnis gutturibus capita attollunt; 80, 15, linguam tri- sulco vibrant sibilo (line 16 with cwm); 82, 25, fato nasci bono. § 73. Ablative of Respect. — 9, 8, toto corpore splendet ; ll"]5, cum staret verbis, non staret fide; 14, 12, Panto- malus et mente et nomine; 19, 10, corpore bene valere ; 19, 11, aegrotat animo. §74. Ablative of Phice^. — One instance: 31, 14, (Istis litandum) si parvo nequeas (at quanti queas) ; pro with the ablative is used in a similar way : 58, 24, talem quae- rere homines pro magno .solent. 1 On the Ablative of Price and Genitive of Value, see Wulflflin, Archiv IX., 1894, DerGenetiv d. Werthes u. d. Ablativ d. Preises. rt 23 §75. Ablative of Comparison. — 15, 25, deterior inferi- oribus, and 36, 9 ; 89, 5, opus plus iusto imperat ; 41, 19 and 57, 11, nihil gravius fortuna mala. 36, 9 ; 41, 19 ; 57, 11, have negative 7iihil ; the others are positive. § 76. Ablative of Measure, Degree of Difference — Only tanto, quanta, viulto in combination with the com- parative : 11,6, quanto amplius ? 22,12, quanto mains; 13,3, tanto levius; 17, 3, niulto maiora ; 31, 12, multo phis. With malle : 11, 17, quanto mallem. §77. Ablative of Quality. — Is used even more rarely than the Genitive of Quality : 24, 8, domus excelsa : iligineis fori bus ; 57, 6, bono animo esto (= predicate). bono animo is Plautine ; in Cic. and later writers rtrjimo gives place largely to anhni, and where the Ablat is retained, it is with a change of meaning^ Wolfflin remarks that in Plautus the Ablat. of Quality prevailed, but that the writers of the Silver period (beginning with Livy, Velleius and Valerius Maximus) greatly extended the use of the Genitive. He seeks to show that the funda- mental difference cannot be, as is generally accepted, that the Ablative expresses accidental, the Genitive permanent qualities. § 78. Ablative of Means or Instrument. — Of this com- paratively little use has been made, and the examples are of the usual order, (a) 4, 14, decipitur dolo, cf. 5, 12; 5, 11, fato suo; 6, 22, aut respon'^o aut somnio ; 55, 22, anribus lupum teneo (a proverbial saying: cf. Ter. Phor. 506, id quod aiunt, auribus teneo lupum, and Sueton. Tib. 25) ; 42, 1, multis iugis ; 46,' 8, diris flagrat odoribus. (6) Agency with a or ah is infrequent. — 51, 5 ab hoc ereptum, ab ipso coniectum ; 56, 5, a nobis recognosci ; 41, 16, introlata est a me ; 57, 16, impositum ab illo. Secondary Agent — per with the Accusat. — occurs with about equal frequency : 35, 7, per extraneos celebranda est ; 52, 9, furtum fieri vel per servum vel per extraneum ; 54, 17, compaginari per me. (c) Instrument Ablat. with uti, opus est. — Uti occurs four times, always with the Ablat.: 13, 6, societate utuntur ; 1 WoMin, Von dein sogen. Genetivu-s u. Ablativus Qualitatis, Archiv XL, p. 199. 6 24 17, 5, robore uti ; 18, 28, toto foro uti ; 4<1, 11, utatur tubulis. Opus est. — isto nobi« opus est ; 52, 5, Quid multis {i>c. verbis) opus est? With perf. part. — 38, 13, facto opus est, and 43, 3. (d) Instrumental Ablat. witii Verbs of Plenty and Want, — One example: 38, 12, lagoena suco completur novo. § 79. Ablative Denoting Timk When.— The substantive usually has a modifier, and a preposition is rarely ex- pressed. Some words containinj^ in themselves the notion of time have neither an attributive word nor a pre|)osition : 25, 15, tota aestate, but 17, 12, hieme, aestate ; 37, 17, aliud alio tempore ; 49, 3, uno atque eodem tempore ; 57, 9, istoc tempore; 31, 23, tertio anno ; 42, 6, triduo istoc; line 8, univeiso triduo hoc ; 39, 20, nocte ; 42, 8, and 24, 9, nocte ac die; 23, 4, nocte hac, so lines 5 and 23 ; line 13 nocte ista. 'J'he plural is employed 39, 16, vigilamus noctibus. Somewhat similar is 39, 17, diurnis horis (= die, diu). Although we always find nocte, noctibus — never 7iox nor noctit, it may be remarked — yet with die a preposition is sometimes found : 21, \9 de die sub teri-a habitant, nocte ambulant ; 39, 15, somnieulamur de die. But in the first probably we should omit de with RB ; in any case the sense may be " from the break of day." With the preposition in : 18, 5, in iuventa, in senecta. The preposition in with words — some of which have an attribute — which do not denote time: 41, 11, in aestu ; 36, 19, in itinere, and 37, 2; but it ma}" be local Ablat.- of Place; 23, 14, in somnis ; 9, 12, in malis tuis iocaris (i.e., " despite your hard lot"). §80. Ablative of Place Where. — Classical usage is the rule ; in a few instances a preposition would be expected, in a few others, it may be, its use seems not to be required. (a) Preposit. omitted, attribute used. — -32, 3, levibus paginis. (b) Preposit. and attribute alike wanting. — 24, 18, tenetis animo ; 22. 10 bestias cubilibus deprehendunt. (c) Preposit. used, attribute wanting. — Most of the examples belong to this class : 5, 17, in ludis atque in dictis ; 12, 1, in omnibus (sc. rebus) ; so 12, 10 ; 21, 3 ; 19, 15, alius in corde, alius in vultu ; 21, 19, in tectis ; 39, 1, in auro, in homine; 39, 18, in humanis rebus; 56, 26, in causa; 58, 9, in bonis ; 46, 5, in faucilms ; 38, 17 quantula est cliscretio in argento ! These are only a few of those that might be cited. The use of the yjreposition is to be noticed in the phrases in terra, in muri, 29, 19. (d) Preposit. and attribute both occur. — 28, 21, omnibus in fanis ac sacellis. In addition there are numerous adverbial expressions and phrases, e.g., hac, iliac, in hac parte, in parte, ex parte, ex diverso (24, 5 ; 34, 23), in dextra, in tuto. §81. Ablative of Separation. — There is no occurrence of this construction with names of cities or countries. With common nouns the preposition is rarely omitted : 6, 2, aedes e quibus egressus .sum ; 9, 11, de pistrinis venis ; 41, 12, depone ab humeris ; 42, 9 and 50, 18, de domo ; 42, 14, ex ipsa (sc. domo) excluseris ; 27, 19, a publico sevocemus, A preposition with *the ablative is used with these verbs: 10, 17, de.sistere de ; 12, 25, di.ssentire ab (26, 1, secretum a ; but secretwni is a noun in value) ; 28, 2, noscere ex; 40, 8, auferre de vita, quantum de nocte abscideris. Without a preposition: 11, 18, verbis absolvi ; 38, 12, lagoena vetere .suco castrata. The Ablative of Source or Origin is rare. — (a) W^ith a preposition : 29, 9, triticuni ex vino fieri videas, vinum ex tritico ; seges hordei effieitur ex quovis titulo et nomine. Probably 28, 16, sperate ab inferioinbus, and 8, 1, sperandum est de tridente, the Ablat. in each instance indicating the source of hope. (b) Without a preposition : 33, 14, humili loco natus, and line 25 nobili et claro natus es loco. §82. Abalative Absolute. — We should not expect a large use of participial constructions, and the Ablati^^e Abso- lute is correspondingl}^ rare : 4, 1, odoribus infusis, tituloque addito ; 4, 17, qua explosa et comminuta, and line 20, re comperta ; 17, 16, aestura vestitis genibus, brumam nudis cruribus age (Ablative of Circumstance*) ; 39, 6, inverso ^ Gildersleeve, Latin Grammar', §409, note. 26 niodio ; 42, 13, exacto triduo ; 44, 21, me duce ; 58, 20, con- sulibus Torquato et Taurea. §83. Other Ablativk Constructions. With digaus : 3, 3, honore dignuin (sc. ine) putas. Ablative with a preposition = Partitive Genitive : 21, 22, unum ex ipsis ; 9, 6, hunc nescio quern de aliquibus geniis ; 10, 5, probo de illis tete esse (= predicate) ; 23, 26, ex istis opibus hoc tantumniodo. Cdusa — with the Genitive; see Genitive, § 54. 7. Locative. § 84. The instances of the Locative are few and confined to domi, peregre, inane, vespere and tempore. Donii: 6, 14, Peregre vadens ornara domi sepeliit ; 19, 16, quid si maeret domi ? With titae^ : 20, 15, si domi tuae lateret. Other occurrences are : 26, 14 ; 36, 11 ; 42, 8 ; 42, 13; 43, 12; 50, 13. Domi = in domum : 51, 6, mortitum esse coniectum domi. Feregre occurs several times : 4, 3, peregre moriens ; so 6, 17 ; 52, 10, peregre inihi cognitum ; 52, 17, patris amicus peregre fuisti ? With a verb of motion : 6, 13, peregre vadens ; so Plaut. Most. 957, hinc peregre eius pater Abiit ; Hor. Sat. I. 6, 103, peregre ex ire. Mane, vespere : 40, 10, mane ut domini fierent, servi ut vespere (RB read vesper i, the form which was always used by the early writers"). Tempore: 39, IS, famulus omni (?) vigilat tempore, (f) Participles, Gerund, Gerundive, Supine. 1. Participles. § 85. Participles form in no respect a feature of the syntax of our author ; indeed, their frequent use is pre- cluded by the character of the work. ^ Domi with 77ieae is frequent in early Latin ; also with suae, nostrae. See Bell, De Locativi in Prise. Latin. Vi et Usu, p. 22. '^ Lindsay, Lat. Lang., p. .396. Bell, 1. 1., p. 21 [Vesperi semper apud priscos scriptores, vespere primum apud Ciceronem invenitur). 27 Present Participle. (1) As an Aorist. — i, 16, ornam in donium obiepens propulit. With this may be compared G, 18, sive oblitus sive supervacuum putans, nihil exponit, and 4,9, lupit fidem, magum sese hngens. But in both of these the pres. part, may be said to mark the same time as that of the principal verb, and in the last it is rather rupit which ought to be the participle, rupit Jidem being explained by magum fitigens. (2) As a Future (?). — The Present Part, seems to be almost future in 4, 2, Navem ascendens ornam defodit — intending, or about, to sail ; cf. also 6, 12, peregre vadens domi sepeliit. Two occurrences — practically one only — of moriens: 4, 3, Hie peregre moriens coheredem instituit tacita scripturae tide; 6, 16, peregre moriens uni rem indi- cavit. In these the participle reveals the circumstances and occasion of the main verb, while it also contains the declaration " he died abroad." We may compare Cic. Cato Maior 22, 79, moriens Cyrus maior haec dicit (and also 23, 82). (3) Pres. Part, with quasi. — 6, 12, sic quasi os.sa paterna venerans aurum celabat. Quasi is so used by Cicero, Sal- lu.st and Tacitus but not by Caesar or Livy. In addition to quasi Cicero employs in this way only ut, stativi ; Caesar only ut, sicuti, etsi ; Sallu.st is more free, and Livy shows very great freedom in this respect. (4) Pres. Part, with Copula. — 49, 5, iactantes sumus. On sufficiens fuit see § 3. (5) Pres. Part, modifying a substantive as a Relat. clause. — 12, 23, res nimium singularis est homo ferre non patiens parem ; 37, 1, mulio nee se regens ( = nee sui potens ?). Note. — It will be observed that these participles are almost all contained in the narrative part of the comedy, the argument. 