Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. Vol. 1

STUDIES

HARVARD IN

CLASSICAL

EDITED

BY

A

PHILOLOGY

COMMITTEE OF

INSTRUCTORS

OF

THE

HARVARD

CLASSICAL

UNIVERSITY

VOLUMEI

BOSTON, U.S.A. PUBLISHED

BY GINN & COMPANY

LONDON: GINN & COMPANY

LEIPSIC: OTTO HARRASSOWITZ

57 & 59 LUDGATE HILL

QUER STRASSE

I89o Price,

$L.oo;

4s.;

4M.

14

TYPOGRAPHY BY

J. S. CUSHING & Co., BOSTON,U.S.A.

PRESSWORK BY GINN

& Co., BOSTON, U.S.A.

PREFATORY

NOTE.

THESE Studies are published by authority of Harvard University, and will be contributed chiefly by its instructors and graduates, although contributions from other sources will not necessarily be excluded. The publication is supported by a fund of $6ooo, generously subscribed by the class of 1856. A volume of about 200 pages will be issued yearly. JAMES B. GREENOUGH, FREDERIC

D. ALLEN,

JOHN WILLIAMS WHITE,

EDITORIAL

CONTENTS. PAGE

THE FAUCES OF THE ROMAN HOUSE

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I

DE IGNIS ELICIENDI MODIS APVD ANTIQVOS . Scripsit Morris H. Morgan.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

13

ON THE ORIGIN OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF ov,sLp WITH THE SUBJUNCTIVE AND THE FUTURE INDICATIVE . . . . .

65

.

.

By James B. Greenough.

By William W. Goodwin. ON SOME DISPUTED POINTS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF etL, Xpjy, . ETC., WITH THE INFINITIVE ........ ..... William Goodwin. W. By

77

NOTES ON QUINTILIAN ............... By George M. Lane.

89

. . . .

SOME LATIN ETYMOLOGIES .

.

.

.

.

.

93

By James B. Greenough.

ON ' EGREGIUM PUBLICUM' (Tac. Ann. III. 70. 4) .

.

.

.

.

.107

By Clement Lawrence Smith. ON THE USE OF THE PERFECT INFINITIVE IN LATIN WITH THE . . . . . FORCE OF THE PRESENT . . . . .

III

By Albert A. Howard. PLUTARCH

LL

Irep'

.

.....

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

139

.

153

By Harold N. Fowler. VITRUVIANA .

.

. .... . .. M. Richardson. By George

THE

.........

SOCIAL AND DOMESTIC POSITION OF WOMEN IN . . . . . . ARISTOPHANES . . . ..159. By Herman W. Haley.

NOTES .. INDEXES

. ..

.

.

..

.......

. ..............

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

187 195

THE FAUCES OF THE ROMAN HOUSE. BYJ. B. GREENOUGH. the

and especially since the more careful study Pompeii, the Roman house has become pretty well understood in all its general features, and the facts are found to agree sufficiently well with the description given by Vitruvius. But as to the nature and position of the fauces mentioned by that author, there is still a difference of opinion. The word in this strict technical sense occurs only in one passage in Vitruvius, one in Gellius, and one in Macrobius; but there are some other uses of the word which throw light on its meaning. The word was at first apparently supposed to refer to the entrance, as in Rode's Vitruvius (I8oo), and Wilkins' Vitruvius (1812). In an edition of Vitruvius of Simon Stratico (1828), it is referred to a passage from the atrium to the tablinum and from the alae to the atrium, apparently with a wrong idea of the position of these parts with reference to each other. Stieglitz, in the Archaeologie der Baukunst (i 8o ), again refers it to the entrance; but the same author, in Archaeologische Unterhaltungen (1820), changes its position to some side passage. He says (p. I23) : "The fauces which are sometimes taken as a passage from the atrium into the tablinum, and sometimes held to be a space connected with the vestibulum, were without doubt near the tablinum, on each side of it, since Vitruvius mentions them immediately after it, and determines their size in proportion to it. Moreover, he mentions the peristyle immediately after, which was on the back part of the building. The fauces cannot be supposed to be in the front part of the building, because, according to Vitruvius, in city houses one enters the atrium immediately from the front door; and the vesibulum in this case had no place, and so it would be superfluous to add still another part. This position of the fauces is clear also from the fact that according to the relation of the size (of the atrium) to that of the tablinum just so much space remains over alongside of it as is required by the fauces. Such passages were necessary," etc. discovery SINCE of the ruins of

2

. B. Greenough.

Mazois, Le Palais de Scaure (1822), takes the same view, referring to Vitruvius and Gellius as authority. Pauly's Encyclopedia refers the fauces to the same two passages. Becker's Gallus sets the fauces tentatively (Gll1, in the Rev. Ed., I88o, with assurance), in the same position, on one or both sides of the tablinum, and leading from the atrium to the peristyle. So, also, the last edition of Overbeck's Pompeii, and so, also, Nissen and Presuhn, as well as Marquardt in the Privat-Alterthiimer. In the Annali dell' Istituto, the memoirs of the Archaeological Institute at Rome, 1859, p. 82, is a paper by one Sergio Ivanoff, which takes and maintains the ground that the fauces were at the entrance. His reasoning, which depends on an actual observation of the character of the entrance and of the side passages referred to, ought to have satisfactorily settled the question; but as the opposite view is still propagated as the prevailing one, it seems worth while to reexamine the question.' The passage in Vitruvius (Book VI.) bearing on the question is as follows: In Section I he has treated of positions and exposures; he now treats of proportions. Explaining that effect often requires a deviation from the exact normal proportions, he then continues, in Section 2 :Igitur statuenda est primum ratio symmetriarum, a qua sumatur sine dubitatione commutatio. Deinde explicetur operis futuri locorum imum spatium longitudinis et latitudinis cuius cum semel constituta fuerit magnitudo sequatur eam proportionis ad decorem apparatio uti non sit considerantibus adspectus eurhythmiae dubius. De qua quibus rationibus efficiatur est mihi pronuntiandum, primumque de cavis aedium uti fieri debeant dicam. "Therefore the symmetrical relations must be determined from which the deviation may proceed. Then let the plan in length and breadth of the intended work be drawn, the size of which once having been settled may be continued by the details in symmetrical proportion, as to which I must show by what means it is to be secured; and first I will state how inner courts (cava aedium) ought to be built."

1Since this article was written (Dec. 1885) Baumeister, Denkmlier, etc., has apparently adopted the view herein set forth, but without any discussion of the question.

The Fauces of the Roman House.

3

In 3 follows the construction of cava aedium, with the five kinds of roof construction. In 4 he continues: Atriorum vero latitudines et longitudines tribus generibus formantur. Et primum genus distribuitur uti longitudo cum in quinque partes divisa fuerit tres partes latitudini dentur, alterum cum in tres partes dividatur duae partes latitudini tribuantur, tertium uti latitudo in quadrato paribus lateribus describatur inque eo quadrato diagonios linea ducatur et quantum spatium habuerit ea linea diagonios tanta longitudo atrio detur. Altitudo eorum quanta latitudo fuerit quarta dempta sub trabes extollatur reliquo lacunariorum et arcae supra trabes ratio habeatur. Alis dextra ac sinistra latitudo cum sit atrii longitudo ab triginta pedibus ad pedes quadraginta ex tertia parte eius constituatur. Ab quadraginta ad pedes quinquaginta longitudo dividatur in partis tres semis, ex his una pars alis detur. Cum autem erit longitudo ab quinquaginta pedibus ad sexaginta quarta pars longitudinis alis tribuatur. Ab pedibus sexaginta ad octoginta longitudo dividatur in partis quatuor et dimidiam, ex his una pars fiat alarum latitudo. Ab pedibus octoginta ad pedes centum in quinque partis divisa longitudo iustam constituerit latitudinem alarum. Trabes earum liminares ita altae ponantur, ut altitudines latitudinibus sint aequales. Tablino si latitudo atrii erit pedum viginti dempta tertia eius spatio reliquum tribuatur. Si erit ab pedibus triginta ad quadraginta ex atrii latitudine tablino dimidium tribuatur. Cum autem ab quadraginta ad sexaginta latitudo dividatur in partis quinque ex his duae tablino constituantur. Non enim atria minora cum maioriAltitudo bus easdem possunt habere symmetriarum rationes. ... tablini ad trabem adiecta latitudinis octava constituatur. Lacunaria eius tertia latitudinis ad altitudinem adiecta extollantur. Fauces minoribus atriis e tablini latitudine dempta tertia, maioribus dimidia constituantur. Imagines item alte cum suis ornamentis ad latitudinem alarum sint constitutae. Latitudines forum ad altitudinem si Doricae erunt uti Doricae, si Ionicae erunt uti Ionicae perficiantur, etc. "The length and breadth of atria are constructed in four styles: first, length to breadth, as 5 : 3; second, 3: 2; third, V2: 1, or the diagonal to the side of a square. The height should be the breadth less { (quarta dempta) up to the beams in the ceiling or the architrave, where there are columns. . . . For the alae on the right and

4

J.

B. Greenough.

left the breadth should be determined when the length of the atrium is 30 to 40 feet at - part of it; from 40 to 50 feet the length should be divided into 31 parts, and one of these be given to the alae (i.e. ). When the length is from 50 to 6o feet, ? part of the length should be assigned to the alte. From 6o to 80o feet the length should be divided into 42 parts, and so on. The beams of the alae should be placed so high that the height shall be equal to the breadth." "The tablinum, if the breadth of the atrium is 20 feet, taking off ? of this distance, should have the rest assigned to it. If it is 30 to 40 feet, - the breadth of the atrium should be assigned to the tablinum; if from 40 to 6o feet, 2 should be given." The reason is then given for this sliding scale. Then he continues: "The height of the tablinum to the beam should be made with added to the breadth. Its ceiling should be raised with I of the added to the height. The fauces should be made in smaller breadth atria, with - part taken from the breadth (i.e. -Z of the tablinum), in larger with 1. The imagines should be placed with their ornaments as high as the breadth of the alae. The width of the doors, in proportion to their height, should be as Doric, if they are Doric, etc. The opening of the compluvium should be left not less than - nor more than - of the width of the atrium, its length in proportion to the length of the atrium." Then peristyles, then various closed rooms. The first question is as to the meaning of fauces. I have looked up the use of the word in all the passages I could find, and I think the history of the word throws some light on the present investigation. In the figurative use the notion in a Roman mind was evidently that of an entrance, just as we use mouth, a hole leading into (or out of) something, like os and ostium. Cato uses it of the mouth of a limekiln; Lucretius says it is the word for the Greek Kpar/"p as applied to a volcano, fauces perhibemus et ora (VI. 702). Ennius, in a passage quoted by Cic. de Div. I. 48, says of the carceres of the circus "picts e faucibus." Cicero uses patefacdis terrae faucibus (N. D. ii. 37) of a supposed opening of the earth, an idea evidently derived from the bursting out of a volcano. In two other places he uses it of positions that command an entrance, as of Corinth, posita in anguskis atquefaucibus Graeciae ut claustra locorum teneret, and of Manlius' force in faucibus Etruriae. As Manlius was at F~esule and Arretium, the idea can only be that he holds the key to Etruria, a

The Fauces of the Roman House.

5

use which Sallust follows in Cato's speech on the same subject, but more loosely: Cad'lina cum exercitu faucibus urget, a/ii (the conspirators who remained) intra moenia, a use like "thundering at the gates," though perhaps there may be here a feeling also of catching by the throat, as in prehendere faucibus or fauces used figuratively. (Cf. Livy XXI. 9.) Two other passages in which Cicero uses the word will be referred to hereafter. Caesar uses it twice along with portus for the mouth of a harbor; and this becomes a standing expression in other writers, alternating with ostium and os. The author of the Bellum Alexandrinum uses it once in the sense of a pass; but the passage plainly shows that it means entrance. Quibus ex castris cum locus angustus atque impeditus esset transeundus Pharnaces in insidiis pedites, etc., disposuit, magnam autem multitudinem pecoris intra eas fauces dissipari iussit paganosque et oppidanos in his locis obversari, ut sive amicus Domitius eas angustias transiret nihil de insidiis suspicaretur, cum in agris etpecua et homines animadverteret versari tanquam amicorum adventu, sive ut in hostium fines veniret praeda diripienda milites dissijparentur(B. A. 36). It is to be noticed that this is an eastern pass. Virgil uses the word some ten times in all, five times of the mouth of the infernal world, and in two of these it is coupled with words of entrance. AEn. VI. 273, vestibulum ante izpsumprimisque in faucibus Orci; and Geo. IV. 467, Taenarias fauces alta ostia Ditis. In two of them again he has a hint at the literal meaning: zEn. VII. 569, ingens vorago aperitfauces; and VI. 241, sese halitus atris faucibus effundens. In Geo. I. 207 he uses fauces Abydi of the Dardanelles (Hellespont), which is like fauces portus, and became the regular use for such places, as in Lucan IV. 594, Threicias fauces; and Plin. N. H. III. i, faucibus oceani (of Gibraltar). In Geo. IV. 427 siccis faucibus is used of the fountains of a river, with the common Virgilian play, perhaps, on the literal meaning. There remain two passages where the use seems to approach the later meaning of a pass; but in one of them, ,En. XI. 525, the words are angustae fauces aditusque maligni, which clearly have the notion of an entrance into a larger place, not a pass through some place. In the other (same book, 516) Virgil uses biviae fauces alone, but of 1 Probablyvestibulumhere means the atrium; but this makes no difference.

6

J B. Greenozugh.

the same place; and this passage by itself would hardly seem to mean anything different from the other. In Ciris, 463, the words are deserit angus/is inclusam faucibus Istimum, which may be compared with Cicero's use, where the idea of entrance, as we saw, was clear. Nonius quotes from Accius (fr. X. Ribbeck) : in salti faucibus (cf. examples from Livy below). The use of the word by Livy is peculiar. In what remains of the earlier books the word does not occur in this sense of pass, even in the description of the Caudine Forks, where we should expect it. In fact, nowhere is a pass in Italy so called, if we exclude the cases in Virgil, above mentioned. In IX. 2, describing the Caudine Forks, Livy says: sed ita natus locus est, saltus duo alti, angus/i silvosique sunt, montibus circa perpetuis inter se iuncti. Iacet inter eaossatis patens clausus in medio campus, per quem medium iter est. Sed antequam venias ad eum intrandae primae angustiae sunt et aut eadem qua te insinuaveris retro via repetenda aut per alium saltum, etc. Then afterwards, ad alias angustias. So in VII. 39, saltu angusto. In X. I he uses fauces of the mouth of a cave. In Book XXI. 23 occurs the first use of the word for a pass: fauces quae Hispanias Ga/llis iungunt; and again, XXI. 30, fauces pervias esse, of the Alps; and XXI. 38, fauces saltis. It does not occur again for a long time in this sense, i.e. alone; but in XXII. 4 we have zisas fauces saltus, and similar phrases often afterwards, and in XXVI. 25 fauces Thessaliae, used of Thermopylae. After this we have it used constantly of Greek and Eastern passes, but not of Italian. From the XXII. book on, Livy uses saltus in this sense 64 times, fauces 29 times, augustiae 22 times. In only a small proportion of the 29 cases is fauces used alone, distinctly, as a pass. In i i places fauces saltus is used, or some other phrase indicating that fauces is the entrance, saltus the pass itself; such as, XXII. 15, saltus qui in artas coac/us fauces imminet mar-i (at Terracina); XXXXII. 54, fauces ... qua Tempe adeunt; XXXXII. 67, ante zisa Tempe in faucibus situm Macedoniae. In six places it is used of an isthmus, apparently a regular use. (Cf. Cicero's use, above cited.) In five other places it is used like faucibus Etruriae in Cicero. Thus there are only seven places where it seems to be used like saltus, and some of these approach the narrower meaning.

The Fauces of the Roman

House.

7

It would seem as if this use of the word were derived from the which is used of precisely these same places. EspeGreek ir•,adh, cially does this appear from XXXII. 5, quae ad Antigoneam fauces sunt (stena vocant Graeci). Unless he had some such notion in his mind, Livy would naturally use angustiae, as he does in the earlier books, and of all Italian passes except where he uses saltus. Cf. XXXVI., intra portas loci eius (of Thermopylae). Q. Curtius uses the word of precisely these passes in Cilicia, which are called ; as in III. 8, 19, Alexander ad fauces quibus Syria rrzXak aditur, et Dareus ad eum locum quem Amanicas pylas vocant. Cf. Kat T) Xen. Anab. I. 4. 4, 7rtXa;h Svplts. ri-~ KLXLKLta the Elder uses it about 20 times, in all the senses, but not Pliny of any Italian place. So, also, Lucan; and the use becomes general. But I have not been able to find any use of it for Italian places, except in fauces sal/us and similar phrases, above referred to. The two passages from Cicero which I have left untouched are those in which he speaks of faucibus macelli. We do not know the construction of this market, but we know that it was a building; and, for such a purpose, it must have had a large open court in the centre, and was, no doubt, surrounded by shops opening out (or by shops opening in), like the so-called Augusteum, at Pompeii, which has been by many supposed to have been a market, though the internal arrangements make that doubtful. This building has two passages into it, somewhat like the entrance to the Music Hall in Boston, though not so long. This is doubtless what is meant by Cicero. Thus we have two passages in Virgil which clearly refer to an entrance to a house, and two in Cicero which probably do, as well as one in Gellius (see later), and then the general notion of the word, which was clearly that of an entrance, and continued to be so, even after the word had come to be used for a pass. As in Vitruvius' description, the word must be used to denote the ordinary, though apparently not the literary, name of the place referred to (on account of the nature of his book), it seems almost certain that he uses it with the old meaning of an entrance into one place, rather than a passage between two. The passage in Gell. XVI. 5 is directly on the point, being a comment on Virg. VI. 273, but is, unfortunately, somewhat obscure, on account of his uncertainty as to the meaning of vestibulum :-

8

J. B. Greenough.

"Non enim vestibulum priorem partem domus infernae esse dicit quod obreperepotest tanquam si ita dicatur, sed loca duo demonstrat extra Orci fores, vestibulum et fauces, ex quibus ves/ibulum appellat ante iisam quasi domum et ante izsa Orci penetralia, fauces autem vocat iter angustum per quod ad vestibulum adiretur." Here all we are sure of is that Gellius understood the fauces to be in front. If, as is most probable, Virgil or Gellius confounds the atrium and vestibulum, this would show that they are the very passage I am speaking of, namely, that from the front door into the atrium. Macrobius (Saturn. VI. 8), discussing the same passage, has the same difficulty in reference to ves/ibulum. Though he decides for the old meaning of ves/ibulum, - the space in front of the door, and not the atrium, - yet, apparently deceived by the later identification of vestibulum with atrium, he says: fauces autem iter angustum est per quod ad vestibulum de via flectitur. This definition gives no trustworthy clue to the meaning; but it is evident that Macrobius has no idea of an inner passage. We may add to these cases the definition given by Isidore, Orzgg. XIV. 826: Fauces sunt angustiorum locorum aditus inter duos montes loca angusta et pervia, dicta a faucium similitudine quasi foces. Now let us apply the words of Vitruvius to the actual Roman house as it appears at Pompeii. He starts with the proportions of the interior - one architectural feature. The length, breadth, and height of the atrium are given (the central part as it appears in the plan, page i i) ; then the right and left appendages, which are never closed, but form a part of the architectural feature in question; then the tablinum, which stands in the same relation at the back; then the fauces. The only part that stands in the same relation is the passage at the front, which never has a door, and which being directly opposite the tablinum--the pendent to it, as it were- may naturally take its proportions from that. Then the doors (i.e. of closed passages, etc.) are described; then the opening in the roof. It must be remembered that all of these parts are visible to a person standing either at the outer or inner end of the atrium, and no others are. All the side passages have, in the Pompeiian houses, thresholds and marks of doors, and must have been closed, so that these rooms

The Fauces of the Roman House.

9

could not have formed a part of the atrium considered, as Vitruvius evidently is considering it, as an architectural member. It seems impossible to regard the fauces as anything else but the front passage -just what it ought to be with the other meanings of the word as given above. The only reasons assigned for taking it as the passage or passages at the side are that Vitruvius mentions it next after the tablinum; but, as we have shown, he takes first the centre, then the two side appendages; and as he must then take one end or the other, he naturally begins at the most imposing end, - the show part of the house, - the tablinum, and then takes the opposite end, the fauces. A feeble support of the side-passage view is drawn from the fact that Vitruvius says that one enters the atrium in city houses immediately from the start. His words are: "in urbe atria proxima ianuis solent esse, ruri autem pseudourbanis statim peristylia deinde tune atria habentia circum port'cus," etc. It is obvious that he is only speaking of the two architectural members or courts in general, and not of the details of either. If it means that there is no passage to the atrium, then he must also mean that there is no passage to the next court, for he says, deinde tune atria, without mentioning any passage. One argument for the side passage is drawn from the supposed fact that Vitruvius mentions the peristyle immediately after the fauces. But this is not the case. He speaks of the imagines, the doors, and the compluvium first, thus going round the atrium again, showing that he takes his stand in the space and describes the features of the atrium as seen from that point. One argument is drawn from the idea that Vitruvius gives the proportions in such a way as to have the side passages, in case there are two, exactly make up the size of the atrium. In the first place, this is of no account; because the remainder of that end of the house (see Plan) does not have any relation to the atrium, properly so called, for the rooms at that end include also all the space occupied at the side of the atrium proper by the alae, or the cubicula and other closed rooms. Then, again, it is not true. Thus: Tablinum is 2, 1, or j of atrium; fauces, - or 1 of tablinum. Then with the largest tablinum and larger fauces we shall have; tablinum, 2 of atrium + (2 of

10

J. B. Greenough.

2 of of atrium, or, with two passages, = tablinum, i.e. -) + -1 _= of atrium; with the smaller fauces, + (?2 of ) = S+ With of atrium. the smallest tabtwo with + = passages, or, of atrium and linum + larger fauces, tablinum, ?(- of tablinum, i.e. S = + of atrium. With of ?) + 1- =, or, with two passages, j the smallest tablinum and smaller fauces, ? + I = 3 of atrium, or, With the medium tablinum and with two passages, I + = I.* largerfauces, . of atrium + (3 of 5) = of atrium. With the medium 1 = of atrium, or 2 ++ 2 tablinum and smaller fauces, + (52 of o -6)= in of atrium. So that it is = only two cases (marked with a star), in to the existence different of and those upon suppositions regard one or two passages, that the reckoning corresponds; while upon our supposition the two corner rooms, either with or without a passage cut off, being independent of the atrium, as are the front rooms, or shops, may take up the whole breadth of the house. 1 According to Vitruvius, the fauces should be I or of the tablinum. Now I have measured these passages in the plans of about forty Pompeian houses, drawn to scale in Overbeck, Presuhn, and the Giornale dei Scavi, with the following results:The front passage averages 5 of the tablinum in width; the side passage, when present, averages only A-. In detail: The front passage measures, in 3, 1. of the tablinum; in 14, ?; in 12, above 1; in 4, below 1; in i, none; in 4, above I where no measure of side passage is attainable. The side passage measures in 2, ? of tablinum; in 8, above I; in 15, below ?; in 9, none; in the remainder, no dimension of side passages is given. Thus it appears that in hardly any case does the side passage come anywhere near the prescribed size, but, in very many cases, is entirely wanting, - its place being supplied by a room opening both ways, or not supplied at all, - while the front passage corresponds as nearly as could be expected to Vitruvius' statement, and is, in fact, not wanting in more than half-a-dozen houses in Pompeii. Further, if we compare the proportions given by Vitruvius with the existing houses, it is still more clear that the fauces is the front passage. Appended is a plan of the " House of the Surgeon," drawn to scale after Overbeck, on which is superposed, in dotted lines, the proportions for a house of that size as given by Vitruvius. To sum up: First, the word fauces naturally means entrance.

The Fauces of the Roman House.

I

I1

I

<

TABLINVM *

I

I

i

i

I

ALA

ALA

RN

|

I

?

|MEMMS\E

AlTRINVMM IIN \ \\~\

\

FAVCE8

12

/

B.

Greenolugh.

Second, Vitruvius' description has nothing else to refer to except the front passage, as this is always open, corresponding in this respect to the alae and tablinum; while the others are always closed, and so cannot form a part of the architectural feature which Vitruvius is considering. Third, the actual houses show the front passage agreeing with his description; while the other is often wanting, and, when present, never corresponds to Vitruvius' description.

DE

IGNIS

ELICIENDI

MODIS

APVD ANTIQVOS

COMMENTATIO QVAM SCRIPSIT MORRIS

H

HICKY

MORGAN.

duo propeabhincannoseo consilioscripOC commentariolum

tumut ab VniuersitatisHaruardianae SenatuAcademico summos in philosophia honores rite impetraremuscum nuper placeret formisdescribere,occasione data nonnulla omisimus,non pauca addidimus, multa correximus,quo res tota politius limaretur. Nunc restat ut uiris doctissimis,studiorumnostrorumadiutoribusfautoribusque, maximasgratiasagamus quas semperhabebimus libenterque referemus. qui studiisrerumantiquarumsese dederuntsaepe accidit cum ut, aliquam rein penitus intellegereuellent,totam eius rationem suo Marte diligenterinuestigareoporteret. His quidem parui erunt illa uoluminaquae rerumantiquarumscientiamper omnia explicare dicuntur,nisi uero fontes aperiunt ex quibus principio manabant. Itaque nostra aetate consuetudo magis inualescitut, si quis aliquid subtiliusinquisiuerit,ea quae didicit in libellumreferat. Erit igitur operae pretiumscribere quae de antiquis ignis eliciendi modis explorare potuerimus; quae quidem quamuis primo aspectu leuiora esse uideantur,haud inutiliafortasseiis fuerintqui ad maiora animos intendant.' OMNIBVS

1 Haud multaapud scriptoresrecentesde hac quaestionerepperimus;libelli autemin manibusnobisfuerunt ed. 1885,pp. 139 sqq.), 0. Pescheli( Valkerkunde, W. Strickeri (Sammlung von Virchow und Holtzendorf, Serie IX, Heft 199),

G. Klemmi(Allg. Kulturwiss.I, p. 245, II, p. 26, V, p. i6). Hi quidem ad moresgentiumbarbarorumdescribendospleraque sese dederunt. M. Plancki commentationem (Die Feuerzeuge der Griechen und RKnter und ihre Verwendung zu profanen und sakralen Zwecken, progr. Stuttgart, 1884) primum nos

uidimushaec quantacumquesunt formisdescripturi;nonnullatamenin adnotationibusde ea addidimus.

14

.M.

I

H. Morgan.

.,.

....,

.

? II

III

B

A

IV

V

De Ignis Eliciendi Modis.

15

Quo modo homines ignis usum primum intellexerintnon nostrumhoc loco dicere; immo hercule nihil certum inueniripotest. Erudite tamen de hoc disseruituir doctus ADELBERTVS KVHN,in libro qui inscribiturdie Herabkunftdes Feuers. Satis autem nobis uideturdicere in fabulisomnium fere gentiumdei I alicuius memoriam esse traditamqui ignem mortalibusdedisse credatur. Hebraeorum tantum modo in scriptis sacris nihil de eo dono memoriae proditumest. Ea quoque fabulosanobis esse uidenturomnia de iis gentibusnarrataquae, ut ait LVCRETIVS(5, 953), necdum res igni scibant tractare. Cf. HEs. Theog.563 : O9K OVK7)TCO

t O0V LEX'EOTL 0VPwROLr.

uwpo

O

/Lou

KclIaTOLO

Haec autem non apud antiquos tantum credebantur,sed etiam nonnullisnostrae aetatis persuasum est homines et esse scriptoribus et fuissequi ignis usu careant. Fabulas enim iis similis quae apud PLINIVM(N. H. 6, 188),PLVTARCHVM(Aqua an Ignis utilior?, 2, 3), POMP.MELAM (3, 9), exstant,alii etiam hoc saeculo narraueruntet praefectusquidam classis nostraeex longa nauigationedomum reuersus eadem rettulit.2 Sed haec omnia uana esse atque leuia uir doctus TYLORVSdemonstrauit(Early History of Mankind, pp. 23i-8). Cum autem de his nihil fide dignum nobis sit traditum,suspicione tamen res non caret in ultima antiquitatefuisse homines uel potius animalia- si re uera, ut aiunt philosophiquidam, genus olim - qui sine ignisusu uitamegerint. erat quoddam utrisquesimillimum Sed haec hactenus; nunc ad res certioresueniamus. QVAERAMVS igiturquem ad modum apud antiquos fierisolitus sit ignis; constat enim haud facile eos id fecisse; quippe nondum centum anni sunt cum maiores nostri,silice chalybeque usi, ignem laboriose excudebant. Sed hoc saeculo res noua excogitata est ut ramentumligni sulpure atque eo quod nunc phosphorusappellatur ad extremumtingueretur;hoc cum in aliquid acriterfricatumest, 1 Homini cuidam id donum Argiui adscribebant; cf. PAVS. 2, 19, 5. WILKES.: Narrative of theU. S. ExploringExpeditionof 1839-42; vol. 5, p. I8. 2

M. H. Morgan.

16

ignis extemplo incendi solet. Nos igiturnullo negotio ignem paramus; aliter antiqui, qui, ut is semper ad manum esset, carbones ardentes ad accendendum ignem cum usus exigeret sub cineribus focorumobrutosseruaresolebant; cf. HOM. Od. 5, 488:-T

L s8 '

TL

&XOv8a or'oSj

/E vEiKpv' /vLcXa17V

0/L rapa aypov dr' diEaTXaTLg,

;Axot,

yELove'

ai'ot. rp/jpa rvpo oc'jtwv, va pL 7ro0ev AXXo9ev

Cf. OVID. M. 8, 631r; VERG.Moret. 8 sqq.; CAT.R. R. 143. Hos quidem alias aliter Graeci nominabant: primumra%nlrvpa dicebant; cf. locum PLATONIS (Legg. 677 B) de iis qui ex aquarum eluuione seruatisint:als o

ro'Trc

v rcpt(Avy'vriT2r'v OophvAXc85 a-peo'r avc

TO) TOWV 0V 8a0() OVa v KOpV(aa 7rouO7UKpa avOpOr owrvpa Similiterait ir

(Tim. 3):

LVCIANVS .

70rv ACVKaVOOS

..

.

LO d

EL

-

KL1TLOV

7E

.

t..

7brtV

v

V

ov. 7TL

TO)

aVWpwrvovO7repaaros SLabAvXTTrrov.

Cf. PLVT.quoque Instit.Lac. 240 A:vopoOatlas. X AvKxovpyov Myot,7riaVppaXrartvat'rvpa SLaOw'ovre rT7g

DeinderaT" 7'pSava siue 7rp'aXa dicebant;cf.HESYCH. S.UU. 7vpvaXov

l

o K7XLLOV

cp yavov,

6 'Xov, i XcElavov.

--

O vpop'. ra XAava K~LTa ;rvpa Tro) rvp8ava'-

Deinde ra Xct"ava; cf. HESYCH.locos supra laudatos et s.u. E/rv'Xctavov. Cf. ARISTID.I, p. 785 Dind.:pevva EWa80osdelsv/as 7TWV tLKpV 8 XEtlavov r, t a[KETO dy/arr7Trs apE1 vvvcPXovT()VaAvqCbEv. Cf. NON.D. 37, 62. Postremo rob 'EVLa dicebant; cf. SYNES.de regno, p. 31 C: rgp La XEl~ereOaL 0o"' i/Lr'7-up povXo'~vro * XENAavov. SVID. S.U. 4~Lwr'pevlLa

vakat.

-vavo'La,

HESYCH.

o'reppa

S.U. EirrLpev' a

7rvpos.

"

Romani quoque animiseandem imaginemfingebantcum u. igniculus utebantur; cf. CIc. Fin. 5, 18: cetera generiseiusdem,quorum Valetudinem,uiris,pulchritudinem similiasuntprima in animisquasi uirtutumigniculiet semina. Recte uero ab hac consuetudineignis seruandi nescio quis' iam I HELBIGI (Die Italiker in derPoebene,p. 53) et BASTIANI (Zeitschr.EthnoL., laudatos (p. 3) non uidimus. I, p. 378) locos a PLANCKIO

De Ignis Eliciendi Modis.

17

perspexitillum ignem foci publici sempiternum, quem uirginesVestales custodiebant,originemdeduxisse. Graecorumquoque mos fuit omnibusin ciuitatibusut priscistemporibusin regisaedibus,postea in prytaneisignispublicussemperarderet; cf. PREVNER., Hestia-Vesta, PP. 95-141. MILITIAE quoque necesse erat ignem seruare ut castris positis

praesto esset; id munus ab eo fortassesustinebaturquem Graeci appellabant. Quem cum scriptorestradiderintalii propter 7rvpdo'pov religionemsacrorum exercitumsequi, alii ut face deiecta signum proelii committendidet, nobis tamen ueri simile esse uideturtemporibus antiquissimiseundem usum eum praebuisse militibusquem ciuibus uirginesVestales. Romanorumautem exploratorescastrorum lapide et clauo usos ignem excudisse auctor est PLINIVS(N. H. 36, 138, infra,p. 37), neque quicquam apud eos de eo qui 7rvpdo'pos appelleturreperirepotuimus. Graecorurnquidem testimoniasubiecimus: EVR. Phoen. 1377rvpG.ogsTvpovvLK'q d oiX~rLyyos X?iO^/La 4oLvl'o IXf1~ / ItLv Sp0' A)XoLV E7rL. 8&Lv AXX JLaqa

Srade' &qd

SCHOL.ibid.: rp0yLprT77 e'p'Eo7 aprLyyo- Eav Tractsdxats Kal TOv TroLS ppL7rTEV, iovoIaLXOULtv, iv /LOmp rL hXXautrd KatLO/A'v7v caTCLELOV XEN. Rep. Lac. 13, 2, 3: Xa8ov 7rpoi7yecLat irtL 'AO-qva:

T

TLav& a -

opta T77s Xpa KtpoT

0 opLta TV Xwpa" 0'

7rvpd5oposrVpir7o rov

^wpo^

av9 OvEcLLa L iEKE' S'acrtLXEcV Ka' o v ToYTrorow troLV oVO KcLXLEp7 9fl, 7T7TE 8La/clVEL 7a a' 7V pcV WV T;wVLEp t TO'rWV 7rpoE7ElT8a oroT0

S Cf. NICOL. DAM. ap. MUill. hist. Graec. frag. 3, P. 458, 114, 14. C. I. A. 3, 264: hIp~w~ rvp dpov ~$ 'AKporro'Xeo.Cf. C. I. G. 186. 353; VISCHER.in Neues Schweizerisches Museum, III, p. 58. i'rrat. 8roc3pvewVvov,T4Cdyta 7Qavro'ta

5, 34: ofs 3Uvpcfo3pos raTcpOL.adL0*rc) r2a7os 7

ZENOBIVS, eLprqatcI

iO jyr-Oa,8v7)v Xov7T KIovr K

/V ovov (eLcrOa voLO; 7ly

T'L

ErLv XCL4O0)"

rTOXCLKv-

KLV8VVWV /LYyaXwv

7 7rapaGWKCVESEL VT

/ aV7LV

L YTEeLaTaKat XaL7ra *a Kl TO1roOU TwV rov' 7TroX0ALovU. rTOLVVV rcvavAWEopi

7.,

M. H. Morgan.

18 wKapv 8&ceLOapulyv

Svm.s.u.

HESYCH. :

rvpko'po

oXyV rrapotpta. Cf. DIOGEN.7, 15; PHOT.et ~ 0rp

pOV

Ka

6

pio'vos vt aoAE'LVt v

oXeulJ.

autemiamcpwv Prouerbium temporeHerodotiinualuerat;cf.8, 6: IScL

7(3 EKLVWYV Cf. etiam CKcjvyotva 7rvp(bo'pov rCpyevOar0a. t. Nic. Xo`'Y 2. GREG. PHILON. I. CASS. p. 34; p. 529 A. ; 109, 39, 45 DIo. C' 1L 8

e DoMIBVSautempriuatissi fortealiquandoigniseratexstinctus, cf. iterum incendere Od. uicinis solebant; proximis 5, 488 HOM. (supra, p. i6), et Lvs. i. ? 14 :-t at Ovpat VVKT-pqIoAoiev, IAar-K To'v X'Xvov da7roEpop/v8ov /LOVTL Cf. T' T7rv-yLTOVwv TO avciao.ctL. JTraSat. oaflo.vtrL 7r PETRON. ,K 136; PHAEDR. Rud.'rctp, PLAVT. 3, 19. 766, AuL 9i.raLt~,', ; Inter enim officia(Ta KaO'tKovra)erat pati ab igne ignem capere; cf. CIC. Of. I, 52:nonprohibere ex quo suntilla communia, pati ab aqua profluente,

igne ignemcapere, si qui uelit,consiliumfideledeliberantidare. librisa Cicerone sine dubio Haec uero e Panaeti rCp~t KovOafKovrros haustasunt,ut ait FOWLER. Panaetii et Hecat/nis ibrorumfragmenta, Bonn, 1885 ; cf. XEN.Mfem.2, 2, 12 ; Oec. 2, 15 ; ENN. ap. Cic. Of. I, 5I; PLAVT.Trin. 3, 2, 53; CC. Off.3, 54. Quod si quis hoc officio defuerat,exsecratus habebatur; cf. DIPHIL. Paras. frag. 3 (Meinek.) : Ev TcLS apaLS &yvocts 0 TL EOTLYV ,L TL rg/ cpaucrt opU0)t 0001o '&A4&'p 3V7EiavalYc, Sp, L? ,) pAovra S& lrVCLE KXXv'aL TLMa; Y

Notumest tamenapud Romanosiis qui de ui itemqueiis qui

maiestatiserantdamnati aquam et ignem legibus interdici; cf. Cic. Phil. I, 23; 6, io; Pro Dom. 78; Famr. 1, I, 2; CAES. B. G. 6, 44; APPIAN.B. C. I, 31 ; GAI. Ins/it. I, 128. Temporibus autem

cumpauca de igniseliciendimodishominesiam intelantiquissimis

legebanthaec poena certe institutaest, qua Graeci quoque utebantur. Cum autem nihilde hac re in librisrecentibusde iuribuslegibusque Atheniensiumscriptis repperimus,scriptoresantiquos omnis commemorabimusqui de ea aliquid tradiderunt'; sed, ne longum facia1 De hac re bene disseruituir doctusPLANCKIVS (pp. 32-34).