2. Gerund. §86. Accusative of Geruind with nx — Final. — .5, 24, Prodire in agendum. The Genitive depending upon a noun. — 60, 24, habebit fugiendi potestatem. 28 3. Gerundive. §87. Gerundive as an Attributive Word.— 3, 1, Rutili venerande ; 7, 5, homo ridendus; 32, 14, digitos exacaunt tiinendos unguibus. § 88. Gkrundive with Copula omitted. — G, 8, pro nieritis reddendum non putatis; 56, 18, temptandum via (Havet inserts alia est); cf. 56, 12, and 24, 13, alia temp- tandum est via, Ter. Andria, 670, hac non snccessit, alia adgrediemur via, and Verg. Geor., III. 8, temptanda viast. 4. Supine. §89. Supine in -um — Final.— 25, 1, in hac parte deam- bu latum ibo. deambulatum ibo is clearly a periphrastic form for the future Indicat. deambulabo. This use of the Supine in -um with ire is found in Plautus, and con- tinued in the language up to a comparatively late period^. See Indicative, Future, § 12. Supine in -it. — 28, 10, genera cultu facilia ; 28, 24, nee visa faciles, nee dictu affabiles (from Verg. Mn., III. 621). 2. Interrogative Sentences. 8iin2^le Questions. § 90. The interrogative particle is very often omitted in direct questions, especially (a) in- questions expressing indignation or surprise. In many instances such particles as etlani, eho, ergo, are enij^loyed. Etiam. — 51, 9, Etiam salutas, furcifer, quasi hodie me non videris ; 10, 4, etiam quaeritas ? Kirk (Amer. Jour. PhiloL, xviii., p. 39), describes this use of etiam as additory or intensive, the question implying that there is an " adding of insult to injury "-. 10, 20, Attat, etiam hoc ? 57, 12, Etiam quaeritas unde pondus ? 15, 18, Hoc etiam imputas ? Eho. — 52, 21, Eho tu mihi the.saurum dedisti ? and see {b). Ergo. — 50, 9, ergo istaec ille fecit? 43, 12, ergo queri- tur ? 10, 11, ergo omnia exeiderunt ? Also 53, 18; 53, 2. \ Ph. Thielmann, 1. 1. Archiv II., p. 169. * Etiam in Plautus and Terence, A. J. P., xviii., pp. 26-42; see also Archiv XI., Heft 2, pp. 213-220, Ueber Etiam und Etiam Nunc. 20 (b) In questions of an emphatic character not only is the particle often omitted, but pronouns are expressed ; (see Subject, § 1) : 8, 24, Tu fatum es meum ? 52, 22, Tu negas ? and 55, 4. Compare further 52, 16 ; 34, 6. ; (c) Vis without a particle. 34, 15, Vis audire ? Cf. IG, 13 ; 34, 17, Vis nomina elo- quar ? 12, IG, Vis te non decipi ? Visne is more frequently used than vis, but vin does not occur. (d) Potes is used occasionally without particle. — 16, 9, potes bellum gerere ? etc. ; 19, 9, divitem potes nosse ? {e) Several succes.sive interrogative sentences without a particle, but preceded by a number of questions with par- ticles, are found 57, 20. (/) Negativ^es as non, mmiquaini, nihil, nuUus, often dispense with the particle. — 10, 27, Nihil est amplius ? 11, 12, numquam fidem rupisti ? and 18, 23; 10, 28, nuUi igitur mortem optasti ? 57, 11, nescis nihil esse gravius fortunamala? 57, 15, nondum intellegis ? 8, 22, non tu accusabas ? 51, 17 non debebatur et mihi ? and 56, 3. 5:^91. The use of Nonne and -ne. — jyonve occurs in five passages : 14, 3, nonne hoc iustum fuit ? 15, 13 (Quer. laute nos accipis). Lav. Nonne ? (as a rejoinder) ; 21, 15, nonne iudex iure optimo pessum dabit ? 37, 16 nonne qnaeritat ? 89, 22, nonne haec est vita libera ? -ne is used for nomine in a few instances. — 8, 16, Dixin hoc fore ? (Ter. Ad. 83, Dixin hoc fore ?) ; 53, 7, Dixin facere hoc non potuisse extraneum ? Plant, and Terence made such frequent use of -ne with the force of nonrie that the latter particle has been denied for either authoil The incorrectness of this contention, however, is shown by Schrader in his dissertation-, who gives sev- eral occurrences for both Plautus and Terence. Ne = nonne is found in one passage: 46, 20, ne defunctus 'desines. Peiper regards ne as equivalent to ne. . . .quidem, and Havet reads nee. For ne = nonne in late Latin, see Archiv III., p. 26 ; Schmalz, p. 455. 1 A. Spengel, Die Partikel nonne in Altlatein; Sigismund, Comm. Jen. HI., 231. , • De Particularum -ne, aime, nonne apud Plautum Prosodia. 80 § 92. NuMQUiD. — Instead of num we tind numqald and numquidnam,, forms which had become common in iaie Latin. So far as I know they occur in di'amatic writers only as follows : Nuviqiud. — Ter. Audi-., 943, numquid meministi ? and Eun., 1043, numquid dubitas ? Pall. inc. inc. 97^ (Ribbeck, p. 128)^ numquid filius amat ? {Cf. Horace Sat. I., 4, 52.) Numquidnam. — Caecilius Statins^, 20, numquidnam fores fecere soniti ? L. Pomponius Bonon.^, 67, numquid- nam abscond id isti ?' In our author there are half-a-dozen occurrences of each of these interrogatives. Nwnquid, — 14, 17, numquid commune hoc fuit ? 43, 16, caelum numquid aequaliter administratur ? 19, 29; 20, 1, 2, 3; 38, 11. Numquid- nain. — 44, 5, numquidnam nos gravas ? 15, 9; 33, 18; 40, 11, numquidnam tibi opus est? So P. Thomas* and Orelli. Havet retains the Mss. reading Tiu^vig^^ttm ; Klink- hamer suggests namque. 15, 3, numquidnam dubitari potest ? Havet reads (wuth one Ms., R) numqwid (so, too, Daniel and Klinkh.), but almost all the M.ss.give numquam. 22, 3, "tiiun qaodnam meritum meum, etc. ? is accepted by Peiper, Havet and Klinkh., but I see no cogent reason for rejecting nuraquidnara of R Pp B. § 93. Our author displays a fondness for the interrogative quisnam of which these forms are found. — quisnam, quaenam, quodnam, quidnam, cuinam, quemnam, quonam, quosnam. The adverb quonam occurs, and ubinam is frequent. These are always used in direct questions, and are found beside the simple forms. Instances are: 29, 19; 45, 19,^ 21 ; 42, 21 ; 35, 8 ; 32, 22 ; 21, 17 ff ; 44, 10, 15 ; 46, 4, 10 ; 51,19; 56,14, 19, and elsewhere. This pronoun occurs frequently in Plaut. and Terence, and in the fragments of the Scenic poets. § 94. Cur, quare, quid, etc., in questions. Cur is used only in direct questions ; quare is rarer, and is found only in questions properly indirect (see Indirect 1 Holtze, Syntax. Frag. Scaenic. Poet. Roman, post Terent. p. 37. ^ Comicorum Romanorum Fragmenta. " Holtze, 1. 1. says alibi non legitur, ignoring the passage in Caecilius. * Revue de 1' Instruction Publ. en Belgique XVIII. (N. 5), 1875, p. 290. 31 Questions, §119. 1. (a)) : 15, 23, Quare alii melius? 9, 21, unum solum est unde responderi mihi volo : quare iniustis bene est et iustis male ? See also 37, 6. Quid. — 47, 19, quid, rogo, nomen tu vocitas meum ? Cf., 13, 5, quid quod plures societate utuntur ? Quidni. — 15, 10, quidni timeam ? Quid si occurs several times : 14, 29, quid si vineimus ? and 19, 14 fF. quid si alius in corde, alius in vultu ? quid si publice. . . .domi ? Qualiter.—S times: 46, 16, qualiter te admonuit ? 48, 11, qualiter exhorrescit ? 33, 1, fatum qualiter eoli potest ? This adverb belongs to the post-classical period {e.g., Columella), and is frequent in late Latin\ (Macrobius uses it often-Sat. III. 4, 1 ; V. 1, 18 ; I. 24, 5 ; Vl. 8, 1.) Quanti, quanta = qaot are used as interrogatives : 10, 9, quanta putas fecisse te capitalia ? 40, 9, quanti ingenui ? (quantum, 3, 15, and quantula, 38, 17, both interrogative, are used with their common classical meaning). Quanti = quot first appears in Propertius (I., 5, 10, curarum quanta milia' ?), and is common in biblical Latin, as is shown by Ronsch^, Hartel*, and other scholars. Disjunctive Questions. § 95. Direct Disjunctive Questions are rare. As a rule the only particle employed is an, which is used in this way regularly by Juvenal, and often by Plautus: 8, 8, debitum^reposcis an furem tenes ? Inter bonos an malos tete numeras ? 53, 15, Fatigas nos an vere loqueris ? -ne ... an occur in two passages. — 9, 24, Cuinam tu verba promis ? tibine an populo ? 49, 22, Quid primum stupeam et gaudeam ? coiisiliumne senis nostri an divinitatis ? (Peiper's emendation Quid primum ? stupeam an gaudeam ? does not improve the sense.) * KrebsAllgayer Antibarbarus ^ , revised by Schmalz ; Bonnet, Le Latin de Gregoire de Tours, p. 677. » See Schmalz, Stilistik§ 2S. (Miiller's Handbuch II.) » Ronsch, Itala und Vulgata. * Hartel, Lucifer von Cagliari und sein Latein, Archiv III., p. 30 (cf, Wolfflin, Rh. Mus., 1882, p. 122). 32 B. The Subordinate Sentence. 1. Subordination without Relative Pronoun or Particle. (a) Paratactic Constructions. § 96. Paratactic constructions are a characteristic of colloquial speech, and accordingly are to be looked for in our play. The small compass of the work makes an inves- tio-ation of this feature less satisfactory than similar investigations for Plautus and Terence. The works Mdiich I have found most serviceable are : Weissenhorn, Parataxis Plautina; Weninger, De Parataxis in Terenti Fabulis Ves- tigiis ; Lindskog, Quaestiones De Parataxi et Hypotaxi apud Priscos Latinos. I have also used Draeger, Kllhner, Holtze, Becker\ 1. Parataxis with Certain Verbs, Oratio Recta with inquam, inquit. — 21, 11, perde, inquit, si quid est domi ; so line 13 ; both repeat instruc- tions which have been given, [Cf. Juv. III., 153, " Exeat," inquit, "si pudor est" ("is the' word " )]. 45, 26, quaeso, inquam, sodes funus egomet quodlibet contingere nequeo : a protesting against or shrinking from a disagreeable task. Other examples are found in 53, 21 ; 54, 1. Paratactic use of verba Sentiendi et Declarandi. Fateor occurs only parenthetically. This use of such verbs is excluded by Kiihner and Weissenhorn but in- cluded by Draeger, Weninger, Lindskog— rightly, as I think. A few instances : 54, 9, reddidi, fateor, omnesque per deos, etc.; 11, 15, iuravi, fateor, quod non staret ; 10, 16 ; 41, 14, and elsewhere. Non nego = fateor ; it follows the principal statement : 44, 8, quod verum est, non nego (cf. Ter. Ad. 798, factumst, non nego). Verum est = fateor : 44, 8, male imprecamur multis, verum est, etc. Hoc scio, following : 26, 28, quantum comperi, Mandro- gerus vocatur, hoc scio. Cf Ter. Phor. 73, Mihi usus venit, hoc scio. The use of the demonstrative hoc makes the connection closer", Terence seems to have used such demonstrative words more frequently than Plautus. 1 Becker, De Syntax! Interrogat. Obliquarum, etc. (Stuclemund Studien, I.) - Lindskog, p. 42. Dico.—2Q, 8, dixi libenter irem si vacuum esset nunc mihi, Respondeo. — 19, 19, respondeo : sunt aliqui iusti. (7rec?o.— Preceding, 4, 18, credo, religionis causa est cautio, and 47, 12; parenthetical, 40, 17, mens, credo, clamabit, and 50, 26; 7, 15. Plant, seems to use only the form credo paratactically, but Terence has several occurrences of crede with mihi, and with Jioc. Not unlike this is our author's use of credis, 43, 1, credis, Mandrogerus, in=;picere non ausus fui. § 97. Pahatactic use of Verbs of Entreating. We ma}' notice here the hortatory use of age followed by another Imperative, e.g., Age, die quid vis ; 27, 5, age, da operam. It is found also with the Indicative, 44, 9, age iam, credo; 55, 14, age ("very well"), reliquiae recondentur : quid tiet ? Cf. also the use of vade, 20, 7 ; 21, 18. (See also Imperative, § 25.) Quaeso is very frequent ; it may hold any position, preceding, following or parenthetical. In Plant, it less frequently follows, but occupies each of the other positions an equal number of times^ (44). Terence prefers the paren- thetical position. (a) With the Imperative : 12, 25, Die, quaeso, quid placeat; 14, 21, Da, quaeso, veniam, and line 28 ; 35, 10 ; 45, 25 ; 58, 3, 8. (b) WiththeJu.ssive Subjunctive : 26, 21, Quaeso, amice, abeat ; and 25, 18. (c) With the Indicative : 26, 16, Quaeso, amice, consulere vobiscum volo ; 82, 7, Arpyias, quaeso, praeteristi ; 45, 26 ; 55, 5 ; 58, 12 ; and, in questions, 8, 7 ; 28, 23. Quaeso with an object: 26, 26, sed quaeso vestram fidem, quisnam hie homo est ? In Terence quaeso has as object only deos-, Andria 487, Ad. 275, 298, and has an itt clause depending upon it. Cicero never employs quaeso with a dependent Accusativ^e^ (see Accusative, § 43). ' Lindskog, p. 13. » Weniuger, 1. 1., p. 32. From Plautus Lindskog, 1. 1., p. 13, cites te quaeso, Capt. 432 (possil)ly Capt. 340 also). * Heerdegen, Latein. Semasiologie, Heft III., p. 215. [Quaeso is used with tlie conjunction ut also. The form is almost always quaesumus (quaeso, oo, 10), and presents a real request or entreaty. See ut Clauses, § 118, 2. (g). Obsecro with Imperative, emphasizing a (juestioni: 23, 5, Die, obsecro, si quid est boni ? §98. VOLO, NOLO, lUBEO, NKCESSE EST. Vis occurs with the Indicative: 15, 6, vis facimus ut scias? This may seem sufficient to justify the inference that in two other instances the fut Indicat. is used : 34, 17, vis nomina etiam nunc eloquar ? and 58, 18, Visne capita iam nunc eloquar ? It'is safer, perhaps, on the whole, to regard them as Subjunctive. Volo occurs twice with ut and the Subjunctive, 56, 1 ; 19, 24. (See ut Clauses, § 118, 2. (g).) The negative nolo takes the indejiendent Subjunctive ; one instance, 18, 9, Istis nolo invideas {inviclevis is accepted by Havet without sufficient reason). In Terence volo, nolo, vialo, are used only with the inde- pendent Subjunctive, or Accusative and Infinitive, never with ut and the Subjunctive^. Necesse est and iwheo are used only with the Infinitive or ut and the Subjunctive. 2. Parataxis in Sentences^. Of all the points of difference between the language of every-day life, the Sermo Cotidianus, and that of a serious, dignified literary production, none, perhaps, is more con- spicuous than the manner of connecting sentences. Para- taxis is a feature of the former style, and frequently sen- tences which have, to some extent at least, a final, causal, consecutive, concessive or conditional value are combined paratactically with the principal statement. ^ Lindskog, 1. 1., p. 10. ' Weninger, 1. 1., p. 55. ' The Paratactic Subjunctive in Plautus has been well treated by E. P. Morris in Amer. Jour. Philol. XVIII. (1897). For the Ciceronian correspondence see G. D. Kellogg, Complementaiy and Supplementary Defining Parataxis, Proceedings Amer. Phil. Assoc, 1898. Substantivische Parataxen, Landgraf, Archiv V., pp. 161-191. 35 §99. FiNAi, Parataxis. — Tlie Imperative forms of ire. On the omission of tlie conjunction between two impera- tives, see Imperative, § 25. In our play ite and >ihi occur, both with a particle : 8, 19, Ite et conserite amicitias ; 51, 1, Abi intus et fragmenta hue exhibe. This use is found in both Plant, and Ter. Vade. — Without particle: 21, 13, vnde, inquit, fures require, praedones recipe in domum (c/. Ter. Phor. 309, abi, eum require atque hue adduce). Some idea of motion is, perhaps, to be allowed vade. So, too, 1(3, 22, vade ad Licrerem vivito. With particle : 20, 7, vade iam nunc et facito, and a similar instance, 35, 19. We may also notice io, 23, accede, aulani visita, in which both are of equal value, and 53, 12, Exprome thesaurum, divisio celebretur. In the last instance we again see two distinct statements, and yet a more ceremonious kind of speech would probably make divisio celebretur final. Ibo. — 25, 1, Egfo istuc deambulatum ibo ; illinc ob.ser- vabo. The connection is made closer by means of the demon- strative adverb, but clearl}' the second statement expresses the jmrpose of the first ; of. Ter. Phor. 891, Sed bine con- cedam in angiportum hoc. Inde hisee ostendam me. §100. CoNSECUTivK Parata.\is. — This is so clo.sely associ- ated with Causal Parataxis that few instances can be cited with any degi-ee of confidence. Some passages, however, show a much clearer causal force than do others, e.g. (a) 21, 24, Spes iiiihi nulla est : excidi mandato, and (b) 48, 13, Omnes intus gaudent : vidlu spes mihi est. In (a) the second statement is supplementary and explanatory of the first ; in (6) the second member sets forth the state of mind which is a consequence of the fact noted in the first. Similar to (6) are : 40, 21, Domini sunt, dicant quod volunt ; 23, 19, Funus ad laetitiam .spectat, lacrimae ad risum pertinent, manifestum est gaudium. Compare 36, 20 rt'., primum vino, dein somno indulgemus : hinc primum est iurgium (and the following lines). Hinc shows that the second proceeds from the first, but also co oi'dinates the statements. {Cf. fnither 30, 23, O genus honiinuin multi- forme et multiplex ! his fui.sse arbitror matrem Circen, Proteum patreni.) 36 Ita and sic in paratactic clauses sometimes indicate a consecutive relation, and sometimes a causal. The particle may be in either sentence : 29, 25, Absentes hydris congre- gant, ])raesentes virgis submovent : ita neque abesse licitum est nee adire tutum. There is, perhaps, in ita. . . .tittwin rather a re- stating of the facts than an expi-ession of result — recapitulatory ^ 31, 8, quibus capita sunt canina, alvi obesi (^), pandae manus : . . . . Sic a pectore biformes, infra homines, sursum feras ; 6, 26, ornam cum reppererit, bustum putabit : sic prospexit senex. Sic .... senex almost equals an adverbial clause of manner, but is added merely as an afterthought; hastum putabit would be the consecutive clause. Not unlike this is 28, 11, Duo sunt genera potestatum : unum est quod iubet, aliud quod obse- cundat, sic reguntur omnia. The demonstrative sic refers to potestates and their dissimilar functions, and is again lecapitulatory. 43, 16, sic res habet : caelum numquid aequaliter administratur ? The interrog- ative form of the result (?j clause is rather interesting, and shows how far from the writei-'s mind was anj^ thought of cause and result. We might compare Cic. Tus. Disp. V. 63, Sic se res habet : te tua, me delectant mea. But although this is very frequently the construction following sic, . . . habet, yet the fact that the result idea lies very near is shown by numerous examples that might be cited. One or two must suffice: Cic. De Deor. Nat. III., 89, Sic enim res se habet ut qualis sis nihil intersit : Cic Tim. 44, Sic se res habebat ut praestantius genus esset ; De Fin. II., 105 ; De Div. I., 23, and many others, ^ We ma}' also notice 8, 10, although it can scarcely be said to belong here ; L. — Mane paulisper. Q. — Non vacat, L. — Sic necesse est, mane. Sic refers to mane paulisper, and mane is an afterthought. In effect, however, sic .... mane = " it is necessary that you do so, and therefore stay." §101. Causal Parataxis. — E.xamples are numerous. Cause expressed by the second sentence : 8, 5, Mi- santhropus hei'cle hie verus est : unum conspicit, turbas putat ; 7, 13, Iste ad me venit ; patrem mortuura audivit ; 55, 22, Auribus teneo lupum : neque uti fallam neque uti ^ Niigelsbach, Stilistik, § 197. 87 contitear scio : cf. Ter. Phor. 50G, auribus teneo liipuui [nam neqne. . . .seio],' 45, 6 ; o, 21 ; 21, 24 ; 8, 20 ; 14, 11, and, elsewhere. Cause expressed by the first sentence: 56, 12, Hac n^n processit : alia teini)tanduin est via. {Cf. Ter. Andr. 670, Hac non successit : alia adgrediamur via, in which the causal force of the first sentence is more clear) ; 35, 15, Bene dlcitis, anibo estis boni ; cf. Ter. Eun. 186, Merito te amo, bene facis, the order of which is reversed by our author ; 32, 22 ; 26, 20. Ita and sic in causal sentences : 53, 21, Munerare hercle possini hominem : ita ridicule sceleratus fuit. Ita adds a new detail which explains the first statement. Cf. Ter. Andr. 172 ff", Non dabiumst quin uxorem nolit filius ; Ita Davora modo timere sensi ubi, etc., on which Spengel remarks, " haiifig gleich einer Kausalpartikel im Sprachge- brauch tier Komiker." See also Langen, Beitrage\ and compare Caesar's use of demonstrative words, e.g., eo cum pervenisset; his Caesar ita respondit-. This usage is due, as Weninger observes, to a desire for more forcible state- ment. The same w^riter refers it to the rhetorical figure Epiphonema ^^ (See also under Consecutive Parataxis.) Sic — 17, 1, Si dives fueris, patus appellaberis : sic nos- tra loquitur Graecia ; 6, 7, etiam locupletissimus erit : .sic meritum est ipsius. 