De Ignis Eliciendi Modis.

19

mus, locos tantummodo neque uerba subiciemus: HDT. 7, 231 (cf. adnot. GAISFORD.);DIN. Or. 2, 9; DEM. 25, ? 61; PLVT. t. 2, p. (?) apud SvID. s.u. EVaelEtv. 538 A; POLYB.et AELIANVS

SED cum plerisquecausis saepe accideretut ignem nouum excitari oporteret,'erantomninomodi quattuorquibus hoc fieriposset. Primumattritufactusest ignis, cum duo ligna inter se trita siue terebrata sunt; deinde duorum lapidum conflictuexcitari potuit; tum si ferrolapis percutiebatur,postremo ex solis radiis,cum specula uel crystallaopponebantur,ignis elicitusest. Cf. PLIN.N. H. 2, 239; SEN. Q. N. 2, 22; CIC. N. D. 2, 25. De uniuersisautem his locis infradisseremus; nunc uero singillatimde uno quoque modo quaeramus. PRIMVM scribere de lignorumattritustatuimus; nam hoc modo omnibus2uisum est ignemapud Indos, Graecos, Romanos, Germanos ab initioesse elicitum(cf. KVHN.1.1.p. 36) ; etiam nunc Indi in sollemnibussacris hunc moremobseruant.3 Praetereahodie suntgentes quae lapidum usum ad accendendum ignem non intellegunt(cf. TYLOR. pp. 234, 241 sqq.). Interscriptores Graecoshoc SOPHOCLES (Phil. 295, u. infra,p. 36), illud poeta nobis ignotus in carmine Homerico ad Mercuriuminscripto (io8 sqq., u. infra,p. 20) primus commemorauit. Hic uero annis ante Sophoclem ducentis a plerisque fuisse putatur (cf. BAVMEISTER., GEMOLL., ABEL., in edd. Hymn. Hom.). Locus autem carminisnos docet Graecos ipsos arbitratosesse ignemlignorumattrituprimumfieri:-1 Fortasseetiamputandumest apud tabernarios carbonesardentesuenalesesse

propositos; cf. Ivy. I, 134: -

caulis miserisatque ignis emendus. Amiciquidemdoctissimibeneficioinscriptionem quandam,utilemad Iuuenalis locum explicandum,citarepossumus,quam proximoanno in Batauos profectus uidit: WATER EN VUUR TE KOOP.

2 PLANCKIVS quidem non solum huic sententiae sed etiam sibi ipse dissentire uidetur; cf. pp. 16, 18, 19, 23. 8Cf. IORDAN. Der Tempel cder Vesta, p. 79 sq.

20

M. H. Morgan. h a ~c'spe o~vaetvu;a

o~96 s r 'Eco V , 7rvp Xa raov arri~po . yXanv T..V. 7roTc.~ cL1L E7-~X~E' 3'vTvo 8E9cpup a"VT/L7" cpLevov v7v 7raXao ~.~v E pu -qTOL ; rotLT 7 k

7rOkX

K/KSLk

KXKcL

ruqXo' de icnvoav'sa

rpa VP-qta 7rvp7T aVEOKCV.] KalTOv&Uo

/'9po

pg

rsvpig m &uttoevoto. lLc'ya

Ad hoc spectatlocus LVCRETI (5, 1i96 sqq.) :et ramosa tamencum uentispulsa uacillans aestuatin ramos incumbensarborisarbor, ualidis extritusuiribusignis exprimitur et micat interdumflammaiferuidusardor, mutua dum interse rami stirpesqueteruntur. (Cf. LVCRET. I, 897 sqq.) Simplicissimoigiturmodo ignis fierisolet cum duo ligna, aliud aliam in manum sumptum,inter se teruntur. Sed non recte nostra sententiaita quisquam interpretetur uerba SENECAE (Q. N. 2, 22) :Videamus quem ad modum fierisoleat ignisapud nos... duobus modis ... alterosi attrituinuenitur,sicut cum duo ligna interse diutius frictasunt... Multo enirnante Senecam ab antiquisinstrumentum quoddam erat inuentumquo sine tanto labore idem facerent. Nam apud Apollonium Rhodium (u. infra,p. 21) id instrumentumcommemoratur Romani igniariumsiue ignitabulumappellaquod Graeci 7rvpatov, bant. Hoc est ex duobus lignis compositum,quorum unum (quod Graeci2 nominabant)alterumtam diu terebrabatdum ignis r7p-'avov in hoc conciperetur. Sed recte Seneca uerbo quod est a terendo utitur,propterea quod rpv'ravov non solum terebrat sed eodem tem-

pore alterumlignum terit,quo ipso fit ut ignis concipiatur. Itaque hoc modo Pliniusatque ceteri scriptoresRomani uerbum a terendo usurpant(u. infra,p. 27); Graeci quoque idem faciebant,uu. rp8lwo, usi (u. infra, pp. 3o, 31), uerbumfortasseseruantes IKrpl/O, 'VV7p43O cum ab ea significatione in qua esset natum iam decessisset. Multa 1&1rX~ee optime emend. COBETVS. 2 Terebram Romani sine dubio id appellabant, quamquam exempla desunt.

De Ignis Eliciendi Modis.

21

enim uerba,ut ait VARRO(L. L. 5, I, 3) aliud nunc ostendunt,aliud ante significabant. Nam incredibileest uel Romanos uel Graecos, nisi si necessitate cogebantur,illo modo simplicissimoignem fecisse; quippe eorum usum intellegebantantequam ex Asia in maioresinstrumenti 7rvpci'ov Europam migrauerunt (cf. KVHN.1.1.passim). Tempore autem APOLLONI RHODI lignum terebrarineque teri solebat; cf. Argonaut. I, xI82 sqq.:vO 8a S' 7TELO OL EV XaKLKayava, 1O &NXEXaiv cf.pov*o7r7ov&4Lq' 4vXXk8aXEqkewvwv o'L-vE%3 T-T 4"lS L 7Trvp7tLa SLVEcV'CKOV. orTopvloOat" Praeterea si Festo crederelicet (de quo u. infra,pp. 57 sqq.), in sacris antiquissimisRomani terebrandonon terendo ignem excitabant; cf. FEST. s.u. Ignis : Ignis Vestae si quando interstinctusesset, uirgines uerberibus afficiebatitur a pontifice,quibus mos erat tabulam felicis materiae tam diu terebrarequousque exceptum ignem cribro aeneo uirgo in aedem ferret. Videmus igiturde eo instrumentoesse nobis quaerendum quod tam antiquis temporibusest inuentumut de eius origine nihil certum disci possit. Graeci autem quidam Prometheoid donum attribuebant; cf. DIOD. Sic. 5, 67 : /'vveVo rtYWV/uVOoypCa4oV O"TLTO rp lIpouyOca, rov 7rapa8cotuLvouv

OW SWKET KXCqasrapa TwOV WOCv ro'svOp&7rotT9,

y

,VO/Eo TOVTVPELWo 7"0

'

EKK'IETaL

T

7p.

irp

S' dX5OcavcVpCqTv

His uerbis Diodorus fabulam explicare conatur; dicit enim sub Prometheinominehominemquendam ostendiqui instrumentum inuenerit. Sed de nominePROMETHEVSet uocabulo Skt.PRAMANTHA, quod est rrvpcdov, u. KVHN. 1.1.p. 17; CVRT. Gr. Etym.p. 335. Bene autem uersum carminisHomerici (III, u. supra, p. 20) quo instrumentum Mercurio adscribiturdamnauit Ruhnkenius,quem ceteri se7rvptoYv cunturqui illa carminaediderunt; nam recte putant hunc uersum e glossa natumesse. Sed frustradicit Baumeisterushaec uerbisHESIODI (Theog. 567, u. infra,p. 43) repugnare. Nusquam enim instrumenturn7rvpcLov PrometheoadscripsitHesiodus, cum in ferulaseruatume caelo hominibusignemis dedisset. Quod si nescio quis hoc instrumentumMercurioadscribereuolebat,illud certe mirandumest quod

M. H. Morgan.

22

in hac re non commemoratur Daedalus; huic enim artes nouae pleadscribi solent. Quamquam uero his in fabulis nihil tale rumque ei simillimuminuenisse tamen instrumentum Daedalus repperimus, dicitur. Nam PLINrVSDaedalo terebrae inuentionem adscripsit fuit,quo (N. H. 7, 198) ; haec fabrorumtignarioruminstrumentum ad terebrandumlignumutebantur. Apud Graecos quidem nonnunquam ,iperpovappellabatur; cf. HOM. Od. 5, 246 :S' 'VEbLKE TCPerpa KaXvi), Za Ocawv" " pa "ravTa. TcTprOvcv

TO"fpa

terebraesimilesed ea ampliushabuePraetereafabriinstrumentum runtquod rpiwavovGraeci appellabant; hoc nomen,ut supra diximus (p. 20), particuidam instrumenti 7vptdovdatum est. ERIT igiturutile de hoc fabroruminstrumentopauca quaerere; ab eo enim putamus Tr rpviravo rTv originem duxisse. Satis autem opportune accidit ut de eius'vpewv usu HOMERI uerba habeamus quae secuntur(Od. 9, 382 sqq.) :OVr' ov cXawov, ILOXXoV EXovTcT ot/LEV 8" (Eveotrav. sOOaX/AL ''( ,' &VEVOV, WS

~OTCLF 7TT'pVrO

E Kpy,

& Crcopcv apOdk

8OpV V?7LOV avvjp

t LaVTL OO V oL TC J * pOV tAooELOVOW Tpv7re'd, To alet. j4la/LEVOLCKaTCpOE,

SE TPEXeL/t Ileves

Eadem fereexpressitEVRIPIDESin Cyclope(460) :S'olc vavlr-qytav

virp TL cp/AOZPwv-

87rXotv XaXLvoLvrpv'lravov

Kw7rl7XaTrE.

Videmus igiturterebrammaiorem- Romani enim hoc uno uo-

cabulo

et rpi'ravov et Trperpov designabant -

terebram maiorem,

dicimus, loro bis (Str-Xotv XaoXvotv) circumplicatamesse; itaque extremislori in uicem adstrictisterebra summa celeritate se conuertit; stabiliendi autem causa necesse est aliquis super terebrae caput manum leniterponat. Quod si hoc non dilucide explicauimus, facilius totum aliquis intelleget si baculo usus rem ipsam temptarit. Constabit autem duobus hominibusopus esse, sed unus homo instrumentoquod Daedalus inuenisse dicitur sine dubio uti

De Ignis Eliciendi fModis.

23

potuit. Nam priscistemporibusAegyptiiterebrahoc modo utebanManners and Customs of tur; cf. tabulamquae in libroWILKINSONI, the Egyp'ians, 3, p. 144, describitur. Hac in tabula uidemus fabrum tignariumqui arcu loroque terebramcircumagit; caput autem terebraein aliquo cauo quasi uagina positum stabilit. Exstat quoque idem instrumentumin uase quodam Graeco depictum apud GERHARD., Danide, in Berl. Winckelmann 1854; cf.RAOVLtFestprog., Romaniquoque eo uteROCH. Choix des Peintures,pp. i8I, 225. bantur,cuius exemplumdaturin libello IAHNIDarstell. antikerReliefs w. sich auf Handwerk bezieheninscripto,tab. xi. 2.1 Hoc erat sine dubio instrumentum Daedalo inuentoriadscriptum. ita Nam in Antiquiquidem putabant. pictura Daedali atque PasiBorb. vii, 55; HELBIG.WTandgemiilde, phaae Pompeis reperta(Mus. arcum sub Daedali terebramque pedibus iacta uidemus,quasi I208) huius propriaet peculiariaesse uiderentur. Alterumquoque licet instrumentum commemorareterebrae simillimumquo fabriutebantur; ei nomen erat mamphur; cf. PAVL.FEST. Excerp. p. 132, M. :Mamphur appellatur loro circumuolutummediocris longitudinis lignumrotundum,quod circumaguntfabriin operibus tornandis. De hoc autem scripsit SCALIGER(ad Schol. Theocr. I1, 41) his uerbis: Quod est sucula in machina tractoria,id mamphur in torno. Graecum est uavvo'dpovquia circumuolutum habeat lorum ut collum uocant Graeci. monile,quod udvvovet vwvvov Licet fortassedubitare num recte uir doctissimusu. mamphura Graeco quod est uavvoropov, id est moniliornatum,dictumesse putauerit. Veri simileenim esse nobis uideturin prima syllaba uocabuli mamphuruestigia Latini uocabuli manus esse seruata; cf. u. mamphora, quo significatur sudarium,linteum(Dv CANG.,Gloss. Med. et Inf. Lat.). Sed haec hactenus; nunc de fabrorumterebraepartibus disseremus. De his primumcf. POLL. IO, 146: tKEzI; . . . Tprv7aVOv, TEKTOVOS iv Se 7-T apts . . Tpvr7avovxos, iv 'OXvtirla dvayypairratTrpvrava, TpVravLa Lo"W r?7v xXOVaj pt 'Sa cT17Xq, I Hodie etiameodeminstrumento artifices horologiorum uulgoutuntur.

HM. H. HMorgan.

24 7,

113:

rTEperpov, Trpv7aavoVXo0% apl. Tr SE rpv'ravov, pyaXE.a, ev IIESc7)aLt XCY'YcTl) T7rTaLK7l qdptoos.

KaX.as

yoiv

Iis quidem qui Pollucis librumedideruntu. rpv7ravogXoqterebrae manubriumsignificareuidetur; cf. LIDDELL. et ScoTT.,Lex. s.u. Sed certe errorefalluntur;recte enim eo uocabulo significatur uagina in Nulla enim sunt uocabula uertitur. terebrae quae e caput qua nomine et syllabis-oXossiue -ovxos(ab eo unde est Exw) ita sunt iuncta ut eius rei nomine designatae partem quandam significent; u. XvXvogXos, quod lucernae manubriumnon exempli causa sufficiet , 0-Lsignificat;cf. uu. KXELSVXOS, KVVOVXO, TaXaVTOvXO% )XaL7Traovxo% alia multa atque quae apud pvoxo K-rrTToVxoS, oXO, pafpSOvxo, (Etym. Worterb.Gr. Spr. p. 204 sq.) reperiripossunt. Itaque PAPIVM terebraemanubriumsignificarenon posse. uidemusu. rpv7ravovXos De uocabulo dp's iidem uiri docti in erroreuersantur; nam putant eo significari aliquid terebraesimillimum. Sed recte significatarcum una cum loro quibus terebra circumagisolet; cf. ORIBAS.4, P. 156 (B. et D.) :Cf. APOLLOD. Poliorcet. (p. 148 in ed. WESCHERI Poliorc/tique des

Grecs,cum terebrarumtabulisinstructa):S...

E9V raXLOV LEkV aLXELvITo TELXOS,7TVKVOLS Tpv7ravOLg &aprp00olE tEAoO va ( Trp7ravov) apt'& (aTrpEcrTaL.

v

Cf. etiam HIPPOCRATIS locum quem in Lexico citatum definitioni ibi expositae prorsusrepugnareuidemus; haec quidem sunt uerba (789 G. Foes.) :EXKrSev'av.1 Ka ypN p QVOD sI quis mirabiturquid haec pertineantad ea quae de igne quaeramus, ei satisfacietres ipsa cognita. Nam ut paucis uerbis absoluamus antiquos dicimus instrumentoquod 7rvpaovappellabant eodem modo quo terebrauti esse solitos. Neque uero nescii sumus hoc difficileesse probatu,si ad scriptorumuerba tantummodo spectemus; in his enim,terebracommemorata,nihilde arcu et loro legimus; in tabulis autem pictis antiquis nihil quod nobis sit auxilio repertumest. Sed primumuerba habemus APOLLONIet FESTI (U. supra, p. 21); sine dubio igiturignis terebrandoexcitari solebat; cf. quoque LABBAEVM atque CAROLVMDE AQVINO,infra,p. 28. Prae1 Cf. GOETZ. Corp. Gloss. Lat. II, p. 245: apt, arcus.

De Ignis Elicicndi M.Jodis.

25

terea antiquissimistemporibusfabri terebrae usum intellegebant,ut supra diximus; adde etiam quod calorem in hoc usu gigniuidebant;1 his cognitishaud diu tenuissentillummodum antiquissimumquo ligna interse teri solebant. Nam summae peruersitatisest, ut aiunt,inuentis frugibus,glande uesci. Deinde si in tabulis pictis nusquam ignem terebra excitari uidemus,nullum uerum id argumentumest; nam eadem rationenos putareoportebatne lapides quidem igni eliciendo esse usurpatos. ITAQVEhis causis atque scriptorumauctoritatequos infracitabimus iam non dubiumuideturesse quin uocabulo rvpc^ovsiue rvpdcasignificaripossit terebra maior atque arcus lorum uagina quae ad eam pertineant. Sed cum, ut supra diximus,nihil in tabulis antiquorum usu certioresfaciat, pictisrepertumsit quod nos de huius instrumenti operae pretiumfortasseerit paucas tabulas inspicere quas huius rei causa describendascurauimus(p. 14). In his enim uidere licet quo uti soleant; tabulae autem e modo hodie barbarieodem instrumento TYLORIlibro translataesunt. cernimusquo ignis terebrando In tabula I modum simplicissimum fieripotest; haudquaquam negare uelimus in hac wrvpdovexhiberi, sed, ut supra diximus,nobis persuasum est neque Graecos neque Romanos nisi necessitate coactos, sicut cum contra exspectationem foris pernoctandum erat, ignem hoc modo excitare esse solitos. Deinde in tabula II terebram,lorum, rpv7ravoVXov (uaginam) uidemus. Postremo in tabula III exhibenturterebra,arcus, lorum; pro eo autem quod rpvravoOXos appellatur,tegula adhibetur. testimoniaaudiamus. Primum NVNCdemumhis cognitisscriptorum igiturTHEOPHRASTIinspiciamuslocum qui quasi thesaurusnobis est eorum seruatusquae ad rem nostrampertinent. Locus est in Hist. Plant. 5, 9, 6 sqq.: E L 7rVpE ylyVaL /V (K XXV, p~rarto (8% OSv MevTpo K S' 7rov KLTTOV* SC Yap K dL t7oTTV ava7rvctl. aptrov tLV

'Ow7Lv 7rVPCLOv ' totov KaXov/L vuevv3vro' tLVOJV rovTo S 'CTTL &vSpov T? TOVTO W O ralVOT &ypOL (IM7rCp CKEfVa KatL avapatvcL KaL &T1)

Ta7rXLaTYa K T7- OpayEvV,

T7rEXW

1 Cf. COLVM.Arbor.8, 3: Antiqua terebrascobem facitet propterhoc urit eam partemquam perforat. Nos rursusterebramquam Gallicamdicimus. .. nec uritquod non scobemsed ramentafacit. 2 Similiaautemuerbaidem scripsitin libroDE IGNE inscripto, cap. 64.

26

il. H. Morgan.

(7) SETS TVrdX0 pav

7rpOs Ta aSv8pa.

K r TO'ToV 7TOLEV,7T

8c 7TP7ra-

7T Kpov "-OrYap iK TrV'TOV vov iK 0roLOVV Kat rdxov, EXXE" 7TO 86 70LTLKOV. OVEVO\ Yvqg " 7To Sc: ,Lv EtVaL, SdtKacrT fVf 7raOOTLKoV "LV, KOl Q Ka\LK TO aVov yL,V 7)~y VES T7rOXa/L VETraKal W VOflvowvO8cv &aadAX Cpet.

L Kal o-c8oV K TWV ylyveraTyap (K palVOV KcU rptvovKal 4XpMR v7V

- 0 KLt )loXa?s

OKEL

TO7rOV

Kat yap

OKXqlpOTEpOV Kal

LvL 7ec'Xcat TrovT OVS?XovOTt T7jV Vypo',T7a oLLeV Ovv WTo-v/iL/Lp Xet Xtwrap6v TO KaU 7VV T SrTO 7rp 7VV7rvpOXLVy.cyaLOc8 Ta ?K pa/LVOv 7rTOLEL 7"tcO"Twv

*St' v sB&#v s od [v' da04repov 7i lo-yd, pay cirpvrravov Ij7pl~L taXv/OV ElvaL E rpos yap 7Ty$/pa\VKal icoXPpavyp7orT?7gv

Kal laVOTE-

yap ov EpyaeraLT ptopLrovd7raeOE rT^SpL/LV'rl~L.7ravra S Ta7 rvp * K V tLeV Kal VTOL EK rTo770V /laXXOV lv iea7rTeaL, OTTO770v flopdog Sr KOXAOL V 70ts /LaXXOV, T70ots R770V. LErewpos

His ex uerbismultauero discimus; primumpartiumnomina quae et o'xdpa, - nam hoc in hoc instrumentosunt principes,Trpiravov - deinde nihil loco de arcu loro uagina Theophrastidicere interfuit, uentis locisque eorum materiamcognoscere docemur; tum quibus optime ignem 7rvpca eliciant. De uentis quidem et locis a Theophrasto ipso satis dictum est; de reliquis autem pauca eius uerbis refertaddere. Latine terebra,iam supra comNomen igiturquod est rpi~ravov, Latine tabula (cf. FEST., memorauimus; alteriuspartisnomen co-Xdpa, supra,p. 21) a naturasua originemdeducit. Materiamautem optimam qua in faciendatabula uti oporteat,hederamesse dicit Theophrastus; ; plantam quoque alteram aeque conlaudat,cui nomen est 'pay'vq hoc autem est,ut ait, S&vapov ooov Tf cLriEX KaL7Tj ovo dypl4" nihil f.T wrposTa S'vopa. Hac de planta Ka TOvTO CKLVAL ,o-7rEp haec certeovaLpaVEL KVHNIVS tamen confert p. (1.1. 41) uu. intellegimus; praeter in et ignis ^ATARet ^ATARVAN, Persarum ignem lingua antiqua quae sacerdotem significant(cf. PLINI locum, infra,p. 27). Tabula quoque bona e rhamno(AfIvov) fieripotest; hunc interruborumgenera commemoratPLINIVS, NV.H. 24, I24. Terebramautem optimame lauro esse faciendamdicit Theophrastus. Verum tamen ex eadem materia,ut ait, terebramtabulamque nonnullifaciunt,nec quicquam referresunt qui dicant; faciuntenim illa e rhamno,ilice, philyra(siue tilia) atque e plurimisfere praeter oliuam. Sed non ex eodem id quod agat et id quod patiaturfieri optimeoportet.

De Ignis Eliciendi Modis.

27

Erit autem utile cum hoc Theophrastiloco conferrePLINI haec uerba (N. H. i6, 207 sq.) :Calidae (sunt) et morus,laurus,hederae et omnia e quibus igniaria fiunt. Exploratorumhoc usus in castris pastorumquerepperit, quoniam ad excudendum ignem non semper lapidis occasio est. Teriturigiturlignumligno ignemque concipit attritu,excipientemateriearidi fomitis,fungiuel foliorumfacillimoconceptu. Sed nihil hedera praestantiusquae teratur,lauro quae terat. Probatur et uitis ex siluestribusalia quam labrusca, et ipsa hederae modo arborem scandens. uocabulum unus ex scriptoribusquos nouimus Latinis IGNIARIA Plinius hoc loco atque in libro primo (ubi ea memorauitquae in libro sexto decimo continentur)scripsit. De eius significatione nihil sine dubio Sed fortasse quaerendumest; quaeretur 7rvpMasignificat. utrumRomani eo nomineuti sint soliti,an ex Graeco Plinius id uerterit. Sane enim hoc loco, ut ipse (lib. I, 1.1.)nos docet, Theophrastum consulebatet eum studiosesequebatur (u. infra,p. 29). Itaque uiro docto SALMASIO(Plin. Exerc. p. I26 c) uidebatur Plinius ex Graeco u. igniariaid temporisuertisse,cum rectius ex consuetudine loquendi u. ignitabulumdici oporteret. De hoc igitur uocabulo pauca nobis sunt exploranda. Hoc quidem uidetur quasi ab ignitando esse ductum; uerbum autem ab eo quod est ignitoapud scriptoresnon reperitur;cf. tamen uu. uenabulum, infundibulum, pabulum. Instrumentumigitur quo ignis eliciaturhoc significareoportet. Contra autem FESTVS,apud quem primumuocabulumrepperimus,ita interpretatur (PAVL.Excerp. p. Io8 M.) :-ignitabulum: ignisreceptaculum. Vas igituresse id intellegitin quo ignis contineretur; cf. Vulg. Exod. 27, 3:forcipesatque fuscinulaset igniumreceptacula,omnia uasa ex aere fabricabis. Nobis autem uideturscriptoremquem Festus sequebatur--si recte Paulus huius uerba tradidit--hoc male interpretatum esse; nam cum u. turibulumturis receptaculumsignificet,illud non a uerbo sed a nomine ductum est; eodem modo u. ignibulum--ut uocabulo nouato utamur (cf. u. igniculus)--non ignitabulumignis receptaculum significareoportet. SOLINVsautem,qui non multo post Festum

28

M. H. Morgan.

fuit, uocabulo ignitabulum7rvpctov significarisine dubio putabat; nam scripsit( i, 19) : Delos appellatur... Pyrpile,' quoniam et ignitabula ibi et ignis inuentasunt. Deinde apud Gellium atque Macrobiumlocos duos interse similis citare licet :GELL. 15, 2, 3: (Plato) fomitemesse quendam dicens et ignitabulum ingeniiuirtutisque,si mens et corpus hominisuino flagret. MACR. S. 2, 8, 4: Plato aestimauitfomitemesse quendam et ignitabulumingeniiuirtutisque,si mens et corpus hominis uino flagraret. Hi suntomnes loci in quibus apud scriptoresantiquos u. ignitabulum exstat; quibus cognitisfortassequispiam dicet hoc non instrumentumligneum rvpctov significare,sed potius lapides siue lapidem excudi soleat. Primo quidem aspectu hoc ferro, quibus curn ignis ueri simileesse uidetur,sed aliterab iis decerniturqui uocum Graecarumet Latinarumglossariauetera conlegerunt. Neque nescii sumus iis haud multumauctoritatisesse fere concedendum; nunquam fortasse eorum indicia, quae scriptorumuerbis antiquorumrepugnare uidentur,recte sunt nobis accipienda. Sed saepe acciderit ut, cum de aliqua re scriptoresipsi nihil certe tradiderint,turnapud eos qui glossas scripserintuerumdiscamus; hi enimmultosantiquorumlibros habebant qui nobis omnino desunt. Praeterea nescimus quanta ab antiquitateoriginesglossarumsint repetendae; quippe curmtempore GELLI (cf. 18, 7, 3) homineseas conligereiam coeperint. Itaque de ignitabulo,cum e scriptorumantiquorumuerbis intelleginon possit utrumligneuman lapideum fuerit,glossariorumarbitriorem permittere licet, praesertimcum haec inter se concinant. In Onomastico Vetere(cf. LABBAEI Gloss. Lat.-Graec. et Dv CANGI Gloss. Afed. et Inf. Lat. s.u.) u. ignitabulumita explicatur:: SaSb paflt'ovwrvpoo-rpdoov, ignitabulum wrvpcov. Deinde CAROLVSDE AQVINOin Lex. Militari (apud Dv CANGIVM, ibid.) haec scripsit:ignitabulumexponitlignumduplex quorumalterumleuius et rarius substernebatur, atque ab alio duriore et in terebrae formamfacto donec excitatocalore ignemeliceret. tamdiuperforabatur 1 Cf. PLIN. N. H. 4, 66.

2 Cf.GOETZ.Corp.Gloss.Lat.II, p. 76: ignitabulum wupoo~powov, 5aBoopasBtoov

De Ignis Eliciendi Modis.

29

Videmus igituru. ignitabulums~ignificare id est instrumenrvpcdov, terebrando Haec eliciebatur. tum ligneum quo ignis autem Solini sententiaequadrant (cf. supra,p. 28), qui ignem hoc modo primum esse factumsine dubio putauit. Licet etiam addere u. rvpoorpcbOov , XOLVLO-rp'Os,Ot~CKOTpOOrp s) quod in Onomas(cf. uu. KaX~ltTpO)~PO ad usum terebrae eliciendo Vetere legitur igni perspicue spectare. tico SED ut ad quaestionem quam supra (p. 27) instituimusnunc redeamus, nobis non ueri simileesse uideturPlinium u. igniaria adhuc ignotum finxisse,ut e Graeco 7rvprccauerteret. Nam Plinius eum librum scribebat quem facilem esse ad intellegendumuellet, ut in praefationeait ipse his uerbis (praef. 6) : humili uulgo scripta sunt, agricolarum,opificumturbae, denique studiorumotiosis. Itaque in loco de quo agituruocabulo sermone tritouti oportuit. Sed fortassequaeret quispiam quid sit quod uocabulo illo ignitabulum non utatur; nam non recte dicas quod primumapud Festum atque Solinumid uocabulumreperitur,igiturRomanos temporePlini eo uti non esse solitos. Nam primumnotumest Festum in libro suo nihil nobis tradidissenisi quae apud VerriumFlaccum, qui diui Augusti tempore fuit,scripta inuenerit(cf. TEVFFEL.,R. L. p. 566) ; deinde scriptoresRomae fueruntnulli,quos nouimus,qui, sicut Theophrastus, ignem in libris tractarent; accidit quoque ut pauci in tropis quos ornandae orationisgratiaadhibebant ignem atque huius instrumenta commemorarent. Nemo autem his causis adductus negare uelit ignem terebrandoesse factum; instrumentoigitur quo fieri solebat sine dubio nomen aliquod datum est. Erant fortasseduo nomina, quibus sine multo discrimine utebantur. Ex iis autem Plinius hoc scripsitquod, cum propius ad Theophrasti uocabulum accederet, primumin mentem uenit. Itaque nobis uideturinstrumentumquod Graece erat Romanos siue igniariumsiue ignitabulumappellare potuisse.w-vpcdov NvNC uero ad Plini locum redeamus quem supra (p. 27) tractabamus. Eandem fere materiamquam Theophrastuscommemorat; terebramenim e lauro, tabulam ex hedera facere iubet. Probatur etiam,ut ait, uitisex siluestribusalia quam labrusca,et ipsa hederae modo arborem scandens. His uerbis plantam Opaye'vyv(u. supra, p. 26) designat, cum alia quam labrusca sit; similem tamen ei esse dicit Theophrastus. Nam labruscam,quae est uitis siluestris

H. H. NMorgan.

30

(cf. PLIN.N. H. 14, 98), Graeci twreXovsiue oltvvOjv appel/ypt'av labant (THEOPHR. 1.1.). NvNc demumlocos inspiciamusin quibus apud scriptoresantiquos instrumenti usus commemoratur;illos autem temporisordine 7rvpcEov ita instruximus ut a saeculo ante Christumnatum quinto ad nostrae aetatis saeculum sextumextendant. PRIMVM igiturde uersibus carminis ad Mercuriuminscripti(u. supra, p. 20) inter omnis fere nunc conuenit, ut ait BAVMEISTERVS (in ed. Hymn. Hom.), post u. 7raXai/nonnullaintercidisseut horum uersuum descriptiosit manca. Sine dubio quidem uu. O5ov Sd&qv ad terebramspectant,tabulae autem descriptiodeest. Sed bene hos uersus interpretatur Gemoll. (Hymn. Hom. ed. 1886, pp. 212 sq.), nisi quod de u. -ropcv' significationehaud recte scripsit (u. infra, pp. 32 sqq.). aliorumscriptorumloci: SECVNTVR SOPHOCLIS frag. Phinei alterius (apud Hesych. s.u.) :aXaXKCvrarpv'rwava. idoneas dicit; fabrorumenim Terebras ligneas ad usum wrvptwov terebrasex aere fierioportuit. Eodem fere modo Orestes (AESCH. Cho. 493) loquitur: -

7rarep. OrlpcvOrd, rSats y' aXaXKCErTOLUL Rep. p. 435 A: aiK7ITrvpctLV Kat7Ta V aXXrKXa cKX Ka'Lrpt'flovreY gcTTEPC fKO7rTOVTC7E PLATONIS

aIaL7rot

at/Lev

TVV

&KaLO(TVvV.

XENOPHONTIS Cyr. 2, 2, 15: TL p(xOV V drEl EK YCEOV 7TVp,OttmL, 7Lv

THEOPHRASTI g.I e&tSe'

-

K ye'Xwra K7P LECLCV

a't ycv'crw airoi (,roi5 vp 's) ca'Xc7o-rat

ayayotTo.

Kal otov /Jera/#47413

KcL 'OEL KOa7p -yp q7TX?)yl^ TWVUTcpcwV(O-7Fep XloV, ?' OXL'(CtLKal 7rLX 7rvpdwv. ,r~wv Id. Ig. 29 :EKIJLKPWyV wocp Ka-qo/x yapUvovdo70V 8tL KUt , , ylyveTra,. v,/,rlwv ra w7vpca7r , fc a'rb roTv7ro7rTOeC. irpqCL Addere licet THEOPHR.1g. 63, infra,p. 36. THEOCRITI

Ida.

22, 32 : -

cKpv, r ? 87tL /O'vV Otva evvaT 7 EcrToopvVTo rvp, a

Kal ?;

WvTv

)rV

e XcpoLvEcvwoJov.

De Ignis EViciendiModis.

3t

APOLLONIatque DIODORI locos iam supracitauimus (p. 21). SENECAE Q. IN.2, 22 : Videamusquem ad modumfierisoleat ignisapud nos, duobus modis: uno si excitatur, sicutex lapide percusso;alterosi attritu cum duo sicut sunt. Non omnis inuenitur, lignainterse diutiusfricta hoc tibimateriapraestabit, sed idoneaeliciendisignibus, sicutlaurus, hederaeet alia in huncusumnotapastoribus. PLINIatqueFESTIlocosiam supracitauimus (pp. 27, 21). .

LVCIANI V.

I, 32 : -

Se avaYrT-r-avTres ( 7T-v leV vvv Tr?7rple'tCaV, vCTrTpov rov re7apovs ( KTWv 7TapOVTWV aVroLS 7rvpct ovvrp'P aCVTrC KaL vaKaavVTE8L7TVOV &aroLo'

ea.

Scholiastaautemu. rvpctahoc loco ita interpretatur: TroV7rvpCKflOX'raqXtOovv. Neque negaripotestlapides ex quibusignisexcudi solebatnonnunquam 7rvpctaappellari(u. infra, p. 35) ; nobis tamen hoc loco atque apud Platonem, Theocritum Xenophontem, (p. 30), uideturligniusumrectiusesse intellegendum. VerbaenimTheocriti ad usitaatqueLucianiad moresantiquos,Platoniset Xenophontis traditum tumgenusdicendiquod ab ultimaantiquitate erat,haud dubie spectant. PraetereaetiamGalenitemporeu. rvprcovinstrumentumligneumperspicuedesignabat; cf. GALEN.I, p. 658 (ed. Kuehn.): aVarreL7 a't

CroL'w V7rO 7rvpelovKcalCptOV

Kal pvaUXXt

K KU OT17T7rTLOV 0 dATOvOL o ? V)pOV $,kv Ka vapOV), K6a 7LV XoVOV. V O oS 8 Xl'OoL 4Xo'yaKalt 7raprptflO'LVo.... SIMPLICIComm. ad Arist.Caeld. 3, 3, 3 (p. 268,ed. Karsten.): E a-' 7 S vXwv cvrw 7rvpcK/3aXXovo-tv, ro TCpovvXov W rpv'ravov ~r'pP7rCptOrp~covres. Quare autemhoc loco Salmasiuset Kuhnius'u. ripcTpovpro u. non liquet. Nusquamenim apud scriptores rpviravov scripserint, diciturGraecosrcp'Trpw eliciendisignibusuti solere. SVIDAM Apud scriptor ignotuss.u. wrvpa: o

'E

'

8 VEXXgv

vov20 8OT'

KaTc LTov 7vpc

a

KL

88,

8dVT0E

~lVWVL OKOTYOV ErO/C-

K'O 7TV vT^pLa rvp va iXCEL TOL 7roXE'LOLS.

1Frustra PLANCKIVS (p.

I I) u. TE'perpovscribit, editione Karsteniquam citat

non consulta. 2 Corruptusest hic locus.

M. H. Morgan.

32

His in locis apud scriptoresantiquosinstrumentum ligneum7rvpeCov commemoratumreperirepotuimus. Quod si recte a grammaticis traditumest, aliud erat nomen ad hanc rem pertinensquod nondum tractauimus. Nam SCHOLIASTA quidam ad APOLLONIVM (1.1.) haec uerba scribebat: TO^) &TpE4OVv, Lov SLVeICEKOV'VTL' 7C'pTPL/OVV.7T yap $)Xa 7rapCTpt yap TavT q tT a LvTv 7TVp epXov. 7rvp'iL 7pOOTp/Lp1Vaa ^ Kt arT 0 KaXciTaL AXXXoL~irpo"Tr TVp 7yyEvva. (Ov !TO L6v TLVV7TTLov, 8A ; , OVTIV ETIo TTopIEVSOd&aTpoV7raparX/jTlov "rep Tpv7rV'O ETLTpl TopE^ -PPI0ovLV. Itaque SALMASIO (Exerc. Plin. p. I26), STEPHANO (Thes. s.u.), MOMMSENIO (Gesch. des Rom. I, I, 2), LIDDELLIO atque Scorro (Lex. s.u.) atque multis aliis' uidetur tabula (o-rX'pa) nonnunquam Graece appellari. Sed his opponiturtestimonium apud HESY-

TopeV CHIVM2S.U.

TTOpECs

itatraditum: -

TO) (TLSpOV ATOa Ka-L OTpv7Lavov LalXXoevov T-LA

? orropvs' yaXkvoqroLt

V 4L-vov Mxoi' SdOV773.