56, 10, although not paratactic, deserves notice : (Ergo adquiescis ut bustum illic f uerit ? ) Adquiesco, quando- quidem ita, sic se res habet. Havet would omit quando- qiddem ; but this should be retained. Klinkhamer omits sic and i-eads quod; Ms. B omits sic, and Thomas regards it as only a gloss. But- why should ita be glossed by sic ? ita . . . .habet is as classical and probably as frequent as sic ....habet. The solution is doubtle.-,s to be found in a change of order, thus : Adquiesco ita, quandoquidem sic . . . .habet. Ita then refers tout. . . .fuerit, and renders the repetition of the clause unnecessary. Sic, it may be said, has the same reference, but ita is construed with adquiesco (it may precede the verb). Sic . . . .habet would seem more 1 Langen, Beitrage Zur Kritik und Erklarung des Plautus, p. 232 f. = Nagelsbach, 1. 1. § 189. » 1. 1., p. 81. 88 often to refer to something to be mentioned, but it also had a backward look. Cf., e.g., Cic. De Leg. I., 36, Recte dicis, et res se sic habet. §102. Conditional Parataxis. — Satisfactory examples are wanting. The best is a series of imperatives — 17, 11-22, surae .... sume . . . sume .... age ; patere .... Vende vocem, vende linguam, iras loca : In summa pauper esto et leporta {reportato, Havet) pecuniarum aliquid. Peihaps 1-i, 56, viciimm malum pateris iinum tantum : quid faciunt illi qui plures habent ? The sense of the whole seems to be, " If you find on^ so hard to endure, what, etc. ? " (See also the numerous questions, with their answers, 12, 10-20.) §103. Concessive Parataxis is comparatively frequent. Tamen is found occasionally, e.g., 17, 3, Multo maiora sunt, tanien hoc sufficit ; 16, 20, nescio quemadmodum praestari possit tibi. Tamen inveni, — added after some tliought, and really corrective. The speaker had no thought of giving the statement a concessive or adversa- tive coloring. Cf. 14, 24 ; 33, 18. 25, 9, Ego magos novi, talem nescio, is clearly adversa- tive. Similarly 45, 17, numquam ego flevi meum, nunc plango alienum.and frequently. Additional examples are : 27, 11 ; 40, 3; 45, 12; 15, 13."^ § 104. Temporal Parataxis. — Perhaps 7, 7, may be cited : Fatum iam nuncet hominem audietis : vos indicium sumite ; 4, 22, primum furti, i)OSt sepulchri violator est reus; 27, 1, primum praeterita edicit, si omnia cognoscis, turn de futuris disserit ; 43, 4, Primum ut inveniretur : istud iam sequitur. (b) Infinitive and Accusat with Infinit § 105. Objective Infinitive with Causative and Auxiliary verbs. Posse, frequent ; used also with neuter accusat., 10, 12, possunt omnia, and the peculiar periphrasis for deus, 49, 8, totuni ille qui potest (see Accusative), valere, quire, nequire, velle (volo exponere = exponam, see Tenses), malle, solere, cessare (= cease and hesitate), convinci (restat ut utrumque fecisse convincar nefas), coepisse, 39 iricipere, audere, couei-e, cupere, debere, desinere, temptare (first in classical period, in which it occurs only twice. In our author, who does not use conari, it is found twice : 42, 4, 7, redire temptabit. For Prudentius and Juvencus see Lease ^). §106. INFINITIVK WITH ADJECTIVES. 54, 28, contentus eruisse bustum. In 7, 1 Peiper has conjectured partem i^^Ure contentus fuit, but parte has j^ood Ms. authority, and the Paris and Brussels Mss. read non fuit. tj 107. Simple Infinitive as Subject occurs as follows: licitum est nosse, 9, 17, (30, 1) ; mentiri non licet, 83, 19 (29, 8 ; 39, 24) ; ut liceat spolidve, 16, 17 ; necesse est remeare, S7 , 13; sutHcit nos puvguve, 56,17; erat facile ostendere, 6, 21 (29, 21) ; difficile est facere, 9, 27 ; efferre istos melius est, 18, 1 ; inhumanum est delegare, 35, 14 ; nee adire tutum (sc. est); neque dicere utile est; abire impossibile, 29, 21 ; volupe est disserere (according to vSmith'-, Terence uses volup only in the phrase volup est, but in Plant, it occurs 3 times with other words, and 12 times with est. In Ter. the Simple Infinit. does not occur, the Accusat. and Infinit. but once (Phor. 010). So far as I can di.scover Plant, u.ses the Ace. and Infinit., quia, quom find si, but not the Simple Infinitive) ; vobis e.st naturale odisse dominos, 44, 6 ; datum est tibi nihil habere, 34, 2 {cf. the use of active dare bibere, and the poetic forma- tions dare habere, dare feri-e, etc. See also Lease for Prudentius, Sedulius and others 3. The Passive also is found in the ])rose of Silver Latin, e.g., Vitruvius, and in the ecclesiastical writers St. Jerome, St. August., Lac- tantius and others), nee conce.ssum esse aurum invenire 23, 24 ; tantum est tacere verum quantum est falsum dicere, 11, 19 ; mortales animas addere nullus labor 29, 12. §108. The Accusativk with Infinitive occurs as fol- low.s : dicere, ai.sse, adseverare, negare (15, 9, esse omitted, as frequently), videre, .scire, nosse, agno.scere, ignorare, ne.scire, intellegere (49, 7, snbj. of inf. omitted), com- 1 E. B. Lease, a Syntactic, Stylistic and Metrical Study of Prudentius {Baltimore, 1895), p. 36. See also Schmalz, 1. 1., p. 480. * K. W. Smith, Archaisms of Terence raeutioned in the Commentary of Donatus (Baltimore, 1890), p. 24. s 1. 1., p. 36. 8 40 perire, audire, pntare, censere, credere, nieminisse (with ])f. inf. ; not ante-classical), sperare (23, G, with perf. inf.), gaudete (Ace. w. Inf. only, never quod, U employed by Panegyrici Veter. Gallicani'), docere, exponeie, probare, con- vincere, fingere (4, 9, subj. of inf. omitted), fateri, confiteri, iubere (see p 47, (g), (1)), postulare, iurare, sinere, velle, adi- cere (Draeg. cites only from Veil, and Silver Latin), as.serere ( =vb. of saying only in late Latins With Ace. and Inf. in Seneca, Mart. Cap., and generally in later Latin*. It is frequent in Greg, of Tour.s., but more fre- quent with double Accusat. without Inf.*; also in Panegyr. Vet. Gall.^), experiri (rare, once in Plaut. ; Sail., Sen., Quint , Draeger IL', p. 382), dubitari [15. 4, numquid dubitari potest feliciorem eum esse ? In early Lat. only baud dubium est occurs, and only in Ter. Hec. 326. Vallquist® remarks on this passage that this usage was probably already received into the speech of the masses if not of the learned. Among late writers ii has been found in Fronto', Sulpic. Sever.^ and the Panegyrici Vet. Gallic.^ (in the case of the last, in positive statements also) ; Greg, of Tours uses quod. Bonnet, p. 663. See also .Draeger IV, 389], metuere (52, 8, furtum fieri metuere, not earlier than Plin. Mai., Draeo;. II.2, 395. Pavere, of which no occurrence is given by Schmalzor Draeger is similarly used in Panegyi'ici Vet. Gall., Chruz., p. 103), adstruere (51, 6, adstruamus mor- tuum esse coniectum domi. Harpers' Lex. says that this meaning, i.e., of affirinare is not found in any Lat. anth.; but see Schmalz (Antibarbarus) and Nettleship. Ace. with Inf. is used by Mart. Cap., Oros., Lucifer Cal. and others), permittere (Ace. w. Inf. is uncommon, but occurs in Tacit., and is reported for Sueton.,G. 14, Panegyrici and Sulp. Sev. M. 12, 5, by Bagge'", Chruzander (p. 104) and Lonnergren (p. 66)), eompellere. 1 C. G. Chruzander, De Elocut. Panegyr. Vet. Gallicanorvm Quaes- tiones, (Upsaliae, 1897), p. 100. ^ Schmalz in the Antibarbarus I. ^ ^ Nettleship, Contributions to Lat. Lex. * Max Bonnet, Le Latin de Gregoire de Tours, p. 295. * Chruzander, I. I., p. 11. « C. Vallquist, De Infinit. Usu ap. Terent. (Nycopiae, 1897), p. 15. ^ Ebert, 1. 1., p. 34. 8 Aug. Lonnergren, De Syntaxi Sulpic. Sev. (Upsal. 1882), p. 65. » Chruzander, 1. 1., p. 99. i» Pet. Bagge, De Elocut. C. Sueton. Tranquilli (Upsal. 1875), p. 102. 41 § 109. Accusative with Infinitivk as Subject. (a) With impei-sonal verbs. — Constat, apparet, placet, oportet, intellegi (50, 8, intellegitiir fureni tibi profuisse. This construction with the passive, instead of the nomina- tive with Intinit. is not noticed by Draeger. Two occur- rences are reported by Chruzander from Panegyrici, p. 101). (h) With neuter words. — Novum est, 29, 6, manifestum est, verisimile est, fas erat (Chruzander, p. 100 cites from the Panegyrici one instance of fas esse with ut and the Subjunct.. the only one reported for all periods). §110. The following uses of the Infinitive may be noticed here : — (a) Accusal, with Infinit. in apposition with word or clause (epexegetical). — 8, 14, propter importunos invcntum esse (sc. tridentem) hoc reor. 50, 16, hoc est illud quod praedixit, ventura raihi omnia bona. For its frequent occurrence in Terence see Vallquist, p. 29. (b) Accusat. with Infinit. in exclamations. — 35,16 Mene nunc solum fore ! Vallquist, p. 27, cites a large number of occurrences for Terence. (c) Pres. Infinit. used of a future contingency. — 52, S, quia furtum fieri metuerem. It may perhaps be said that furtum Jieri^furtwni ; or that fieri isimperf. representing the imperf. Subjunctive. Of. 4*9, 20, Quid ego dico nunc fieri ? fieri seems to represent an original fit, e.g., quid fit ? which we may compare with the common quid ago ? quid facio ? of colloquial speech. {d) Perf. Infinit. for Pres. — 53, 7, Dixin facere hoc non potuisse extraneum ? a characteristic of the later writers. 2. Subordination by Means of Relative Pronouns and Conjunctions. § 111. Indefinite and Generic Relatives are Infre- quent. (a) qiiidguid. — 9, 15, quidquid quereris, totum expro- mito ; 44, 3,pellibus vestris eveniat, quicquid optasti mihi ! 43, 6, quicquid erat calamitatis inclusimus ; see farther 4, 9; 36, 18 ; 20, 22. (/)) Qui, quod implying condition. — 6, 23, nemini auferri posse quod deus dederit ; 37, 19, dominus. .quern Kalendis velit adesse, redire iubet pridie ; also 20, 20 ; 32, 15 ; 60, 19. 