Sic enim in codice uerba reperiuntur;recte autem uidit Guyetus a pro uu. ra8pov pivravovesse scribendaorLqpoU rpv7ravov.Verba igituruertimus dat; et lignum arboris rhamniuel oTTopevs- is qui tranquillitatem lauri, quod ferreaeterebraeuice (alicui ) inseritur. Eodem sensu positum u. it',p3XXctrepperimusapud PLAT.Prot. 343 D, Crat. 414 C.; cf. [DEM.] p. 1251, 22. Apud Hesychiumigituru. terebramnon tabulam significaredicitur,neque apud TopECV scriptoresalios id uocabulum reperirepotuimus. Itaque perdifficilis est haec quaestio; pauca tamen,quae poterimus,de ea subiciemus. dicimusu. Tropev'ab eo quod est GTTopWVMAL esse deriuaPRIMVM eum tum,ut propriesignificet qui aliquid sternat; itaque recte apud u. HOM. Od. Hesychium yaXlvorno'sexplicatur(cf. iaTOpr7)ue7r6Ovov, habet u. Eandem THEOCR. 3, 158; 7, 57; KTX.). significationem quod in epigrammateSKI. IGNATIreperitur(A. P. I, r0TOpTT)7

x18):-

1 Cf. PLANCK.

dXX'W yaXlv7 KaiL 'TTopeoTa Ty7s LXqq O-, XpLO-T4p. 12.

2 Sententiam ususdamnare uult. HesychiPlanckius (p. 15) nulloargumento 8 Sc. manubrioterebrae?

De Ignis Eliciendi Modis.

33

Hactenus recte apud Hesychium explicatur,sed mox additur id nomen esse terebraedatum,cui adsentiturKVHNIVS(1.1.pp. 38, 77)ad terebrandum Non autem dicit quo modo u. rTope's instrumentum factumsignificarepossit; putattamencomparationemquandam inter terebramet membrumuirileesse institutam(cf. KVHN.p. 78 sqq. de rebus sacris Indorum) ut terebranomen accipereta uirilimembro. Sed non uidet uir doctus ex instrumentoTToped membrum,neque nomen accepturum fuisse (cf. u. iTXdpa ex membro instrumentum Haud (tabula) sensu obsceno dictum apud ARISTOPH.Eq. I286). uero exemplis comprobaripotest u. rTOpCV'sad talia spectare,neque ad terebrandumfactumsignificare. Scholiastae quoinstrumentum que sententiaduobus partibusquasi claudicare uidetur; nam primum u. rTOpevs actiuum est, ut illum qui sternitnon illam quae sternitur (tabulam) significet;1 omnia enim nomina quae syllaba -evs terminantur actiue dici solent. Praeterea THEOPHRASTVS (H. P. 5, 9, Deinde dicit. tabulam esse expresse 7, supra, p. 26) 7raOc8TLK'v Hesychius instrumentum-TOpa e ligno arboris rhamni uel lauri facere iubet; hoc quidem, cum ad terebramspectet, uerbis Theophrastiatque Plini magis consentit,qui tabulam e lauro esse faciendam nunquamdixerunt. VIDEMVSigituruerba Hesychi et Scholiastae nullo modo ita explicari posse ut interse congruant. Quod si nihilcertiapud eos reperiri potest,fortiterhercule ab iis discedamus. Recte enim nos monuit conlega doctissimusu. OropeVsnihilad instrumentum 7rvpdapertinere terecum pro eo u. Topevslegi oporteret. Hoc enim instrumentum brae simillimumsignificauit;cf. Anth. Pal. 6, 205 --

e Ka OJKVCVTa" 'TEp'CTf Tpvnav'aT vSV&?7Ta OvTOLTO 7rTp'VES KaL yOOQOV TOppS.

Cf. POLL. 10, 149 ; PHILYLL. ap. POLL. 7, 192. igiturexplicationesapud Hesychium et ScholiastamtraPVTAMVS ditas e glossa ueterioriginemduxisse,in qua u. or?opevs pro Topeus ex erroreerat scriptum; fortassehac causa id acciderat quod in exemante u. Topevs litteraposita plare ex quo glossa illa transcribebatur erat. Neque mirumest si de u.-aropvv, nusquam repertonisi in glossisillis,Hesychius et Scholiasta,rei ipsius imperiti,in erroreuer1 Frustra

das eine war ein flaches, igiturPLANCKIVS (p. 12) ita interpretatur: eine tabula,als Hingebreitetes oropets genannt. ,mrov,

34

M. H. NMorgan.

santur. Notum uero est scholiastarumqui Apolloni libros explicabant duo esse genera (cf. BERNHARD. Grundr. der Gr. Litt. 2, I, p. 312, ed. 1857) ; eorumalterihaud multopost illiusmortemadnotationesscribebant. Libros enim illos editos continuo omnes miramulta fuerunt bantur; cum autem Homeri sermonem imitarentur, quae adnotationibus explicanda essent. Haudquaquam uero illi ueteres uocabula quae in ore omnium essent, sicut 7rvpc.ia, tractauissent. Sed scholiastarumgenus alterum,quos recentis appellare licet, temporibus multo posterioribusea quae suae aetati aliena essent omnia inlustrabant. Itaque nostra quidem sententia accidit ut in adnotatione,quae nunc in quaestione uersatur,utriusquegeneris exemplum reperiamus. Scholiasta enim uetus u. 8LVCV'rKOV explicauit; hoc uero apud Homerum solum reperitur(II. 24, 12); fortasse igitur scholiasta uetus haec scribebat: SLw'crKOV * VTTOU" Trpcoov. Cetera autem putamus ab interpreterecentiore esse addita, iam cum instrumenti7rvpedov paene exoleuerat usus. Huius igitur auctoritas haud multum ualet. Nunc ad Hesychium nos conuertimus. Is quidem saeculo post Christumnatum quarto fuisse creditur; ei autem nihil uerae sapientiae inerat, sed ex aliorum libris glossaria conlegit et lexidia, res taetras,ut ait Fauorinus, et inanes et friuolastamquam mulierumuoces praeficarum. Frustra igiturinterScholiastae et Hesychi auctoritatemdiiudicare conemur. Videmus tamen hunc quidem uocabuli TropCV5 significationemrecte tradidisse,illum autem omnino negotio deesse. Apud Hesychium secunturita sunt transducendaut igituruerba quae u. yaXrvorroLo's s.u. TropCVlegantur; sed Scholiastae uerbisnihil credendumest. Postremo licet addere nullum esse uocabulum Graecum litteris ad terebrandum uel 0rpo- initiumcapiens quod instrumentum Tropfactumsignificet. Aliter tamen primo aspectu uidetur spectare u. medicorum TropYv',quod in Lexico Graeco (L. et S.) instrumentum medici dicitur. in Sed recte loco ARETAEI praeacutum significare emendauit (Cur. .Morb.Diut. I, 2) qui in Lexico citatur,u. TToph~yv7 Emerius (ARETAEIOpera, ed. I847) ut pro eo nunc u. Toplv esset scribendum. (Cf. The Extant Worksof Aretaeus,ADAMS,1856; et de u. Toph'yVcf. Foesi Oecon. zipopbcratis, s.u. Topvvrov.) Nam apud Aretaeum de eo instrumentoagitur quo aliquid agitatur; id uero Tropv neque aropv'V appellatur; cf. AR. Aues, 78, 79; Eq. 984; POLL. 10, 97. Sed de u. a7rpOvyecf. CVRT. Gr. Etym. p. 213.

De Ignis Eliciendi Modis.

35

NvNc uero, quoniam de ligniattrituexplicauimus,de duorum lapidum ignibuseliciendisusu quaeramus. Apud SOPHOCLEM (Phil. 295) hoc primumcommemoratur. Exstat quoque apud PLINIVM (N. H. 7, 198) fabula de Pyrode quodam narrata,qui e silice ignem primum,ut aiunt,excudere docuit. Constat quidem antiquissimistemporibusignemhoc modo fieriesse solitum; hodie quoque Graeci id factitant; cf.

BENIZEAON,

p. 27.

TOi L70 rrcp

sLOTLKOvflov Twv CpXatlv "EAXqvowv,

&A

cfz EKcalvovTL Trnv yvy7KpovO)~ ~vO Xkowv. -ocKXv-pjV etiam eliciendo utebantur Graeci nonlapides quibus igni IIvpc'a nunquam appellabant; cf. THEOPHR.Ig. 63, infra,p. 36; SOPH. Phil. 35, infra; Etym. Mag. s.u. 7rvpta: 7rVpL

TLVECTOV 7rvpooXov XCOovP.

Sed hoc proprie de lignis esse dictum comprobatTHEOPHR. 4T. I (supra, p. 30). Romani autem utrumhos lapides igniarianominare sint soliti necne nescimus; bis enim modo, ut supra dictum est (p. 27) u. igniaria apud scriptoresrepperimus. Igniariumlapidem tamen commemoratMARCELLVS EMPIRICVS(33) his uerbis: Lapidem igniariumcontusumresinaemixtumpro emplastroimpone ramicoso,statimproderit. Lapidum uero usu citius quam lignorumattrituignis elici potuit; cf. THEOPHR. Ig. 63 (infra,p. 36); PLIN. 16, 208 (supra, p. 27). Non esset operae pretiumdissererede modo quo ils uterentur;sane omnibus constabit conflictuet tritu(Graece et Krp'IcL siue KOXltgJe)

id fieri; cf. CIc. N. D.

2, 25 : -

7rX-ry7j

Nam et lapidum conflictuatque trituelici ignemuidemus. Cf. THEOPHR.Ig. I (supra, p. 30) ; SOPH.Phil. 296 (infra,p. 36) ; GAL. I, p. 658 (supra, p. 31). NvNc de lapidum usu scriptorumtestimoniaaudiamus. 35 : -

SOPHOCLISPhil.

avrOvXov "' XkvpovpyoV JK7rwo/L, rTLVO dvSpo, Katrrvpct0/oO TaSC. TXrv)t,uaLr His uerbis Neoptolemus dicit se 7rvpcda uidere quibus Philoctetes ignem excudere soleat; haec autem lapides erant,neque instrumentum ligneum,ut in Lexico Graeco (L. et S., s.u.) et apud KVHNIVM

M. H. Morgan.

36

(1.1.p. 37) et GOELL. (Charicles, III., p. 89) male explicatum est. Nam infra(295) Philoctetesipse ita loquitur: -

& EX'iv

av eTa 7Tpop " aplv, AOXL 7ETpOLTL EKTpiL3WY, 7ET7pOV

csrbqv' QcLVToVy

k(O 0' Kia

OCL L t/LA

ARISTOTELES (P. A. 2, 9, IO) de leonis ossibus haec dicit:--

yaP XeL Ta(iT a Kca0crepiK XtOwy7rVp. o1Tw

KXVplVY rTv

4VTLY

(xYT

arTreoOaL jEa7

trvTro/AEVW,

THEOPHR.Ig. 63: SLtht 8' iK ucv MXwvylyveraL7rvpcLaKalep ovK6Kc7r88vrTos avpos, IK T w K7rqv,&jVo Se xlov ToV ylyvcETaL; TovTO &e OVK 1 77 , iK 7roXXwv yCp

c rp, KdyLyveTaL u/aov K\aLOaTrov1 (u. supra,p. 35). oO ,v dAX' y ~vXov L V vYv Xt ~O nEcKKLaOV ovyyevv TIroXkprlrov"v at7taav U'C' ,Ovs OaTTov 70rvpl. Kxv /A?7rapfl 7rvpoTaL L VOVT(OV ' 86 'y do-eveLav. LoTov, ? KCU T(al ) rCwKTb&WTLv L Zv. 7r7vpW/AitVOV XltoOs KijXl Kae ardvpoq r7por-yovaT-v. Cf. THEOPHR.Ig. I (supra, p. 30). LVCRETIVS, 6, 60osqq.: -

Fulgititem,nubes ignis cum semina multa excusseresuo concursu; ceu lapidem si percutiatlapis. VERGILIVS,A. I, 174 : -

ac primumsilici scintillamexcuditAchates succepitque ignemfoliis..... Id. G. i, 135 : ut silicis uenis abstrusumexcuderitignem. OvIDIvs, F. 4, 795 : -

pars quoque, cum saxis pastoressaxa feribant, scintillamsubitoprosiluisseferunt: primaquidem periit,stipulisexcepta secunda est. hoc argumentumflammaParilishabet? 1 PLANCKIVStamenita scribit(p. 8): die Griechenbedientensich in derhistorischenZeit nurder Reibeh61zer.

De Ignis Eliciendi Modis. SENECA, Q. N. 2, 22

37

(supra,p. 31).

PLINIVS, N. H. 2, 11 3: -

posse et (fulmen)conflictunubiumelidi, ut duorumlapidum,scintillantibusfulgetris. PHILOSTRATVS, Imag. 2, 24, p. 849 : &7yae'L 8i cr=vpcv'cT&UKal ol XtOoL. D. 2, 493 : -

NoNNVS,

c/ Xlu t cXoycpvjv()tva XoXcv'ov oLXl'Oo~ Xatvovr/KOTvrd rip t7rOXvOkXL/3E aVTy-7OVOV rvpo-oycv'q X0 OTCO , dpacocTCcLL atpTcVL 7trC7PO.

Cf. NoNN.D. 37, 59 sqq., infra,p. 40. sed eorum duo NEQVE uero omnes lapides pariterhoc efficiunt, genera, pyrites et silex appellata. Pyritesautem est lapis quidam in metallisinuenirisolitusex quo cypriumexcocunt; cf. DIOSCOR.5. 143: c180' o'-T &0"ov' uvaXXcvcTat. XfrrcovTILEVTOL 7rvprT-q .OTXov XaXK.c ToY XaXKOLc&q, evpiXc

sC (mt7LV6v?pa(L&bf'lvTa.

autem (N. H. 36, 137 sqq.) haec scripsit:In Cypro eum (pyriten) repeririuolunt metallis quae sunt circa Adamanta. .. . Plurimumignis habentii quos uiuos appellamusponderosissimisunthi- exploratoribuscastrorummaximenecessarii, qui clauo uel altero lapide percussi scintillamedunt, quae excepta sulpureaut fungisaridisuel foliisdicto celeriuspraebetignem. Cf. ISID. Or. 16, 4, 5:Pyritesuulgarisquem uiuumlapidem appellant,qui ferrouel lapide Hunc uulgusfocarempetramuocat. percussusscintillasemittit.... autem eum lapidem 7rvpa*'rappellat -HESYCHIVS ~'KTwraL. 7rvpL'rL X ;&' o0) 7vrp A.Oocuius usus apud maioresnostrosfrequentissimus SILICEM uero, erat, VERGILIVS (A. 1, 174; C. I, 135; supra,p. 36) atqueISIDORVS COmmemorant. ISID. Or. 16, 3, I :Silex est duruslapis, eo quod exsiliatignis ab eo dictus. Denique in loco NoNNI (D. 2, 493 sqq., supra) inter lapides duos distinctumest ut mas alter, alter feminaappellaretur. Idem PLINIVS

38

M.

H. Morgan.

fitin loco ANTIocHI MONACHI(1480 c), quo etiam lapides -rvpofpoXoL uocantur -

Xt'ot... Ev 7yy7t7 j , ol 7rVpooX0L cTyappL XVV M7-Cp dcV7-rTc-

TaLtr^Vp. Cf. Etym. Miag. s.u. 7rvpta (supra, p. 35). Exstat quoque glossa in codice LaurentianoSophoclis (Phil. 36) quae uocabulo 7rvpdpo3Xa u. 'rvpdaexplicat. (scrib. irvpop6.Xa) NVNCad tertiumignis eliciendi modum uenimus; ferroenim lapis percussusscintillasemittit,quae fomitibusexceptae ignem praebent. Sed rarissimuspraeter exspectationemhic usus erat, si scriptorum auctoritasin hac re omnino quidquam ualet. Apud LVCRETIVM id commemorari his uerbis primum repperimus (6, i6o) :fulgititem,nubes igniscum semina multa excusseresuo concursu; ceu lapidem si percutiatlapis aut ferrum;nam tumquoque lumen exilitet claras scintillasdissipatignis. Similiterin eodem libro (314) ita loquitur:ut, lapidem ferrocum caedimus,euolat ignis. Sed non dubiumest quin multoante Lucretiumintellectumsitignem hoc modo fieriposse; non tamen dicere audeamus Graecos saeculo ante Christumnatumquintoid factitasse,cum exempladesint. Romanos autem clauo uel alio ferrousos igneme lapide excudere esse solitos auctor est PLINIVS(N. H. 36, 138, supra, p. 37). Eadem fere dicit ISIDORVS (Or. i6, 4, 5, supra, p. 37), ex quo etiam discimus lapidem esse pyriten; silice quoque haud dubie utebantur(cf. ISID. Or. 16, 3, I, supra,p. 37). Chalybis autem in hac re usum scriptores non commemorant; eum tamen Graeci hodie usurpant; cf. BENIZEAON,p. 27: cfXW, Xt'(ow ;a T7)r ;SvOTCWv cTKxXfpw^v vc/XUVovo-tL v, Xt'ovi KaL q^VYKPO(v X3Xv1o o 3 Bvo/Ldtovo7rvpo3POXa. His uerbis uidemus silicem una cum chalybe 7rvpopo'XaGraecos recentis appellare, eodem nomine usos quo maiores designabant lapides duos quorum conflictuignis excudebatur. Veri simile esse uidetur etiam antiquos silicem una cum ferro 7rvpoo'4Xa uocauisse,

De Ignis Eliciendi Modis.

39

haud quamquam exempla desunt. De uocabulo autem 7rvpK/3oPXov certe scimusutrumsilicemuna cum ferroan lapides duos significet; duas diiutribusenim modo locis reperitur, neque intersignificationes dicari potest. Nam CONSTANTINVSPORPHYROGENITVS(De Cer. Byz. Aul. p. 471, I7) inter ea quae in expeditiones militibussint deferenda haec commemorat:f3XOov IETa LTcKas. 7rVpCK SimiliterLEO PHILOSOPHVS(Tact, 5, 4) in reliquo militumapparatu interfomitum K WL'crKas includit(de uu. atque O-arKa 7rvpCEK/dXA Z-cKa genera infra disseremus). Cf. quoque ALEXANDRIAPHRODISIENSIS Probl. 1, 38 (Ideler.) c7rt

7-q,; rapacptqiftr Tgawv

ve/Ov v EY

&,U^V, 7rX?7yy; TLK70O/EV7t717

KatiKcrvpywro- XEyO/EA'v2 WO XEyoLvr? acTrrpa~f7, 7 /pOVvT7j o

opOjE V Tpq Tpac7Tp.... 3.owv,opWTov At Constantinilocum

7rt rvpCK-

perperam interpretatur REISKIvs,qui eius librumedidit,cum putet u. 7rvpEKfloXa instrumentum ligneum2rvpeciov significare. Eodem modo u. 7rvpEK3o'Xov explicat ST. IOHN. (He?lenes, 2, p. 123). Sed non est dubium quin Constantinitempore qui saeculo aetatis nostrae decimo regnabat,eius instrumentiusus iam pridemexoleuerit. Recte nobis uideturuocabulis silice una cum esse uir doctissimusatque apud chalybe u. 7rvpEKPdXainterpretatus nos grauiterlugendusE. A. SOPHOCLES (Lex. s.u.). HACTENVS de tribus modis scripsimus quibus ignis fieri possit; restat quartus,ut ex solis radiis eliciatur. Hunc autem antequam explicemusmagis conuenitpauca dicere de fomitumusu, quos supra nonnullislocis commemorauimus. Necesse enim fuitut scintillaeex ligno (7rvpdov) uel lapidibus elicitae in aridissimamateriasusciperentur; haec autem fomes appellabatur. Deinde flammaeuiribusiam confirmataecremia (u. infra,p. 42) atque stipitesiniciebantur. Sed haec forisfiebant; in domibus quidem, cum in fomitibusignis calescebat, iniciebanturcarbones. De his autem nihil dicemus; Theophrastus enim satis dilucide exposuit quomodo pararentur(H. P. 5, 9). NvNc ad fomitumgenera nos conuertimus. Haec constat fuisse uaria, aridissimamautem materiemesse oportuit. Tria genera commemorauitPLINIVShis uerbis: -

M. H. Morgan.

40

N. B. 36, 138: - (Pyritae) clauo uel altero lapide percussi scintillam edunt quae excepta sulpure aut fungisaridis uel foliis dicto celeriuspraebetignem. N. H. I6, 208:- teriturergo lignumligno ignemque concipit attritu,excipiente materie aridi fomitis,fungi uel foliorumfacillimo conceptu. Cf. VERG.A. I, 174 sqq. -ac primumsilici scintillamexcuditAchates succepitque ignemfoliisatque arida circum nutrimenta dedit, rapuitquein fomiteflammam. Tria igiturhabemus fomitumgenera, sulpur,folia arida, fungos. Optimo iure sulpure (Graece OE6ovuocatur) utebantur; nulla enim res, ut ait PLINIVS (N. H. 35, 177), facilius accenditur. Lapides suntinterse triti,celeriterignem quoque duo, cum sulpureinterstrato praebent; cf. GAL. I, p. 658 (Kuehn.) : K flXXOV aV 6ELOV7TL9 &L7TrovorS E 4AXoyaKaU XL0ol 7rapaTrpLfSpLeVOL, Cf. NONN.D. 37, 56 sqq. (ed. Koechl.) :-

S KL'pK79 vaa7rvpsXpeos CYKE2'4LXKorK0O1XoLo . . 'DavvolEpTPLovoo1 . 0 Xa yyac, 7rvptorTOKOUV pyava TvXV7lP, peo~ -lyayCvK cTKO-TrXOLO, K)a, c4TLaTaVlK rl O7T7T'oL

EpOEv 7rtrTOVTrE'S 4rt(rwCaVTO

Xelt&ava 7rVpKat7v

9EcTarTcTLoVrVpO1

7ya/yCV,

KEpcpaVOLt, (WS KECava

)& -ALO/SX7TOt 490t4EVOLO*

9EEUL

XWV KEVEWVCa * apcorEpov JXpWcre

o KopV/A0V 7VpcToTOKWV KL XE7rTV 'EpvOpaoL ta &8vbaovt JALVVE

Ka,0o~00$ro q-v

7r-TPW. O 3Xuvpa'crcrov TpLJV" 3Vv8 a aKa vOaKai ,pccEvL Xatveov 7rp, *yKpvbovaLTOXOXEVTOVIVEdPVE ' 7TVPKaWS k-q. )?)qKIEV,07717rEXEVyp s

Ad hoc etiam referendumest Schol. AESCH.Prom. 384 Weckl.-ToraioV

TO S& 7rvpO~s KaT~ 7EoL WV

LKCXLV p1Ka'

7T,

7

' TKO/a4LEV TO oOV pEVTr~ XpOVO KaL KaTa TOVI rdaXat" ' O0CI9PO'PVOS Kapoo a Ta KaL &WOctepavXwPp'a.J Td TCEOClOV Tvpda

roX&

De Ignis Eliciendi AModis.

41

FESTVS(PAVL. Quartumautem fomitum genus commemorauit

Excerp. p. 84, M.) his uerbis:--

Fomitessuntassulaeex arboribus dumcaeduntur excussae.

Cf. SERV. ad VERG. A. I, 176 :-

Sane fomites suntassulaequae ab arboribuscaduntquando inciduntur, quod foueant ignem.

Assulas uero Graeci 7rCXECKjaTra uocabant; cf. LABB. Gloss. s.U. fomes; GAL. I4, 423; AET. 8, 3.

tandemfomitum Quintum genuscommemoratur apud FESTVM(1.1.) ' hisuerbis: At Opiliusadustasiamuitesuocariexistimat fomites. Cf.THEOPHR. Ig. 63 : 8LpKT7alrO(wTvp) CKrv7

d

7T70ETCtrOtAVOV1 rPO(T aOVtTLv.

Ad hoc spectantuerbaCLODIscribaeapudSERVIVM (1.1.):Fomitessuntastulaeambustae. Videmusigiturscintillasprimasin lignisiam flammam expertis esse exceptas. nonnunquam De significationeuu. IrKa et crOaKa,quae supra commemorauimus

(p. 39), multumdubitamus.Nam primumapud PAVL.AEGINETAM (6, 49) haec uerbareperimus :-CLOL 8&

aa royyY4 8Vtrva( aJ/La

atLKat Lv

yLvoLOvaL.

rav; 8pv0't K(L 1-atCL KapV(LL:

Fungosigitur,qui suntuitia quaedam in arborumcorticegigni

solita (cf. PLIN.N.

. 17, 223), hoc loco rxKat significareuidentur;

his quidemin quercuatque iuglande,ut hodie,praecipuerepertis militessicutfomitibus utebantur PORPHYR. (cf. CONST. supra,p. 39), quamquamde hoc usu nihilin Lexico Graeco dicitur. Eiusdem

uocabuli est forma marKaquam apud LEONEMPHILOSOPHVM (supra,

sed in editioP-39) esse diximus;in codicibusenimhaec estforma, nibusformaTOKascribitur siue tertiaquaedamformade qua nunc

disseremus. Nam apud SVIDAMs.u.

(fOKahaec

legimus:--

*oqItpLov.Kal vXov Iv L alrraLlrVp. "o7Ka0 Non enimrectediceressignificationes diuersashis formisinesse

1 Rectius fortasse

P.ANCKxVS(p. to, adn. i) de hoc uocabulo ita scribit: ist mit Feuer zubereiteter, Schwefel. Man unterschied kiinstlicher rervpw,0Lvov cf. nidmlich OovvI rvpovund 5, 124. rervpotf'Jov; DIosc.

H. Moorgan. _M. s.u. Lex. Grk. SOPH. 1-Ka) nisi apud AETIVM(7, 91) ita Byz. (cf. esset: scriptum 42

' KaXOIXtLV TOWKapVLVWOV T1 EvTcpLi)V9 oKwac. MwXOV

Aetiusigituru. ZcxKa iuglandismedullam significareputauit,quamneque voKas scribebat. Haud enim multum quam fortasse o-Kas de eius uerbis certe intellegerepossumus, cum liber formissemel modo, nisi fallimur,descriptus(apud ALDOS,a. 1534) multasmendas sine dubio exhibeat. Pauli autem librum erudite recensuitGallus quidam doctissimus (BRIAV.1855), codicibus undeuigintidiligenter conlatis,ex quibus unus modo formamvcrKaspraebet.1 Fieri potest igiturut u. 1YKa, siue rectius co-Kascribenda sit, non solum fungum sed de hoc nihil firmiter sed etiam medullam significet, adseuerare uolumus. De fomitumgeneribusiam satis dictumest; his autem,cum ardescebant, parua iniciebanturligna quae Graeci $vXa KayKava uel EKKavRomani cremiaappellabant.HOMERVSquidem tara siue VrrcKKa;V/Lara, in utebatur Od. i8, 308, II. 21, 364; cf. script. carminis u. KayKava ad Mercurium,I13 ; THEOCR.24, 87 ; APOLL.RHOD. I, I182. Apud poetas autem solos u. KayKavareperitur;scriptoresalii u. EKKaav/Luel eodem sensu usurpabant; cf. XEN. Symp. 4, 25; ARIST. rrixxKKavpua Respir. 6; SOPH. fr. 206 (Nauck.) ; THEOPHR.Ig. 29, 73; DIOD. Sic. 2, 49, 3; PLVT. 2, p. 651 B. Cremia autem Romani ea ligna appellabant; cf. COL. 12, 19, 3:leni primumigni et tenuibusadmodum lignis,quae cremia rustici appellant,fornacemincendemus. Recte uero u. cremia in ore rusticorumuersari dixit Columella, neque mirumest quod apud scriptoresceteros non exstat. Domibus enim, cum ignis in fomitibusardesceret,carbones iis iniciebantur (u. supra,p. 39) ; itaque cremiisnon opus fuit. Haec autem commemoranturin Vulg.Ps. o02,3, his uerbis: Quia defeceruntsicut fumusdies mei; et ossa mea sicut cremium aruerunt. Licet hoc loco ea commemorarequae Romani sulpurataramenta uocabant; haec quidem non sicut ramentanostra in quiduis fricata ignemultroincenderepoterant. Vtilia tamen erant,quoniam igni ex 1 Cf. formas

et gSoXxos(uide Lex. Graec.). or-Xeos

De Ignis Eliciendi Modis.

43

foco uel quauis flammaalia1 recepto sulpur,quo ad extremumerant tincta,facile incendebatur; unde ramenta lignea, cum ignem conceperant, iisdem modis quibus nostra usurpari poterant. Fomitum praesertimcum quoque uice sine dubio nonnunquam fungebantur, ex lapidibus uel ex solis radiis ignis eliceretur. Mercis institores ea per uias uenditareuel uitrisfractispermutaresolebant; cf. MART. I, 41 (42), 4; 10, 3,1-5; I2, 57, 14; IVVENAL. 5, 48, cum SCHOL.; 13, 145 ; STAT. Silu. I, 6, 73; BECKERI Gallum, i, p. 84 (ed. Goell.). Nunc uero pauca dicere licet de ea planta quam Graeci vapOqKa, Romani narthecamsiue ferulamuocabant; haec enim apud omnis commemoratur. Nam in qui de ignis originescribuntfrequentissime ea planta Prometheus,ut erat fabula,igneme caelo subreptumseruabat ut hominibushuius usum daret; cf. HES. Theog.565 :'raP 'Ia'rEToo

aiV)iv KXAEkadKa/.LTO'LO irvppo TT7X-TKO7rOV Ev KOLXW Va'pO?.KL... Cf. id. Op. 50 sqq.; AESCH. rom. Io9 ; PLIN. N. H. 7, 198. Naturam autem huius plantae satis dilucide exposuit PLINIVSaltero loco (N. H. 13, 122 sqq.) :Et ferulaminterexternas(plantas) dixisse conueniat arborumque generiadscripsisse,quoniam quarundamnaturae,sicuti distinguemus, lignumomne corticisloco habent forinsecus,ligni autem loco fungosam intus medullam ut sabuci, quaedam uero inanitatemut harundines. Ferula calidis nasciturlocis atque trans maria, geniculatis nodata scapis. Duo eius genera: nartheca Graeci uocant adsur. . gentem in altitudinem,nartheciam uero semper humilem. ferulis seruari certum est in ignem optime easque Aegypto (i26) praecellere. Quippe ferula,quae a Plinio externaappellatur,hodie circa Phalericum portum nascitur(cf. CLARK. Pelop. p. Iii); item in Aegypto De eius autem usu HESYCH. cf. (cf. PLIN.1.1.). s.u. vap0rp-orX?p(o-

TOV :

Tr I'6p0?7KL 9(JXAWVTO 7Tpo'%Tal;KOfvp

'G-eLt TOZ) 7TvpO'.

I Ex solis radiis nonnunquamincendebantur. Cf. SEN. Q. N. I, I, 8: nam apud nos quoque ramentasulpureaspersaignemex interuallotrahunt. Interfomitumgenera PLANCKIVS(p. 19, adn. 2), haec commemorat;qua re autemstramenta non ramentascripserit, nescimus.

M. H. Mlorgan.

44

Haudquaquam uero putandum est Hesychium his uerbis dixisse ferulampro fomiteusurparisolere; hodie tamen hunc usum apud Graecos ea praebet (cf. CLARK. 1.1.). Sed male ferulaeusum apud falantiquos nonnulli ita explicant; uocabulo enim EKt5TrvpcOr-EL luntur. Hoc enim non ad fomitumusum spectat, sed, si recte uocabuli /w<7rupa exposuimus,uu. towrv'supra (p. I6) significationem dicentur cum o-ts proprie ignis carbonibus uel atque pr-oLe iEKto7rvp lignis ardentibussub cineribusseruatis succenditur. Horum uice igiturnon fomitumantiqui ferulautebantur; ignis enim in hac ita diu seruari potuit ut alio ex loco in alium transferretur (cf. locos PLIN. Nostra HESIODI, AESCH., supra citatos,p. 43). etiam aetate ferula hunc usum praebet; cf. TOVRNEFORT. Voyagedu Levant, I, p. 290. NVNCDEMVM ad quartumignis faciendi modum uenimus,quo ex solis radiis,cum specula uel pila uitreasiue crystallinaiis opponantur, is elici soleat. Res ipsa docet multumpost ceteros hunc modum esse inuentum,quippe cum instrumentasua priscis temporibusomnino defuerint. Plana enim specula fortasseHomeri tempore in usu erant,quamquam nihilde his scripsitpoeta ille (u. infra,p. 51) ; sed concaua adhibenda suntquibus ignisex solis radiis eliciatur. Neque crystallaantiqui, nisi fallimur,multumante diuum Augustumhabebant. Vitreaautemutensiliaiam AristophanistemporeAtheniserant; cf. AR. Ach. 73 sqq. :-E~ rp's l3av E7r'vop1v CEVLZtO'voL l XPvrl'&ov FWLawv Ka, OEK7ro VaXtvov aKpaTov

oLvov qUv.

Veri simile igituresse uidetur pilorum uitreorumusu ignem ex solis radiis primumesse elicitum,neque praeterexspectationemres cecidit. Aristophanesenim, qui scriptorumquos nouimus primus hunc ignis faciendi modum commemorat,uitri perspicue meminit (cf. Nub. 764 sqq., infra,p. 45). Magis autem conueniet,antequam hunc locum tractauerimus, quaerere qua ratione ignis ex solis radiis sicut e speculo elici possit; quippe duplice, una si repercutiuntur, sicut per uitrum translucidum (&vKXacrMS), altera si refringuntur, (KaTrKXGaGL').1

Cf.ARIST. Probl.

I I, 51 :-

1 In hac re multumlabiturPLANCKIVS (p. 21 sq.), qui uu. Brennglaset Brennperpetuoconfundat. spiegelsignificationes

De Ignis Eliciendi Modis. am TL)

71rEP7 4XV7

&/p

vLs EOX-q/LaTa7-L/jvo

45

E YTL ckPOEV1) 1&AvETL

7 S'', 7 YYVECLX-q o To) TOLOvotOV OACKL% 7~TOXGflLC, /'I" 7rpo 7oi TA7/YET,'r (Tt. o &aAVEra, aX6 Oa4XJ aso/cv 7) &TL . TrepeovA, o(X; EYTOKXa

T,

0v)

KaTaKXaaYLc

Vocabulum KarKXaoL~ hac potestate positum apud ARISTOTELEM solum reperitur(cf. Prob. 11, 23) ; uerbo autem quod est KaraKxad utebatur(2, p. 897 D) :eodem sensu PLVTARCHVS v S% Kat O's Xw- /AcTaevrot cTEXv/v')q 'rp r &V/p7raxV~Kat t-TaTaL.

eELT a

Tvo

IiM ^Es ng

s KaXaK&Am/Lr'v Kat cpvvoEcyvq%. . . .

Contra u. &va'KXaacr(est Latine repercussus; cf. PLIN. N. H. 5, 35; PLIN. Ep. 2, 17, 17) multo frequentiusapud scriptoresreperimus; cf. ARIST.de Sens. 2, 6: avTosavTov opa o cosaX/LAS, (IMrEpKat ev Tr7&vaKXaoct. THEOPHR.Sens. 36 : aVKXarEs. K.a yNp EV V oTLKa' XaXK Ka TpOLt iroXXo ETLV rt Cf. ARIST.Meteor. I, 7, 8; 3, 2, 7; THEOPHR.1g. 73; EVCLID. passim; STRAB. 16, p. 779; DIOD. SIc. I7, 82; CLEOM. 7T KaTO7TTpLKd, 2, p. 86; PLVT.Plac. Phil. 2, 20; STOB. Ecld.I, 26. In his quidem notandumest non ante Aristotelemhoc u. AvdKXaar-t esse repertum, nisi apud Plutarchum et Stobaeum uerba ipsa Philolai philosophi habeamus. Neque uero ante Theophrastum(Ig. 73, infra,p. 51) quisquam scriptorumquos nouimus ignem ex solis radiis repercussu elici posse dixit. Vocabulum autem KaraKXaa Aristotelesprimususurpareuidetur; Latinumnomen nullumreperirepotuimusquo Graecum proprie uertamus. Multo tamenante Aristotelemhunc ignis eliciendi modum esse notumdocet locus ARISTOPHANIS (Nub. 764 sqq.) :-

ETP.

L'c /aULVT749S&Kr pcv"K *TT

ITP.

V TOcfra)Ta7

aviry o/AoXoydEv r' ,/Ao.

WK.

rotavtLV';

?7/iraph ro-tatOapuaKO7rGXaLtTrv XfOov Talqvv o';Ka%,

oTVV Tkv8laavS , KaAXvV,

d4 ?sroT7' (L7r70ToV(tL; K.