42 §112. hJPEKEGETICAL QUOD CLAUSES — 9, 15, veni ut ratio I'edderetur ; quod nemini antehac contigit ; 44, 9, imprecaraui" multis, sed maliloquis, (juod nosti bene. Others aie 36, 5 and 58, 7. §113, Relative Clauses Expressing Causk are fairly NUMEROUS. — (a) With the Indicative: 15, 10, Quidni timeam, qui tecum vivo? 25, 19, O me stultum qui non consului ! and 22, 9 ; 43, 22; 46, 21 ; 58, 14. (b) With the Subjunctive. — 50,4, Quid de memet censes qui tarde agnovetim ; 50, 11, O sceleratum hominem, maguni qui se diceiet I In the use of the Indicative I think we may discover an emphasizing of the fact, but in the Subjunctive rather a characterizing of the subject. §114. Relative Clauses of Characteristic Result. — 11, 15, luravi quod non staret fide. But even in the simple sentence the Subjunct. would occur. 13, 9, Est aliquid quod accusem. C'f. further 14, 23 ; 10, 29 ; 28, 22 ; 17, 10; 19,20; 18, 26; 33,20; 46, 1.— 39, 23, iuminis illud ....quod sufficiat ; 53, 10, pauca de quibus intellegatis cetera (c/. 9, 20); 17, 13 ff., sume coturnos quos pluvia solvat. . . .compleat. . . .glutinet, calceos quos terra revocet, fraudet limus. §115. Relative Clauses of Design. — 9, 20, percurre pauca de quibus exponantur omnia ; 52, 20, da quod possit dividi. § 116. Relative Clauses of Concession. — 39, 10, qua- liscumque est, tamen avarusnon est ; 34, 5, tamen perscrip- tionem transeo qua uti possum ; 56, 23, qui furtura non potui, neque volui, convincar. Other instances: 14, 9; 50, 5; 51, 13; 57, 19. §117. Accusative Conjunctions. 1. Quod. (,«) Quod clauses explicative of a demonstrative, — 9, 12, istud. . . .quod iocaris; 13, 11, illud. . . .quod nemo tenu- itati ignoscit; 41, 20, hoc. . . .quod laudaris. See also 37, 21 ; 40, 2. Of a less usual type are three passages with solum hoc est, solvm illiul est, tdnturn est. 39, 11, solum illud est quod nimium ciebro vei-berat ; the meaning clearly is : "the only fault I have to find is that he flogs too often," 32, 20, 43 [haec prodigia sunt ignava et vilia] solum hoc est quod observant unice Panein deuni, — " they do nothing hut pay assiduous court to their god Bread " " Nothing but " can- not, however, be accepted for 39, 11, as is shown b}' ni- mium crebro. A similar but more difficult passage is 30, 9, tantum est quod vota hominum iuterpretantur. Tantiivi seems to correspond to hoc, illud, in the two pass- ages just noticed, rather than to sdum, although it may have a little of the value of this word also. This makes it positive rather than negative, and concedes that they perform some service — " there is this (so much) to be said as regards their duties, that they. . . .but," etc. It will be observed that is in harmony with the antithesis sed numquam responsa eliciunt congrua, and explains falla- cissimi. It is possible, however, that tantum = so much, and so much only, which would invite a comparison with the use of tantum est = hoc et nihil amplius in Plaut. and Ter. : Plaut. Merc. 279, Numquid amj^lius ? : : Tan- tumst; Ter. Eun. 995, Num quid aliud mali relicuom ? : : Tanturast; Hec. 813, Tantumne e.st ? : : Tantum. (b) Quod clause with verbum sentiendi, etc. Only one instance : 28, 27, audieram quod ipse omnia gubernaret. For this use, so frequent in African and ecclesiastical Latin, see Schmalz, Syntax, p. 499 ; Ronsch, p. 402, and Bonnet, p. 402. (c) Quod causal is rare. — 6, 8, quod non putatis, fallitis ; 41, 13, satisfactum estreligioni quod portasti foras. (d) Nisi quod. — 8, 14, nescio edepol ; nisi quod.,., hoc reor; 18, 1, Plura adicerem, nisi quod melius est (" tvere it not that it is better ") ; and 50, 6 ; 56, 20. Nescio. . . ,nisi quod reor (8, 14) suggests the elliptico- adversative use of nisi in Plautus, Terence, Cicero and others, which occurs especially with nescio ; cf. Cic. Pro. Rose. Amer. 99, Nescio, nisi hoc video, etc. (and Landgraf 's note); Ter. Phor. 474, Nescio nisi cessavit; Plaut. Mil. Gl, 24, 378 ; Trin. 233. Nisi quod = sed in Tac, Apul. and the later writers. (e) Quod in restrictive phrases, with Sub) unci — 10, 10, nullum (sc. feci) quod sciam, — the only phrase so used in early Latin. Quantum with Indicat. in similar phrases occurs several times : 20, 29, quantum intellego; 26, 28 ; 7, 9. 44 2. Quia. Quia causal is not frequent. — (a) With the Indicative: 41, 3, quia post indulgentiam sordidior est abiectio ; 19, 2, quia sapiens nemo est impndens. See also 19, 27; 4, 21; 53,20. (6) With the Subjunctive : 52, 8, quia fui turn fieri metu- erem, direxi. The Subjunctive is probably due to confusion with the Subjunctive of the third person in virtually indirect narration. 3. Quam. — (a) Quam as a correlative of tmn occurs three times. Tamquam with the Subjunct. : 47, 14, com- minare tamquam -in aedes inruas. Tamquam with verb omitted : 42, 1, amicos tamquam profanos respue ; 24, 15, ego tamquam cynicus magister. . . .trado ; and also 36, 11 ; 42, 19; 21, 16."^ (6) Postquam. — With perfect Indicat., one occurrence : 31, (5, postquam vere facta est. . . .edidit. (c) Priusqaam. — Once : 20, 5, prius alteri ostendendus esset quam tibi. (cZ) Mafo with quam. — 32, 17, Istaec alere quam nosse malo; other instances, 52, 3; 57, 9. (e) Quamu^ with Subjunct. — 32, 24, scitote .... nihil esse melius quam ut fato nascatur bono. (/) Quam, with verb omitted, occurs half-a-dozen times with comparative adjectives and adverbs, e.g., plus, magis, facilius. It is expressed in an equal number of cases. (g^ Quamdiu. — Twice: 19, 5 (with Subjunct. ^ rfinn) ; 40, 21. (h) Quamvis. — With Subjunct: 39, 20, quam vis sol- licitet. With participle. — 60, 17, quamvis tractatus incommode. (i) Quamquam with Subjunctive. — Common in post- Aug. Latin: 19, 23, quamquam felicem esse te constiterit. 4. Qitando. (a) Temporal relative. — 37, 2, qnando alius facit iter, and line 10. (b) Causal. — 19, 22, meam sortem concede, quando nihil meliu.s repperi; also 11, 2, (See Ronsch, p. 405; KofFmanne, Gesch. d. Kirchenlat. II., page 132 V,). Quandoqv idem is used with causal force live times. — 58, 13, tibi servire cupio, quandoquidem sic misertus es 45 mei. See also 58, 9 ; 56, 11 ; 55, 5, 21. This particle has only a temporal force in Gregory of Tours (Bonnet p. 328). 5. Dam. (a) Dum " while," with pres. Indicat. — 24, 17, dum per- curro cuhilia; 56, 13, sacrilegium confiteris dum furtum negas, — with adversative force. Dum is inserted by Peiper, 3, 3, before putas without any Ms. authority, and seems scarcely correct. (6) Dum conditional, with Snbjunct. — 42, 15, dum tan- t'ummodo inter me ac fortunam paries intersit. Of. Cic. In Catil. I. 5, Dummodo inter me atque te murus intersit. Tantummodo is very common in the sense of " only," but the conditional use is found Cic. Ad. Att. IX. 10, 4. 6. Cum^. (a) Cum with the Indicative of the pres., perf. and fut. perf. tenses in the statement of a fact. — 51, 23, pater, cum est profectus, me reliquit solum ; 38, 12, cum lagoena com- pletur ; 6, 25, ornam cum reppererit. (6) Cum with the Subjunctive. — Present: Causal, 9, 25, cum tu ipse sis reus, and 50, 9, — Concessive, 10, 4, quae- ritas, cum de scelestis conquerar ? Imperf. and pluperf. : 4, 19, thesaurum, cum lateret. . . . cum reperisset. . . .reddidit ; 11, 15, cum verbis staret, non staret lide, — adversative. 7. Quoniam is used much more frequently than any other causal conjunction, occurring 19 times. It is never temporal, nor used with the Subjunctive mood, Quoniam with verbum sentiendi : 59, 6, scimus quoni- am tris edaces domus una non capit. §118 Locative Conjunctions. 1. Uhi. (a) Temporal, — with pres., perf., fut. perf. Indicative. — 54, 6, haec superflua ubi res nusquara apparet (causal ?) ; 4, 13, sed ubi inspexit. . . .decipitur, and 50, 8; 25, 13, ubi te aspexerit, te revocat. In an iterative and general sense with perf. Subjunct. — 30, 16, ubi sonuerit unus, cuncti alas quatiunt ; 31, 19, ubi precator templa petieiit, fremunt. Cf. Cic. Pro Rabir. Post. 13, 30, ubi semel qitis peieraverit ei credi postea non opor- ^ Lindsay, Lat. Lang., p. 610. 46 tet. On the nearness of quis to the Ideal Second Person^ see Gildersleeve, Lat. Gram., p. 364. (6) Local. — 29, 2, ubi penuria, illic congregant ; 29, 18, ubi libef, hac atqae iliac ; 39, 2, ubi aurum est, totuni est ; also 31, 21; 48, 18. (c) Ubicumque (local) occurs once, with fut. periV Indicat. — 35, 18, ubicumque reppereris, ad nos pertrahe. 2. Ut. (a) Ut relative. — 27, 17, Ita ut volui, contigit; 29, 7, licet species, ut libuerit, vertere. Ut is used thus very frequently in parenthesis : 36, 14, ut festinatio nostra solet ; 38, 14, ut est nequitia; and 7, 14 ; 9, 23, 11, 10 ; 25, 6 ; 25, 20 ; 50, 22. Sicut — parenthetical. — 13, 10, sicut tu nosti. (6) Ut causal, parenthetic. — 50, 19, credis, meos ut nosti, mores munificos, munerare hominem possim. (c) Ut temporal. — 4, 16, ut introlata est a me, quam levis fuit ! (d) Ut modal. — 53, 23 neque uti fallam scio. (e) Ut consecutive. — (1) 40, 10, transfigurare se.se hoe modo mane ut domini fierent, servi ut vespere ; 54, 16 ; 41, 25 ; 45, 11. Ita. . . .ut restrictive 60, 1. . . .ita ut dodi-antem solid! . . . .gratia excedat ; and 60, 14. (2) Ut in exclamatory questions, with the Subjunctive and with -ne. — This use seems most nearly related to the consecutive: 50, 13, egone praesidium paternum ut eft'er- rem de domo, eg(< memet domine ? conderem ? Ego ut ob- viarem the.sauro ? (3) Ut consecutive = cur. — 53, 26, quid causae fuit ut redderes ? (4) Ut with facer e and Jieri. — 7, 18, faciam ut queratur iustius, and 16, 16 ; 50, 17, factum est ut cupiditas fal- leretur. Facere without ut\ — 15, 27, facies posthac nullum j)er- mittat queri. (So the M.ss. ; at inserted by Klinkh. and Peiper.) » SeeDraeger, II.^ p. 283.. 47 ;^ote. — The negative ne occurs twice where result would seem to be intended: 51, 12, faciam ne iterum facias ; 46, 18, utinam crura enervasset, ne movisses pedein. But the writer probably had the object rather than the result of the action in mind. See Draeg., II.^ p. 291, on ne with verbs of causing and effecting. (/) Ut final. Idcirco . . . . ut : 8, 15 and 9, 14. Ut with comparative : 33, 6, ut facilius sequamur omnia. 