/VrrvaXov XcE'yc;

46

M. H. Morgan. =TP. zywyc. C54pe,TI 8VT (av, ellTav'Tv Xa/3wv, 0' T7VSLKqvV 7roTe ypao(oTo YPaE/jj"T, oTa &7rwTrpo)

MaeC Er 7rpo TOv77Xtov

Ta- ypa/.L,tLaT 1KT? aq.

n T" 7K9

t.LV

Hoc quidem loco de repercussunon agitur,cum hic fierinon possit si uitrotranslucido(taSbavel) utamur,sed refringi solis radii dicuntur. Sed ex Aristophanisuerbis plane uidemus id temporisrarissimum esse uitrum; quippe gemmam (,?rvXtlov) id appellat. HERODOTO autem lapis fususid esse uidebatur; cf. 2, 69 '3Ea es Ta (oa vEvTEvn. dpnrtv/pxaTE XtItvaXv7a Ka'tXp Cf. PLAT. Tim. 61 B:-TO TE7 Ept T77VVaXov,yevovairav cra TE OXOv X XWXVTa'LS KcLXEKLat. Cf. EPINIC.Mnes. i, 8 (Meinek.) -

4v TK 4x Xv79 Xl0ov. rvyKvpKavrOa-s Praetereain Aristophanisloco quem supra (Ach. 73, P. 44) citauimusuasorumuitreorumusus ad summamluxuriampertinet. In fabula etiam Nubium,cum apud pharmacopolasgemma exhiberidicatur,eo ipso comprobaturrem inter miracula habitam esse; erant enim meri nec tamen medici (cf. BECKERI pharmacopolaepraestrigiatores ed. Goell. Charicles, 3, p. 59). Haudquaquam igiturrecte putandum est Aristophanisaetate ignem hoc modo elici solere; omnibus uero temporibusapud antiquos rarissimuserat hic usus, quem doctissimi soli intellegerent.Nunquam enim,ut apud nos fierisolebat,homines antiqui uitrea in eam figuramquae lentecula uocatur conformata secum circumferebant, quibus ignem ex solis radiis elicerent. Neque nescii sumushuius formaeuitreaPompeis, Nolae, Mogontiaci e terra esse effossa(cf. MARQVARDT. Privatl. der R. p. 751, adn. 9; 752, adn. 1) ; sed haec omnia recte putat SACKEN.(Mittheil.aus Oester-

reich,III, (1879) P. 151) oculisauxilioesse facta,quibusres quasi

auctae atque examplificataeesse uideantur. Aliter uero sententiam iam dederat LESSINGIVS(Briefe Antiq. Inhalts, 45); cum autem Sackeni sententiae scriptoresnihil tradiderintquod huic suffragetur, nos fauemus. Cf. SEN. Q. N. , 6, 5 Dixi modo fierispecula quae multiplicentomne corpus quod imitantur. Illud adiciam omnia per aquam uidentibuslonge esse maiora. Litteraequamuis minutaeet obscurae per uitreampilam aqua plenam maioresclarioresquecernuntur.

De Ignis Eliciendi Modis.

47

In loco Aristophanisdictum est apud pharmacopolas uitrumesse quoddam quo solis radii ita refringipossent ut ignis fieret. Hoc uero ex Aegyptiis,qui plurima ante saecula uitri usus peritissimi erant (cf. WILKINSON. 2, p. 140, ed. 1878), fortasseex urbe Naucratide in Graeciam referripotuit,in pilae figuramconformatum.Haud enim ueri simile est id temporisesse cognitumfiguramquae lentecula uocaturigni eliciendo optimamesse, cum eam rem ne Pliniusquidem intellexerit. Pilae enim figuramhic quoque laudat (N. H. 37, 28, infra,p. 49). Sed, ut supra dictum est, haec omnia Aristophanis inter miracula habebantur,neque ante Plinium quicquam tempore ceteri siue Graeci siue Romani de hoc uitriusu tradiderunt. scriptores Scholiasta autem de Nubium fabulaeuersibushaec scripsit:-vaXovXC'YEL. KaTacrKCeVacU TLrrv VcdXov rpoXOe'e%,deTrov^To TV/V Kat VqXt' O7Tep XaLC) &wp/OalvovTcs 7Trpoo-a-yovaL6pvaAT9Xvaa-0V, XpJl0VTCS UapTloc T ToK P07TaVr)9 TLVos Xl8a Kal aTTovcrtLV. aXXW57iaXov 7/LEq /JAv ps TVKO/JAVOVEtS KaTarKEV7)V ayy-EV KEKVU/A VOV Ka TLVWVXLW La ups YOIE/Vv ~EvOVKpVl?O, ot 7aaLoL Se XO Tv o8LWTLKW ^ 'TV Stafa oLKo7a r'X'Orov, e . O/LV/ooS L' T Tot pXalOL SE' 86 6 o' voiLa, CLXXa 7rap avTc,Ka'T , ucv riTLv, vaXos80o1. '9XCKTpos Cf. SVID. s.u. Lex. 248, p. I71, qui similiatradiuc.al et PHILEMON. derunt. Haec uero quasi ineptiae pleraque sunt habenda; nam primum apud Homerum u. uel si rectius*X'EKTpOV scribereoporteat *XKTpo - electrum non uitrum significat(cf. BVCHHOLZ. Hoam. Real. i, 2, p. 346; PLIN.N. H. 33, 8I; 37, 3I sqq.). Deinde falsasunt uerba tS (JaXovJXeyov)7rv tLLO)TLKWSXcEyovov quae secuntur: ol 7raXatol priscis Kpvov. Crystallumenim,quod u. Kpvov sine dubio significatur, temporibusomnino erat ignotum(u. infra,p. 48). In aliis Scholiastae uerbis, quae Philemon quoque in Lexico nobis tradidit,aliquid certe ueri inest; haec tamen ad Aristophanislocum non pertinent. In hoc enim de olei usu nihildictumest,neque necesse est ut aliquid tale esse propositumputemus. Sed non est dubiumquin multo ante Philemonemintellectumsit per olei pellucidi guttulamaduerso oppositam soli radios ita refringiposse ut ignis in fomitibusincendatur; quippe aquae guttulausus idem conficias. Verum tamen quamquam in uerbissupra citatisueri species inest,in hoc tamen falliturscriptor quod putat per uitrumoleo inunctumignem elici posse. Non est enim in oleo ipso ignea uis quasi innata atque insita,qua solis radii

48

M. H. AMorgan.

sed olei uel etiam cuiusuis liquidi pellucidi gutta per refringantur, figuramipsam rotundamad eandem rem quam pila uitrea ualebit. Quod si oleo inunctumerit uitrum,nihil tale fieripoterit; oleum enim uitro infusumsolis radiisobstabit. Satis autem de Scholiastae sententiadictum est quae nullo modo ad Aristophanisfacetias pertinet. Nunc uero ceteros locos inspiciamus,quibus solis radii ita dicunturut igniseliciatur. refringi Duos modo reperirepotuimus; in utrisque non de uitro tantum modo, sed de eo addita aqua agitur. PLIN.N. H. 36, I99: cum addita aqua uitreae pilae sole aduerso in tantumcandescantut uestes exurant. LACT.de Ira Dei, Io: orbem uitreumplenumaquae si tenuerisin sole, de luminequod ab aqua refulgetignisaccendituretiam in durissimo frigore. Haec uero neque obscura neque ad perspiciendumsunt difficilia. Est autem locus apud TiIEOPHRASTVM (Ig. 73, infra,p. 51), quo primo aspectu de uitro agi uidetur. Sed nostra quidem sententia uerba &7ro'Te TV vcXov ab homine indocto atque rerum ueterum imperitointerpolatasunt. Theophrastusenim de repercussu (&va'appelKXaowL Graeceuocatur),neque de eo quod Graece KaTrLKXa'-rL uitro usi, latur nunc disserit. Quod si repercussu ignem elicere, uelimus,hoc in speculi formasit adhibendum. Sed uitrea specula antiqui omnino ignorabant(u. infra,p. 50). Itaque cum hoc loco de repercussuagaturuu. ad7ro 7eTCjS Xov sine dubio inepte inculcata eiecimus.' usumnuncinspiciamus,cum de uitroomniaexplicata CRYSTALLORUM sunt. Hic quoque de eo agiturquod Graeci Ka7aKXaorLV appellabant. Sed difficileesset dictu quo tempore antiqui crystallaprimum uiderent. Vocabulum quidem Kp1oTraXXo0 HOMERVSscribit (Od. 14, 477), sed eo glaciem non lapidem designat; cf. etiam HDT. 4, 28; THVC. 3, 23; PLAT. Symp. p. 220 B; ARIST. ap. ANTIGONVM, Hist. Mir. 144; PLVT. 2, p. 953 E; LVCIAN.de Hist. conscr. 19. Eodem sensu u. crystallumauctor Priapeorum (63, 6) scribebat. in refractionem, 1 WIMMERVS (Theophr. Opera, Parisii, Didot.) u. &vdKXaacrs nouum atque inauditum uocabulum, transtulit.

De Ignis Eliciendi Modis.

49

Hoc uere dicere licet Romanorum HELVIVM CINNAMpoetam, Graecorum STRABONEMlapidis nomen crystallinobis primos tradidisse; cf. schol. IVVENAL. 6, 155 : sic et Cinna dicit:atque imitataniues ludens legiturcrystallus.' STRAB.p. 717, Cas., -I XwPa(India) 7roXvrCXjKpv(rTAXwv Kal dvOpopi CpCLSe Kal XtOtav KWOV7raVTOLOV.

Neque putamus multo ante hoc tempus lapidem qui crystallum uocaturantiquisesse notum; quippe etenim Plini aetate etiam tunc credebant id glaciem esse per annos duratam,unde quoque nomen dabant; cf. PLIN.N. H. 37, 23 : non aliubi certe reperiturquam ubi maxime hibernae niues rigent, glaciemque esse certumest, unde nomen Graeci dedere. Oriens et haec mittitquoniam Indicae nulla praefertur. Nascitur et in Asia, uilissimacirca Alabanda . . . item in Cypro. Nullo autem modo Pliniusita scripsissetnisi ipsius aetate res noua atque rarissimaesse uideretur; certe enim uidissetipsum in sententia secum pugnare; cf. SOLINVM, 15, 31 :Putantglaciem coire et in crystallumcorporari,sed frustra:nam si ita foretnec Alabanda Asiae nec Cypros insula hanc materiamprocrearent,quibus admodum calor iugis est. Verum tamen haud multo post Plinium intellectumest lapidem uerum esse crystallum;cf. AEL. N. A. 15, 8; DIONYS. Perieges.780. Huius autem usum igni eliciendo commemoratPLINIVShis uerbis (N. H. 37, 28) : Inuenio apud medicos quae sint urenda corporumnon aliterutilius uri putariquam crystallinapila aduersisopposita solis radiis. Cf. ISID. Or. I6, 13, I :-

Hic (crystallus)oppositusradiis solis adeo rapitflammamut aridis fungisuel foliisignempraebeat. Per crystallumigitursolis radii ita refringuntur ut in fomitibusei suppositis ignis incendatur. Denique in carmine quodam ORPHEO 1 Haec forma quae us syllaba terminatur apud Solinum quoque reperitur (I5, 29).

MI. H. Morgan.

50

olim adscriptohaec reperimus quae de crystallodicuntur(Lapid.

p. 380) :-

dEL yp Trep KpaTepooOXEL/IrvppiK oXdTasopoac, KeKXOULL /tLv &t&oovKaraOdta a&AXEov t" bTrep pY '2eXLOLO avyTdOVTo~ KaTaVTLov Ja~o Travv'o-a-t-L. a&LX V7rEp OLL(v 6OXty dbKTLva

S'5TE Kap4PaXflETe

OL7

Katl

vX-s, vL"bOvos

8' SXo'ya c roXXfjv JAT& 8' lrV^p OXtyoV, Kf7VOV9EtrEL7aC 4x oXaLykvleELpOV7rV p SkocL cT7"v 8! pa OpaEU

Nunc auteminteromnisuirosdoctosconuenithaec multopost

Christumnatum esse scripta; cf. BERNHARD.Grundriss der G. L. 2, I, pp. 359 sqq.; NICOL.G. L. 3, pp. 332 sq. Praeterea, si recte

hoc quoquelicetnobisaddere,Orpheumillumqui supracontendimus, nihilde lapide crystalloscire in poetarumcarminibus celebratur, potuisse. Iaspidisautemusumignieliciendoeiusdemcarminisquisquiserat auctorhisuerbiscommemorauit (p. 389),-caYv 7rvpok6K 4Xopya7rCrEjAtLS. 7jv1Te7repKpwT7aXXos~,

Restatdeniqueut de repercussu, qui in speculisfierisolet,nunc Fuit olimquaestiomagnautrumuitreaspeculaantiqui quaeramus. uirdoctus necne. Bene atquediserteeam tractauit iaminuenissent BECKMANNVS (Hist.

ed. Bohn. 2, pp. 68 sqq.), ut non dubiteInvendons,

musquin diui Augustiaetatenihilde iis sit intellectum.Ea uero

PLINVScommemorareprimusuideturhis uerbis (N. H. 36, 193) : aliud (uitrigenus) argentimodo caelatur,Sidone quondam his offi-

cinisnobili,siquidemetiamspeculaexcogitauerat.

Sed non est dubiumquin, si re uera Sidonii uitrea specula excogitauerint,de quo Plinius ipse dubitare uidetur,non tamen haec in usum apud Romanos uenerint; cum enim de speculis argenteisatque aereis copiose is disserat,de uitroomninosilet (cf. N. H. 33, 128 sqq.; 34, I6o). Itaque BeckmannouidebaturSidoniosuitroin speculis uti conatos, quoniam haec cum metallicis speculis comparari nullo modo posse uiderent,a spe inceptoque repulsos destitisse; uitrum autem quo in speculis uterenturcoloris deteriorisatque lapidi obsiano similis fore putauit. Et recte, cum inter omnia specula quae

unummodo colorisliuidi atque caliginosie Pompeissunteffossa,

De Ignis Eliciendi Modis.

51

uitro factumest (cf. Bull. d. Insit., 1883, P. 79; PLIN. N. H. 36, 196). Sine dubio igiturneque Romani neque Graeci antiquiuitreaspecula Privatl. pp. 690, 758). Turn demum uulgo habebant(cf. MARQVARDT. Alexandrum Aphrodisiensemqui saeculo post Christumnatum apud his uerbis (Probl. r, 132) :tertiofuitea certe commemorantur TI t ; VeXLva aVrwvXplovcrT && r Ka7dwrpaXcpaLrovctLVayav rL evSoOcv KacOLTCp9. Permultisuero uirisdoctis uisum est problematailla ab Alexandro Tralliano saeculo sexto esse scripta (BECKMANN. 1.1.; MARQVARDT. p. 758). Itaque uidetur uitri usus nihil ad nostram quaestionem pertinere posse. Specula autem metallica temporibusperantiquis in usu erant, quamquam de his nihil Homerus scripsit. Scriptorum Graecorum quos nouimus PINDARVS primus ea commemorauit (Nem. 7, I4):vL EpyoL K"oAo& ZVv lcTalmcv &tr7Torpov TrpO'r. 8.e Cf. frag.AESCH.ap. STOB.Serm. I8, 13 : 8 vo3. Ea&T, otVo' XaLXKO' KaT707'7pOV 8ovs

Plana uero eranthaec specula, sed ex concauis speculis solis radii repercussuignem incendere solent. Neque nescii sumus etiam ex planis,si multasimulradiosrepercutiunt, ignemincendiposse (u. infra, p. 52), sed nunc de unius modo speculi usu disserimus. Concaua autem EVCLIDEScommemorathis uerbis(Trv V KarTO77TpLK prop. 31) :1 ov rtXLov EK TrV KOLXWV ~vd7r!pwV 7TV TL6ETrv rp Edl7rTCTaL. PLVT. de facie quae in luna esse uidetur,23 :KaLyap WXX o Ta LE v KoLXaTOWEdTrOrpwv eTroV(WTpav 7ro0 Ts 7rpoyav1yvs Tnv avaKXoW/.Liv,"

Kat

Xo'yas avarequetLv

rOXXJKLt.

PLIN.N. H. 2, 239 :Cum specula quoque concaua aduersa solis radiis facilius etiam accendant quam ullus alius ignis. APVL.Mag. I6 (2, p. 481, Hild.) : cur caua specula si exaduersumsoli retineantur appositumfomitem accendunt? Ad haec quoque spectant uerba THEOPHRASTI quae secuntur (Ig. 73):7OVlEWuv

0tL 8'

d ro" LVTTov V1Xlov 0(&q

SZT 7rO'KKaV/La ovtL/LyVvWovotL

ooTTe

rrov ToL

rvaKXOeL drr T^v

Xd-v-

rr78"ETO7vrrvpokoVX

a7rrovoLV,

atLtLOy17

M. H. Morgan.

52

T aivva8 ,To /jaXXov ovvXesyL'tyvcrat Kal tOnL 'vaKXw/tEvov T. (AWTTE &OPOLO7Lp TO/LV KTL3 TLy8V0Tp7tXEO-7TO)TL 0O8VvaraTL.?a7trUL varTL KcLELV,7T58 OE'TepOV OXoV /.LeVOV els TO rKKavUa

TE

XcTro/LpcLa && TV)V CL Tqv0LO/T6TCL.q

TOvXaXKoOTO & Kalt pypov [cbr r-q, ,'Xov]1 Tporov ar TlV\Epy 6TE 4OOEVTWV. significantur.EoSpecula concaua uerbisTrpO7rovTLv& dem sensu apud CLEOMEDEM (2, p.'pyaOvvrTw interpreta86) u. !7rtrLXvw/ovoL mur: t 0 /.EV 7rp o..Kqr'v rvp &do Yap 70o rap'7 eVEaT KlT VaKXaaYLV VwIUEVOL a7r SC aTY(vXLaLKwV Xaf3.v, &KTL'VWVLX70 XauLfcvoLv 7TVpKaiT&vaJKXcrLv. Ad eandem rem spectare uidenturhaec uerba auctoris libri qui AllegoriaeHomericae inscribitur(cap. 26) :2 Oy KiT al IvOpw7ro XpaJfl;o c l7rtroXatOVOl;, p pNPX 8'w 7T ^1;Tov)T7Trvpo;

Kal

TeraL s

XPOVLKw

TOV

TtLttV opy.VOLt

XaXKO

LETEpCWV

/PO/LEVOV3

rXLX, rTOEVTeo.

vV

Kal

EELXKV(rvT TOS/slum)4Pltas

KaTa(TKcVa(tElO .EVOLt

Mr7TLV6VPCL

KaTa'

0KTB 0llpon7

7

O

TOvs

&07O

EvavTla Tw

8KXiaLT oVpavoV

7T rrp

Hic uero quisquis erat auctor2saeculo post Christumnatum primo sine dubio fuit. In uerbisquidem supra citatismultareperiripossunt quae perspicue id comprobant; hoc autem satis dicere habemus scriptoresqui ante Theophrastumlibros nobis tradiderintomnis de igne ex solis radiis elicitosilere,neque illum,si de primaignisorigine quicquam dixisset,fabulam de Promethei ferula narratamomissurumfuisse. Hactenus de unius speculi usu disseruimus; quod si hic, ut supra diximus,adeo rarus fuitut haudquaquam uulgo intellectussit, minime uero apud antiquos etiam doctissimos uniuerse cognitum est multisspeculis planis eodem tempore adhibitis ligna procul ab his posita incendi posse. Archimedes tamen mathematicusinlustrissimus id fecisse dicitur,qui, ut aiunt,nauis Romanas, cum iam Marcellus oppidum Syracusas obsideret, hoc modo inflammauit; cf. ANTHEMI frag. 2 (Script. R. Mir. p. 156, West.) :V pE KaTa(TKEVKaiyap TroyOELtordTOV 'APXL?Wov voL ' 7i'vi'nr ot/w~LqLV St'EV V aa-C9EVTV o01) r vrvplov,&XXASt& 7rXE'vwv. o7Tp()v q.Lv7,/LouvecTrav 1 Verba uncisinclusaeiecimus; u. supra,p. 48.

2 V. NICOL. 2, p. 368; BERNHARD. 2, I, p. 163; ZELLER. Eclecticism in Greek

Plzilosophy, p. 195.

De Ignis Eliciendi Modis.

53

Fueruntautem multiqui haec omnia quasi praue dicta negauerint, cum putant nullo modo id fieripotuisse. Sed errore falluntur;res enim,quamquam ita est difficilisut uix credere adducamur Archimedem eam fecisse,sine dubio tamen efficipotest. Nam proximo saeculo Buffonius ille, speculis planis amplius trecentisita collocatis ut omnis solis radios unum in locum, qui a speculis pedes etiam ducentos distabat,eodem temporerepercuterent, ligna in eo loco, qui focus appellari solet, posita facile inflammabat(u. BVFFON.CEuvres, 5, PP- 301 sqq.). Nostri etiam saeculi initio prosperiuseuenerunt experimentaquae Peyrardius,apud Gallos mathematicusclarissimus, instituit(cf. oEuvres d'Archimede,par PEYRARD, pp. 539 sqq.). De his uero, cum ad artem KaTOrrTpLK)vproprie pertineant,nihil amplius dicemus; quod si quis ea penitus intellegereuelit, ad scriptores duos supra commemoratossese conferat(et u. IOHANNEMPET. VAN de CAPELLE in Annalen der Physik, I816, pp. 242 sqq.; OETINGERI speculoArchimedisDiss., Tubingae, 1725). Sed mirum certe fuisset,si Marcellus,imperatorcallidus, in foco illo nauis suas usque adeo commorarisisset dum omnes comburerentur; fabulamtameneam ante Christumnatum iam percrebruisse credimus. Quamquam enim nihil de ea Polybius,Liuius, Plutarchus tradiderunt,non dubium tamen nobis esse uidetur quin Diodorus Siculus in operis sui parteiam pridemperdita eam commemorauerit. Nam in libro quinto (cap. 37), cum forteArchimedisingeniumlaudaret, haec addidit: rCEp~v Oav er rV 'ApXLtBovs Kar t~ppos )XALK lav XOJpvdKptL/WS LEL'Ltcv. Libri autem uicesimi sexti in quo constatres Syracusanasesse tractatasfragmentamodo pauca nobis restant. In hoc libro tamen,si Tzetzae uerbiscreditur,perspicueille descripsitquo modo Archimedisarte naues comburerentur.Tzetzes enim cum de eo multa scripsisset(u. infra,p. 54) expresse dixit id Diodori testimonioesse traditum, neque ullam causam uidemusquare ei non credi oporteat,praesertimcum sine dubio Diodori totumopus in manu habere potuerit. Aliorum quoque scriptorumtestimonia citauitquinque, Dionis - quem etiam Zonaras auctoremcommemorauit (u. infra,p. 55),-Anthemi, Heronis, Philonis,Pappi. Dionis uero operis pars prima omnino periit,ceterorum,Anthemioexcepto, fragmentaperpauca habemus. ANTHEMIVSautem, qui saeculo sexto fuit,eius factigloriamArchimediadscribendamesse putauit,ut supra iam diximus(p. 52) ; cf. frag.2, Westermann.p. 153 :-

M. H. Morgan.

54

iCrct&Sa rjfv 'ApLpt7Sovs doav Ovx o01vTE 6pOXOdywS TTOpr)OEVTOS (7WT vas

V

EOTL KaOEXEtLY, a7raOLv

TOW rOXqE'lVy

SLXTO 7r)Y

XLaK

V

EKaVOEV aKTLVWV. In eodem fereloco speculi quod ipse inueneratAnthemiusmultis uerbisusum explicat.

Videmusigitureo temporeplerumqueesse creditum Archimedem

hoc modo ignemincendisse; multouero ante Anthemiuma Luciano et Galeno eiusdem rei mentiofactaerat; cf. Lvc. RHipp.2 z ... . . . r isrv 7roXELLVY o7-v'ApXq 4v4l TotoVor70 KOvO/EcV yEvE'oatL.

777rlV,^ 7ptpLSqP fKar v aOXaT

GALEN.I, p. 657, Kuehn.: 8-t Ir v 7rvp v ?purpoat r& ir-ov W KaU Yv 'ApXL~uvlvcOat' 7roXc.wv

7p-pLTpetLg.

natum alterohaecfamaiampercreItaquesaeculopostChristum

bruerat; tum demum saeculo duodecimo de Archimedisspeculis

Eustathius TzetzesetZonarascopioseatquequasiueterum breuiter,

auctoritatefretidisserebant. Licet autem eorum uerba subicere,ne quid in hac re omittamus.

ad Il. 5, 5 : tV rXaa L.. . KaTOr7tKV,TLVa 8 WTaT EVST.

V

l,

tSj

TZET.

0o/ora

ro 7roXtK,

Ka' VV

ieverpLOp

Ta-rV EOSOV 'ApXt's oal"

v"as,

7Tt

KEpavVO-

Chil. 2, 118 sqq. -

o PoX&vKELV'VS 8'b7rf-r rO'$OV, oNMapKEOXX

ETE7 KT-V)V Y4oPWV. i4EywVov7L KaTO7TTpOV 8 7r 'E 70 OKaTO7~rpOV Sta"rTr'paiosvGVLJLEpOv tKpa 70roaTaKaT70rTpa 7ETpa7rXa yW-vat 9EL. KCl 7l0atytUyyXvuLLoS, KWVOVEva 76r .XE7TL rK'E TOWv LOOV EKEVO 7EOEKEV aKTLVTV 7X1ov, POV.AfYPPLtr^3 Kal

OEptV

g

KalL XELctPLW7iaT 7

EL Be avaKKWME'VWOV 70e70 XOLTroV 04 -Pev *ea~Lt

V KTLVWV 7TOg

TatLs oXK aL,

O3Ep& rvpWpS' K ari7pwv E" PdOV. KOVS TOO OVTWVLKI 7TOVM1pKEAXXOV o y4 pwv. 7Tls /.LrXavait

KatLTvTals

149 0 LAtwV Kal

EL ALo&OpO O ypa T7jv UTToptav XNI

KNi O V a;1VTOSp;7LEY ,V(V7t r OL 70N ooyp "xoTV oapa KAv'tov 84'E

'AvO4/o

'ApXLtuSovs* "

rpwTt'TOV 7rapa~o$oypa4Oopo

De Ignis Eliciendi Modis. 'Hpwv Kai CXwov, llrro I

7TE KaL

nra tXavoypa'os,

SW'V7Tepavryv;alCVWK(L KcLTO7TVpLa7OrrLKas

ZON. E pit. Hist. 14, 3 KT7rTpcpaYctp 'LeraL XaXK, aL oU TLX0ov9TZV 7oXcXuLv

55 -.

7rvpc/opa 6 IIp KXoo,Ka'

ra^Ta4a K OUTL 8ETVV KaLTEVaVTLr, d7raLwopOTal vcVEW=V E TO- 7~XLoV KaTaaKTLvwVo KeOTV EKK4paEvvoV-OaL 7rpoo/LaXovo'rV 7T-p 'TOW

OXEYov

TY

roYvVVLTV

ET

vavTltwV (TTpaTOV

KKl7tTCL

vy/al aLVTal,o% 07rXaL

0 ALO'wv UorPo'pE,TrWv 'Powuaiwv 'APXL/,tu87-v r7rLtOvo.aL

7rTOXLOp-

KOVVTWV VpCLKOV(TaV.

breuiter Restatdeniqueut quidnossentiamus quamexplicemus; Diodorum et Dionemeiusrei enim non dubitamus quam quinapud mentio factasit,horum tamenuerbiscrederenonpossumus.Nam eam rem narrant,quae, cum locis temporibusqueaequissimis fieri possit,in illo tamenhomine,omnibus in utroque parte diligentercir-

incredibilis esse nobisuideatur.Non tamen,ut putamus, cumspectis,

scriptoreshaec omnino ficta nobis tradiderunt. Nam sine dubio eorum temporeexstabatArchimedisliber quem de speculorumcauo'V pertinentibusscriprumusu atque aliis rebus ad artem KaTO7rTpLK APVL. 6 cap. cf. serat; ApO. c :Cur caua specula, si aduersumsoli retineantur, appositum fomitem accendunt? . . . alia praeterea eiusdem modi plurima quae tractat uolumineingentiArchimedesSyracusanus,uir in omni quidem geometriamultumante alios admirabilissubtilitate,sed haud sciam an propter hoc uel maxime memorandus quod inspexerat speculum saepe ac diligenter. Cf. etiam THEO. ad Ptolem. p. io (Archimedisomnia opera ed. KaT07CTLKoVinscripHeiberg., 2, p. 466), qui Archimedislibrum rep't tum commemorat; cf. TZET. Chil. 12, 973. Nostra igitursententiaArchimedesin illo libro speculorumusum eliciendis ignibus tractauit; fortassedixit machinam quandam ab ipso esse inuentamqua lignumprocul a speculis positum repercussu incendi posset,nonnullisadditis quibus Diodori Dionisque mentesita fallebanturut crediderinteum re uera contra hostiumnauis speculis usum esse. Fortasse etiam ante illos eadem causa iam fabula percrebruerat. Sane Buffonius putabat speculumsuum in bello usui fore sed (Euvres, (cf. nunquam haec res accidit. Scriptores 5, p. 377),

M. H. Morgan.

56

autem ceteri,Polybius,Liuius,Plutarchusaut illum librumfortenon uiderant,aut si uiderantuerba recte interpretabantur.

Postremo quaestionem perdifficilem instituemus,quo modo apud Romanos incendi sit solitus ille ignis Vestae sempiternus. De eo enim scriptorumtestimoniaprimoaspectu interse dissidereuidentur, neque quisquam rem satis diligenterinuestigauit. Omnibus quidem notumest prodigiiloco haberi,quod hostiis maioribusprocuraridebeat, si ignis Vestae casu sit exstinctus(cf. Liv. 28, II, 7; DION. HAL. 2, 67); sed pauci fortasseerunt qui intelleganteum Kalendis Martiisquotannis nouum incendi esse solitum. Id tamen comprobant Ouidius et Macrobiushis uerbis:OVID. F. 3, 135-136, 141-144 : Neu dubites,primae fuerintquin ante Kalendae Martis,ad haec animumsigna referrepotes... Vesta quoque ut folioniteatuelata recenti cedit ab Iliacis laurea cana focis. adde quod arcana fierinouus ignisin aede dicitur,et uires flammarefectacaput. MACR. S. I, 12, 6 :-

Huius etiam prima die ignem nouum Vestae aris accendebant; ut incipienteanno cura denuo seruandinouati ignisinciperet. Domibus autem priuatisignem nouum eo die de aris Vestalibus incendi esse solitumauctorest SOLINVS 35) :(I, Romani initio annum decem mensibus computauerunta Martio auspicantes,adeo ut eius die prima de aris Vestalibus ignes accenderent. Quotannis igiturVestae ignem accendebant. Scriptores autem non nobis tradideruntutrumex ignis ueteris igniculisseminibusque nouus incendi soleret, an hunc more maiorum terebrando elicerent.' Quod si humana neglegentia uel dis aliquid portendentibus 1 Nobis quidemrecteputareuideturIORDANVS (Der Tempelder Vesta; Berolinii,1886,p. 61 et p. 8o) anno incipienteuirginesVestalis in atrio suo ignem nouumincendissequem eodem die in templumferrent.Non autem dicit quo

De Ignis Eliciendi Modis.

57

is erat exstinctus,haud dubie putes futurumfuisse ut hoc modo accenderetur. Romani enim in sacris publicis priuatisomnia quae ex patribus acceperant religiosissimeseruabant,ut in his res nouas uix reperireposses. Recte igiturtestimonioquod est apud Festum (u. supra, p. 21) recepto rem in nullam quaestionem uocaremus, nisi multis uiris doctis uidereturPlutarchus (u. infra,p. 58) dicere ex solis radiis repercussuignem sempiternumincendi solitum esse. Primo quidem haec interse repugnarenon uidentur; putauerunt enim uiri doctissimiRuhnkenius,Klausenius,Preunerusmultis cum aliis (cf. PREVNERVM,Hestia - Vesta, p. 284, et adn. i et 3)1 Festum de ueterum more, Plutarchumde eo qui ipsius tempore exstaret,perspicue disserere. His quidem nos ipsi olim adsensi credebamus haud multo ante Plutarchumrem nouam esse institutam quae ab duarum causarum altera originemducere posset; nam si ex more Graecorum esset facta, saeculo ante Christumnatum primo incepisse,quod si ad solis cultum dei spectaret,haud multo ante Traianum imperatoremeam factam putabamus. Quamquam enim diui Augustiet Neroniscapita corona radiis distinctain nummis ornata uidentur(cf. COHEN.Monnaies de l'Empire, i, tab. 4, 278, tab. tamen dei cultus Traiani demum 481 ; II, 149, 214), solis inueterauit. Est autem tempore penitus apud Iulianum imperatorem (u. infra, p. 61) locus, qui Plutarchi uerba confirmare uidetur. His quidem causis atque uirorumdoctorumauctoritatenobis olim persuasum erat uirginesVestalis--quo tempore dubium est--antiquo more terebrandirepudiato,ex solis radiis repercussuignem sempiternumelicere coepisse, neque multumcura nos sollicitabatquod de testimonioapud Plutarchumtradito IORDANVS der (Der Tempel/ Vesta,p. 80) et MARQVARDT. (R5mische Staatsw. IV, Das Sacralwesen,p. 342) omninosilebant. Sed recte silebant,ut nunc putamus, quod nulla fides uerbis apud Plutarchumrepertisab his habebatur, modonouumignemincenderint; fortasse exstinctus ex ignisin atrioprimum deindeignistempliexstinctus ab quiintemploflagrabat, eo nouusincendebatur accendisolebat. Hoc enimmodoignemoptimafidereseruent eo renouato semcontendit causa esse piternum.Haud rectetamenIORDANVS (p. 8o) supplicii ut terebrando constitutum uirgines ignemcasu exstinctum elicerent;fuitenim rituspriscaereligionis nonpoena. 1 Cf. PLANCK. pp. 22 sq.

58

..

H. Morgan.

erroreuero et nos et illi decepti eramus. Nunc locum PLVTARCHI inspiciamusqui in Numae uitae contineturcapite nono:-Kat oXwS7TV No,ua yap 87 Kal TV To)V EoTLa&Sv Trap0EV0d Ka(LLEpOXLV TE KCLL 7LTtLfV reptL rb p Tb &OdvLrTov, vXdrovL aTraV,, w OEpareLTv ( TO (n drrotSodaYwtv, LrTe KaOapavKalL adOaprovTTv rTvpooulav (1Krpdrot0L Kat al /VTOLt

VOU V 0cTtaCTLV,CeTE 7T aKap7rOV Kat YOVOV T 7rapaTL9tE

VTOT. OcvwtUVOLKELOt S

KaIL 'A0iv

IIvOo'

Tqv

E7ErrotL7773 'EAXd0So

Lrtv, o0 7r~apOEvoL, yVoVSatKESC

%Tri' [Eav&S"vcroB

7rLLEXELav

7rrap-

rov rvp docfltardv ETLyv,

7CE7VU/EVL TLVOs EKXL7f, Ka(9Lep

y l /(o

v

XOUO-L

'AO'vi/o p?v

T v tep'v Xkxvov, Ev irl 7T/'ApLotarwVol XyTLyarvpavv6os drrooflVoa'vat SeT 70o Ta KoaT7arpy/lOEvro irVOS MrOov, rep' MLtOptSaLtK vOvaOO TO Kat 7VoI~l U XLovePOUaaloV 7O 7rdXkLov rp /jAavla Ol, al,/taT , V~ OLELV aa-tLOev atEroZTEpovrVpos 1 KLLVO Kat VEOV V "7TOVTas o'aLVOat,L E Ad~og

ov

P/uw

AXoya KAX a7ro70T K,,,apv roXlov

crKaOe/OtL, y(VOV

a

KaT7KEV

KOLXaLV~VOL),

uirV

L7"ETatL

vt

UVVVEVEL

ES' S

,ulaLVTov. "Er $rrrovoL &/dAXorTa TroLT

o7rX

V

U ITOrcKEXO K 7rE~ptEpEL'a

7Er)VpL

fxly) rphO O(TrrE EVaVLav rTV XLto,rw OoTLV

oVV

Kalt E Ko7rTTO/LEvas OpoLtEcrOaL

KpLVELTOV aEpa

7rpocrTLO9EVwv

crvu7rXEKEcO

Ka 7 XErTrvvdeVOV o-Eo TEL KaTa dsva7r

& 7^g a-'y^ Xafpo'or s.] Wrvp'd

7rEpL 7~TO

ayv

Tpt-

pOoyolOUv 'Orav KVTpOv.

iva7ravTaXdOEv

KEVTpOV, avTdV

KovdOTRaTKaL

TE

8a-

pTaTa 7Ov

VTEpEL(tLV, (TcrWaKat 7rXvqy?)v TO o`vY )V LEpWv o-Sv 7T7rb *Evtot/.Lv 7TV

EKELVO pOvpEtOa7L 7rVp rapOEvov VOovrtLV VLOL &AX7'To acrflE(rov 8e

rtva

.acrtv

LToL dLaOEaa

XXotS

Kpv7rTOdLva,

tV 7rEpL

ocra

Eva LEp, KaL ApocraLOECLTO' vV (o KaAXXov Kat7rvOEA'OaL pl )yEypa~rrat.

Nobis quidem haec uerba cogitantibusnihil fuitsubsidii in aliorum scriptis quo plurimas quaestiones soluamus. Nam primum unus homo1 Plutarchilibrumde Numae uita inscriptumadnotationibus inlustrauit,deinde Iordanus et Marquardt., cum huic loco nullum auctoritatemadscribant, causas tamen non dicunt quibus adducti taceant. Nos igiturquid sentiamus paulo longius oportet dicere. Primisin uerbisde quibus nunc agiturnihil uidemus quod in suspicionem ueniat; Ciceroni quoque opinio fuit Numam Pompilium uirginumVestalium religionemstatuisse(de Re Pub. 2, 26); praeterea altero loco PLVTARCHI ipsius (Camill. 20) haec confirmantur. 1 ERDMANNVS,cuius libellum (Plut. Numae

aliquot capita commentariis in-

lustr., Wittenberg. 1874)uiderenonpotuimus.

De Ignis Eliciendi Modis.

59

Deinde sententiaequae sequitur fides habenda est; lucernae enim sacrae quae AthenisfuitcustodemfuissefeminamPLVTARCHVS altero loco dixit(Sull. I3), cui adsentiturPREVNERVS (Hesd'a-Vesta,pp. 191, 264, 270, 287) ; illam Graeci cepoda'vTLSa appellabant (cf. PLVT.Z.C.; C. I. G. 432, 435). Hactenus igiturmerito ac iure uerbis credas sed ea quae secuntur quae apud Plutarchumhoc loco reperiuntur, fraudeac dolo certe non carent. Negatur enim si quando ignis ille sempiternusexstinctus sit, ut locis qui commemoranturinterdum accidisse dicitur,alio ex igni fas esse hunc incendi, sed nouum ex sole ipso, scaphiis siue uasculis adhibitis,esse parandum. Vix quidem adduciturPreunerusut his quasi ueris dictis credat; credit tamen, aliorumsententiisadsensus quos in adnotationesua laudat (u. supra, p. 57). Praetereahi putantuu. 7rpt SE r MLOpsarTLKh... **avrO ad uirginumVestaliumcultumesse referenda,'quibus ei adsentiuntur qui Plutarchilibrumin linguasAnglicam,Germanam,Gallicam, Italicam transtulerunt; hi enim omnes praeterunum2in textumu. Romae inculcauerunt,quod Graeco abest. Sed ualde miramurquod nulla diligentiaadhibita rem tam neglegenterdimiserant; quod si aliterfecissent,multafortassehis in uerbis essent. Nam primumetiamsi uerba repperissent quibus maximediffisi iam modo commemorauimus ad res Romanos pertinerent, falsa quae essent habenda; nihilenim apud scriptoresalios de Vestae igni his temporibus exstincto reperiturtraditum; hoc uero, si accidisset, certe commemoratumesset, cum intermaxima prodigia haberi soleret. Deinde falso dicatur uirginumVestalium aram periisse, cum notum sit ab anno ante Christumnatum centesimo quadragesimo octauo ad Neronis imperatoristempus Vestae templum et atrium integraesse seruata (cf. IORDAN. Topographieder Stadt Rom, I, 2, pp. 421, 426; Der Tempel der Vesta, pp. 7, 25; PREVNER. !H.-V. p. 250). Sed prorsusnegamus quicquam hoc loco esse scriptumquod ad Vestae cultum pertineat,cum huic ipsa conlocatio conformatioque uerborumobstet. Haec enim si recte intelleges,uu. pv 'AOrvro-tcr opposita esse uidebis uerbisEvAEX4o' S', quae illis quasi respondere N .. uidentur; uerba autem 7ryEp S r avio-'Ol uerbis AX
2 A. H. CLOVGH.

60

M. H. Morgan.

date loquendi regula dicuntur. Hoc loco igiturde rebus Graecis non Romanis scribitur; uerba tamen,eis quae ad res Atheniensium spectant omissis, omnia tantae perfidiae sunt, ut haec nullo modo putare possimus a Plutarcho ipso esse scripta. Imperite enim absurdeque sunt pleraque ficta ab homine qui haec ex aliis Plutarchi locis demendo, mutando, interpolandohuc transtulit. Nam multis locis apud scriptoresantiquos huic similibussollicitabanturhomines ad fraudemcallidi, qui, doctrina defecti abundantes audacia, nodos iunxeruntquos soluere nos oporteret. Astutetamenab Arisdifficilis tione incipit,neque in hac re quicquam mentitur. Sacram enim Mineruae lucernam tempore Aristionisolei penuria esse exstinctam PLVTARCHVS ipse alteroloco nos docet (Sull. 13. Cf. HERTZBERG. GeschichteGriechenlandsunterder Herrschaftder Rimer, I, p. 367). Sed omnia quae de igni Delphico secunturueritate plane carent. Haudquaquam enim templuma Medis incensumest. Nam etiam si Herodoti auctoritatem(8, 37; 38) reiceremus-id quod nullo modo facere uellemus- parui tamenad rem hoc ualeret,cum incredibile essetsi de tantacalamitatescriptoresomnes tacerent. Fuit enim Delphis focus communistotius Graeciae (cf. PLVT.Arist. 20; PREVNER. H.-V. 128 sqq.), quo ignis sacerrimussemperardebat; ab hoc uero ad Iouis Eleutheriiaram post PlataicumproeliumstatutamEuchidas Plataeensis ignem attulit,iam cum ignes in patria sua a barbaris contaminatiessent (cf. PLVT. ib.). Praeterea Pausanias expresse dixit Delphis templumquod aetate sua exstaretab Amphictyonibussaeculo ante Christumnatumsexto esse aedificatum(cf. PAVS.IO, 5,fin.). Is igiturquisquis erat scriptorqui Plutarchi librum corrupitin his falsa tradidit. Deinde uerbisquae secunturfidesomninodeest. Nihil enim apud scriptoresalios de ara Delphica euersa atque igne exstinctoreperire potuimus,neque, ut putamus,si ea accidissent,testimoniadeficerent. Nobis quidem uideturscriptorqui haec interpolabat,a Sullae facto quodam- utrumdolo an inscitianescimus-omnia deduxisse. Sulla enim bello Mithridatico,quo tempore cum Mario instabat bellum T MLOpLSTLKaKKalt 70E''Xtov ciuile (7reptS r 'PEata tv0rrdXqov),cum iEV pecunia sibi opus esset multa,Amphictyonescoegit ut dei dona, quae in templo essent,omnia ad se mitterent. Id uero PLVTARCHVS ipse dicit (Sull. 12; cf. DIOD. Sic. frag.lib. 38, 7, t. 5, p. 169, Dind.; et Ex his igiturscriptorignotusilla finxitquae apud PAVS. 9, 7, 4).

De Ignis Eliciendi Modis.

61

Plutarchumnunc leguntur. Videmus autem de rebus Graecis non Romanis eum disserere,Plutarchi uerbis seductum quae de uiduis lucernae sacrae custodibusscriptaerant. Praetereauerba quae secunturquibus diciturignem exstinctumex solis radiis esse eliciendumab eadem manu putamusesse interpolata. Haec enim etiam si a Plutarcho ipso scripta essent nullo modo ad E S Vestae ignem spectarent,cum uerbis E7rrotT7To . . . rv CEXXd artissimeessentadstringenda. Deinde si hoc loco de uirr~'rXrEtav ginibus Vestalibus loqueretur, exempla ignis exstincti ex historia Romana (cf. PLVT. Cam. 31) non Graeca hausisset; aliter tamen uidemus esse factum,ut non dubitemus haec omnia ('Eav E vir rX-s ... Try ays Xaflolv'ro),quae ad res Graecos pertinent,e glossemate mero in Plutarchitextumesse recepta; cursum enim dicendi refrenantet calorem cogitationismora exstinguunt. Negamus igitur hoc loco quicquam de Vestae igni nobis esse traditum; uerbis autem quae apud Festum repertasupra commemorauimusmaximam fidem habemus. Neque his obstantnostraquidem sententiauerba IVLIANI(Orat. ad

Solem regem, p. 155 A) quae secuntur:

-

" E 7oXLOV t XE'w rap' X a-/rEpTov -,yov; ,VXTVoO rrapovo'L X,'ya 'TON EOVEVOV[7rNo /O'povsZPa, at (sc. horae) 8tEpaL KcTaL TLas 5TEX?)Vt-]V'7Tr Toy OEOV7rvpP VXLTTovaTLV. 777^ S7rEPNLTV 7T/V Iulianus enim imperator,qui ipse Solem atque Mithram deos religiosissimecoluit, in hanc orationem omnia diligenterconlegit quae Solem deum honore augerent; uerum in eo ipso nonnulla subestsuspicio ne superstitiosus ille et paene fanaticuseis quae non sunt credenda argumentistudio incensus credideritatque falsa pro ueris nobis tradiderit. Hoc uero praetermittimus quod dicit a Numa ut Vestae ignemex solis radiis eliciatur,id quod rege esse institutum nullo modo Numae temporefieripotuit,cum,si recte supra contendimus, nihil de hoc modo ignis eliciendi id temporis intellegeretur. Nam si re uera Iuliani aetate ignisVestae hoc modo Romae incendebatur,sine dubio credebant homines temporibusantiquissimisid morisesse institutum. In hoc tamenmaxime deceptus esse uidetur, quod dicit quattuor(KarT rdT&ata povs
62

M. H. Morgan.

est a Numa ipso uirginesesse captas quattuornumero (DION. HAL. 2, 67; PLVT.Num. Io); postmodo tamen,utruma Seruio Tullio an Tarquinio Prisco incertumest, duabus additis sex erant usque ab eo ad PLVTARCHVM (Num. Io; cf. DION. HAL. 3, 67; FEST. p. 344), causam uidemus cur istum numerumad Iuliani esse neque aliquam retentum esse non putemus.' tempus Haud multumigiturde modo ignis Vestae eliciendi ualeat eius auctoritas qui uirginumVestalium etiam numerumnon recte tradiderit; non sane Festi testimoniumIuliani uerbis adducti reicimus. Verum tamen fieripotest ut nihil de Roma urbe sed de Byzantiohis uerbisres agatur. Quamquam enim de hoc scriptores nihil nobis tradiderunt,non tamen dubitamus quin Iuliani quidem temporeVestae ignis Byzanti fuerit; fortasseIulianus ipse eum ab imperatoribusChristianisneglectumprimum ibi incendit, quattuor uirginibusquae custodirentcaptis ut numerumantiquissimumrenouaret. Fortasse quoque ille, qui Romam nunquam erat profectus, nouum morem ignis ex solis dei radiis eliciendi instituit. Haud tamen negamus fieriposse ut Graecorum more, de quo mox infra scripturisumus, uirgines Vestalis Romae saeculo ante Christum natumprimo (u. supra,p. 57) ignem elicere doctas esse,2quamquam de hac re scriptoresomninotacent. uero minimecredimusuerba apud Plutarchumscripta QVAMQVAM ad Vestae ignempertinereposse, restattamen ut rationemignis eliciendi ibi commemoratamexploremusatque exponamus. Scriptor enimquisquis eratdicit uas quoddam excauatumad flammamex solis radiis excipiendam aduerso soli esse oppositum,quo facto radii in uas ad locum qui focus appellaturita repercutiantur ut fomitesibi positos statiminflamment. Sed mirumest quod omnes fere qui hunc locum explicare uel in 1 Haud sane nescimus saeculo post Christum natum quarto, quo saeculo lulianus fuit, uirgines Vestalis, una addita, septem fuisse numero (cf. Vetus orbis descripzio, ed. Gothofred.,p. 4, et AMBROS. Ep. 18, locos a PREVNERO (p. 270) laudatos, qui tamen de hoc loco luliani silet). Videtur tamen post lulianum hoc esse factum (cf. PREVNER.,p. 270, adn. 6); quod si illius tempore iam erant &bpascomproseptem, nihil de hoc lulianum intellexisse uerba Kar'T& hs 8&aQppovs bant; tempora enim anni in eadem oratione (p. 148 D) quattuor, neque ut GALE-

NVS(5, 347), septemcomputat.

2 Ad hoc fortasse spectat u. erat apud FESTVM.

De Ignis Eliciendi Modis.

63

linguas suas uerteresunt conati,de horum uasorum formainter se differunt, neque quicquam ex iis certumintellegipotest,ut uasa his similiaefficiantur. Primum enim IvsTvs LPsivs in libro de Vesta et VirginibusVestalibus Syntagma inscriptosententiamsuam tabula quoque addita exposuit. Nam uas quoddam in coni figuramconformatumconstruxit,id quod re uera ex aequicrurio triangulorectianguloeffici potest (cf. EVCLID. El. ii, def. i8). Deinde quoniam in integro cono ignemrepercussufierinon posse putabat,'eius apicem abscidit, cum putaretsolis radios in focum extra conum positum repercuti posse. Sed deceptus est uir doctus; id uero accidet si conus ex triangulorectiangulonec tamen aequicrurio erit factus; turn enim radios bis repercutioportebit,id quod in Lipsi cono fierinon potest. Plutarchusautem triangulumfuisseaequicruriumdiserte dicit. Sententiam tamen Lipsi multi uiri docti errore decepti secuntur. Ceterorumautem sententiasperuersas uel obscuras hoc loco commemorareoperae non pretiumest; eorum etiam qui ante septem annos Plutarchilibros in sermonemAnglicumuertebant (STEWART. et LONG.I, p. og9) uerba non intellegimus. RESTATdenique ut exponamusquid nos de hac re sentiamus;uerba autem Plutarchiiterumsubicimus ut plane uideas quae interpretari conemur: 8E TOiSOKa4EL SLa'XLcata OLa, a KarcOcKiEva0eraLME'v&7ro'-rXEvp&Q ~a7rrovOSEL 8' Eb" ioorKEXOV3OpOoywVLtoVv rptywVOV KOLXLottv~EVT, oVVVEVEL KEVTPOV. 7rEpd/pEp'pa

TV EV IK

Primumdicimus hoc loco praepositionemd&rbeodem modo quo fere iK usurpari; cf. HDT. 7, 65, br~o'AXov AESCH.Ag. rverotLiva; 970; SOPH. Tr. 704. Nunc utile eritVITRVVI locum conferre(9, 9, i) quo de solariorum disserit genere quodam :Hemicycliumexcauatumex quadratoad enclimaquesuccisumBerosus Chaldaeus diciturinuenisse. Huius quidem generisexemplumproximosaeculo Tusculi repertum 1 Sed frustra;uir enimdoctissimus huiusconlegi Physicorumprofessorconum ex plumboalbo faciendumbenignecurauit,quo usi ignem huiusfiguraeintegrum ex solis radiiselicerepotuimus. Non tamenputamusPlutarchumhis uerbisconi figuram designareuoluisse.

64

l . H. forga n.

in tabula quarta (p. I4) depictum exhibemus (cf. RICH. Dict. Ant. s. u. hemicyclium). Eius autem in parte excauata talis eratinclinatio ut caeli declinationi- enclimati- quae Tusculi esse uidereturaccuCAPELLA(6, 597) rate conueniret. Haec quidem solaria a MARTIANO etiam uocantur. Plutarchus illa uasa in Scaphia (O-KaodEa) scaphia haec autem dicit ex eliciendo adhibita aequicruritriappellat; igni angulirectiangulilatere fuisseexcauata. VerumtamenVitruuius,cum quadratumdicit,solidumtamen quoddam,ut in tabula nostrauidere licet,perspicueintellegit;huius autem superficiemanimo solam sibi fingebat. Eodem modo Plutarchus, dum superficiemcommemorat,de solido quodam nostra sententia disserebat. Id uero erat prisma,cuius superficiesatque basis aequicruriistriangulisrectiangulissunt comprehensae(cf. tab. V, p. 14). Scaphiumigiturex laterequod AB linea in tabula designaturita excauatum est ut eius inclinatioad caeli declinationemquae Romae esset accurateconueniret; curuaturaetiamscaphii---vvveVE. . KCVTpovsine dubio ea fuitquam nunc parabolam appellare solemus,optimam igni eliciendo. Ex trianguloautem excauari scaphiumritusmorisque sollemnis fuit cum triangulainter res arcanas haberentur; ex his quidem elementa rerum illa quattuor principio excreuisse PLATO docuit (Tim. p. 53 C. sqq.). A Graecis igitur,ut supra dictum est, Romani hunc ignis sempiternieliciendi modum accepisse potuerunt. De metallo autem ex quo scaphia excauenturscriptoresnihil nobis tradiderunt. Haec habuimusquae de ignis eliciendi modis dicenda putaremus.

ORIGIN OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF p.? o• WITH THE SUBJUNCTIVE AND THE FUTURE INDICATIVE.

ON THE

BY W.

W.

GOODWIN.

HE origin of the construction of o- i has never been satisfactorily explained. While there is a general agreement as to the meaning of the two forms of expression in which this double or ov b0yyevujerat is it will not negative occurs, that (I) op- yLvryTra and (2) o0'/A Karafl/3 L is do not come down, there is great happen, of opinion as to the manner in which these meanings are diversity obtained from the Greek expressions, and still greater as to the origin of the constructions themselves. Most scholars have explained expressions of denial with oz q and those of prohibition on entirely different theories, which involve different views of the functions of the negatives in the two forms. The explanation of the expreswhich has gained most favor is sions of denial (like oz Iy yEdvqTra) that of an ellipsis after o- of a verb or other form denoting fear on which IA- yvVTrat depends; so that the full form would be o- S'og no fear that it will happen. Since a strong Er'TLI ydvTrac, there is for this argument ellipsis is the existence of such examples as oi

T

r 6,poLg OCdyywo, XEN. AMem. ii. I, 25, and ovXy 8-oc , o-L [• qea4.tXr AR. Eccl. 650, which, by omitting 4dpo'fand 81o1, would become o0 be said that this and oX crE cry, it can hardly Scr /dyqywO ,o~ is supposed to be one of the unconscious ellipses which are no longer felt in actual use. This explanation, however, does not help to account for the prohibitions in the second person, like o- 'IL p/ So'lSEr KaTrafieL, for there is no freak of language by which ovi such can we 81o3 suppose KaaqraitEL(if Karap/fl or even oV lELT an expression) could be transformed into o0pV KaTaflr EL, in the sense do not come down. The prohibitions have, therefore, generally been explained, on Elmsley's theory, as interrogative; and oV p/n KaTafjcrtE; is supposed to mean will you n o t n o t come down 7 i.e. do not come down. All subjunctives that are found in these prohibitions, as

66

W

W. Goodwin.

ARIST. Nub. 296, have generallybeen in o0 /.t" brLVN ,roLrc, and Elmsley, and such subjunctives are condemned-KpfI7 since Brunck seldom seen in recent editions of the dramatists. But all attempts to explain these constructions of o- lrq on different theories lead to fatal difficulties. We cannot make all the prohibitions interrogative, nor can we change all the prohibitory subjunctives to futures without violence to the text; nor are all cases of the second person of the subjunctive or of the future with ob tr prohibitory. The following examples show a complete transition from one of the uses of oG 'trt to the other, and yet no line of distinction, on which different theories of construction can reasonably be based, can be drawn between any two of them: V plp y, no one of the Achaeans, I OVroLo0Sa, &"'aLaUov, 1 / rTL o* oot E, am sure, will insult you. SOPH. Aj. 560. o' otaL KO X El. I will Id. never follow you. 1052. 7rore, iyT 7ravo-Ec, and you will not cease. ARIST.1)'s. 704. o 7ror' 4 e E'o^ ye /L &XX' this me. but shall SOPH.El. 1029. never from you suffer 7rdl07 rd'e, oV /LrV 7Tot ECTVV KVpOV EK7TXEcr)Tfl,you shall never sail off to . . . XX'~ t, do not Jeer Scyros. Id. Phil. 38 1. o0"IN " but hold not shall jeer), KC, your tongue. ARIST. Nub. 296 (i.e. you a't yrpouotorct XEtpa,r8' uy (this cannot be interrogative). ov jLO touch nor near hand do not me, my garments. bring your E7rXwrv, EUR.HZipol. 606 (generally made interrogative). It should be made a first requisite of any theory that it shall explain all these cases on the same general principle. A preliminary question to be settled, if possible, is whether o- and /.rt merely combine to make a single strong negative, or whether oVi as an independent adverb negatives /rm and the verb taken together. The difficulty either of conceiving oi and ptr'as forming a single strong negative, as o- and o~3jSvor til' and tqSv&often do, or of understanding how pt yEv"lrat, which by itself cannot mean it will not happen, can be strengthened by oi~ into an expression with this very meaning, has made it impossible to defend the former view on any recognized principle, even when it has been adopted for want of something better. I formerly held this opinion, but I have never attempted to defend it by any analogy of the language. The supposed analogy of b/0 o forming a single negative with the infinitive will hardly hold as a support of this; for, while we cannot have a

The Orzgin of the Construction of o'b P4.

67

sentence like o-x -LO'vcrrOL oi /3o'Odlv continued by an infinitive with o•b8 (e.g. by ovi&3&Lvc'EOaL),we frequently have sentences like where pi~ continues the ^9 KarTEpE TOrVO/vaI, oI / KaXE• •/rME without the distinct force of each repeating oi, showing prohibition this double of But this negative. only brings out more empart the that lies at the basis of the whole phatically perplexing question discussion. If ov is an independent negative, as by every principle of Greek negatives it should be, what does it negative ? It is clear that there is only one active negative in ob pv/ ye&rat, it will not happen; and oat• crKp11;, do not jeer, surely does not have one more active negative than /I O-Kwtfpv.' It seems obvious, therefore, that if o2 is an independent negative in o0 b) y EVlYrat, the negative force of the /ii must in some way be in abeyance, as otherwise the two simple negatives would make the sentence as a whole positive. We may naturally turn for a suggestion here to the principal form of expression in which the negative force of tir' seems to be in abeyance, - to Plato's favorite subjunctive with /.rt as a form of cautious assertion, as ti "av.X~v ", I think it will prove to be bad, Crat. 425 B. Such expressions are, practically, cautious affirmative statements, the fear that something may prove true having by usage softened into a suspicion, and this again into an " idea of probability or possibility, so that t 4aiaXov , which originally meant may it not prove bad (as I fear it may), has come to mean I suspect it may prove bad, and finally, I think it will prove bad or it will probably prove bad. The expression, however, always retains at least the implication that the fact thus stated is an object of apprehension to some one, though it has lost all of its original reference to such apprehension on the part of the speaker." If now a 1The idea suggested rather than advocated by Gildersleeve (Am. Jour. Philol. introduces III. pp. 203, 205), that oi is an independent negative, nay, while 4AJ a question which expects a negative answer, was evidently held by the copyists of some of the best Mss. of Aristophanes or by their predecessors: thus, Rav. and several Paris Mss. have o06in Nub. 296; Ven. 474 (or Ar 7 O6r~S7Tj ao-ircips), in in Nub. 367, and has Aa;5aers Aqp~~a'ps See the Ms. 505. ot6 /o-* •? readings given in Trans. of Amer. Philol. Assoc. for 1869-70, p. 52. 2 I give the following passages of Plato, with Jowett's translation, to illustrate this idiom: c 68 'AAXXA • pavXov cal ob caBO' bs6 , cpIXe if they are avve•pewv not, the composition . of them, my dear Hermogenes, will be a'Ep•d4-yEvE, sorry piece of work,

68

W. W. Goodwin.

writer wished to express the negative of one of these cautious assertions, in which the original force of /i has practically disappeared, he would say, for example, , it will not prove to be bad. ov0p•4'aXov of such sentences as o p9 oCo'07' We thus have a simple explanation you will not be able, PLAT.Repv. 341 B, and 3vvarTs oW,1 o0 .•, shall not be able, Id. Phileb. 48 D, the former being the negative of /i' 8 I will be the latter of 7' able, suspect you Ty, pn o~O~ varTS (, I suSV pect that I shall be able. So, by prefixing to /A avayKacrv ,, we have o0 o0)t c vayKacov Y, it will not be necessary. (See foot-note, page 70.) This use of /i' with the independent subjunctive in Plato is, howor gy ever, confined to the present subjunctive, and generally to an while , the aorist has (with adverb), subjunctive or tpt generally the future indicative, ando0only rarely the present subjunctive, even in Plato. Still, the successful application of the principle to the few present subjunctives which are like those above quoted indicates that we are on the right track. The independent subjunctive with /i' is by no means confined to the Platonic construction above mentioned, although this is its chief representative in Attic Greek. It is familiar in Homer in expressions of apprehension combined with a desire to avert the object of fear; as tqL 8~ vyag aox, may they not seize the skips (as I fear they may), someI1. xvi. 128. In such expressions sometimes the fear itself and v. see Od. is more the times the desire to avert prominent; danger ?' ap7ra$v, 7 7Tr PC 4 15 7rpor'T 7rp'q KV/a 3lJX X'OaKL Kl3)qvov7Ra /,uy dash me " 8E oT-EratL pipn,i.e. I fear that some wave may p/LEXEqS -LOL upon a rock as I am emerging from the sea, and my effort will (then) be in vain (the clause of fear being merged in a direct statement). See also I1. ii. 195, xviii. 8 ; Od. v. 356, xvi. 255. Between Homer v with and Plato we find only eight cases of independent /An (or 0o) the subjunctive;' but in these we can see the transition from Homer's and in the wrong direction. Crat. 425 B. &Axa PhAs &XOess, rb ro '"Eploy4- ro' 476AK? aT7rq 7rs 61otdr7JTos, vous, yXI'OXpa
I I depend here on Weber's statistics, given in his Entwickelungsgeschichte

der Absichtssitze, in Schanz's Beitriige,

Vol. II.

The Origin of the Construction of ob p4.

69

clause of apprehension to Plato's cautious assertion. In four of these cases the speaker expresses fear and a desire to avert its -Orest. object. These are EUR. A/c. 315, • aoo Sta OdpP y',Lov, erc. Fur. &AX' 776,2p Xa/dfl 1399, atpa ,/L 'croZ XaoLElvoL, cr0 o - Rhes. • 11 , oP 3dXLv. In the other iEoldp•'p~aL 7r6o7L, I1I5, four cases we see either the cautious assertion found in Plato or a h,7v near approach to it. In HDT. V. 79, we have AXX&L l&.Xov /J. oo roVro 7T ,LravrLov, but I suspect rather that this will prove not to be the meaning of the oracle (precisely Plato's usage). Cases of /pJ oof course illustrate this use of /j. with the subjunctive equally with those of the simple /t'. In EUR. Troad. 982, Hecuba says to Helen, I suspect you will not convince wise people, with /p' o- 7rOcsao ov'o3, the same sarcastic tone which is in Plato's pA pET7, o0,K ?7 be taught, Men. I suspect it will prove that virtue is not a thing to9&•KTOV 94 E (said by Socrates, who is arguing that virtue is t&LaKTdV).In o, ARIST.Eccl. 795, most editions have L yyp oap av~ap7 077roL(sc. raGra KaraOys,where the Mss. give an impossible XadpotL),I suspect you will not find a place to put them down, with the same affectation of anxiety as in the two preceding examples. In XEN. Menz. iv. 2, 2, we have one of the rare interrogative forms of the subjunctive with in which Euthydemus says to Socrates, /i' o0v o , SvvoimaL(v. 1. Xrq, s *Epyc&)Ty'aTccrOa L; do you suspect that UvaLaL) Eyw rTarT3 8 oKaLOVr I shall be (or am) unable to explain the works of Justice? He adds, 7 &SLKOla, I assure you, I can explain those of KaL v' LA EYowyE ra Injustice. Here the spirit of the expression is the same as in the other cases. Compare the similar interrogatives in Plato: Phaed. 64 C, Rep. 603 C, Parmen. 163 D, Sisyph. 387 C. But for the eight cases of independent /.t that have been quoted, we should never know that the construction existed between Homer and Plato. We have good ground for believing that it remained as a colloquial idiom in the language, though it seldom appeared in literature until Plato revived it and restored it to common use as a half-sarcastic form of expressing mildly a disagreeable truth. In Plato the construction is not confined to this peculiar sense, for we find cases in which honest apprehension is expressed as in the older use. Weber E'VOLV quotes Euthyd. 272 C, 1L77 ro TLrraTTroTroT oEsOTa, I am some one afraid may insult the two strangers in this same way (or let no one insult them, as I fear some one may) ; also Symp. 193 B,

70 Kal •

W. OL

o

TL 1L7TroLvv1y

W. Goodwin.

I hope he will not answer me; and Leg. 861 E, oXadZy, oL'rTaL.

It appears, therefore, that the independent subjunctive with /l was in good use in the fifth century B.C. in the, two senses illustrated by EUR. Orest. 776, /i Xai~pt 0E, Ifear they may seize you, and by

I suspect you zwillfail to conEUR. Tread. 982, L, rrwrd-; i~ o;-oVo vince wise people. From the persistence of the original meaning, even in Plato, we may probably assume that the expression more frequently included the idea of apprehension which is essential to it in Homer. But the other examples show that Ig Xadpwo-ac must have been in equally good use in the sense I suspect they will seize you (implying no apprehension). If, now, we suppose o0 to be prefixed to /A' which could be said with we shall have ov ,t4 Xadflaw crcE, Xad3oco-o-E, the meaning I am not afraid that they will seize you, and equally well with the meaning they shall not seize you. The former sense agrees precisely with that of some of the older uses of o0 Itti with the subjunctive. If the strange example from Parmenides (vs. 121) is TL cJE pOTV genuine, we have o •T yVT0 Ut 7rapEXad , there is orrTE no danger that any mortal will surpass you iin wisdom. In AESCH. I Sept. 38 (one of the oldest cases, 467 B.C.), o vTL p ) Xpr6OJ&8'XAp, have no fear of being caught by any trick, we can easily understand ' I fear I may be caught. o; X-rq06 as the negative of /A X-4OO%, So in Parmenides we have the negative of /lpi T R c 7rapXclaccy, Ifear TL V some one may surpass you. OV would be a natural dVt&ay negative of ~ A L 6vdEL•o, I fear some one may insult, in PLAT. Euthyd. 272 C. So, where there is no denial of apprehension, o ~p adOa ro9ET , you shall not suffer this, SOPH.El. 1029, may be the ' , I suspect you will suffer this; and o3 negative of p-L7rd'0 8rcE7 I Phil. Id. 381, may be the negative of /A CK7rXTEvo-, 'K7rXTEv'crr, o' sail So va will / away. d4Oopplaq (Kirchoff, you suspect -crys) XOovok, 7~rp'v v, etc., you shall not move your skhis from the shore, until, etc., EUR. Iph. Taur. i8, will be the negative of ,tg vavg doopp~cla, I suspect you will move your ships. These expressions with ov 1. were always colloquial, as were also (at least in Attic Greek) the expressions, with ItLIand the subjunctive from which they are here supposed to have sprung.' 1

1 It may perhaps be urged, in opposition to the view here presented, that objhu in its Ad&8wo LTe,they will not seize you, cannot be the negative of /.Ad'jw hB•eS

The Origzin of the Construction of oi'bFt.

71

If it is thought that the limited number of cases of independent pa with the subjunctive not implying apprehension do not justify the assumptions which have been based on them, it is easy to see how the change from the denial of an apprehension to the denial of a suspicion might have taken place within the o0 lttj construction itself. and o' tt ri~ o-e If we suppose such expressions as o X/XO19O of as the to have been established negatives /A'XA/OW,I fear P/3play I may be caught, and r o7-E V {/p[ry, Ifear some one may insult yau, they must soon have fallen out of this relation to the parent forms, and have been felt in use to be mere future negative assertions, so that they could not long be restricted to sentences in which apprehension was implied. Thus, ov /1 va3g ~ploplay xOovo0would soon become as natural to those who used these forms as the older o0 rTts e ,ppl',ay. According to this view, o' /tA with the subjunctive into the language in the sense of a denial of an apprewould come hension, which is essentially the same general sense as that supposed But there is a great by the theory of an ellipsis of 0~'os EaTv. advantage in dispensing with this troublesome and improbable ellipsis, and deriving the meaning from the sentence as it stands. There is surely no more ground for assuming this ellipsis here than in the sense of I suspect they will seize you, or even in that of I fear they may seize you, because the regular negative of this is dhjoibAdBcwo Ge, as we may call ob /it) ,reil-ps But ob in pj ob ao-ods, EUR. Troad. 982, the negative of u Fh reo-Ep oopoos. the whereas ob in would verb, negative the relSaps negatives only o'b h 7retnps whole expression h redrops. M ob 'rdeops is a cautious negative, meaning I susPect you will not convince them, corresponding in a certain way to jZhrdola-s, I suspect you will convince them. But ob uh rebaps would be the true negative of h relolps, denying it absolutely, in the sense there is no ground for suspicion 1A that you will convince them, or (sometimes) there is no fear that you will convince them. There is all the difference in the world between suspecting a negation (e.g. suspecting that something will not happen) and negativing a suspicion (e.g. denying that there is any suspicion that something will happen). Surely no one could understand /. oib uvarbs i3, I suspect I shall not be able, as the negative of ju suarbs i&, I suspect I shall be able. The real negative is much rather oCb t 58;vvvoarbs &, there is no chance that I shall be able, in PLAT. Phileb. 48 D. The negative power of oibin negativing ?d Ad3cow a-E in its sense of Ifear they may seize you is perhaps still more apparent. Whereas /A ob AdBw -ae in this sense would mean I am afraid they may not seize you, obj• Ad~wol ae would mean I do not fear (or there is no danger) that they will seize you, which is felt as a strong negative, they will not seize you.

72

W. W. Goodwin.

independent subjunctive with u", which is an older construction than the dependent subjunctive with fi. And if we accept rl crcf'pplag /j it is absurd as a complete construction, without the help of S'os ecgTTv, as a shorter to invent an ellipsis to explain o;vt TLp ' crc form i'4eppCoIn fact, dispensing with this ellipsis for o SoE T t/spfl•-ty. i•'I fatalothe most removesE-'0 objection to the view of the sentence on which the old theory was based. In whichever of the two ways above suggested the subjunctive with o•"z came to express a simple future denial, it was only natural that the Attic Greek should soon begin to use the future indicative in place of the subjunctive in the same sense. Thus we have in SOPH. El. 1052, o" crot 'uc 'rore, and in ARIST.Ran. 508, oi gr •0E4fto/a both expressing denial. At this stage the recolao eo rrcpto 'oa at, lection of the original clause with IL and the subjunctive must have been lost, as there was no corresponding clause with up and the future indicative ir. common use, of which oz"u with the future could be the negative. A most striking proof of the entire loss of this tradition is given by examples of indirect quotation of otz" with the KcU 7'~Xa future. In SOPH. Phil. 6 I1 we have E0ErtcrcV, -rd 7r"vT the e -~ 7-ro re p~ W3 ?'v8E YOLV70ro, v of> 'p Tpotas o d r7epyatp raIr\ In XEN. vc r pCa c'I direct form being otv-prot-q r-carc7yr dy•,reOc. • O KLKLOV K 7 a < Hellen. i. 6, 32, EC7rV ao70 o i1v4q q7Pr)OVEV LELTQL• the future indicative is retained in an otherwise similar aroOavodvros, construction. In EUR. Phoen. 1590, we find dr7e Tepeo-aC obtL ro0E, 'u 'ror V rXLtv, representing cau qVC y"v olKOVVTOV,Cv7 pCCLC ob~v 00 rv exan as ov not could We independent i explain ?rrpetv rrpd(et. pression on any theory, either with or without an ellipsis. Such z -q had forms show the advanced stage which the construction of o0 reached. We find in the Roman comic poets a few cases of neque with haud in the same clause, forming a single negative. Such are PLAUT. Bacch. I037, Negue ego baud committam ut, si quid peccatum siet, fecisse dicas de mea sententia; and TER. Andr. 205, NeqTuetu haud dices tibi non praedictum. Neque haud may fairly be supposed to be a translation of o08p&u in the Greek original. If it is, it shows that the Roman poet understood oi /z' with the subjunctive or the future indicative as a simple expression of denial. When oibu with the future indicative had been established as a

The Origiu of the Constructionof ozb .

73

regular form of future denial, the second person singular probably began to be used as a form of prohibition. As the future could be used in positive commands in an imperative sense, as in 7ravrcs SE roiro 8pdaces, but by all means do this, ARIST. Nub. 1352, it could also take the simple o' in prohibitions, as in Xa"p'o `av'TS 27orE, you shall not touch me with your hand, or do not touch me, EUR. Med. 1320. The dramatists soon introduced the new form with ot /' into such prohibitions, generally with the future indicative, but occasionally with the more primitive subjunctive. Thus o0 7 Kam'flryct had the sense of do not come down, derived from you shall not come down, as o0 t~4avts (above) from meaning you shall not touch came to mean do not touch. One of the strongest objections to the older views of the forms with o' p ur is that they generally require a distinct explanation of this prohibitory construction. Elmsley's theory of a question with two negatives, explaining ovi i' Kamras will you NOT NOT come down ? hence do not come down, flEo';stated in the was Quarterly Review for June, 1812, and in his note to EUR. Med. 1120 (I151 Dind.). Many who do not adopt Elmsley's theory in full still accept the interrogative form, and these sentences are now generally printed as questions. Long before Elmsley, the famous "Canon Davesianus " had proscribed all sigmatic aorist subThis edict removed junctives with o'; p as well as with ,ro puoq. that would have all the or troublesome quite nearly subjunctives opposed Elmsley's view, and left only the future indicative in his doubly-negatived questions, which of course required an indicative. This again set up an artificial distinction in form between the prohibitory construction allowing only the future indicative, and the other construction allowing both subjunctive and future indicative. But it has been more and more evident in later years that this distinction in form between the two constructions cannot be maintained. It was seen by Brunck, before Elmsley's interrogative theory appeared, that it would be absurd to distinguish sentences like 7-av'a 7 ip v pKEpOV lyou shall never sail away to oV /L or7' •XoV, SOPH.Phil. 381, from ot pav KaraT37l'-EL, Scyros with these arms, rEwrXvo, you shall not come down, ARIST.Vesp. 397. He therefore wrote K2rIXEv''G." aors in the former, with the note "soloece vulgo legitur K rXEV But 4KwrXE•',E3Lproved to be even a greater solecism than K~7rXE•o'

W. W. Goodwin.

74

was thought to be, for the only classic future of mrkeo)t is the middle or 7rXEvcro^oute, and EKrXcircv will not suit the verse. So orXcoV'"oao y had to be restored. Again, while almost all the sentences EK7rXcv'Ocontaining a prohibition with o0' , followed by a positive command with &XXcd or 8E,could admit Elmsley's punctuation and interpretation, -

as

o01 /pL XaX~jrct s &X'

lO;

ARIST. Nub.

505,

ex-

dKoXovOUrj'oELCt plained as won't you not talk nonsense and follow me - another passage of the Clouds resisted both of these and also the prescribed form. In 296 the Mss. have o p'y CKLy y6r wLroLrjoT~ q3arEp oi e ev . Brunck emended this without hesirpvyo8at4lov~s &AX"' tation to o.~ o070ot" )crK'oI /ts~ ~7vr roOrcts, with the note "soloece vulgo crK4; ... WrroLrty." But there was no place for Elmsley's interrogative mark, which could not stand after the imperative, and could not be inserted after oirot without implying that the other sentences (like Clouds 505 above) were wrongly punctuated. The emendation cKrJoEts

was as unfortunateas 'KwrXco(et,as the future of not , so that a furtheremendation to

oKO1tp/•aLt,

o-K•wT

oKoT70

is

-K ?Et was

needed. In this battered condition, and with no interrogative mark to help the interpretation, the passage usually appears, even in the latest editions. So long as it is proposed to explain these prohibitions and the ordinary denials with oiv' u on entirely different theories, with nothing common to the two constructions, it may not seem unreasonable to force a few examples like Nub. 296 and 367 into conformity with the general usage. But on any theory which makes no distinction in construction between the prohibitions and the other negative expressions of denial or refusal (for example, between o.p'u) do not come you shall not sail away, and o ~u?4) Kamfra/3rEL, EKwrXcvo'9, i.e. down, you shall not come down), there is no more reason for obSOS. An occasional subthan to o; ~ iKwXcr1 jecting to ot p) OKw rifn o or like -q Xrpr3vj, is indeed no more than junctive, o;j) oTKwq/vy we should naturally expect in a construction which had its origin in the subjunctive. In such expressions, further, the analogy of the equivawould tend to make the aorist suband lent . t) XArp4crj t•) owqJ and perfectly natural. A reference to the junctive unobjectionable list of passages quoted on page 66 will show the inconsistencies into which every one must fall who attempts to explain the prohibitions and the clauses of denial on different theories. We cannot separate in construction, nor the latter from o0; ) Ir o. cqTK3W KA-rXe;oa•

The Origin of the Construction of o'b ~pj.