34, 23, Porticus tibi est in dextra ut ingrediaris ; but this scarcely seems to be final. Perhaps the Subjunct. is due to the Ideal Second Person. I think it is equivalent in force to ingredienti. (g) Ut with Sultjunctive, introducing Substantival Glauses. (1) With verb.s. — inhere, 58, 22, ut ediscam iubes ? Cf. Bell. Hispan, 27, 4; Macrob. Sat. I. 12, 28, iussit ne mul- ierem interesse permitterent ; see Archiv. VI. 434 ; quaeso, 28, 7, 9 ; 55, 10 ; 59, 7 ; rogare, 26, 7 ; optare 41, 5 (quid optem nisi ut faeiat ?) ; adquiescere 50, 10 (adquiescis ut bustum illic fuerit ? I have not been able to find this construction elsewhere) ; placere, 27, 13 ; 59, 19 ; 60, 5, 6 ; velle, 19, 24; oCy, 1; 60, 15; malle, 11, 17; sperare, 5,7 (sperat ut gratiam referat. Draeger, 11.^ p. 257, says the earliest appearance of this usage is Livy 34, 27, 8, but Schmalz, Lat. Syn., p. 519, makes it date from Plant. See Seyffert Miiller on Cic. Laelius 19, 68, spes ut) ; superesse, 15, 16 ; opus esse, 40, 12 (in early Latin and then post- ela.ssical). (2) With esse and a neuter adjective. (a) With positive, — iustum est ut operam impendas {cf. 14, 3, iustum fuit). iustum esse is not mentioned by Draeger; iniustum est is cited from St. August. De Civ. Dei, 19, 21. (Cf. Ter. Hec. 243, Scio raeum ius esse ut te rogem.) (/3) With comparative — with quam ut.—S2, 24, scitote nihil melius esse quam ut aliqui fato nascatur bono. Only in Plant, and late writers, Draeg., II.", p. 276. Similar to this is 20, 27, prius est ut hae (fenestrae) pateant quam ut excludas. Miillenbach reports its occurrence in Salviaiu and Tertull. 48 (7) With a superlative. — 43, 4,primuin fuit ut invenire- tur ; (istnd iam sequitui). Prinium perhaps only in Martial, VIL, 43, 1, prinium est ut j>i'aestes, si quid te rogabo ; (Illud deinde sequens ut neges). (3) Ut clauses following a demonstrative or relative pro- noun. — 34,4, illud quaesumus ; 83, 22, hoc exoro; 33,18, hoc precatus suirt ; 21, 2, id expectabam ; 56, 23, illud restabat (48, 21, hoc) ; 41, 1, quod dudum peto ; 47, 2 (quid facimus ?) quid nisi quod dudum diximus ut. Cf. also 40, 18, fas erat me facere quod praecepit, id est ut, etc. Note. — Ut clause explaining a noun. — 21, 9, oraculum tale umquam datum est ut sibi mala quaereiet ? After numerals. — 11, 21, nihil actum est nisi sequantur haec duo : primum . . .ut comprobem, secundo . .intellegas. (4) Ne substantival clauses. — 21, 25, interdictum ne obviarem furibus, verum ne excludeiem, hoc est stultum ; 26, 10, quaeso ne ; 42, 7, Periculum est ne ; 12, 17, in potestate est ne, etc. 3. Si. (1) In conditions. — (a) The Indicative in both members. In the present tense we shall notice only the occuirence (four times) of nisi fallov for which Ovid and others write ni falloi-. The pres. . . .'perf. in two passages add to their vividness : 35, 23, nisi iam nunc gerituv, friistra venhnus; 48, Q,perdidi mysterium nisi verba audio. (a) Pres. (in piotasis). . . .fut. — The fut. or fut. pf. might have been used in the protasis (fut. . . .fut. is Ciceronian ; pres. . . .fut. is ante- and post classical): 10, 5, si probo. . . . loquere ? So also 5, 17 ; 10, 2 ; 52, 12, 15. Note. — Pres. . . .fut. pf. : 29, i, .si censes . . . .dixeris. (/3) Fut. ])f . . . .pres. — 10, 7, si conviceris. . . .necesse est ut [cf. (a), 10, 5]. Others 28, 20 ; 36, 11 ; 54, 15. (7) Fut. pf . . . .futpf. — 32, 6, si dederis. . . .ceperis ; rare, but employed by Plaut. and Cic. Note. — The sequence fut. pf. . . .fut. occurs about a dozen times. (5) Plpf. (in apodosis). . . .msi quod with perf. — 50,6, non credideram nisi quod inspexi (" and did not believe "). (6) The Subjunctive in protasis only, (a) Pres. Subj. . . . .pres. Ind. — 36, 13, sedile mensam si aliquis in ignem iniciat. . . .quaeritur. So line 15, and 51, 21. {Cf.perf.ll, 22, nihil est actum nisi sequantur). 49 Note 1. — We should probably read, 36, 12, si . . . .aliquid videat, with most Mss. ; vi'lerit (RB) would be ])erfectly acceptable. [Peipei-'s reading dest tui, certainly seems inijirobable ; the sense would seem to require el, the conjec- ture of W. W(aoner)^ Daniel's correction clestrui is perhaps the most satisfactory.] Kote 2. — The apodosis is wanting 23, 3; 31, 4 ; 53, 19. In the last, tu nusquam pedem, nisi restitiias quod abstulisse te fateris, Peipei- and Ha vet have preferred restituas of V to restitues of R L P, but the less vivid form is entiiely out of harinony with the context. (/8) Impf. Sub) . . . .impf. Indie. — 13, 2, hoc si agnosceres, felix eras; agnosces eris, Flor. Berol. ; esses B (eras in margin in same hand). (c) The Subjunctive in the apodosis only. — 20, 11, si aliquis aedibus meis facem subiciet, iuberesne oleum infundere ? The reading of P (2d hand} iuhesne is adopted by Havet, and is probably the correct one. Some support for inheres may be derived from the fact that B has suhiceret. The sequence fut. ind . . . .pres. ind. is one that was rare in all periods ; found in Varro, Sail., and in many late writers ^ Note. — Pres. Subj. (potential) in apodosis with fut. pf. Indie, in protasis. — 32, 5, quas corymbos videas, si nummos asperseris ; and 27, 16. {(l) The Subjunctive in both members. The form si sit . . . .sit does not occur^. (a) Si with impf pres. — 50, 20, munerare "possim, si nanciscerer. Blase* cites from Plant, three instances of this use of possiin. (Of. Pseud. 290 Egon patri surrupere possim quiequam tam cauto seni ?) (/9) Unreal conditions. — The impf. in both members occurs half-a-dozen times, onee (20, 5) with the periphr. pass, in the apodosis. Of the plpf. there are two occur- rences, 46, 13 and 15. ^ Literar. Centralblatt, 5th June, 1875. 2 Schmalzl. 1., p. 522. * See H. Blase, Der Koujunktiv d. Praes. im Bedingungssatze, Archiv IX., 17-45. "... .die Form si sit. . . .sit allmahlich verschwundea ist," etc., p. 45. * Blase, De Modor. Temporumque iu Enuntiat. Condic. Lat. Permuta- tione Quaest. Select., p. 43. 50 A striking variety of moods, tenses and pronouns is shown in one passage, 57, 18-22, si k) toti = omiies' : 30, 18, rationes totas perscribit. The singular is similarly used : 49, 8, totum qui potest; 16, 26, ibi totuTu licet ; cf. 28, 23 ; 34, 15 ; 39, 2. (c) Alius = alter: 28, 12, unura iubet, aliud obsecundat, and 57, 1. In Gregory of Tours, alius for alter is frequent, as also alter foralius^ {Cf. 15, 4: qui alteram queri com- pellit.) 4. Adverbs. v} 141. Abistinc = istinc : 9, 1 (not in Harpers'; see § 155, s. V.) ; U7ide = de quo : 9, 21 ; valde : 12, 11, valde cupio* ; (iupfrius = supra: 15, 20, superius dixeram ; this is the constant usage in Peregrinatio ad Loca Sancta* ; cf. the use of interius, 24, 12, ulterius, 33, 21 ; qualibet used of motion: 42, 24, recedamus qualibet; ubicuviqiie, "some- where or other," 42, 24 ; quocmnqiie " to some place or other," 43, 11. 5. Particles. § 142. autem = enim : 16, 3, sortem autem quam volueris dabo ; cetemni = sed occurs once ; ei'go is excess- ively frequent,although itaque and igitiir alsoare employed, the latter sometimes as the first word ; fortassis : 37, 9, si foitassis advertit (found ten times in Lucifer\ who does not use fortasse, and used occasionally by Clregory of Tours®) ; iie = nonne : 46, 20, ne defunctus desines ? The Mss. have ne ; Havet adopts 7iec, the correction of Berengo, a reading which can be defended (see nee = ne. . . .qaidem). But the change is nut necessary, as this use of ne is attested by Ronsch for the Vulgate^ (cf. -ne 8, 16 ; 10, 24) ; nee = ne . . . . quidem : 47, 23, fortunam non recipio — nee bonam ; 8, 17 ; 37, 1 ; 56, 24. This is a late Latin usage, 1 See \Aolfflin, Archiv III., p. 470 ; Ronsch, 1. 1., p. 338 ; Bonnet, 1. 1., p. 276. ^ See Bonnet, 1. 1., p. 278. * See Bonnet, 1. 1., p. 308: " L'adverbe d' intensite par excellence." See also Archiv I., p. 94. * Wolfflin Archiv IV., p. 262. 6 Hartel, Archiv III., p. 21. « Bonnet, 1. 1., p. .306. M. 1., p. 409. See also Hartel Archiv III. 26, Lucifer von Caliari. 59 frequent in Tertullian^ and Cyprian, and in Gregory of Tours 2; -qiie = quoque : 59, *3, nosque praesto sumus (nos quoqiie P'). 6. Prepositions. 8 143. Ad almost = in : ambo conlocantur in sua, 5. 1 : apud : of. similar use of apud and cum 48, 24, utinam ille esset apud nos tarn patiens quam tu cimn tuis. This seeming local force is perhaps to be seen also in nieeum : 13, ll,hocmecum tolerabile est (c/. Bonnet p. 604, iustitiam tecum invenire non possum, and Arch. II. 26 f.). de is sometimes used with the force of a or ex : 42, 9, nihil de domo dederis ; 8, 1, sperandum de tridente ; 9, 12, Lstud de meo quod, etc. (c/. 49, 17, quod fecit nostrum est) ; cf. the phrases de proprio, de alieno, 34, 2 ; de with ulcisci : 47, 3, nos de tilio ulciscamur, and cf. Frontinus, Strat. III. 16, 4 : Hannibal se a transfugis ultus est; de is used with the Ablat. of Instrument : 16, 25, Sententiae de robore proferuntur. ex is used in many adverbial phrases, ex i-ntegro, e contrario, ex consilio. Noteworthy is ex trans- verso (= inopinato), found also in Petron. 55. 7. Verbs. §144. Frequentatives. — Verbs of this class were avoided by Terence, Cicero, Cfesar and writers of the Augustan period. The number found in our author is small and contains only those commonly used : ausculto, cogito, dictito, excogito, insector, mussito, noscito, pulso, quaerito, tracto, visito, vocito. ^ Blokhuis, De Latiuit. qua usus est Tertull. in Apologet., p. 81 and note ; Arehiv III., p. 26. 2 Bonnet, 1. 1., p. 311. 60 II. ASYNDETON. § 145. Asyndeton. — As we should expect, the lack of connecting particles between words, phrases and sentences is abundantl}^ illustrated in our author. § 146. Asyndeton Enumehativum. — (1) In Nouns: .36, 23 (necesse est ut plurima sequantur:) turba trepida, per- quisitio iumentorum, custodum fuga, niulae dispares, iunc- turae inversae, mulio nee se regens. The cumulation may be intended to suggest the confusion and bustle attendino^ the preparations for a journey. 