75

from o a , nor this again from o j TLS if3pPl, on any coni O-q of sistentv) principle interpretation.1 One class of sentences have been claimed as decisive witnesses in favor of the interrogative theory. They are represented by ov Oa&rcov will you notmorequicklyextend it (your IA3"' A-7'rLT'4gEL1 Coto; oL•oeLg, and not distrust me 7 SOPH.Tr. I183. These are undoubted hand), in them. They questions, but there is no construction with o0 pt consist of one question with implying an affirmative answer, will o0, you not extend your hand? and another with /x', implying a negative answer, and you will not distrust me, will you ? The compound of the two has the general sense expressed in the first translation above. In conclusion, we may sum up the result of the investigation as follows. The original construction of / with the subjunctive was o0 developed as a negative form of the independent subjunctive with ,j, which had already become an expression of apprehension with desire to avert its object, even if it had not passed into the stage of a cautious assertion; in either case the real negative force of was in abeyance. The aorist subjunctive is the most common formtIqhere, the present being less frequent. This form of future denial next admitted the future indicative in the same sense as the subjunctive. The second person singular of this future with pv was used by the dramatists as a prohibition, without abandoningoitthe sense which the future can always have in both positive and negative commands. In these prohibitions the future indicative, in which they had their origin, is generally used; but the subjunctive occasionally occurs, being analogous to the ordinary aorist subjunctive with /%' in prohibitions; supporting /T' e.g. t o-TK(lpl o0 rK;0Ks. 1 For a furtherdiscussion of the form of the sentences with ou'~L4, in connection with that of clauses with lrces and with the Canon Davesianus, see Transactions of the American Philological Association for 1869-70, pp. 46-55. 2 Since this paper was written, I have seen that Kvi6ala, in two articles on ob

u4h in the Zeitschrift fir

die oesterreichischen Gymnasien for 1856, proposed an

explanation of ob~ with the subjunctive,which at one important point came very near the view now presented. He states two (apparently theoretical) meanings which he supposes tphOdvups to have had at some period (zwei Bedeutungsentwickelungen): one, "Du wirst doch wol am Ende, trotzdem dass ich es abzuwehren suche, sterben "; the other, " Ich fiirchte, dass du doch wol (trotz meiner 6cs Abwehr) sterben werdest." By prefixing ob to in these meanings, he It Od.

76

I W W. Goodwvin.

' ti with the arrives at two meanings of ou subjunctive. The second of these comes so near the independent subjunctive with 1djin Homer, that it is surprising that neither this nor the equally important IA' in Plato is mentioned. But no use is made of the advantage here gained in explaining o' 1A with the future indicative, either in prohibitions or in denials. The prohibitions are made interosc; being explained as " Nicht wahr? - du wirst doch v? Aevs rogative, ob dIA nicht feindselig seyn?" The future of denial is explained simply as developed from the interrogative future, as a form of reply to this, by leaving out the interrogative element.

ON SOME DISPUTED OF •Ys,

XpYv,

POINTS IN THE CONSTRUCTION ETC. WITH THE INFINITIVE.

BY W. W. GOODWIN.

T is a familiar fact that certain imperfects denoting obligation, .propriety, or possibility, ~SEL,Xp;v or EXpJY, LK1 3v, ?rpoo-/KEv, ;4iv, and others of similar meaning, are used with the infinitive in an idiomatic sense, in which the whole expression becomes a form of potential indicative, referring to past or present time, and generally implying the opposite of the action or the negation of the infinitive. means you ought to have gone (but you did not Thus, •to-E XCAOv TOVTO ELME go) ; you ought not to be doing this (but you -q 7rTOLEv, not to or have done this (but you did it). These imperyou ought are) fects may be used also as ordinary past tenses with no potential force; in DEM.XiX. 124 means he had to stay (and did as when 8EL •CLVaV stay), or Xp•v yvo0aL KaLK1Join HDT. i. 8 means Candaules was doomed toKavSa-•X, fall into trouble. The peculiar idiom by which the opposite of the infinitive is usually implied is common to Greek, TOTOV 4LnXdv, hunc colere debebas, Latin, and English; as in S1ELro-E to love him do So also is the use of the past you ought not). (but tenses •S(L, debebas, and ought (past tense of owe) to express present time. These combinations are practically equivalent to the verb of the infinitive in the potential indicative (with av), qualified by an adverb or other expression denoting obligation, propriety, or possibility, which expression would stand in the relation of an unreal condition to the verb with Av. Thus, EIKO oY -E TOVTO TraEdV means you would properly have sufered this (which you did not sufer), and is equivalent to SeldK6r(, or (in full) rovro av c7raOCdL dKO ua ESS. 70oro a ~7crae , The implied unreal condition, however, comes into the expression by idiomatic usage, and is not inherent in the words themselves. It is generally laid down as an absolute rule that in this idiom the opposite of the infinitive is always implied: see Krtiger, ? 53, 2, 7, where the usual formula is given, that with AsELroTro y(YVEa-00E we must understand AXX' oV with SCL we aV must 'roVro y'yvE~•aL y',yvE•aL, understand AXX' o; 8d. This principle was first formulated, I believe, by G. Hermann. It covers nearly all the ordinary cases, and has

W W. Goodwin.

78

generally been found to be a convenient working rule, though many passages show that it is not of universal application.' The following three classes of examples show the need of a more flexible formula. (i)

El

nrO

O8OVT0o

(UOE

7TXVEVrV(CLVe -Ey XPqV

8?)

eO

TrOLCELV

TTA

the dream had said I was to perish by a tooth, you would e , r OLdC? if properly do what you now do. HDT. i. 39. Here the action of and if anything is implied in opposi7roLCLV is emphatically affirmed; tion to the apodosis, it would seem to be the opposite of Xpi~v. Yet thereis no v. El v Oovv aravTos (o1/oXoyo/^VE V? XAr7rov T7 dXEL 7roXEEvt, ol-84v aXXo I8L orwTOa -aOaXEa-raa

TVrapdv7ra Xyvta 7v

y

LOa, i.e. aTrov &LvvoV

0vLjPovXEv5'(E

we were all agreed if thenKaL•

that PhiliP is at war with us, the speaker ought to say nothing else and give no other advice than this, etc. (but he adds that there is to discuss another opinion, and therefore it is necessary, CO-TL, &vdy7K?) another matter). DEM. ix. 6. Elt p~v p rap imp rOLe9 yr 7papwo• T oa 0-a ? (s v 4XLVLxa C.LaTov, VL

a '7La

rarovptp

6y1 3

Tao

o-vvevKa',

for if the record-book had been given to me to keep, A. might possibly have charged me with putting the contract out of the way. Id. xxxiii. 37. By the rule we should expect ivrv av, on the ground that o K is implied. ElIopa /Tra/c'Xov r rOCEL Evnvrather than oZvKTrLcawro ?0 if he had seen that ov v OavudW abVTroV, Trovr7rpay~EvO)V, o the state repented of its previous acts, we should not properly wonder at him (as we now do). Isoc. xviii. 21. The implied opposite seems to include the idea of &alov. Mera vrv /jdxX-v, VV 0IV o)' dyvo/)/ovyV(TaC DEM.xviii. 248. We genv v roXXoi rpag rT OavuaarcYov Tro1 q". erally translate, when it would have been no wonder; and Westermann gives "entschuldbar gewesen wiire," which seems to require qv Jv. usually rendered it were (or would "AXX, trpe rCv XEyaVadXEAyCL, to another say what you say, which would be a be) becoming for translation of rrpCrcvIv. PLAT. Rep. 474 D. 1 See Hermann, de Particula "Av, I. 12. In discussing SoPH. Elec. 1505, 8' ebObs Hermann says: "Xp-iv dicit, quia ro7t 7raOL -81cK?7, Edval T7JVSe XPvY

oportere indicat sine condicione: nec potest opponi, &Ah'ob Xp?: nam si

oportet,quomodopotest non oportere? At non omnia fiunt,quae oportebat. E&'T." Itaquequodopponerepotes,aliudest: &Ah' oVsm The " opposite"impliedin a negativeexpressionof this kind (even when the

negation belongs to the leading verb) is an affirmative. Thus od 7rpoaTKevjAOeyv, ' ?AOv. he ought not to have gone, implies &AX

On

A pet, xpiv, etc. with the Infinitive.

79

In the preceding examples it is sometimes thought that 4v is required with the leading verb, as it would be by the strict letter of the ordinary rule. In concessive sentences like the following, in which the statement precludes the contrary of the apodosis, nothing is implied in opposition to either infinitive or leading verb, so that the rule cannot be applied at all: (2)

Kaly?Lp &Vv

(i.e.

KaeLt u-q

4$OrV rovTovs,

TOLTOL ELY

Tvorov'w ELT•xErc Trava, i.e. even if you had not all mankind with you, you could si/ll is affirmed. do what you now do. HDT. vii. 56. Here raTra 7roda•v E 8 re K OVS d 7raVTa 7rEp' TVrOTE EcT O3K $qV ' Ec-•0a he could notcyc(yTLEVV•V, maintain a suit about aVr, r~v OvTO%, rV TraVT rrroLKwSa what then tookplace, even if I had done all these things which he says nor &KTgera is implied. I did. Isoc. xviii. 19. Here neither ' 'rrEcTt ( Ov OVT) 7rpO KEV EL wToTotL OVUTOL S 8s, cauav, ylvyto quavY, not had been true sons, but had even EIvat, they if avrobv LOvoc ErKT been afterwards adopted into another family, as these maintained, not even in this case would they now belong by right to Euctemon's house. ISAE. vi. 44. Here the argument strives to show that they could not belong to E.'s house in any case. El yap qv rra 'rnpdor'•Xa - rTV rTXL Tr /EXXovrayev'a-0ae, .... o•8'oV Ts ar or0ar oa rotWV qv, i.e. Athens ought not even then to have withdrawn from this DEM. policy, which she followed (&aroorarT'ov7v = a0ro'r)vat SL). xviii. 199. See also DEM. XV. 28. El yap fuEqcV tXEcrcTrGv aXXov T7 rava a crVVELVa, qV 18 7v Xoyla•aea?, L•78' 0'4 v1e( ar&vT otoL rT7( had no cases to other for you although 'OXvv&'ovo 7rapdBSypla rovrovoi, consider, and could not learn this lesson in your own experience, you might have seen an example in these Olynthians. Id. xxiii. 107. (3) The examples just quoted seem to show that in these concessive sentences, with IBS?etc. and an infinitive in the apodosis, the action of the infinitive is not denied but emphatically affirmed. But in the following examples the action of the infinitive is denied, notwithstanding the concessive protasis: Ovs' El yap

yv o7rpay/La L? 9EOXaT-ov,&aKaOapTov V/Las EIKNOSv

v, for even if the duty were not urged upon us by a God, you ought not to leave the guilt unpurged (as you do). SOPH. O. T. 255EE ttL KaXAv KaL LpTapVravofv, pa PY,7eV T" v, E K TOLUa 7T^ r jc7Tr a Tv if we had even been in (sc. v) fldata eOaL aoa-p0v u•rEPLOdrya, the wrong, they mightfairly have yielded to our wrath, while we could o)rW 1ca

80

W W. Goodwin.

not have done violence to their moderation without disgrace. Truc. i. O v, A CLOV 38. (Here the opposite of each infinitive is implied.) C KaL1J'8Ev rqpXcv yaOov,(Ta7ras) TVj T^Y,; rTV araO'r oT1rpoTpov Swpea T7rapa TwoV 'EXXvwv TVXCv, these states, even if they had no other merit to rely on, deserved to receive (would deservedly have received) the greatest reward from the Greeks (which in fact they did not receive). Isoc. xii. 7I. It is well known that the imperfects in question (without av) can be used with the infinitive in two ways, - (a) alone, with no protasis expressed or implied except the condition which is contained in the expression itself, as in *tl -E C'XSOv, you ought to have gone; and (b) as the apodosis of an unreal condition, as in d OVTO EL aE-6 OEILv,if he had commanded, o-~ CKEcEVO-•V, you, you should have gone. It will be noticed that all the examples quoted above under (i), except the last two, and all under (2), are of the latter class, for in HDT. vii. 56, avcv TO1JTwvrepresents If now we take the apodoses of these senCd t• EctXrE cT TOVov. tences apart from their protases, we shall find that no one of them can then have the meaning which it now has. For example, in HDT. OE i. 39, XP•VV VOLEEcV 7rOLEctswould not be Greek at all as a potential would mean you ought to do (something expression, for XpqV~- rOLtEtLV which you do not do). In DEM. xxxiii. 37, v&qv by itself ai'alt•-ao-OaL would mean he might have charged me (but did not). O'K $i6v arry LKa~?TOaL could mean only he could not maintain a suit as he does; that is, it would mean nothing without a protasis. OV ,rTpoOqKEv ElvaLby itself would mean they ought not to belong aVTrov EVKTr/jOVOs to E.'s house as they do. 0VK woo-TaT'ov v alone would mean she ought not to have withdrawn as she did. So 'v rapES&aytawould an example. (Commean you might have seen (but you did not see) 18drv V T7)V y avtKarT, pare DEM. xxviii. 10O, rv (8vEvat &aOKVqV. the which we know the will, from truth.) might &X•OmLav, When these potential expressions without av stand alone, they always imply the opposite of the action or the negation of the infiniv a ro0o raOdZv tive; so that EdK~9~v by itself can mean only you would this have properly (but you did not). This is necessary suffered because the equivalent of this form, roiro Av~iraOcErE70 ELKO1E, always involves obK raOEr Tovro, since ro70ro and r d"EKdOare here made identical, and rO dK" 9ra0Es is denied. When, however, one

On M8tL, Xpiv, etc. with the Infinitive.

8i

of these expressions is made the apodosis of an unreal condition external to itself, it may be so modified by the new condition as no longer to imply the opposite of the infinitive as before. (See pp. 86, 87.) This is the case with the first three examples under (i), in which we certainly do not find ob roL'~Ls,XXo XCEL KaL •-VPflOVXCvL, and OVKL'a7rro implied in the form of expression. Before examinj ing these passages further, it is important to fix more precisely the distinction between A8ac etc. without av with the infinitive, and the equally familiar iJEa av etc. with the infinitive. As we cannot make the denial of the infinitive an absolute test of the use of the form without av, so we cannot make the denial of the leading verb an absolute test of the use of the form with av. The following rules will be found to cover the regular cases and also the apparent exceptions:i. The form without av is used when the infinitive is the principal word, on which the chief force of the expression falls, while the leading verb is an auxiliary which we can express by ought, might, could, or by an adverb. 2. On the other hand, when the chief force falls on the necessity, propriety, or possibility of the act, and not on the act itself, the leading verb has &v,like any other imperfect in a similar apodosis.1 Examples of the latter use are generally regular. We quote only i' v DEM. iv. I, E Ta 8EovraOcvTrOTvvcfloXcvorav, ov8Ev t va v Z*8c these had the there would if advice, given you necessary flovXc~EUOaL, be no need of your deliberating now. Here, as in all the ten examav quoted by La Roche, we find SaEL av in its meaning ples of 38EL there would be (or would have been) need, whereas in the form without av we generally have cELin the sense of ought, expressing obligation and not necessity. Of course, the idea of necessity is incompatible 1 See La Roche on "iAvbei 'Bet und ir'v " in the Zeitschrift fairdie oesterreichischen Gymnasien for 1876, pp. 588-591. He professes to give all the ~include eleven in which (SEthas cases; but his twenty-one examples of cfEt , the genitive of a noun and no infinitive. Omitting these, we have only ten of *oet av with the infinitive: THUC.i. 74; LYs. Frag. 56 (88 Scheibe); Isoc. xv. 17; ISAE. iv. 4; DEM. iv. I; PLAT. Rep. 328 C, Theaet. 169 E, Gorg. 514 A, Alc. i. I 19 B; DEM. lvii. 47 (only the last three affirmative); with four of itv, ISAE. DEM. He finds &v: Lys. iv. 13, Frag. 47 (79 Scheibe);

x. 13;

xxiv. 146.

&vonly in Lys. xii. 48, where he proposes to omit dv, overlooking Xpfv &v xp"Yv 7rpocort5oIcoa in DEM. xviii.

pp. 85, 86.

195.

Both of these passages

are discussed below,

82

W W Goodwin.

with that of an act not done. If La Roche's statistics are complete here, we see that the Greeks almost always expressed obligation or propriety, and generally expressed possibility, by the form without av, reserving ActE v for the idea of necessity, and E'$v av for a few cases in which the idea of possibility was to be made specially emphatic. It is not surprising, under these circumstances, that the form without av should often be used where we are at first inclined to think av is required. It must be remembered that the real apodosis here is not the central infinitive alone, but this infinitive modified by the idea of obligation, propriety, or possibility in the leading verb, that is, conditioned by the implied protasis which the expression includes. (See p. 87.) This modification may be so slight as to leave the infinitive the only important word in the apodosis; in this case the opposite of the infinitive is generally implied, as it always is when no ' protasis is added: thus, EUR. Med. 586, yXp!v&, E)lp •rioa KaKON, OVK 7OV8, implies &XX' E•yaLj' L 7r(lcra p~. It C yapEZv rO'ravra ycaiov may be so great as to make the idea of obligation, etc., a prominent factor in the apodosis, still stopping short of the point at which this favorite Greek idiom was abandoned and an ordinary apodosis with av was substituted in its place. The Greeks preferred the form without av almost always where we can express the apodosis by the verb of the infinitive with ought, might, or could, or with an adverb, although we sometimes find it hard to express the combined idea in English without giving undue force to the leading verb. Sometimes, when the idea of obligation, propriety, or possibility is specially prominent in the apodosis, although no av is used, the opposite that is suggested combines this idea with that of the infinitive. This is the case with In HDT. i. 39, the apodosis is you the first four examples in (i). do what would then properly you now do (or you would then, if you did what you ought, do what you now do), implying now you do not do this properly. With Xpov av it would have been it would then be your duty to do what you now do, or (if Xp-qvav had the force of 48ELav) it would then be necessary for you to do what you now do, the chief force being transferred from the act to the duty or necessity. Still, this change might have been made without otherwise affecting the sense. In DEM.ix. 6, the apodosis is in that case the speaker would properly talk of nothing else than this (implying now he may properly talk of another matter); whereas with 4E' Jv

On ~A'et,y~v, etc. with the Infinitive.

83

it would be there would then be no need of his talking of anything and a change of meaning. In else, with greater emphasis on the MEcL DEM. xxiii. 37, ^v/VaTr7tL'farat means he might then possibly have accused me, implying he could not possibly accuse me as it was; with arjv av it would have been it would then have been possible for him to accuse me, the emphasis being transferred with no other change of sense. In Isoc. xviii. 21, the apodosis, in that case we ought not to wonder at him or we should not properly wonder at him, is equivalent to ovK tAv Oav/co/p~v with the opposite implied, &E$v ~o, now we do wonder at him properly (vvv Oav/copElv &Aos). This d combination of two ideas in an apodosis of this kind is analogous to that which we often find in an ordinary apodosis with av; thus, in Fa cs Isoc. vi. 87, oX oro 8' 'v TOV ro'Ov '7rpoOVoU 7'EoqrvI 7t'apEKXOvv, d /LA77T7VdpYvrv copov atoyX not exhort should you pV ooopEvnv, with all this zeal to war, did I not see, etc., the apodosis which is denied includes ovro7irpoO Compare Isoc. xii. 71, quoted p. 8o. ots. The first four examples in (i) confirm the reading of the best manuscripts in EUR. Med. 490, d ykp T0 t7L, UyyVOrVTTVV rOL "•ra~ 700o' EpacrOvaLX"Xovs,which may be translated for if you had remained still childless, you might pardonably have become enamored of this new marriage, the apodosis being equivalent to ro70' pdo-O~ av with an adverb meaning pardonably. If no protasis had been added, crvyyv(orTOv7v o0LEpacrOvaL (as a potential expression) could have meant only you might pardonably have fallen in love (but you did not); and then avyyvoa0TrV vvv would certainly have been necessary to give the meaning it would have been pardonable (but now it is not so). Compare 03o' &yvm/toviqa'l TLOav/JaOcrTbv v in (i). With Ed Lo' TaraL~TLnadded, we may understand as implied you were not pardonably enamored. The other reading avyyvo(Xr' Av Lv uot would make the same change which Xpyv SELav, irYv ~v, and &Lov 7v, av -qvwould make in the first four passages in (i). Such an insertion of av would withdraw attention from the prominent idea, which is in the most cpau-Ovat (= pda~oO av), and would make avyywoaordO important word. Here, as elsewhere in these expressions, the English translation of the Greek idiom is faulty; but it should aim to throw the force of the apodosis upon the infinitive, as when we translate dEI6 qV -c roOavv you would deservedly have perished, or s&(v C PL~VEV you might have remained.

84

W. W. Goodwin.

A striking illustration of the modification of the infinitive in an apodosis of this kind by the force of the leading verb may be seen in the examples under (3). Here in concessive sentences, in which the apodosis must be affirmed, we find the action of the infinitives denied. This shows that the infinitive alone is not the real apodosis. In SoPH. O. T. 255, the actual apodosis is you would not properly leave the guilt unpurged (implying you do not properly leave it). In THUC. i. 38, the apodosis is they would fairly have yielded (implying they did not yield, but it was fair that they should). In Isoc. xii. 71, it is they would deservedly have received, = IrvXOV tiv &•los (implying that it was only undeservedly that they failed to receive the reward). The remarks that have been made above apply also to the concessive sentences in (2), in which nothing in the apodosis is denied. Here, too, the form with Avmight have been used by transferring the force of the expression from the infinitive to the leading verb. It has been seen that Jv with the infinitive differs from ESE~ Act• without Jv in meaning as well as in the balance of emphasis. On the other hand, 4 v Jv differs from 'iv only in the latter respect. c See ISAE.X. 13, 7T.ElV ct 7raS apT;7s, 6 /ppves I oVK Eovro, y arpL T vav& v 'Av Era~ Ot7 GtaEOaL, Oa i.e. in that case he would not have been permitted (by law) to leave his daughter out of his will; and DEM. xxiv. 146, oV*Tyap Av ~iv vtA TL Y a7rOTrtaL, rTLTaVrL XP7 7wraOEv i.e. tf this law were passed, you would not have the power (which you now have) of assessing penald'es. Compare with these Isoc. xviii. 19, OVK Vi6/v avrd &LKatgOaL,he could not (in that case) maintain a suit, where cjv av would only give more emphasis to the possibility, which is done in the preceding examples. For the ordinary use of ijv and the infinitive see PLAT. Crit. 52 C, Ei?v 0oL 4 vyv~ rTL7aOaLt d J/ovXov, you might have proposed exile as your penalty TrLmo). if you had wished to (implying only o0 4,vy7n Isr there is no In the last two examples under (i), in which protasis added to the potential expression, so that the opposite of the infinitive alone is implied, the form without av has the same justification, though in both it is difficult to translate the infinitive so as to make it equivalent, as it is, to a past tense of the indicative with &v. In DEM. xviii. 248, ovB' yvOFovac raTL 0avparoVv 7'v rovs iroXXoMV 1rp1s 4 E means the mass of the people might then have been somewhat unmindful of me (7yvodvvqauavaEvtTLrp~s ~I) without doing anything won-

On eAk, Xprv, etc. with the Infinitive.

85

derful (i.e. Jf they had done a very natural thing). But OavLacrbT v iv 7v would have thrown undue emphasis on OavaarTdv, meaning it would not have been wonderfulfor the people to have been somewhat unmindv Xa'yet.s is equivaful. In PLAT. Rep. 474 D, XXp &rperev XdyyeL another would becomingly lent to 'XXo tXcyEcv avT iv 7rprovro' XYas, V say what you say, the opposite of XEltv being implied. 'Eirpc7r.E Iv a have been used with of also emphasis. might change XCyv It remains to discuss two passages in which Xpyjv v occurs, with a view to La Roche's disbelief in the existence of this form (see p. 81). In DEM.xviii. 195, we have Xpyvand Xpqvav in close succession, with no essential change in meaning except the difference in emphasis above explained. The sentence FL tywvo/.LtOEv0L is-: eld o7rl/a'LWV FuiLV oVr rmetpapro 'rpaat, rt X 'iv rpo0 80 KaV Ed l.r]8OCVo xoEcv volvldXOV; ..

. Kac t vivlTpIav

7IWlLpcoV a7ro Ty

A

08iv

T773X-g

oT•Ki'tK l KaL4)O3o rTEpdLT7rT/ KWVSVVOS 7iV RroXLV, 7Tav, J rTOV yEvo~-r T70(Oo•T0o 0 oatL Xpi'v; i.e. when oJvv'/3rl, d0 'r•gXcopasravr opooo•0KW we should fare as we did with the Thebans on our it was fated that ro side, what ought we to have expected (which we did not find ourselves expecting) if we had not secured even these as allies? And, if/so great danger and terror surrounded the city when the battle was fought two or three days' journey from Attica, what should we have had to expect (which we did not really have to expect) if this calamity had occurred within our own country? Here the unreal supposition of not having secured the Thebans as allies, or (its probable consequence) the battle of Chaeronea having been fought in Attica, suits either form of apodosis, 1rt Xpv 7rpoo-8oK~v;or rT iv yjv Xp rpoo•-o0Kqo-at; the expectation itself in the former case, and the necessity for the expectation in the latter, being specially emphasized. It is hard to believe that the orator felt any important change in the general force of his question when he added av in the second case. In Lys. xii. 32, we have, addressed to Eratosthenes, Xp v 8•e •e, o aov ~a7p/Y uXXovotv &slos d7roavEd Oat 3fp T9 v yEVe'On7L T7ro Pi 3 oVXXaL/aP'VELV, FL77vvrT al&KOs&OaXovO4EVov, you had been an honest man, you ought to have become an informer in behalf of those who were about to suffer death unjustly, much rather than (and not) to have arrested (as you did) those who were doomed to perish unjustly; but in 48, referring to the same man and the same acts, the orator says drep pv dv/pdiyaPY,, EXp v Av rp^rov

86 7rv

W W. Goodwin. r^

'.L7VV7V

yEtT

apXctv, EirctTa loOat, u vapavopAI) fovX-^j K-.T.X., if he had been an honest man, he would have had, first, to abstain to come the as an in Senate lawlessness before from qffice, and, next, to omit in the second La Roche etc. informer, proposes passage, Jv because it would be absurd to suppose that &X X' i•Xv is implied in the sense that E. had a right to be lawless in office (" er durfte rrapa"), because he was not honest. What is implied is rather votws JpXCLV an honest man, he &d)X'o0K cXpyv ;j 7rapavodl'p pXELv, i.e. not being did not have to abstain from lawlessness in office, etc., which we can understand without absurdity. The passage, like so many sentences of this class, is simply an argument to prove that E. was not honest. If he had been honest (it is said), he would have had to do certain things (which, it is implied, all honest men do); but he did not do these LLeV (as is stated,ES rvar&PX7)V u7eTOxV, KaTaraYTayaOov^ oV&VI~V r VXX•V in s\EroXX&v); therefore he was not honest. There is a slight slip showing that he did not do the things in question, and not that he did not have to do them; so that of the two constructions, Xp•v in 32 and "Xpnv Lvin 48, the former is more strictly logical. This use of ',v in 4Xyp3v v is the counterpart of that of Xp~v,ZSc, vvv, and 1tLovhave the passages quoted above (i), where the forms with av might been used. The following objection may here be raised. If s8aTroV^ov&ro0aveCv, he ought to have beenput to death, involves an unreal protasis, the denial of which carries with it the negation of the principal verb (here dbrotake place also when another OavELv),why does not this same denial protasis is added, since the implied protasis still remains as before ? When several protases, not co-ordinate, belong to the same sentence, one always contains the leading condition, to which the rest of the sentence (including the other conditions) forms the conclusion. When this leading condition is unreal, it makes all subordinate past or present conditions also unreal, so far as the supposed case is concerned, without regard to their own nature. Thus, in DEM.iv. I, after the leading unreal condition, el rrEplKaLVovTLVOs7rpay/LarTO7 rpovto speak on any new subject,there r71T70 )E'/ELy, if it were proposed and EL Se are two directly opposite suppositions, ELdIv /Lrj, pE•(TKE as unreal, stated it did both me and not, ~f if what was said pleased which would be impossible unless the leading supposition had made the whole state of things supposed in the sentence unreal. It is ,

On ASet,Xpiv, etc. with the Infinitive.

87

obvious,therefore,that a subordinatecondition may refer to a case which is not in itself unreal,althoughit is part of a suppositionwhich as a whole is unreal. This can easily be seen in English; for we can say, If he had been an Athenian, he would have been laughed at if he had talked as he did, by no means implying that the latter subordinate supposition is contrary to fact, although it is part of an unreal state of things, and would be expressed in Greek by d EAcycv. This is now the relation of the unreal protasis involved in ELdKO q fE TraOECv, TOrTO condition. when this expression is made the apodosis of a new unreal in HDT. i. 39, which by itself could admit Thus, when Xpv OlewrotLeLt

only an unreal object, followsELd t, even rrO38ros t7re rXcvrT7qceLVw Trd7roLes can be its object, and the whole can meanif the dreamhad said I was to perish by a tooth, you would do what you now do if you

did what was right. The new chief protasis that has come in has

changed the whole relation of the old implied protasis to the sentence as a whole. See PLAT. Apol. 17 D, VVyLYVQ~AvoF iEyXavov o, (TKETE

8 rYOV

V

/LOL

EL E/

EKEfL

T 7T)

(iVi

TCE

Kat

Tp YO)V TO7lPd

EV

i.e. jf I were a foreigner, you would pardon me if oToTrep ETOpdalJpv, I spoke in my own dialect. So EUR. Suppl. IO84, E*8' cv voL 8819 Ka' v7taTa a 8L7rXov ftwv XaXoVTEqe $(op'ov'pLoE0 Jv, if YEpOv7I, atTpLrE

we were twice young and twice old, in case any one of us made a mistake, we should secure a double life and set ourselves right.' The Latin follows precisely the same principle as the Greek in the use of such imperfects as debebat, licebat (= Xp-v, i~4v), and deberet, 1 It seems to me that this principle gives the only satisfactory solution to the / rb apparent paradox in SOPH. Oed. Tyr. 221, ob hY'p &V paKCphaVXVvov avbrbs, LTov BoXovo,where A oirC Xwv is obviously equivalent to the conditional oVK 'Xw form elld1 Eixov, while there is yet no such opposite implied as but I did have a

clue. The chief condition appears to me to lie in the intensive aibrds,by myself, i.e. if I were undertaking the search by myself, which is especially forcible after t4vos LvYand 4vos 8, and is equivalent to L jo'dvos TXVy~OV. The meaning then is, for I should not be very far on in my search, if were attempting to trace it • without any clue, by myself without any clue. Thus, ? obic 'Xwv V'T oL iLBov,

becomes part of the unreal supposition, without being itself contrary to fact. shows that ? obic Y'Xwv forms part of the protasis, and does not The negative /z merely add a descriptive clause to the apodosis as if it were obiC 'Xcv. In fact, it is difficult to see how in any other way than this we can have ? obi EXOV, El representing cp eiXov, without involving the idea that Oedipus had a clue in his search. This remark will apply to obic Xcwvhere, whatever unfulfilled conp• with ob . we dition

supply

.. •Xuevov.

88

TZ. W. Goodwin.

liceret (= ypyv av, i $v lv), with reference to present time. But when such expressions are past, the Latin uses debuit or debuerat in the sense of Xpyv, and debuisset for XpYvAv, both with the present infinitive; while the Greek keeps the imperfect in all cases. See CIc. Phil. ii. 99, Quem patris loco, si ulla in te pietas esset, colere debebas (= Xpiv ore b4tXcv), you ought to love (but you do not); and Cluent. 18, Cluentio ignoscere debebitis quod haec a me dici patiatur; mihi ignoscere non deberes si tacerem (= ovi Lvcretio o vyy•yvwcrKCWL XP77v dLaloywv), it would not be right for you to pardon me if I were silent. In the former case the emphasis falls on colere; in the latter on non deberes, which is in strong antithesis to debebit's. See also CIc. Verr. ii. 5, 50: Qui ex foedere ipso navem vel usque ad Oceanum, si imperassemus, mittere debuerunt, ei, ne in freto ante sua tecta et domos navigarent, . . . pretio abs te ius foederis et imperii condicionem redemerunt, they who were bound by the very terms of the treaty, if we had commanded it, to send a ship even into the Ocean, etc. So far as any opposite is implied here, it is not that of mittere, but rather something like what is implied in the first four examples in (i), like they did not have to send. Mittere debuissent would mean they would have been bound to send. (e8L •v '/?riaL) In Latin, as in Greek and English, the peculiar force of the past tense of the indicative with the infinitive is purely idiomatic. In conclusion, it may be remarked that the idiomatic use of 8sea etc. with the infinitive may be found in the same sentence with the ordinary use of these imperfects as past tenses, with no reference to any condition. A familiar case is in the New Testament, MATTrr. 7ryo K&tKtLV 1c 7Q'a4 tvaL, these (the cL Se xxiii. 23, ra to have done, and yet not to the of matters law) ought ye weightier have left the others (taking tithes) undone. This is equivalent to two sentences, -7roLjora,ye ought to have done these •ALc r-Jr-a and • not did ye were right do), (which ye Zset v•4au/1 loat, in not leaving those undonei•~Zva (which ye did not leave undone). In iXpyv roucv; o'... .X.WOat; nothing DEM. xviii. 190o, rt o-pflovXov •kvwhether the action of cX`ao-eais real or not; but in the words shows the following ro^To ro'VWV frolv a shows that the questions refer the which a to speaker actually performed. past duty merely

NOTES ON QUINTILIAN. BY GEORGE M. LANE.

Shall we say divom or divom in the genitive plural?

O

F the genitive plural suffix -om Professor Stolz says in his gram-

mar, p. 210:-

M. U. I, 207 f. wahrschein'Es ist nach den AusfiihrungenOSTHOFF'S lich, dass das idg. Suffix zur Bildung dieses Casus -6m gewesen sei. Das Lateinische traigt zur Entscheidung, ob -minoder -im die urspriingliche Form gewesen sei, nichts bei, da alle auf -m auslautenden langen Silben der Kiirzung unterlagen (Priscian I, 366 H). . . . Auch die o-Stimme bildeten urspriinglichden Gen. d. Plur. mittels des Suffixes -om, daher als Miinzlegenden Romanom, Corano(m), vgl. osk. NzivIanz~m,umbr. pufilu(m), gr. OE^ov.' Some indications of the quantity of this o in -o-stems may be found inside the Latin language itself. They are put together here in the hope that if attention is once directed to this point, other and perhaps better evidences may be found. (i) That the o of this genitive plural was originally long is indicated by coins struck before the first Punic war. Mommsen says of these (CIL. I, p. 9) : ' In his non casu, sed consulto post longam vocalem omissam esse m finalem demonstrat cum huius omissionis summa constantia (nam m reperitur post j tantum in Romanom n. I, et in Aiserninom n. 20, quod utrumqueet singulareest et dubium), tum quod post correptam vocalem, ut in Volcanom quarto casu, praeterea in Aisernim, frofom, frboum, eadem littera in iisdem nummis semper adest.' Briefly: in the genitive plural, m is regularly dropped after o; in singular forms it is always retained after o. This consistent variation indicates an essential difference between the two o's, and this difference can hardly be anything but a difference in quantity. (2) An additional evidence for the long o or U is found in the apex occurring in an inscription of Nuceria, in which all the apices are

90

George

. Lane.

used with care: DVvMVIRATVS At(IRN. 2096; CIL. X, n. Io8i). tention was called to this inscription as long ago as 1856 by Schmitz, Rhein. Afus. X, i io. Little or no stress, however, is to be laid on the u longa of DEVM, in another inscription quoted by Schmitz, Beitridge, p. 29, from Gruter, p. 29, 2, as an evidence of long ~u. This particular inscription is now regarded as forged: see CIL. VI, 5, n. 3143*. (3) A passage of Quintilian (i, 6, 18) bearing upon this question has been overlooked by grammarians :idem ' centum milia nummum' et ' fidem deum' ostendant duplicis quoque soloecismos esse, quando et casum mutant et numerum. This innocent conception of the genitive plural 'nummum' and 'deum' as misused accusatives singular, shows that in Quintilian's day the u of the old form of the genitive plural was always short. To put the chronological evidence then roughly into figures, we have: (i) Evidence of long a in coins before the first Punic war; also of long i in the Nuceria inscription, certainly as late as 63 B.C. Exactly where this inscription is to be put between the limits of 63 B.C.and 79 A.D. is hard to say: Mommsen seems dimly to refer it to the time of the earthquake of 63 A.D. (p. 124) ; but possibly the form EQVOM occurring in it may be a faint indication of an earlier date. (2) We have evidence that the long 0 or long a had disappeared, and was entirely forgotten, about Ioo A.D. Originally, therefore, divom, then, as might have been expected, divo'm,diviim, or deiIm.

A Bad Example. Quintilian is made to say (i, 4, 27) iam quosdamilla turbabunt,quae declinationibusnon tenentur. nam et quaedamparticipiaan uerba an appellationessint dubitaripotest, quia aliud alio loco ualent, ut ' lectum' et 'sapiens,' et quaedamuerba appellationibus similia, ut ' fraudatornutritor.' So Halm and Meister. The general sense is: taking a word by itself, without the context, you cannot always make out what part of

Notes on Quintilian.

91

speech it is. Thus, 'sapiens' may be a participium, smacking, tasting, or an appellatio, sage. But what about 'lectum,' and how does that illustrate the principle ? If it is to be participle or appellative, it must mean chosen, picked, or bed, couch. Surely this is a very bad example. First, why the accusative of 'lectus,' bed, when the other examples are in the nominative, ' sapiens fraudator nutritor' ? Cf. I, 4, 20 : ut esset uocabulum corpus uisu tactuque manifestum, 'domus lectus,' appellatio, cui uel alterum deesset uel utrumque, 'uentus caelum deus uirtus.' Secondly, there is a difficulty in the quantity of the e, it being e in 'lctum,' bed, and in ' lectum,' picked; unless Quintilian is thinking , merely of eye Latin, and regards only the look of the word, and not the sound. The least touch of the pen will heal the difficulty. For 'lectum' read ' tectum,' as participium, covered, as appellatio, roof, house.

Rehabilitation of Afedea's Nurse. The passage in Quintilian, 1, 4, 16, which was not understood by Spalding or by Bonnell, and is given up as hopeless by the last two editors, Halm and Meister, may be restored by a very simple change, with a word of explanation. It reads in Halm and Meister thus:quid o atque u permutatainuicem? ut ' Hecoba ' et ' tnotrix,' ' Culcides' et ' Pulixena ' scriberentur. The hitch lies in the word ' tnotrix,' which is adopted, though not without question, by both editors. Looking to the manuscript authority for 'tnotrix,' we find it amounts to nothing. The Ambrosian and all the other manuscripts give 'nutrix,' which is quite right, and should not have been displaced from the text. The form ',tnotrix' is due to a whim of the corrector of the Ambrosianus. This corrector assumes that there are two pairs of illustrations: (i) one pair of' o put for u,' as ' Hecoba' and 'tnotrix,' and (2) one pair of ' u put for o,' as ' Culcides ' and ' Pulixena.' As to 'Hecoba,' as an anterior form for 'Hecuba,' there is of course no trouble. But then the 'tn6trix' for 'nuftrix.' If the cor-

George M. Lane.

92

rector had only had the patience to read the next words, he would have seen how impossible 'tnotrix' was. Quintilian goes on without a break: ac ne in graecis id tantum notetur, ' dederont' et 'probaueront.' Obviously, therefore, Quintilian's remark is only intended for Greek words, and so ' tnotrix' would be out of place as an illustration, even if there were the best manuscript authority for it. This leaves us three illustrations of the dictum, 'Hecoba,' 'Culcides,' and ' Pulixena,' instead of two pairs. Now, what is to become of ' nutrix'? ' Nutrix' and 'Culcides' belong together, and ' Culcides' is conceivably a genitive form, inasmuch as such genitives as' Salutes Apolones,' etc., are not unheard of. But as they hardly become part and parcel of the literary language, it is safe to make a little change, as has already been suggested by Seyffert, and write ' Culcidis ' for ' Culcides.' Who the ' Culcis' is, it is hardly necessary to explain: 'Colchis,' the Colchian dame, is the stereotype designation of Medea, from Euripides

(Med. I3I),

down : -

CKXvov S88o'v r'1; Sv•vov KohXI8o0,

and the 'inpudica Colchis' of Horace (Epod. 16, 58), and 'callida Colchis' of Ovid (Mett. 7, 301) are so familiar that it is needless to give further illustrations. The 'nutrix,' too, the faithful bonne of the Colchian dame, or as Sheridan would call her,' the confidante in white linen,' the rpobo'q of Euripides, the ' antiqua erilis fida custos corporis' of Ennius, with her memorable 'utinam ne,' is almost as familiar a character as Medea herself. But why ' nutrix' at all, when the illustration is confined to ' Culcidis'? Because the combination is more suggestive, more quotable than the genitive alone would be. Thus, in I, 5, 13, the illustration is confined to the word 'Canopitarum'; but Quintilian gives it 'Canopitarum exercitum.' And so the combination 'nutrix Culcidis,' KoXXIos,- possibly the ending of a senarius culled --rpo pTS,; from some early Medea-tragedy, is more suggestive than the bare ' Culcidis' would be.

SOME LATIN BY

I.

recihrocus procul Proculus Proculeius Procas

J. B.

ETYMOLOGIES. GREENOUGH.

proceres procum proximus

rec•pero recens

The word reciprocus, already analyzed by Corssen (Nachtrdige, p. I36) into a dvandva compound of trecus and tprocus, has been treated also, without knowledge of Corssen's suggestion,' by Brugmann (Rhein. Mus. I888, part 3, p. 402). In both articles a supposed tprocus (pro + cus, like superbus, anticus) is traced as appearing in procul, Proculus, Proculeius, and Procas. In the article of Brugmann it is traced also in procum (genitive plural), used by Cicero (Or. 46, 156) in connection with fabrum, apparently in the sense of pioneers. The writer presented at the meeting of the American Philological Association in July, 1887, the article here printed, with the same forgetfulness of the previous suggestion of Corssen. In that communication, in addition to the words previously connected with tprocus, was mentioned proximus, which is at once seen upon the recognition of tprocus to be its superlative (cf. proximus ab, showing the underlying idea of of). As a superlative it corresponds in form to oxime, superlative of ociter, adverb of a lost tocus. The connection of meaning is recognizable through the double use of procul for near by and far of. The original meaning of that word was evidently of, or in front, as we say of the coast, meaning just of, close by, though the fundamental idea of our expression is one of separation. The idea of distance became the common one in procul, while the idea of nearness 1 See note on last page of Rhein. Mus. cited.

J. B. Greenough.

94

is perpetuated in froximus. Prope is most likely a dialectic kindred form (cf. the construction frope ab, and for the form, quisquam and quispiam). Procax, forward, wanton, seems a natural derivative, either directly or through a verb tproco. Proceres is a further formation of tprocus, in the fashion of Camurus, satur, and 4o/lpo's. One might be tempted to connect also frocbrus, whereby a natural derivation would be at once suggested for sincerus (cf. singuli). No attempt has been made, however, to prove the existence of trecus in any other combination than recziprocus. But (to continue the original communication) we have the verb recizero, which obviously can have nothing to do with reci4io, since there is no analogy for such a formation, and no form treciPus is probable. The word must be a denominative from treci-ferus, which can hardly be anything but trecus and -farus, as in opi-parus, fro-perus (and probably a lost timperus, from which impero). The same -parus is found in the so-called derivatives from fario, viviparus, and the like. The form trecus is also clearly recognizable as the source of a demonstrative treceo, of which the present participle is retained in recens, meaning being back, coming back (probably from abroad or the field, just as in our late war one might have said, "Colonel Soand-So is back for a few days "). It must be remembered that in the earlier period of the Latin language - the period when these words were forming - the Romans were absorbed in extending their boundaries. (Cf. frovincia, No. 8, below.) From being back to just back, fresh, recent, the step is a very natural one. This idea is strongly confirmed by the regular construction of recens with the ablative of the terminus a quo. This is so habitual that Cicero can say, Roma recens, meaning just come from Rome, where the persisting idea of motion plainly appears. Thus, in support of trecus and tprocus, we have nine words brought into line :I. 2.

reci4rocus recero

3. recens

4. proximus

7. procax

procus/inthesen 55.- PrCcu foremost

8. Proculus

6. froceres

man]

9. procul

A group which it seems impossible to disperse or overthrow.

Some Latin Etymologies.

95

2. Improbus.

The most various views have been held about the proper meaning of improbus; but no search for a Grundbegriff has ever seemed to me to be successful. The very great variety of words to which it is applied as an epithet makes it impossible to find any common element in them all. The attempt in Harper's Lexicon, for instance, to make it mean "not according to the standard," and so either below or above, seems to me extremely forced. But a right conception of the meaning of probus, I think, gives the true solution of the difficulty. Probus can clearly be seen to be pro + bus, as superbus, and we may compare tprocus and trecus, above referred to. The use of the word in Plautus, proba merx, and its probable occurrence on coins as propom and prboum, indicate that it was a mercantile word, meaning A i or first-class, and the like, a most natural meaning of pro, analogous to that of super in superbus. To see the meaning of improbus, properly 'notfirst rst class,' we have to notice the of low down, ornery, second slang applications only class, second rate, of color, bad lot, and the like. In other words, improbus became, from its mercantile use, a slang word of abuse or disapproval, like horrid, nasty, mean, azeful, horrible, without any definite idea attached to it. Take for instance Georg. I. 119, improbus anser. Here the tone of the passage is, except for the dignity of the subject, precisely that of the nasty mice in the culboard. Again, in 145, Labor omnia vicit improbus et duris urgens in rebus egestas, the feeling is like confounded or horrid. So IEn. XII. 687, fertur in abrupl/um mons improbus ac/u, referring to montis saxum, described just before. There is no more definiteness of idea here than in "an everlastingly cold day." 3. Rudimentum. Donaldson's Varronianus gives the true derivation of rudimentum, but it has apparently been forgotten, or is not generally known, for the word is usually referred loosely to rudis, rough, raw. But it must come from a (real or supposed) verb rudio, which could have no meaning as coming from rudis, rough, but which from rudis, foil or stick, would mean fence with the foil, the implement for sword practice in the gladiatorial school. Rudimentum is then foil-.practice, the practice of the raw recruit, hence the first essays in war. It is to

J

96

B. Greenought.

be noticed that the word is constantly - perhaps oftener than in any other way - used of military service, as in rudimenta miitiae and the like. An adjective from the same rudis, erudis, would mean out of the foil (past preliminary practice), and erudio would be a natural denominative of it, meaning to train to that point of graduation. In this way the whole set of words is connected in a natural scheme of meanings. 4. Desidero. The verb desidero ought to be formed from an adjective tdesides (or -er), as degenero from degener. Such an adjective would be compounded from de and sidus. Another possible route is through the phrase de sidere, as with extemporaneus from ex temPore, extraordinarius from extra ordinem. Sidus from its form ought, like sedes, to mean position, place, being etymologically equivalent to Z8o3. It is very probable that this was its original meaning, but that the astronomical or augural meaning of constellation or sign crowded out the proper meaning which was itself retained by sedes. This (sedes), perhaps an original i- stem, was confounded with sidus, to some extent, in form, as we see by the nominative -es, which belongs to sstems. The adjective tdesider, or phrase de sidere, would mean 'out of place,' of soldiers missing at the call of the roll. From this, desidero would mean, 'find or mark out of place,' after a battle or military casualty. The word has a special use in military language in precisely this sense, - a use which could hardly come from the more common usage in other senses. Examples are numerous: Eo die milites sunt paulo minus septingenti desiderati. CAES. B. G. 7, 51.

In eo proelio non amplius ducentos milites desideravit sed centuriones fortes viros circiter triginta amisit. CAES.B. C. 3, 99. One could almost think that in this last passage the original meaning comes to light, desidero being used of the soldiers, and amitto of the centurions. On the other hand, the prevailing signification clearly points to some such origin, as it indicates a feeling of loss of something, a missing something, and only later, and much less commonly, corresponds to our desire in its weakest sense.

Some Latin Etymologies.

97

Considero may have had a similar origin from an adjective, tfconsides (or -er). But the meaning of the adjective is uncertain. It may have been an augural term like the tcontemplus from which contemplor seems like a denominative. But it also may have been a military term like the other, and have meant merely dwelling on a thing, as is the case with assiduus (cf. consido). 5. Elementum. A great deal of ingenuity has been expended in the effort to find a derivation for elementum. It seems to me, however, that the old one from el em en, which has been rejected as too simple and natural for science, is really the only one which ought to be thought of. In the first place, throughout Latin literature, from first to last, the word means A B C's, literally. This meaning, in the natural course of word-formation, it is almost impossible to derive from the more abstruse meaning of means of growth, or what not, which is often assumed for it; whereas, on the contrary, we have Lucretius' own authority (the first who used it, so far as appears in literature) for the change of meaning from letters to elements. In the first passage in which he uses the word at all, he says (I. 196) :Ut potius multis communia corpora rebus Multa putes esse, ut verbis elementa videmus, Quam sine principiis ullam rem existere posse. Here we have only a comparison, and not a use of the word in the abstruse sense at all. In his technical names for the elements he has already used primordia rerum (as v. 182), which is unquestionably a translation of ApXal. He has, it is true, used semina, genitalia corpora, materies, but evidently in a less technical sense, and not strictly as translations of the established terms in Greek. In I. 483, he uses principia, evidently another translation of apXat. Again, in v. 822, he says (repeated II. 688):-Quin etiam passim nostris in versibus ipsis Multa elementa vides multis communia verbis, Cum tamen inter se versus ac verba necessest Confiteare et re et sonitu distare sonanti, Tantum elementa queunt permutato ordine solo.

J. B. Greenougk.

98

Again (in v. 912):quo pacto verba quoque ipsa .0..... Inter se paulo mutatis sunt elementis, Cum ligna atque ignes distincta voce notemus. In II. 981, speaking of his primordia or atoms, he says, using the word for the first time in the more remote sense :-Ipsa quoque ex aliis debent constare elementis. Meaning not his technical atoms, but component parts of them, as existing under a supposition which he rejects. At last, in III. 244, he uses elementa to express his technical atoms, and afterwards indiscriminately with the other words. It is perhaps worth noticing that Lucretius in his list of names for the component parts of which he is going to treat, the primordia rerum, apXat (of other philosophers, perhaps), says (in I. 58) :quae nos (either the poet or his school) materiam et genitalia corpora rebus Reddunda in ratione vocare et semina rerum Appellare suemus et haec eadem usurpare ...

Corpora prima. The idea of calling them elementa, after the Greek, had apparently not occurred to him until after his conscious figure of the A B C's had accustomed his mind to that conception. A still more striking indication of the meaning of elementa is found as late as B.C. 45, in Cic. Acad. I. 7, 26. Cicero says, Ergo illa (the four elements) initia et, ut e Graeco vertam, elementa dicuntur. Here iniia, as representing apXal, is so natural that it does not seem like a translation to Cicero at all; whereas elementa distinctly represents not the idea itself, but the Greek crroLXtla. It seems to me inconceivable that if Cicero had felt any such meaning in elementa, as it must have had by derivation from any verbal root to which it could possibly be referred, he would have treated the word in this manner. XXVIII. (Lachmann, 1876):We may compare with this LUCILIUS,

..p. Xapl; h6minem et stoechiis simul

Privdbit. Igni ci6m et aqua interdixerit Duo hab6t stoechia....

Some Latin

99

Etymologies.

i.e. he will be deprived of two elements, fire and water, but earth (his body) and air (his breath) will still be left to him. This merely shows that stoechia was already in a manner in use in the language in its technical sense ready to be translated as soon as a more patriotic Sprachgefiihl should suggest that course. Inasmuch, then, as elementa is distinctly a translation of aTroLXEc, it seems almost certain that it had the meaning of A B C's, and not any other more abstruse meaning. As to the form, it must, it seems to me, be for el-em-ena, a plural like A B C's. As the tendency in the language increased to substitute the longer forms in -mentum for those in -men (as in momen, momentum), this word also went with the rest, and became elementa in the same meaning. The only objection that can be made is the fact that these letters are not the first of the alphabet. But they are the most glib and easy in their utterance; and though we have no example of the same kind in regard to letters, yet, as has been suggested by a friend, we do have Solfeggio and sol-fa-ing, of precisely the same nature, and chosen for precisely the same reason. It would seem, then, that we might rest contented with the oldfashioned and simple derivation of elementum, without wasting any more lore of Indo-European roots on it. 6. Praemium. A natural derivation of praemium has occurred to me which I have not seen suggested. Among the Romans, booty taken in war was under the control of the commander-in-chief. As an instance, we may take APPIAN,de 6 :Bellr.Mithr. ALE''•KEV 7EV~aKotrlIS

0'llomr Itosdwptcr•T7a K.T.X. 'A77LKtI

a(r-pawT KaO"

avpa

CoaaT7Tov

XLXtlC

It could be given to the soldiers in whole or in part, and what was not so disposed of was sold at auction for the benefit of the State. Though the part distributed to the soldiers was regularly divided among them, yet special donations were often made as rewards for good conduct. See PLUTARCH, Coriolanus, IO: Y*E7rL7a 7roXXOv XpqfoLTWV KaLm7,toVr rov

iEXEK-CEV

YE /yOVOT]V aLVLtoXC roaT KaL] &vOpw-

[Cominius, the consul]

Ka7raVTca7rpO TO aXOLt. VE•wLVTOvL1o

a

[Coriolanus] 'EXeOat

V•TO"V

100

J

B. Greenough.

A similar custom is referred to in PLAtrr.Amphitruo, 534, when Jupiter (as Amphitryon) says :-[L v'] hanc paterAm quae dono mi illi ob virtut6m datast, Pt6rela rex qui p6titavit, quem 6go mea occidi manu. Another appropriation is mentioned in Cic. pro Archia, X. 25 :Quem (Sulla) nos in contione vidimus cum libellum malus poeta in eum fecisset . . . statim ex eis rebus quas tunc vendebat iubere ei praemium tribui. Such special parts of the spoil would naturally be prae-emia (emo in its earlier meaning of take), taken out beforehand; cf. eximius. From such a custom the word might easily have come to mean a prize or reward, generally. 7. deliciae, delicatus. To the above may be added the words deliciae and delicatus, not included in the original paper. If the ordinary analogies are followed in these words, they both lead us alike to an adjective, delicus, de + licus, like re-liquus : whence, on the one hand, deliciae, like reliquiae, angustiae, infitiae (infitias ire), exsequiae; and on the other, to a denominative tdelico, whose participle would be delicatus. Now, this word delicus is actually found in Varro in the sense of a pig weaned by its mother: Cum porci depulsi sunt a mamma a quibusdam delici appellantur neque iam lactentes dicuntur. R. R. 4. There is perhaps no direct evidence that the word was used of lambs or kids, but there seems no reason why it should not have been used of any animal in that situation. That it was the ancient custom to bring up such at home seems hardly to need any proof. We know the ancients had pet lambs and kids. (See ZOEGA, Bassireli'ezi, i, pl. xxv., where a kid appears among other instruments of childish joys; also MONTFAUCON, Antiquitds, v. 37.) Such animals are petted and pampered, as appears by our own use of cosset in the sense of pamper. Nothing is more natural than that a verb delico should be formed meaning to pet, pamper, and cosset. Though this verb does not appear, it is reflected in delicatus, as in VIRG. Catalect. 2, Io: meis capella delicata pascuis; or again, in CATULLUS 17, 15: puella tenellulo delicatior haedo, where again the of the word shows through. association original

Some Latin

Etymologies.

ror

This adjective or participle has evidently the meaning of tender in the sense in which tenderness comes from pampering and coddling. The noun deliciae is a natural abstract like reliquiae, and would mean pettings; hence, habere in deliciis, esse in amore et deliciis: but later also, in delicils et delectamentis. From this meaning the transition is easy to pet, object of fancy, delight, which is the prevailing meaning of the word. Hence, the word is often used of animals and children, without any bad sense such as might indicate a connection with lacio. So also delicium is used in the same sense. The development of form and meaning is the same as in reliquus, reliquiae; angustus, angustiae. It is probable that the Romans themselves connected these two words with lacio, allicio, pellicio, delecto; but it seems impossible to develop either form or meaning from this group in any natural manner. 8. provincia. The word provincia, like many other Latin words which received their stamp before the literary period, has given great trouble to etymologists, from Festus down. It has almost always been referred to pro-vinco, but with what connection of ideas? Where the word first occurs in literature it has almost as wide a meaning as the word province in English. So marked is this figqrative use that many persons have refused to adopt the idea of a military origin for the word at all. It seems to me that the difficulty has been that attention has not been paid to the regular development of the word through the intermediate stages of its formation and growth. If we look merely at the form, it almost inevitably suggests a tProvincus. In no other way does it seem possible for it to be formed. There are, it is true, a few examples of supposed primary formations with -io, like eximius in Latin. But there is no certain instance of a form in -ia derived in this manner. The abstracts in -ia are separated from these formations, from the earliest Indo-European times, by the accent. They may possibly be really feminines of the -io formation; but if so, they received their special functions farther back than the Indo-European language can be traced, and must be quite distinct from such words as exsequiae, indud'ae, inferiae, reli-

I02

J.

. Greenough.

quiae, if we suppose these to be primary, which is by no means certain. In fact, such forms as reliquiae, deliciae, angusdae, insidiae, are certainly secondary, as are probably also excubiae, indutiae, exsequiae and inftiae. Inferiae, the only troublesome word of this class, is too uncertain in its origin to serve as the basis of any argument. The only noun of the abstract class that looks like a primary in -ia is inedia; but this, on account of its negative, almost necessarily implies an tinedus (or -is), as incuria implies an adjective formed from in and cura. It is not essential, however, that there should have been an actual tprovincus, only that provincia should have been formed as if there had been one. Now, supposing a tprovincus, either real or imagined by the Romans, what would it mean? As almost all are agreed in regard to the principal word, we can look only to pro and vinco. The n, though irregular, is paralleled by vinca pervinca, a persistent weed, pervenche, periwinkle, and the same influence of the present stem is seen in coniunx, finxi, nanctus. Mommsen, in his discussion of the technical meaning of the word provincia (Rechtsfrage, etc., p. 4), connects it with provinco without assuming or explaining any intermediate tprovincus. He assigns to the word the etymological meaning of Kriegs- oder Commandobereich. But that he had no definite idea of the development of the word appears from his statements in regard to it in his Riomisches Staatsrecht, vol. I. p. 50, where he makes the pro refer to the march apart of the two consuls, a notion which few will be inclined to accept. He also lays stress on the supposed fact that no one consul can have a province, but only when there are two expeditions abroad can there be provinces at all. This can hardly be true, for often a single province is spoken of where the other consul remained at home, as in LIv. IV. 37 and 43; VII. 6 and 38. Both consuls also are occasionally spoken of as present in one province, though, of course, in this case there could not be the usual allotment. We may compare the narrative of the year B.c. 465, Liv. III. 2 : Fabio extra ordinem quia is victor pacem Aequis dederat ea provincia data.... Quae ubi Romam sunt nuntiata indignitas rei... consulem alterum ab urbe excivit.

Some Latin

Etymologies.

1o3

So also B.C.464, Liv. III. 4:-Sp. Furius consulum alter cui ea provincia evenerat, etc....... ut Postumio alteri consulum negotium daretur videret ne quid respublica detrimenti caperet, etc. To complete Mommsen's view, we may add his remark in R. G. 12, p. 247, note : Provincia ist bekanntlich in der iilteren Sprache nicht was wir Provinz nennen, ein riiumlich abgegrenzter einem stiindigen Oberbeamten unterstellter Sprengel, sondern lediglich die durch Gesetz, Senatsbeschluss oder Vertrag den einzelnen Beamten festgestellte Competenz. Here, however, he is only speaking of the distinction between the provinces beyond sea in the later technical sense of the word as opposed to the earlier use of the word before these foreign governments were established. His view in general is like the one here maintained, except in regard to the meaning of pro in the compound. The various other suggestions of the origin of the word, apart from vinco, seem forced, and have never received any general approval. They need not therefore be discussed here. The difficulties all vanish, it seems to me, as soon as a real tprovincus is assumed, meaning "engaged in advancing conquest." It might be applied to an army, or especially to a consul or general, when engaged, as these officers were every summer in early times, in extending the bounds of the Roman power. How important a function this was, and how large a place it filled in the Roman mind, appears from the constant use of propagare finis and the religious idea, which must be very old, that only such imperatores as had extended the bounds of the Empire were entitled to enlarge the pomoerium. If, now, a consul were out conquering the territory of a neighboring tribe, he would be tprovincus, and his state or condition would be provincia. He would be 'engaged at the front,' he would 'go to the front'; 'the action at the front would be assigned to him' or the like. Later the word would become concrete, as did abstract nouns generally in Latin, and a particular provincia or 'sphere of operations at the front' would fall to his lot. The word must have been long in use in this sense, and have continued to have that feeling attached to

I04

J. B. Greenough.

it until very late, to make it possible for the figurativeuse to develop as we meet it in the earliestliterature,and at the same time to make it seem natural to call Sicily, for instance, a province in the later technicalsense. The word vincia, cited by Festus, is probablyonly inventedby him to account for provincia. If it really ever existed, it would be a similarabstractfrom tvincus, and would mean ' the act or state of conquest,' 'actual operations,'or the like. It might just as well have come to mean what the other did, only it failed to take root in the language,if it ever was there at all. The strongestconfirmationof this view comes from the use of the word by Livy in the distinct sense of ' actual seat of war' or ' definite field of operations,'- a sense entirelydistinctfromthe abstractmeaning of 'functionor scope of operationsor thing to be done.' E.g. :hic in provinciaconsulatuminire consiliumerat (i.e. at Ariminum, then the seat of operationsagainstHannibal). Liv. XXI. 63. ut explorarent. . . qua provincianostra qua hostium foret. Liv. XLIV. 18. In the latter passage the word has a distinct territorialsense, entirely differentfrom its technical use, and seems to recall an earlier use still remainingin the annalistsfrom whom Livy is copying. So SamniumCamillosorte evenit. VIII. 29. Cui Campaniasorte provincia evenerat. VII. 38. Consules partiti provincias. Etruria Decio SamniumFabio evenit. IX. 41. It is not withoutsignificance,too, that the regularway of expressing the provinces in the earlier sense is by the names of nations, which are probablyto be taken in the territorialsense in which such names are used so often in Latin. E.g. Valerio Potito Volsci provincia evenerat. Liv. V. 12; and so passim. Livy variesbetween Samnium and Samnitesin this use. The subsequentdevelopmentof meaningwould be easy and natural. Until the institutionof the office of praetor,B.C. 367, the word would perhaps not be required,except in its originalmilitarysense. But before that there were often situationswhich would suggest its extension. Cf. Consulesinde partiti provincias. Fabio ut legiones Antium duceret datum, Cornelius ut Romae praesidio esset. Liv. III. 22. 3- Sp. Furius consulumalter cui ea provinciaevenerat prout Postumioalteri consulumnegotium fectus in Aequos,etc.......

Some Latin Etymologies.

105

dareturvideretne quid,etc., withthe usualmartiallawformula.LIv. III. 4 (abovecited). So also whensix tribuneswith consularpowerwere chosen: CorneliisFaliscumbellumValerioac ServilioCapenassorte evenit(the at home). Lwi.IV. 24. othertwo remaining of an independentjudiciary Fromthe time of the establishment the waywouldbe opento an extensionof the meaningto functions not military. From the fondnessof the Romansfor officialwords the meaningof provinciawouldnaturally extenditself so as to include any sphereof activityor set of functions,whileat the same time the wordin its officialsensewouldcontinueto be used and develop the narrowertechnicalsense of a specialgovernmentbeyondsea.

ON EGREGIUiM

PUBLICUM

BY CLEMENT

(TAC. Ann. III. 70. 4).

LAWRENCE

SMITH.

other incidents of the year 22, Tacitus mentions the attempt made in the Senate by some unnamed delator to prosecute one Lucius Ennius on a charge of maiestas for 'having converted the emperor's image to the common uses of silver.' Tiberius declined to treat the melting of himself in effigy as a serious insult, and put a stop to the proceedings by his veto. Thereupon Ateius Capito, the eminent jurist, arose, and with great show of independence, - ea sola species adulandi supererat, - protested warmly against the emperor's action in taking the decision out of the hands of the Senate, and shielding such wickedness from punishment; it was all very well for the prince to treat the indignity offered to himself with indifference, but he should not be so free with the wrongs done the state. Tiberius saw through this bluster, and persisted in his veto; and Tacitus is moved to comment with some severity on the great lawyer's discreditable exhibition of himself. His words, according to the traditional text, are:--

AMONG

'Capito insignitior fama fuit quod humani divinique iuris sciens egregium publicum et bonas domi artes dehonestavisset.' The peculiar phrase egregium publicum has been rendered in a variety of ways, but all the explanations which have been offered fall into two classes, represented, among recent editors, by Nipperdey and Furneaux, respectively. The former translates the phrase by ' den Ruhm des Staats,' while the latter prefers, though with some hesitation, to explain it as Capito's own ' distinction in the state as a consular and leading senator,' in contrast with his juristic learning, which both editors think is expressed, 'as an accomplishment of private life,' by bonas domi artes. All editors agree that Capito's eminence as a lawyer is expressed in one or other of the objects of dehonestavisset; and it is, indeed, inconceivable that Tacitus should have spoken of anything as dishonored by his servility, and left that out.

Io8

C. L. Smith.

Walther is the only editor, so far as I am aware, who refers domi artes to personal character and private life exclusively; and in this I think he is right. No doubt domi artes is frequently used in a wider sense, and with more especial reference to a man's professional accomplishments, as in IV. 6. 2: claritudinem milifiae, inlustres domi artes. But, as Mr. Furneaux himself intimates, the contrast with mili/iae is lacking in our present passage, and there is therefore no necessity for supposing that all the accomplishments of peace, civiles artes, - are summed up in the phrase. My difficulty in finding in it a description of the professional merits of Capito lies in the absurdly inadequate epithet bonas to characterize the learning and ability of one of the greatest lawyers of his time, the founder of a school of jurisprudence. Applied to his personal qualities, it is, in the opinion of Tacitus at least, all that he deserves. The use of artes to denote qualities of character is fully established by such examples as sanctissimis Arrundi ar/ibus, VI. 7. I ; luxuria industria, comitate adrogantia, malis bonisque ar'ibus mixtus, Hist. I. Io; industriae eius innocentiaeque, quasi malis artibus infensi, ibid. I. 45 ; Victorinum, pietate mansuetudine veritate innocen/a maxima, omnium denique opfimarum artium praecipuum virum Fronto, de Nepote amisso, Epist. 2. But if bonas domi artes refers to personal character only, can we find in egregiumpublicum the allusion to professional eminence which we all feel must be expressed somewhere in the clause ? Editors usually base their interpretation of these words on the questionable analogy of the familiar phrases, bonum publicum, malum publicum, and their rare variations, opfimum publicum, pessimum publicum (Gell. VII. 3, Liv. II. I. 3, Varro, R. R. I. I3. 7). The analogy seems to me questionable because egrcgium has not, like bonum and malum, acquired the recognized character of a substantive to which an adjective may be attached; and opfimum and pessimum, in the few cases where they are joined with publicum, cannot be regarded as independent examples, but have borrowed their substantival character from their positives in the same connection. Dlivinum publicum, quoted by Ruperti from Liv. VIII. io. I3, is not analogous, because divinum is there a special act (religious ceremony), usually expressed by divina res, and not an abstraction, as egregium is held to be here. Equally irrelevant, for the same reason,

On 'Egregium

Publicum.'

109

is the citation of tamquam egregium, VI. 24- 3, 'as if it were an admirable thing.' Any suitable adjective may be used as a substantive in this sense. But if the analogy holds good, what meaning does it give to egregium publicum ? It is agreed on all hands that publicum in bonum publicum, etc., is an adjective, that bonum and malum express ' the interest' and ' the disadvantage' of the state respectively, and that optimum and pessimum express in a higher degree the same thing,the ' highest interests' and the ' greatest disadvantage' of the state. In like manner egregium is held to be a substantive, and it can only mean 'the eminence' or 'the excellence' or, as Nipperdey renders it, ' the glory' of the state. It cannot mean the eminence or excellence of the individual, or even his eminent position in the community, because publicum denotes what belongs to the community in contrast with what belongs to the individual. This contrast is always implied, and, on occasion, expressed, as in Ruperti's citation from Livy, quoted above, which is in full: ni moritur, neque suum neque publicum divinum pure faciet qui sese devoverit; or Cic. Brut. 329 : Hortensif vox exhincta fato suo est, nostra publico. Egregium publicum can be made to mean 'his eminent public position' only by taking publicum as the substantive, and importing into it the meaning of 'position in the eyes of the people,' from its use in such phrases as prodire in publicum, abstinere publico, etc. This is not supported by any example, and no editor has proposed it. All prefer to rest on the analogy of bonum publicum, etc., though many draw from this analogy an interpretation which it will not yield. Egregium publicum will not supply the reference to Capito's personal eminence, without which the words of the historian are little short of absurd. In casting about for a solution of this difficulty, it has occurred to me that what Tacitus probably wrote here was egregium publice locum, and that from this some copyist, by an easy blunder, due to the similarity of the penultimate syllables of the last two words, produced our present reading. The use of publice here suggested is precisely similar to its use in jpari fama publice, I. 13. i, and in the following, which presents

1ro

C. L. Smiitk.

also a similar form of phrase: nonum se annum iam velut in aciem adversus optumates maximo privatim periculo, nullo publice emolumento stare, Liv. VI. 39. 6. In meaning, the phrase is almost identical with princitpem in civitate locum, which Tacitus uses with reference to Capito, in speaking of his death a few chapters further This position he attained, Tacitus tells us, civilibus on (75- i). studiis, so that we have in the proposed reading the missing allusion to his professional distinction, and need not impose on bonas domi artes a meaning it will not bear.

ON THE USE OF THE PERFECT INFINITIVE IN LATIN WITH THE FORCE OF THE PRESENT. BY ALBERT A. HOWARD.

T

HE frequent use of the perfect active infinitive in Latin, in sentences where the force and meaning of the presentinfinitive seem rather to be called for, has long been a vexed question among grammarians. Briefly stated, the following classes of cases occur :-

In the older language, viz. in inscriptionsand early writers, the perfect infinitiveis often thus found depending on some form of the verb nolo or of uoloin connectionwitha negative,e.g. nolitodeuellisse, nequis uelit hoc fecisse, in all of which cases a strong prohibitionis contained. In later writers,and especiallyin the poets, this use is extended to clauses not prohibitive,but in which the infinitive is dependent in like manner on the verb nolo or uolo, e.g. nil ueitum fecisse uolet.

In poetry, again, the perfect infinitivewith the force of the present is joined with the present tense of the verb possum, and Servius ad Aen. VI. 79, says of this use, " Attica figuraest." There are many other instances,chiefly in the worksof the elegiac poets, of the perfect infinitivewith the force of the present,which, as they are to be considered later on, need only be mentioned in this introduction. Induced by these occurrencesand by the explanationof Servius, some grammarianshave comparedthis use of the perfect infinitivein Latin with that of the aorist infinitivein Greek, and have attempted in this way to explain all the peculiaritiesof the perfect infinitive; while others, denying that the notion of the aorist has any existence in Latin, explain these uses in variousways. Withoutexaminingand refutingany of the false ideas which have been brought forwardon this subject, it will be sufficient to state that hardlyany use of the perfect infinitivehas not by some one been explainedas an aorist.

S12

A. A. Howard

Madvig has treated this subject in his Opuscula Academica, vol. II. pp. 119-129, denying the existence of an aorist in the Latin language; Wex, in his prolegomena to Tac. Agric. pp. 148-157, recognizes and defends the aorist. Haase and Holtze have also treated the matter, as well as some others whose names are omitted because they have brought forward no new material or have simply expressed opinions without investigating the matter at length. It is generally admitted that the later use of the perfect infinitive in elegiac poetry had its origin in the old legal formulae with verbs of wishing, uolo, nolo, etc. Let us then first inspect these formulae out of which the later use is said to have been developed. In the S. C. de Bacchanalibus the following forms occur: De bacanalibusquei foiderateiesent ita exdeicendumcensuere. I Neiquis eorum bacanalhabuise uelet. II Bacas uir nequis adiese uelet ... nisei praetoremurbanum adiesent isque de senatuos sententiad,. . iousiset. III Neue pecuniam quisquam eorum comoinem habuise uelet; neue magistratum . . . quiquam fecise uelet; neue posthac inter sed coniourase neue comuouisse neue consfondise neue conafromesise uelet, neue quisquam fidem inter sed dedise uelet. IV Sacra in oquoltod ne quisquamfecise uelet; neue in poplicod neue in preiuatod neue exstrad urbem sacra quisquamfecise uelet nisei praetoremurbanumadieset, isque . .. iousiset. V Homines plous V oinuorsei ... sacra ne quisquamfecise uelet, neue . . arfuise uelent, nisei de praetoris . . . sententiad. In II, IV, and V, provision is made that if any one thinks it necessary to celebrate the rites, he may do so, provided that before any step shall have been taken by the celebrater he approach the praetor and obtain his order to proceed with the rites. Cf. Liv. XXXIX. I8, 8: si quis tale sacrum sollemne et necessarium duceret nec sine religione et piaculo se id dimittere posse, apud praetorem urbanum profiteretur, praetor senatum consuleret. si ei permissum esset cum in senatu centum non minus essent, ita id sacrum faceret, etc. All these examples seem to have the exact force of the future perfect, and to imply the absolute fulfilment of one act before another begins; therefore an investigation of the uses of the future perfect in Latin will not be out of place at this point.

The Perfect Infinitive with the Force of the Present.

113

The older writers often in treating of a future event conceived of it as completed at some future time, and expressed this conception by the future perfect tense.' The Latin use of the future perfect was much more exact than our own use of this tense, or even than that of the Greeks,2 but for that very reason, in striving to be exact, they often went too far, and transferred this use of the future perfect to sentences where the simple future would have been more correctly used. Draeger, I. pp. 284-5, has collected a large number of examples illustrating this point; cf. Madvig, Opusc. Acad. II. p. 93The Latin language is deficient in tenses of completed action for the imperative, and so, if one wished to express a prohibition or command, having in mind the future perfect, i.e. the accomplishment of the thing ordered, a circumlocution was necessary. Such circumlocutions may be seen in Cato de Agric. V. 6, boues maxima diligentia curatos habeto; Plaut. Poen. I157, pactam rem habeto. Priscian (ed. Hertz), p. 406, says: "apud Graecos etiam praeteriti temporis sunt imperatiua, quamuis ipsa quoque ad futuri temporis sensum pertineant, ut, vc'XOw 'Iaperta sit porta'; uidemur enim 7rt'•q, sit in ut futuro tempore praeteritum, ut si dicam 'aperi imperare, nunc portam, ut crastino sit aperta.' ergo nos quoque possumus in passiuis uel in aliis passiuam declinationem habentibus uti praeterito tempore imperatiui, coniungentes participium praeteriti cum uerbo imperatiuo praesentis uel futuri temporis, ut 'amatus sit' uel 'esto' rcLXtXe0w, ' doctus sit' uel 'esto' 8c88a•,0, ' clausus sit' uel 'esto' KcKXXct'O0." In this way is to be explained the use of the perfect subjunctive in prohibitions, for there is in this use the force of a future perfect which gradually develops into a future, as Madvig3 has clearly shown. There are, further, strong indications that the perfect infinitive joined with the verb uolo expresses the idea of the future perfect. With verbs which in themselves have a future significance, the present infinitive seems often to have the force of a future. Verbs of wishing, uolo, etc., can be shown by many examples to be joined with the present infinitive with future significance, exactly as spero is often 1 Draeger, hist. Syntax I. p. 284. Holtze, Synt. prisc. script. Rom. II. pp. 8688. Zumpt, Lat. Gram. ? 590o. 2 Goodwin, M. and T. p. 45, remark. II. Acad. p. xo5; cf. Ed. Loch, Imperativ bei Plautus, p. 21. 8 Opusc.