29, 22, mysteria sunt in aditu ; arpyiae, cynocephali, f uriae, ululae, hocturnae striges ; equally good instances are to be found at 17, 18; 18,20; 19, 13; 33,28; .S4, 25; 36, 13; 38,23; 40,13; 41, 5. On the other hand a good example of Polysyndeton is 22, 9, multum sese aliqui laudant qui vel fugaces feras vel pugnaces bestias, aut vestigiis in.sequuntur aut cubilibus deprehendunt aut casu opprimunt. (2) In Adjectives : 41, 8, captator horarum, matutinus, meridianus, vespertinus ; 21, 17, ubinam ilia est cohors fuliginosa, vulcanosa, atra ? See further 32, 18 ; 58, 19. Poly.syndeton in Adjectives. — 17, 19, iudicis convivium primum postmeridianum aut aestuosum aut algidum aut insan'im aut serium. (3) In Verbs. — (a) In single words : 15, 11, age, dicito ; habeat, teneat, possideat (c/. Ter. Andr. 889) ; 42, 20 (with the effect of a climax), inventus, spoliatus, clausus est homo. The use of the forms age, abi, vade with another imi)erative has been ti-eated under Parataxis, § 99. (b) In longer sentences : 28, 25, atomos volvunt, stellas numerant, maria aestimant, sola mutare non po.ssunt sua; 48, 15, omnes intus saccos capsas scrinia requirunt, aurum tractant ; 49, 6, (antithetical) thesaurum servasti vivus, liberasti mortuus; cf. 19, 16 ; 57, 2. Other sentences are : 29, 10 ; 29, 21 ; 32, 15 (cf., too, five sentences immediately preceding) ; 34, 10 ; 43, 10 ; 55, 2. For imperatives, see 21, 13 ; 45, 23 and elsewhere. 61 (4) In Sentences which exhibit a co-ordination of (a) Adverbs or Adverbial Phrases. — 29, 18 (ubi libet, hac atque iliac), sursnui deovsmn, in terra in mari (explicative also); 34, 2.*>, porticus est tibi in dextra, sacrariuni e diverso ; 4, 22, primum . . . . post, with which cf. 11, 22; 27, 1 ; see also 24, 5 and 25, 1. (6) Pronouns or Adjectival Pronouns. — These are some- times adveisative or explicative: 28,11, unum est quod iubet, aliud quod obsecundat ; cf. 57, 1 ; 19, 15, ille alius in corde, alius est in vultu ; 18, 10, hoc. . . .illud ; oQ, 12, hie. . . .alius ; cf. 45, 24. § 147. Asyndeton Adveksativum is less frequent than Asyndeton Enumerativum, but many more examples might be cited than are presented here. — 45, 12, aliorum fortu- nam exposui, fatum ignoiavi meum ; 13, 17, semper dives diligens, contra pauper neglegens; 14, 19, tibi tempestas obfuit, alter aliud pertulit; others are 9, 9 ; 43, 4 ; 55, 14 ; 56, 15 ; 56, 20. — With von : 6, 5, sortem huius ingrati,non mali ; 26, 1, and elsewhere. §148. Asyndeton Explicativum. — This is, of course, closely related to Causal Parataxis, and occurrences are very frequent. The connection is shown by the placing of the particular or special beside the general ^ Only a few examples are cited here. • (1) Appositional. — 3, 4, ingenti me donas bono : hoc testimonio, hoc collegio ; 28, 19, tria sunt in primis: planetae, anseres, cynocefali; so too 48, 20. (2) Amplificator}^ — 6, 3, decreta tempero : si quid boni est, accerso ; si quid gravius, mitigo ; cf. 4, 14 ; 14, 25. (3) In Sentences. — Paratactic combination of sentences is common : 18, 9, istis nolo invideas. Saepe condita luporum fiunt rapinae vulpium ; further, 5, 21 ; 8, 5 ; 50, 20; 55, 13. See Causal Parataxis § 101. § 149. Asy'ndeton Disjunctivum. — 20, 24, velis nolis bona fortuna aedes intrabit; so too 21, 1, velim nolim. Parataxis of velim nolim was common in the speech of the people'. §150. Asyndeton Summativum. — 16, 23, illic. .. vivunt, ibi praestigium, ibi sententiae proferuntur ; illic privati indicant:, ibi totum licet; 36, 15,tectasi percolent, 1 Nagelsbach, Stilistik, §199. » Rh. Mus. XXXVII., p. 81. 62 si confringantur fores, o-)i\nia revocat, omnia requiiit. To much the same effect are 17, 11-23 (ending with in sunima pauper esto et reporta pecuniarum aliquid); 29, 18; 42, 10. §151. Asyndeton in Questions. — Man}' instances of asyndeton in questions may be cited from our author. These indicate various states of feeling— exultation, excite- ment, hesitation, etc. : 45, 18, o crndele aurum, quisnam te morbus tulit ? quis te sic rogus adussit ? quis te subripuit magus? (exheredasti nos, thesaure): quonam redituri sumus tot abdicati ? quae nos aula recipiet ? quae nos olla tuebi- tur ? Rebuke and censure are expressed in 54, 25—55, 5 ; 19, 29—80, 4, contains anaphora ; 22, 19—23, 3 is boastful and rhetorical. For other instances see 16, 9 ; 45, 4 ; 53, 22. § 152. " Das achte " Asyndeton^ which is common in nar- rative to mark the stages of advancement has already been somewhat exemplified under Asyndeton P]numerativum. It is well illustrated by the concise, asyndetic state- ments of Lar Familiaris, p. 6, ai\d the revelations of 48, 9 — 24, which depict the excitement and chagrin of Sardan- apallus. §153. Asyndeton with Anaphora. — This has been as yet only glanced at, but deserves further illustration: 13, 16, nemo ad facultates, nemo ad censum respicit; 21, 17, ubinam fures requiram ? ubinam ilia cohors . . . . ? ubi illi sunt qui curtant ? 22, 17, cedant iuris conditores, cedant Apici fercula; 48, 19, erravimus, sed non simpliciter ; erravimus, set non semel. For other instances see 3, 9 ; 14, 1 ; 16, 22 ; 17, 11 ; 27, 18 ; 45, 9 ; 48, 5 ; 55, 16. For anaphora in the Historians, and especially Livy, see Draeger II., p. 211. §154. Asyndeton and Co-ordinating Particles. — Occasionally a series of single words and sentences have the two last connected by -que, et, atque ; or these connec- tives ma}' occur earlier in the series : 16, 17, liceat mihi spoliare, caedere, et spoliare et caedere ; 30, 17, panem neque noverunt neque volunt ; hordea insectantur fracta et madida, spicas nonnuUi vorant. See also the long passage on p. 17, quoted above, and Polysyndeton in. Adjectives. 1 See Nagelsbach, 1. 1., §202. Draeger II. ^ p. 209, calls it " Be- schleunigendes Asyndeton." 63 III. LEXICAL. # § 155. The following list aims at presenting all impor- tant lexical phenomena, but omits not a little that may be found in its proper place in the foregoing pages. It is also designed to supplement Harpers' Lat. Diet, on many points. abdere, to throw aiuay (Thielmann, Archiv III. 472, says = amovere, removere) : cineres abdidisti ? 57, 1. abistinc : cave abistinc, 9, 1 ; so V. ; abstinc R B P» abstinc or abstine L. Mlillenbach conjectures abi istinc. acquiescere ut, admit that; 56, 10; see p. 47, (g), (1) supra. Salvian always uses the infinit. adfabilitas : adfab. prima quid dedit ? 8, 19 ; cf. § 122 supi'a. Mlillenbach adds Cassian. Cenae Instit. VIII. 10 and 11 ; IX. 4 solita adfab. ; Arnob., Adv. Nat. V. 27 seria adfab. ; Ambros., De Offic. II. 7, 30. adspergere, to give : nummos adsp., 32, 5 ; also 59, 8. adstruere, to assert : adstruamus mortuum coniectum esse, 51, 6. This use, denied by Harpers', is frequent in authors of 4th and 5th centuries. Possiblv astruxerant (of E) is to be retained in Plin. XII. 18, § 83. adurere = comburere : quis te rogus adussit ? 45, 20. agnoscere = (a) intellegere, comperire: hoc si agnosceres, felix eras, 13, 22; cf. also 6, 22; 19, 24; 25, 21 ; 49, 12. So too cognoscere, 21, 15, and recognoscere, 9, 10 (= scire, 57, 12). (6) concedere: 33, 13; 34, 13; 43, 25. (Cognoscere = concedere, 27, 2.) alius = alter, 28, 11 ; 57, 1 ; see § 140, (c), supra. So , too, Eutrop , St. Jerome, Sulp. Sev., Cass. Felix and others. alter = alius : alteri ostendendus esset, 20, 5 ; perh. also 7,2. * It is a pleasure to record here my great indebtedness in this part of my work to the exhaustive and scho'arly investigation (in Ms.) of Dr. Mlillenbach, to which I have referred elsewhere. 11 64 ainbitor: vivat a. togatus, 41, 5; this and Salvian., De Gub. Dei V. 53 are to be added to Harpers'. aniplecti is perhaps passive 3^, 26 : adsideo, amplector, foveo, f'oveoi". Cf. Petion. frag. V. aniniain amplexatn. amplius= saepius: quanto ampHus quam railies ? 11, 6. antelucare, to he stirring betimes {begin a journey before day) : quotiens antelucandum est, 36, 21 ; to be added to Lexx. aporia, a sore, perh. clotted blood : unciam aporiae (Mss. aposiae) contemplationi concedimus, 59, 18. See Du Cange s. V. aporia faporisma). apud, used for the Dat. : 3, 8 ; 40, 7 ; 58, 21 ; for cum : 22, 2 ; cf. 43, 24, and see § 143 supra. aula = urna is fiequent, olla occuis twice: aula hie iacet, cuius odorem, etc. : huius ollae conditum scivit, 22, 15 and 18; cf. 45, 22. autem is used by Paiitomalus, a slave, w^ith excessive frequency, and very often merely marks a transition. In the rest of the play sed is about twice as frequent as autem, and vermn occurs thirteen times. bene, successfully : bene perfidus alteri fraudem infert, 7, 1. Wolfflin wrongly regards it as a paiticle of com- parison, Lat. u. romaii. Comparat. p. 15. bustum =^cineres: busta patris, 4, 1 and frequently. cancri, sum^mers : cancros in tubulis age, 17, 17. a capite = ab initio : a capite exponere, 33, 24. Of. Cic. Top. 39 ; Pacat. Paneg. IV. 1. ca.strare, to empty, rob : lagoena castrata suco, 38, 12 ; so Lactant. Instit. VL 15 ; St. Jerome Ep. XXII. 30. catenulae : torques et catenulae, 23, 9. Harpers' cites only Paul. Nol. XXVI. 462; add Vulgate Exod. XXVHI. 13 ; XXXIX. 15 ; Paralip. II. 3, 5 and 16. causa, argument of play : ordinem seriemque causae eloquai', 6, 9. cessare, to cease: maledicere numquam cessat, 7, 11, and 54, 21. So Salvian., St. Jerome, Rutin. circumforanus : rimator c, 41, 7 ; to be added to Lexx. circumspectator, 41, 7 ; see § 124 supra, claustrum = operculum, 46, 7. Go collegium, intimacy, intercourse (convictus) : ingenti me donas done: hoc collegio, 3, 4 ; cf. too, 12, 14, and see further Auson. Epl. XVI. 9(J ; XXEII. 35; Manil. II. 161 ; Prudent. Catheiuer. X. 36. coUocare = locare : tete cauponibus colloea, 35, 20. comessationes, 13, 1 ; see § 12 - supra ; add Salvian. De Gub. Dei IV. 40 and 52. compaia = coiuparia, 13, 1 ; cf. compara aetate, Orelli inscr. 4322. concubinula, IS, 17 ; to be added to Lexx. condita, ilie laid up store: condita luporuni, 18, 9. conditor : iuris conditores, 22, 17 ; for the play upon the word cf. Cic. Pro Cluent. 71, conditus totius negotii. condltus, 22, 18, huius oUae conditum .solus .scivit {cf. iuris conditores, 1. 17), ma\' be from either conditus, -us, {a) construction, (6) that vjhich is concealed, or conditum [cf. condita), content or conditus (condire). coniugatio, bond : inter servos et ancillas una c. e.st, 40, 6. Mullenbach compares Arnob. Adv. Nat. II. 10, c. corporum; V. 21, c. uxoria. conventus, perh. in a lewd sense : conventus et debac- ehationes non quaero, 13, 3 See debacchatio, and cf Arnob. Adv. Nat. II. 70, ex conventu lovis in.seminati. convivator, a (/ues^ ; vivat c. iudicum, 41. 6. corj-rabus, of the hair, rising or bristling in anger: quos c. videris si non nummos ad>perserisl 32, 5. Of corymbion, Petron. 110; corymbus, Auct. Aetn. 106 ; corimbi = acervi, Placi, 7. exquisita ingenia cenavum ; Bonnet, Greg, de Touis, p. 288; Hartel, Archiv. III. p. 24 for Lucifer and Tertull. ingens silentiiim, 44, IG ingratus, peevish, given to fault-findiny : sortem adniiiiistro huius ingrati, iion inali, G, 5; so too i>, 13: 36, 10; 86, 20; 43, 15. ingredi = ai:;cusare : .si te ingrediuiur, 56, 18; cf. Tac. Anna]. IV. 4. insectaii, to look for ^"//e/'/.t/, desire greatly : hordea insectantur fracta et madida, 30, 18. iiispicere = videre : ansere.s niultos inspexi, neminem vidi.cycnum, 30, 13 ; 43, 7. instructiis with genitive : recipe iuris instructissimum, 58, 23; cf. Sulpic. Sev. II. 42, 3, instructissimns divinaruni re rum. intueri, to reverence, worship : has effigies si i. potueris, 28, 20. ipsuni id ^= idem : ipsum id valebam dicere, 27, 8 ; cf. 28, 22. Of Koei'sch, Itala u. Vulg. p. +24; Paucker, Hieron. 81 ; Hartel, Arch i v. III. 24 (for Lucifer and Tertull.) and Bonnet, Greg, de Tours, p. 301, and note. See also § 137 supra. iuxta, in comparison with : iuxta alios, 15, 21. licet with neut. pron. as subject: ibi totnni licet, 16, 26. limosus, covered with dirt or mud: ampullam 1. non sim- pliciter intuetur, 38, 6. litterulae = libellus: parv^as 1. non parvus induLsit labor, 3, 8. lustrum, 36, 2, in qua (sc. arcula) lustrum exportetur, (and 42, 2) (i.e.calanntas, 36, 4, mala fortuna, 41, 13 and 19), that ivhich is removed by the rites of purificatioa (religio). magicae (se. artes), 51, 16, ilerUni ad magicas, is found only here. This occurrence is not reported bv Rolfe, " Die Ellipse \on ars," Archiv X. p. 241, who, however, cites magicam from our authoi', 45, 11. magus = (livinus : 27, 16; 44, 11 ; 45, 20, and elsewliere. maliloquiis, as a substant., 44, 9. G9 me<]ium, a half : medium tliesauri, 52, 12. This sense is not found eailier than Vulg. Levit. VI. 20 ; for, as Miillenbach clearly shows, in the passages adduced in Lexx. medium = either the inner part, or the middle part. Other occurrences than those of the Vulg. aie Eutrop. IX. Jo; Boeth. Geom., p. 406, 10. -met is very common, egomet, for example, occurrino- twenty- times and sihimet four times. Of sibimet Georo-es cites only two examples, both from the Vulg. misanthropus, 8, 5, ra. hie verus est ; to be added to Lexx. municeps = curialis : agat ant ex municipe, 41, 2; c/. PJacidus, Gloss.: municeps, curiaiium maiores ex eo quod munera fisci idem accipiunt (Goetz, Corp. Gloss. V. 118) and Theod. Cod. XII. 1,4; X. 3, 5. mutare, of money, to counterfeit ; or perhaps to pass money not regarded as legal tender : limari commutarique credit, 38, 16, IS and 19. m3'steria = di ignoti : vel geniis vel mysteriis, 9, 6 ; m. sunt : harpyiae, cynocephali, etc., 29, 22 ; 30, 4. ne = nonne : 46, 20 : see § 142 supra. Cf. -ne : dixin hoc fore ? 8, 16 ; also 10, 24 ; 53, 7. nee, neque = ne^quidem : see § 142 supra.. novelius, 51, 19, et n. et senex : cf. novelli, 23, 1. rullus = nemo ; nemo = nullus : see § 140. obsequia, 28, 17, quaenam ista sunt o. ? cf. minores, inferiores (.sc. potestates) 11. 14 and 17. So Claud. Mamert. c. III. haec obsequiorum sti])atio et fulgor. pagina (32, 3), 54, 24, cedo mihi fragmentorum paginas ; paginae must mean inscriptio, or scripta as in Greg, of Tours, Mart. 3, 45, nomina non sunt in paginis praenotata (Bonnet, p. 284). Cf. Ennod. Epl. IV. 19 : diligentia non reducta per paginas, and V. 23: prolixitas paginalis. pars civilis is opposed to military service: aliquid tribue in p. civili, 16, 13. cf Veget. R. Mil. I. 5 ; Sidon. Carm. V. 565 ; Symmach. Ep. IX. 112; Theod. Cod. 11. 17, 1. patus, 17, 1, si dives fueris, p. appellaberis. No satis- factory explanation seems possible, but various corrections have been proposed : hypatus, 7raxvce- dant, and Tertull. De Idolol. II. Ace. and infinit. also is employed by Salvian. De Gub. Dei VI. 82. publicare, to cause to he easily seen: luminis illud subornatur quod sufficiat, non quod publicet, 39, 24. purificare, et puratn facere, of domus, 4, 12, i.e. to purifi/ and to make free from. See Harpers' s. v. purus, B. 1. qualitas, vini, 37, 22. qualiter, 33, 1; 46, 16; 48, 11. quanti = quot : quanti sunt ingenui, 40, 9 ; so quanta, 10, 9. -que = quoque : see § 142 supra, quoque = -que in Greg, of Tours ; see Bonnet, p. 314. quocumque, to some place or other: pergamus q., 43, 11. quod, with finite verb for intinit. : see § L17, 1, (b) supra.^ quoniam, with finite verb for infinit.: see § 117, 7. Prior to the middle of the 4th century this usage was con- 1 See G. Mayen, De particulis quod, quia, quoniam, quomodo, ut jiro ace. c. iuf. positis, Kiel, 1889. 71 fined to Afric. writers; see Sittl, Die Verschiedenh. d. lat. Spraclie, p. 111. It is rare in Greg, of Tours (Bonnet, p. 660). rancidus, of ])ersons, fastidious {exacting) .• non pericu- losus est, verimi ingratus nimium et r., 36, 9 ; of things, Ennod. Ep. III. 1 1 ; IV. 23. raneiscere, 46, 9, numquam comperi aurum sic ranciscere ; to be added to Lexx. redolere, to smell very offensively, to stink : audieram olere aurum, istud etiam redolet, 46, 6; 46, 12; cf. diris flagrat odoribus, 1. 7; and raneiscere, 1. 9, and luven. IV. 109. referre gratiam = accipere g., 5, 8. remutare : muta remuta facimus, 38, 19 ; to be added to Lexx. Mtillenbaeh compares remutatio. Adamant, de b et V. Keil VII. p. 183. revocare, 36, 16, omnia ad se revocat, gives personal attention to, investigates ; cf. 10, 25. Sume calceos quos terra revocet, frandet limus concolor, 17, 15, i.e., which the mud claims as beino; akin. rex =^ imperator : num quid rex aliquid largietur ? 19,29. rimator, circumforanus, 41, 7 ; reported onlv for Arnob. V. 8. scriptulus = scripulum : gravitas usque ad scriptulos quaeritur in auro, 89, 1 ; found also in Metrol. Scriptt. Lat., p. 128, 8, Hultsch. See Georges' Lex. sies, occurs 26, 20 in the stereotyped prohibition, molestus ne sies. simpliciter {merely), luithout anger : ampullam truncam non s. intuetur : bilera tenere vix potest, 38, 7. sodes, as a substantive : per te tuosque, mi sodes, te rogo, 26, 7 (B reads sodales) ; so too Sidon. carm. XXIIL 233. sollemnia, extraordinaria (sc. tributa) : non solum s. verum etiam e. requirunt, 32, 10 ; cf. Amm. XXII. 7, 10 ; annua complere s. somniculari to be sleepy : .somriulenti quoniam somni- culamur de die, 39, 15 ; 44, 17 ; to be added to Lexx. sperare de tridente, 8, 1 ; cf. Veget. III. 13 : de peditibus s. ; cf. s. ab inferioribus, 28, 17. strepitus, 59, 20, summoto strepitu criminali, must mean 12 72 ivithout resorting to a regular investigation in court ; cf. Du Cange, strepitus iudicialis : ambages forenses, formulae. subornare, to provide, furnish : luminis illud suboruatur, 39, 23; cf. Petron. 26 (p. 10, 17 Buch.), Trimalchio horo- logium habet subornatum. superius, 15, 20, iam s. dixeram ; cf. § 141, supra. Add Fhaedr. IV. 25, 8; Scribon. Larg. 67, 28 H.; 83, 7; Auct. Bell. Hispan. 28 and 34 ; Schol. Gionov. on Cic. Pro Rose. Amer. XVII. 49, Salvian. passim, and see Wolfflin, Archiv. IV. 262. synastria, 35, 23, hora est synastria ; see Du Cange : syn. = constellatio. To be added to Lexx. tegmen = operculum : t. ornae, 57, 13 ; cf. claustrum, 46,7. tend ere, apparently means to stanip,^ coin (ferire) : argentum levibus tensum tympanis (thin leaves or plates of metal = nummi), 38, 15. testulae, 50, 9, in testulis litems vidi ; cf. fragmenta urnae, 1. 5. ■ thesaurum, neut., 50, 18, inter manus thesaurum fuit ; Peiper's conjecture tuas auruni is perhaps right, but it may be remarked that the Mss. have aliquod t., 52, 22 Cf. Petron. 46 (p. 31, 27, Biich.), literae thesaurum est. togatus = advocatus : da honorem qualem obtinet ille togatus, 17, 7, and 41, 2 ; cf. the whole context, and also 41, 5, vivat arabitor togatus, etc. It will be clear that the writer had in mind conditions which existed at a time much earlier than his own, and especially the indignities and hardships to which the cliens was subjected in the time of the (Jaesars. totus = omnis: 36, 18, rationes totas perscribit; cf 45, 6; cf. § 140, (6) supra, totum, all, t/te whole is very frequent : non t. intellego, 9, 9 ; numeri qui t. rotant, 28, 23, with which cf. totum = the whole universe, Lucr. 11. 90 ; VI. 652, 679. transfusio, transformation : quot gradibus et transfus- ionibus, 29, 9; cf Ulp. Dig. XL VI. 2, 1, and Argumentum Schol. Grnov. (near end) of Cic. Pro Rose Amer.; trans- fusio per dvTiKaTij'yopiav. tubulus, a boot, prob. with high, close-fitting top, and worn in winter; in soecis hiemes, caneros in t. age, 17, 17 ;. cf 41, 11. To be added to Lexx. 73 tumulus = bustuin : t. suis commendavit, 0, 14. tymp'^na: see tendere ; thin pieces of metal, coins — possibly, tlie mould. ubicumque, in some 2'>lut'e (or other) : nescio, nisi u. in fluniine (sc. abscondemus), 42, 24. ulcisci, 47, 3, ut dos de filio ulciscamur; cf. 4, 15. So Spartian., Sev. XI. 3 : se de senatu ])osse ulcisci. uiicinulus, 23, 9, erant u. hamati, torques et catenulae ; cf. uncinus ham us cited in Lexx. from Paul. Nol. uncinulus is reported by Wrobel, Archiv VII. 184, from Rutin. Aqui leien.sis, De Benediction, (praefatio). To be added to Lexx. unum — aJiud = alterum — alto'-um : 28, 11; 57, 1; cf. § 140 (c) supra. urbanus homo, thief : nisi fallor, iste urbanus est homo, 22, 3. urbane, cleverly, shrewdly : qui urbane fibulas sub- ducunt, 21, 20 ; cf. 11,16; 18, 27 ; 47, 10. usurarius, substantive : usurario foetere hoc potest, 46,9. vadere :^= proficisci : peregre vadens, 6, 13. vale as a substantive: v. precemque dicunt, 30, 10. verum =re vera: si veruui agnoscis, lege, 54, 22. visitare, examine : aulam iterum visita, 45, 23 ; cf. St. Ambros. Epl. V. 6, 21. vulcanosus, of thieves : ubinam est ilia cohors v.? 21, 18, to be added to Lexx. yc 00^ vat^ii^^^a^