114

A. A. Howard.

thus joined. In the following examples there can be no doubt of the future significance: "is dare uolt, is se aliquid posci." "res quaedam est, quam uolo ego me a te exorare." "qui populares se esse uolunt." Very often, too, the perfect passive infinitive or the participle alone is joined with a verb of wishing, and here there are many instances pointing clearly to the sense of a future perfect. Cic. Caecil. 6, 21: tamen eos defendes, qui se ab omnibus desertos potius quam abs te defensos esse malunt, and a little further on, cur te interponis inuitissimis his, quibus maxime lex consultum esse uolt ? Cic. Rosc. Am. 9, 25 : orent ut et illius mortui famam et filii innocentis fortunas conseruatas uelit. Cic. Verr. III. 4, 7 : ingenium uero et uirtutem depressam exsainctamque cupidis. Cic. Cael. 3. 8: illud tamen te esse admonitum uolo. Plaut. Amph. 33: iustam rem et facilem esse oratam a uobis uolo. In general all examples of the perfect passive infinitive, with verbs of wishing, admit of this explanation. Later writers, and especially Livy, transferred this use to the perfect active infinitive, Liv. XXIV. 16. 11: turn Gracchus 'priusquam omnes iure libertas aequasset,' inquit ' neminem nota strenui aut ignaui militis notasse uolui.' where, if Livy has retained the exact words of Gracchus, this use must be regarded as much older than has been stated above. But a little before (? 9) he said, omnes malle laudatos a se dignos indignosque, quam quemquam eo die castigatum esse, and in the same way he might in this case have said, neminem notatum uolui,-Liv. XXXII. 21. 32: quia fefercisse uobis uolunt, committere uos cur pereatis non patiuntur,i.e. quia uos conseruatosesse uolunt. Liv. XLII. I . I: plurium annales, et quibus credidisse malis, ipsum Eumenem uenisse tradunt,i.e. quibuscreditumesse malis. Hor. A. P. 347: sunt delicta tamen quibus ignouisse uelimus, which might also be expressed quibus ignotum uelimus. There are many other examples which, although they are not distinctly derived from this use, have the same force of the future perfect, e.g.-Tib. III. 5- 31 : uiuite felices memores et uiuite nostri, siue erimus seu nos fata fuisse uelint,

The Perfect Infinitive

with the Force of the Present.

I 15

where the idea of fata fuisse uelint may be expressed more simply by the future perfect "seu fuerimus." Ov. ex P. III. I. 9: pace tua dixisse uelim. Cf. Cic. pro Mil. 1o3: pace tua patria dixerim, where both dixisse uelim and dixerim have the force of the future perfect. The view of this construction taken by Perizonius 1 is well worthy of notice. Sanctius had said that the perfect infinitive was used for the future in these expressions, but Perizonius denied that the idea of futurity was expressed by the infinitive. His words are: "Infinitiuus iunctus uerbo uolo notat simpliciter ipsam cuiuscunque rei actionem, quae futuri temporis forma non exprimitur. Nam quis unquam dixit aut scripsit uolo hoc facturum esse, siue me, siue le, siue illum? si quid futuri in hac inest locutione, id haeret in ipso uerbo uolo, quod suam certae actionis uoluntatem extendit a praesenti temporis momento usque in illud, quo ea actio tandem fit, aut desiderata res sibi obuenit: - Deinde sola hac perfecti temporis forma uidetur aliqua certe temporis distinctio plerumque notari. Nam uolo te emisse notat, non, uolo te uelle et incipere emptionem, sed te eam mihi factam et absolutam praestare." This is equivalent to saying that, since there is the force of the future perfect in the phrase uolo te emisse, the idea of the future is contained in the verb uolo, that of the completed action in the perfect infinitive. Wex also holds this same opinion of certain examples (p. i54): "perfectum ad iudicium spectat, quod ubi res confecta erit, aut ipse qui rem agit, aut alii, qui de ea re iudicabunt, facient," and as examples he quotes Liv. XLII. i1. i : plurium annales et quibus credidisse malis (see above p. 114), and Sall. Iug. 3I. 27: neque ego uos hortor, ut malitis ciues uestros perperam quam recte fecisse. Still another indication is the similar use of the perfect subjunctive after verbs of wishing, and notably in the following examples, all from early writers, and all showing clearly the force of the future perfect. Ter. Ad. 519: ita se defezigarit uelim ut triduo hoc perpetuo prorsum e lecto nequeat surgere. Plaut. Poen. I2o6: uelim de me aliquid dixerit. Plaut. Poen. 570: Quin etiam deciderint femina uobis in talos uelim. Plaut. Rud. 662: nimis uelim improbissumo homini malas edentauerint. I

Ad Sanctii Mineruae pag. r 2.

A. A. Howard.

I16

To return now to the forms of prohibition in which the perfect infinitive is joined with the verb uolo, Ovid, in the only case in which he uses this form, has joined it so closely with the future perfect that there can be no doubt as to his understanding of the construction; Ov. Am. I. 4. 38: oscula praecipuenulla dedisse uelis. oscula si dederis, fiam manifestusamator. for the future perfect in verse 39 is simply the idea of verse 38 in conditional form, and it might have been expressed si uoles dedisse. In Plautus there is another similar indication; Poen. 872 :nolito edepol deuellisse: iam his duobus mensibus uolucresalae tibi erunt hirquinae; where the future' imperative contains the idea of futurity, the perfect infinitive the idea of the completed action; and in this clause also the words nolito deuellisse imply a protasis, si nan deuelleris, as in the example quoted from Ovid. The other instances of this use, in all of which the force of the future perfect can be seen, are as follows:-Cato de Agr. V. 4: nequid emisse uelit insciente domino, neuquid dominum celauisse uelit . . . Chaldaeum nequem consuluisse uelit.

Varro ap. Non. p. 394: nequis lictorem spurcumhominem liberum prehendere iussisse uelit. Gell. XIII.

15. I: ex uetere forma perpetua. .. nequis magistratus

minor de caelo seruasse uelit.

Ter. Hec. 560: interdico ne eitulisse extra aedes puerumusquam uelis. C. Gracchusap. Gell. X. 3. 3: Caleni ubi id audierunt,edixerunt,nequis in balneis lauisse uellet, cum magistratusRomanus ibi esset. Hauboldii monum. legal. p. 178: neue cretulentum exegisseuelit nisi in duabus lacunis prius emet. Liv. XXXIX. 14. 8 (de senatus consulto) : iubent ... edicta mitti, nequis qui Bacchis initiatus esset, coisse aut conuenisse sacrorum causa uelit neu quid talis rei diuinaefecisse. Liv. XXXIX. 17. 3: edixerunt deinde, nequis quid fugae causa uendidisse neue emisse uellet. 1 Loch, Imperativ bei Plautus, p. 6, n.

The Perfect infinitive

with the Force of the Present.

117

Liv. XXXVIII. i . 9: nequemeorum Aetoli recepisseuelint. Hor. Sat. II. 3. 187: nequis humasse uelit Aiacem, Atrida, uetas cur? From these prohibitions must be separated a few other phrases in which the perfect infinitive is joined with a verb of wishing. There are in Latin, as in Greek, certain verbs, the perfect tense of which, since it expresses the state in which the subject is after the action of the verb has been completed, has the force of the present tense of another verb by which that state is represented.' In this way the perfect peril is found in writers of all periods with the meaning mortuus sum, and uici with the meaning uictor sum. It is not surprising then to find, even in Cicero, this use transferred to the perfect infinitive; e.g. : Verr. II. 149: nemo eorum est qui non ferisse te cupiat. Verr. III. 18o: uide, quaere,circumspice,siquis est forte ex ea prouincia, S.qui . te nolit ferisse. Rosc. Am. 73: esto: causam proferrenon potes: tametsi statim uiicisse debeo, tamen de meo iure decedam, where, better to express the force of the present in uicisse, the temporal adverb statim is added, the idea being statim uictor esse debeo. Further examples are :-Liv. XL. 10. 5: Non Romanos,habeo ad quos confugiam: erisse expetunt, quia tuis iniuriis doleo. Enn. ap. Cic. de Off. II. 23: quem quisque odit, expetit. 2feriisse Lucil. (ed. Miill.) V. II: ut feriisse uelis quem uisere uolueris cum debueris. Ov. Am. II. 2. IO: . . . quem metuit quisque, ferisse cupit. Ov. Am. II. 19. 56: nil facies cur te iure ferisse uelim? Ov. Met. XIV. 570: nec sceptrumsoceri, nec te, Lauiniauirgo, sed uicisse petunt. It will be sufficient to quote, without discussion, the examples in which Wex, the strongest partisan of the aorist theory, and others have admitted a legitimate use of the perfect. In the following examples, all of which have been explained at one time or another as illustrating the use of the perfect as an aorist, it is easy to see that the 1 Wex, prol. ad Tac. Agr. pp. 149, 150.

118

A. A. Howard.

perfect represents the condition or state after the action of the verb has been completed, and they are so explained by Wex, Lucr. III. 69: unde homines dum se falso terrorecoacti effugisse uolunt longe longeque remosse. Ov. Rem. Am. 735: Argolides cufierentfugisse Caphareapuppes. Tac. Dial. or. 24: tuum tamen, Messala, promissum immutasse non debes; i.e. immutatamente stare-debes. Corn. Nep., Eum. 9: quod diebus quinquehostis transisse potest. Liv. XXXVII. 19. 5: instauremusnouumde integro bellum, quod possumus . . . ante hiemem, diis uolentibus perfecisse. There are some instances, especially in poetry, where with verbs of wishing the perfect infinitive has its proper significance of an action in past time with respect to the time of the leading verb; as, Tib. I. 6. 73:

non ego te pulsareuelim, sed, uenerit iste si furor, oftarim non habuisse manus.

Ov. Met. VII. 712: Procrinhabe ! dixit. quodsi mea prouidamens est, non habuisse uoles. Ov. Met. X. 220: at si forte roges fecundamAmathuntametallis an genuisse uelit Propoetidas, etc. Mart. X. 48. 21: accedent sine felle loci nec mane timenda libertas et nil quod tacuisse uelis. Liv. XXII. 59. io: haud equidemullius ciuis et commilitonisfortunaeaut condicioni inuideo, nec premendoaliuin me extulisse uelim; ne illi quidem, nisi pernicitatis pedum et cursus aliquod praemium est, . . . se nobis merito praetulerintgloriatique sint in se plus quam in nobismet praesidii rei publicae esse. With these words M. Junius chides his fellow soldiers who had fled after the battle of Cannae, and, comparing his own course with theirs, he says ironically: "I shouldn't like to have exalted myself by crushing another (i.e. at the expense of a fellow soldier), as they have done, for they. have claimed superiority over us, and have boasted that the safety of the state was dependent more on them than on us." By far the largest number of examples however have the future perfect significance; but as the line of demarcation between the

The Perfect Infinitive with the Force of the Present.

I 9

future and the future perfect was so loosely drawn, the distinction between future and future perfect (i.e. present and perfect infinitive) in this use is very slight indeed. Compare what has been said above x about the future perfect. (p. 13) The following examples, drawn mostly from the poets, seem to have retained the force of the future perfect : Liv. XXX. 14. 6: hanc te quoquead ceteras tuas eximias uirtutes, Masinissa, adiecisse uelim. Hor. Ep. II. 2. Io9: at qui legitimum cuiet fecisse poema,

cum tabulis animumcensoris sumet honesti.

Tib. I. 6. 63:

proprios ego tecum, sit modo fas, annos contribuisse uelim.

Tib. IV. 6. 6: Prop. I. 7. 15:

est tamen, occulte cui flacuisse uelit. te quoque si certo puerhic concusseritarcu quo nolim nostros te uiolasse deos.

Ov. Ar. Am. II. 609: condita si non sunt Veneris mysteriacistis, ... attamen inter nos medio uersanturin usu, sed sic, inter nos ut latuisse uelint.

Ov. Met. VII. 59: quemqueego cum rebus, quas totus possidet orbis, Aesonidem mutasse uelim. 71: remque mei iuris malim tenuisse precando. nil uetitum fecisse uolet. Juv. XIV. 185: . . . an erit, qui uelle recuset Pers. I. 41: os populi meruisse? Ov.

Fas.

VI.

Pers. I. 91 : Mart. VI. 29. 8:

plorabit, qui me uolet incuruasse querela. quidquid amas, cufias non flacuisse nimis.

Mart. IX. 8I. 3:

non nimiumcuro; nam cenae ferculanostrae malim conuiuis quam flacuisse cocis.

In these last examples it is hard to distinguish whether the force is more nearly that of the future or of the future perfect. In the following cases the force of the future perfect has entirely given way to that of the future. Ov. Am. II. 16. 13: non ego, si medio Polluce et Castoreponar, in caeli sine te parte fuisse uelim. Ov. Am. II. 17. 29: noui aliquam, quae se circumferat esse Corinnam. ut fiat, quid non illa dedisse uelit ?

A. A. Howard.

120

Ov. Am. II. 4. 25: haec quia dulce canit, flectitquefacillimauocem, oscula cantanti rapta dedisse uelim. Hor. Sat. I. 2. 28: sunt qui nolint tetzgisse. This easy transition of meaning from future perfect to future may have influenced the poets, and especially the elegiac poets, to use the perfect infinitive in order to avoid metrical difficulties. The perfect infinitive once accepted in this use with verbs of wishing and with others in which there was a future significance, the transition to a similar use of the perfect for the present, with verbs in which there was no future significance, would be a very easy one, and the desire to avoid certain metrical difficulties would be a very strong one. Out of 120 cases in Ovid in which the perfect infinitive is used where the present was to be expected, 86 occur in pentameter, and in Catullus, Tibullus, Propertius, and Martial, the percentage is still greater. In all of these cases the infinitive immediately precedes the iambic word with which the verse ends. As the artificial character of the pentameter admitted no substitutions in the last half of the verse, and required an iambic word at the end, there was developed a strong tendency in Latin to make the last half of the verse consist of two words, one pentasyllabic and the other disyllabic; e.g. luxuriantur opes, implicuisse uelit, etc. The following table shows in column I. the number of pentameter verses, in column II. the number of these verses in which the pentasyllabic word, including words joined to the enclitics -que and -ue, occurs, and in column III. the number of these verses in which the pentasyllabic word is a perfect infinitive :I.

Catullus ..

.

. .

Tibullus ...

.

. .

Propertius . Ovid, Amores .

. . .

.

. . .

. . .

Heroides .

. .

.

.

III.

318

15

4

.

854

104

44

. 2048

58 122

16 33

192

44

167

33 III

. .

. . . . ... . . . .

II.

. .

1230

. .

1868 Med. fac., Ars Am., and Rem. Am. 1622 Trist., ex Pont., Ibis, and Fasti . 6154 Martial,excl. Xenia and Apophoreta . . 2938 Xenia and Apophoreta . . . .

359

805 288 17

16 I

The Perfect Infinitive with the Force of the Present.

I2 I

Of these infinitives, the following are noteworthy:-A.

abstinuisse admonuisse adplicuisse commeruisse condoluisse dedoluisse defricuisse

erubuisse delituisse execuisse demeruisse desiluisse explicuisse detinuisse incaluisse dimicuisse increpuisse intonuisse displicuisse emeruisse obticuisse * adsedisse

perdomuisse permaduisse pertimuisse praesecuisse secubuisse subsecuisse sustinuisse

metuisse

tribuisse prostituisse restituisse

substituisse

The present infinitive of these verbs contains either a cretic or a proceleusmatic, and so cannot be used either in hexameter or pentameter. B.

conseruisse consuluisse

deseruisse eripuisse

excoluisse exeruisse

inseruisse proripuisse

aduexisse cecinisse collegisse

coluisse effugisse excepisse

excussisse fecisse fugisse

legisse peperisse texisse

The present infinitive of these verbs contains a tribrach, and can only be used in elegiac poetry when the last syllable is elided. C.

composuisse concubuisse disposuisse

euoluisse edidicisse inposuisse

obposuisse occubuisse procubuisse

proposuisse subposuisse succubuisse

The present infinitive of these verbs, on account of the spondee which it contains, cannot stand in the last half of a pentameter, but this is the place in which all the perfect infinitives are found. On account of metrical difficulties the perfect infinitive is found with verbs of wishing as follows: Cat. 69. I : noli admirari,quaretibi femina nulla, Rufe, uelit tenerumsubfiosuissefemur. [C]

122

A. A. Howard.

Tib. I. 4. 55:

rapta dabit primo, mox offeretipse roganti, post etiam collo se infilicuisseuolet. [A] Ov. Am. II. 4. 22: est etiam, quae me uatemet mea carminaculpet; culpantiscufiam sustinuisse femur. [A] Ov. Am. III. 2. 29: talia Milanion Atalantes crurafugacis oftauit manibussustinuisse suis. [A] Ov. Her. III. IIo [B]: . .. fallentem deseruisseuelis.

Ov. Ar. Am. I. 293: illum GnossiadesqueCydoneaequeiuuencae [A] optarunt tergo sustinuisse suo. ne ualeam, si non res est gratissimanobis Mart. IV. 31. 3: et uolo te chartis inseruisse meis. [B] Mart. IX. 39. : prima Palatino lux est haec orta Tonanti, oftasset Cybele qua feperisse Iouem. [B] To these verbs may be added a number of others in which the idea of wishing is contained, viz. those called by Draeger, II. 306, "Verba der Willensrichtung," and by Merguet (de usu syntactico infinitiui maxime poetico, p. I8), " uerba uoluntatis." On account of the idea of wishing which they contain, they are frequently joined with the infinitive, and since verbs of wishing contain also the idea of futurity, the present infinitive in this construction has often the force of the future, the perfect infinitive the force of the future perfect. The examples are all found in the poets, and in many cases the perfect seems to have been used to avoid metrical difficulties. These verbs are,-probo. Ov. Ar. Am. III. 215: nec coram mixtas ceruaesumpsisse medullas, [A] nec coram dentes defricuisse probem. Here sumpsisse is not used for metrical reasons, but is possibly to be explained as influenced by defricuisse. amo. Hor. Sat. I. Io. 60:

amet scrizsisse ducentos ante cibum uersus.

audeo. Ov. Tr. I. 5. 4. [A] : ausus es adloquio sustinuisse tuo.

The Perfect Infinitive with the Force of the Present.

123

curo = magnopere uolo, and cura est. Hor. Ep. I. 17. 4: [B] Hor. A. P. 98:

tamen adspice si quid et nos quod cures propriumfecisse loquamur.

si curat cor spectantis tetigisse querela. Hor. Ep. I. 18. 59 [B] : quamuisnil extra nrumerum fecisse modumque curas, interdumnugaris rure paterno.

Ov. Ar. Am. II. 121 [B] : nec leuis ingenuas pectus coluisseper artes cura sit et linguas edidicisse duas. [C] tendo, Draeger II. p. 308. Hor. Od. III. 4- 51: fratresquetendentesopaco. Pelion imfiosuisseOlympo. paro, Draeger II. p. 312.

Ov. Ar. Am. II. 98 [A] : ipse deum uolucremdetinuisse faro. laboro. Hor. A. P. 434: [B] Ov. Ep. Sapph. 77: Ov. Her. XVII. 95: tempto. Mart. I. 107. 5: [B] festino. Mart. Sp. 32

[A]:

reges dicunturmultis urgere culullis et torqueremero quemfersfexisse laborant. cui colar infelix, aut cuiPflacuisselaborem? nunc etiam nando dominaeplacuisse laboro.

condere uicturastemptemper saecula curas et nomen flammiserifzuissemeum. da ueniam subitis: non displicuisse meretur festinat, Caesar, qui flacuisse tibi.

nil moror. Ov. Her. XII. 186 [C] : nec moror ante tuos frocubuisse pedes. timeo, Draeger II. p. 341; cf. p. 259-. Hor. A. P. 455: uesanumtetigisse timent fugiuntquepoetam. Ov. Ep. Sapph. 172 [A]: nec saxo desiluisse time. 1 "Die Verba'fiirchten'enthaltenim Lateinwie im Griechischenden Begriff; mit Besorgnisswiinschen;" cf. Kriiger,Lat.G. ? 577-

I24

A. A. Howard.

Ov. Met. I. 175:

hic locus est, quem, si uerbis audacia detur, haud timeam magni dixisse Palatia caeli. Ov. Met. VIII. 733: nuncuiolentusaper,nunc,quemteligissetimerent, anguis eras. recuso. Here two examples only are found, but in both the present infinitive is closely joined in the same construction with the perfect, and with no apparent distinction. Ov. Met. X. 17I :

inmemoripse sui non retiaferre recusat, non tenuisse canes, non per iuga montis iniqui isse comes; longaque alit assuetudine flammas.

Pers. VI. 15:

usque recusem curuusob id minui senio, aut cenaresine uncto, et signum in uapida naso tetigisse lagena.

Negative verbs of wishing fugio, caueo. nonfugis, Alcide, uictricemmille laborum Ov. Her. IX. 75: rasilibus calathis imposuisse manum. [C] Hor. A. P. 168:

commisissecauet quod mox mutarelaboret.

With this can be compared the construction of the perfect subjunctive with caueo in prohibitions where the force of the future perfect is clearly to be seen. Plaut. Amph. 6o8: caue . . . responderis; Aul. 90: caue aliquem.. intromiseris; 618: caue tu fidelis fueris; Men. 994: caue . . . flocci feceris. Ter. Ad. 458: caue dixeris. From analogy with this use the perfect infinitive construction may have arisen. The construction of possum with the perfect infinitive is, in most cases, so closely allied with that of the verbs of wishing that it may, very properly, be treated in this connection. In regard to the perfect infinitive with the perfects potui, debui, oportuit, and the like, only a few words of explanation are necessary. G. T. A. Kruiger (Untersuchungen aus dem Gebiete der Lat. Sprache II. p. 315) has furnished a reasonable explanation of this construction. Quoting Zumpt, Lat. Gram. ? 495, who says that the forms laudatus fui, etc., for laudatus sum, are the result of a desire to represent in

The Perfect Infinitive

with the Force of the Present.

125

the auxiliary verb that completed state of action which has already been expressed by the perfect participle, he says that a similar feeling led to the use of oportuit, etc. with the perfect infinitive, e.g. Ter. And. 239 : nonne oportuit praescisse me ante, instead of praescire; and so also with the perfect passive participle, which often takes the place of the passive infinitive; as, Ter. And. 239: nonne prius communicatum oportuit; Haut. 536: haec facta ab illo oportebat. This construction is common in poetry, where it is often due to a desire to avoid metrical difficulties. Verg. Aen. X. 94 [A]: tum decuit metuisse tuis, Tib. III. 6. 63 [A]: debueram . . . infilicuisse, Ov. Her. II. 28 [A]: pfotuidemeruisse Ov. Her. XI. o09: si fotuit meruisse necem meruisse putetur; Ov. Her. XII. 4: debuerant . . . euoluisse Ov. Her. XII. 164 [A]: non fotui . . . erdomuisse Ov. Rem. Am. 112 [A]: debueratfraesecuisse Ov. Rem. Am. 574 [A]: debueras . . . substituisse Ov. Rem. Am. 763 [B]: carminaquis potuit tuto legisse Tibulli Ov. Trist. III. 13. 4 [C]: debueras . . . imposuisse Ov. Trist. V. 3. 16 [A]: debueras . . . sustinuisse Ov. Ib. 348 Ov. Fas. I. 354 Ov. Fas. III. 480 Mart. 15. 6:

[A]: qua fotuit . . . erubuisse [A] : debueras . . . abstinuisse [A]: fotui dedoluisse Herculeasfotuit qui decuissemanus

Mart. VII. 21. 4:

debuit hoc saltem non licuisse tibi

Mart. IX. 28. 2: [B]

ille ego sum . . . qui spectatorempotui fecisse Catonem, soluere qui Curios Fabriciosquegraues.

With the present tense of possum the perfect infinitive is found once in Plautus where the present infinitive was to be expected, Aul. 828: non fotes frobasse nugas. With the exception of a single possible example in Livy, I have not found this construction in any classical prose writer, where it cannot

126

A. A. Howard.

be explained by assuming that the perfect denotes a state or condition which can be expressed by the present tense of another verb, as has been explained on page r17. The passage in Plautus clearly contains the force of a future perfect. Strobilus, through fear of not obtaining his freedom, represents that he has been jesting in saying that he has found the treasure-box, and Lyconides replies, "non potes probasse nugas," "you will never make me believe it was a joke." Verg. Aen. VI. 79: bacchaturuates magnumsi pectorePossit [B] excussissedeum. Cf. Servius: "excussisse uero deum pro 'excutere,' tempus est pro tempore. est autem Attica figura, qua nos uti non conuenit, quia hac licenter utuntur poetae." This is the only instance of the construction in Vergil, and as the metre will not allow excutere unless the last syllable is elided, it is very probable that the poet treated the verb possum as referring to the future, like the uerba uoluntatis, and used the perfect infinitive, regarding the construction as a future perfect. The other instances of this use show, almost without exception, the use of possum with reference to the future as in the two examples just quoted, and the perfect infinitives are used for metrical reasons. fotes, si forte iuuabit, cancellis primos inseruisse pedes. Ov. Ar. Am. II. 583 [B]: non uultus texisse suos, non denique fossunt partibusobscenis obfosuissemanus. [C] Ov. Ar.Am. III. 333 [B] : et teneri fossis carmenlegisse Properti. mea poena uolucres Ov. Met. II. 564: [A] admonuissepotest, ne uoce periculaquaerant. Ov. Met. V. 225 [A]: et possum tribuisse et magnumest munus inerti. Ov. Am. III. 2. 63:

[B]

[C]: uicta fotes flexo succubuissegenu. admonitumatris condoluisseiotes Ov. Tr. V. 3. 32 [A]: et potes . . . dicere. Ov. ex P. III. 4. 30 [A]: ingenium quoduis incaluisse paotest.

Ov. Tr. IV. 2. 2

Ov. ex P. III. 4. 59:

dum uenit huc rumor,properataquecarminafiunt, factaquesunt ad uos, annus abisse Potest.

The Perfect Infinitive

with the Force of the Present.

127

Ov. ex P. III. 6. 36 [A]: nulla fotest iterum restituisse dies. tunicarumuincla relaxat, Ov. Fas. II. 321: ut osset uastas exeruisse manus. [B] Mart. XIV. 91: grandia taurorumportant qui corpora, quaeris, an Libycas fossint sustinuisse trabes? [A] Mart. II. 34. 3: praestaturcano tanta indulgentiacunno, quem nec casta fotest iam decuisseVenus. The passage of Livy mentioned above is (II. 24. 5) :Tum consul misso senatu in contionem prodit. ibi curae esse patribus ostendit, ut consulaturplebi, ceterum deliberationide maxima quidem illa, sed tamen parte ciuitatis metum pro uniuersare publica interuenisse. nec posse, cum hostes prope ad portas essent, bello praeuertisse quicquam,nec, si sit laxamenti aliquid, aut plebi honestum esse . . . arma pro patria non cepisse, neque patribussatis decorum . . . consuluisse. Weissenborn says, in his notes on this passage, that, even if praeuertisse be explained as an aorist, the construction is unusual, for the the other infinitives, interuenisse, decorum esse,. honestum esse, have their subjects, mectum,non cepisse, consuluisse, expressed, while praeuertisse is left without any subject. Madvig (Opusc. Acad. II. p. 127) says that quicquam cannot be the subject, because res praeuertit rei is an impossible Latin construction. Hertz writes praeuerti, and thinks praeuertisse a clerical error of the copyist, to be explained from the position of the word, - interuenisse and posse preceding, cepisse and consuluisse following it, - from which circumstance such a corruption of the text might easily have arisen. Madvig 1 later accepted the reading praeuerti, and also the explanation of the manuscript error suggested by Hertz. The following examples are quoted by Wex, p. 156, in support of the aorist theory. But they cannot be said to show any use of the perfect akin to the Greek use of the aorist : Liv. III. 41. 3: ' non erit melius' inquit ' nisi de quo consulimus, uocem misisse. Liv. III. 48. 3: proinde quiesseerit melius. 1 Emendationes

Liv., ed. alt. p. 72.

128

A. A. Howard.

Liv. XLIV. 22. 8: in omnibus circulis . . . sunt qui . . . sciant . . . quando cum hoste manus conserendae,quandoquiessesit melius. Liv. XLIV. 36. 13: non operaest stanti nunc in acie docere quibus de causis hodie quiesse melius sit. Ter. Ad. 18o: ante aedes non fecisse erit melius hic conuicium. In writers of republican times, the phrase esse melius is always joined with the infinitive, but a passage in Ulpian, dig. 42. I. 15, melius erit si se non interponant, furnishes the clew to all these infinitives; they have simply the force of conditional clauses (protases), and with melius erit the perfect infinitive has the force of a future perfect; with melius fuit that of the pluperfect subjunctive, as is clear from the following examples where dedisse, letigisse, and perisse represent conditions contrary to a fact: Ov. Her. XVI. 169: quaeiuuat,ut nunc est, eademmihi gloria damno est, et melius famae uerba dedissefuit. Ov. ex P. III. 7. 25: curandofieri quaedammaiorauidemus uulnera, quae melius non tetigisse fuit. Cic. Att. XIV. 10. 2: melius fuit ferisse illo interfecto, quod utinam accidisset! In regard to the perfect infinitive with the expressions satis est, satis habeo, contentus sum, etc., there is a general agreement among grammarians that the perfect is always used in its proper sense, denoting an action already completed.' The perfect infinitive with its regular force is, in classical prose writers of every age, made to depend on the verb iuuo, and takes the place of a causal clause. Liv. XXXI. I: me quoqueiuuat, uelut ipse in parte laboris ac periculi fuerim, ad finem belli Punici feruenisse. Liv. Praef. 3: utcumque erit, iuuabit tamen rerum gestarum memoriae principis terrarumpopuli pro uirili parte et ipsum consuluisse. The poets at first seem to have used the perfect infinitive with iuuo in its proper sense, but in course of time they came to use present hist. 1 Zumpt, Lat. Gram. ? 590. Madvig, Opusc. Acad. II. p. 119. Draeger, Syntax I. ? 128. Wex, prol. p. 153-

The Perfect Infinitive with the Force of the Present.

129

and perfect without any distinction, being often induced to do so by metrical difficulties. The following examples show a logical use of the perfect : Verg. Georg. III. 525: quidlaboraut benefactaiuuant? quiduomereterras inuertisse graues? Verg. Aen. III. 282:

iuuat euasisse tot urbes

Tib. Sulp. VII. 9:

Argolicas mediosque fugamtenuisse per hostes. sed feccasse iuuat.

Hor. Od. I. I. 4:

collegisse iuuat.

Prop. IV. 4. 19:

me iuuat in primacoluisse Helicona iuuenta musarumquechoris inplicuisse manus. quidfroferasse iuuat, quid parca dedisse quieti tempora, quid nocti conseruissediem?

Ov. Am. III. 6. 9: Ov. Fas. III. 696: Mart. XII. 84. I:

et iuuat hanc magno uerba dedisse deo. uolueram,Polytime, tuos uiolare capillos, sed iuuat hoc precibusme tribuisse tuis.

The following examples have future perfect force:-Verg. Aen. II. 586: animumqueexflesse iuuabit ultricis flammaeet cineres satiasse meorum. Verg. Aen. III. 6o6: si pereo, hominummanibusfieriisse iuzabit. Ov. Ar. Am. I. 428: littera poscetur . . . ne didicisse iuuet.

Ov. Fas. V. 689:

da modo lucra mihi, da facto gaudia lucro, et face, ut emptori uerba dedisse iuuet.

In the following examples the perfect infinitive seems to have been used solely for metrical convenience, since it is in each case closely associated with a present infinitive in the same construction: -?

Tib. I. I. 45:

quamiuuat inmites uentos audire cubantem [A]

Tib. I. I. 73: [B] Ov. Her. IV. 87 : [B]

et dominam tenero detinuisse sinu aut . . . sequi.

nuncleuis est tractandaVenus,dumfrangere postes non pudet et rixas conseruisseiuuat. quid iuuat incinctae studia exercereDianae et Veneri numeros erizpuissesuos?

A. A. Howard.

130

Mart.VII. 93. 3: quid tam saepe meum nobis abducereQuintum te iuuat et lenta detinuisse mora? [A] In the following examples the perfect infinitive is used for the present, perhaps from analogy with the preceding examples:-Ov. Am. I. 13. 5: nunc iuuat in teneris dominae iacuisse lacertis. Ov. Ar. Am. I. 405: siue dies suberit natalis, siue Kalendae, quas Venerem Marti continuasseiuuat. In this same way the perfect infinitive with its proper force, denoting the cause, is joined in poetry with the verb gaudeo. There are no instances of this use in prose before the time of Seneca (cf. Draeger, II. p. 346). The examples in poetry are as follows:-Hor. Od. I. 34. I6: hic posuisse gaudet Hor. Od. III. 18. I5: gaudet. .. . fieulisse Juv. Sat. VIII. 226: gaudens . . . meruisse Juv. Sat. XIV. 270: qui gaudes . .

aduexisse

Pudere, pudor esse, rubor esse. Prose writers of all periods used with these expressions the perfect infinitive to denote the cause of the pudor, always using the perfect in its proper sense,' so that no one would ever have dreamed of an aorist use, unless he had examined the poetical constructions. The poets always use the present and perfect pudet and Puduit with the perfect infinitive in its proper sense of completed action. Plaut. Pseud. 282: non dedisse istuncfudet: me, quia non accepi, piget. Plaut. Most. 1165: si hoc pudet fecisse sumptum, supplici iam habeo satis. haec ego dicebam; nunc mefleuisse loquentem, Tib. I. 9. 29: nunc udet ad tenerosprocubuissepedes. : uiderit 22 haec, siquamiam feferisse pudet. III. 7. Prop. . .. est non licuisse mori. udor 20: IV. 12. Prop. . Ov. Am. III. I1. 1. fg.: multa diuque tuli . . . et quae non puduit ferre, tulisse pudet. 1

Madvig, Opusc. Acad. II. p. i19.

The Perfect Infinitive

with the Force of the Present.

131

non fuduit fortis auro cohibere lacertos, et solidis gemmas obfosuisse toris.

Ov. Her. IX. 59:

Here cohibere is used of an action still continuing; obposuisse of one already completed (cf. vs. 57)nec fudor in stipula placidamcefisse quietem et foenum capiti subposuissefuit. et cum ciue pudet conseruissemanus.

Ov. Fas. I. 205: Ov. Fas. III. 282: Ov. Fas. IV. 367 :

' non pudet herbosum' dixi 'fosuisse moretum in dominae mensis.' . . . et furiis in scelus isse pudet.

Ov. Fas. VI. 526: Ov. Ar. Am. III. 165: femina procedit densissima crinibus emptis ... nec rubor est emisse palam. Ov. Ar. Am. III. 768: ulteriorapudet docuisse.

Inasmuch as the poet proceeds to tell the ulteriora, the phrase seems to have an apologetic force like pace dua dixisse uelinm. With the forms of these expressions which have a future significance, the poets join the perfect infinitive with a conditional force, as is clear from Plaut. Trin. 347: si . bene amico feceris, ne pigeat fecisse: ut potius pudeat, si non feceris The present infinitive in this construction would represent the future, the perfect infinitive the future perfect. Here, too, it was often found convenient, for metrical reasons, to use the perfect for the present, the excuse for which would be the slight distinction between future and future perfect, or, since the clauses are all prohibitions, an excuse might be found in the analogous construction with verbs of wishing in prohibitions. Tib. I. I. 29: [A]

nec tamen interdumfudeat tenuisse bidentes aut stimulo tardos increfuisse boues.

Ov. Am. III. 14. 21: illic nec tunicam tibi sit fudori, •fosuisse femur. nec femori inpositum sustinuisse [A] Ov. Ar. Am. II. 252 [A]: nec tibi sit seruos demeruissepudor. Ov. Tr. I. I. 5o [A]: nec tibi sit lecto dis licuisse tudor.

132

A. A. Howard.

In the following two examples the perfect infinitive seems to have been used simply to avoid metrical difficulties, for in both cases it is closely joined with a present infinitive:-stare nec ante foresiuduit caraeue puellae Tib. I. 2. 93: ancillam medio detinuisse foro. [A] Ov. Her. XV. 350 [A]: quaquetimere libet, fertimuisse pudet. What has been said about pudere is true also of pigere, but with the future forms of this verb the perfect infinitive is found even in prose. The example just quoted from Plautus, si ... feceris: ne pigeat fecisse, shows that the infinitive has the force of a future perfect. Tac. Ann. I. 73 : haud pigebit referre shows the present infinitive with the force of a future condition. Quint. III. I. 22: non tamen post tot ac tantos auctores zigebit meam quibusdamlocis posuisse sententiam. Verg. Aen. VII. 233: nec Troiam Ausonios gremio excefisse figebit. parcite, quam custodit Amor, uiolare puellam, ne zigeat magno post didicisse malo. crede mihi, propera: nec te iam, Phoebe, figebit Tib. IV. 4. 3: formosaemedicas adflicuisse manus. Ov. Med. fac. 47: tempus erit, quo uos speculumuidissepigebit. Ov. ex P. II. 6. 14: nec figeat mento subfosuisse manum. Ov. Her. XII. 2IO: et figet infido consuluisseuiro. Tib. I. 6. 51 :

In the poets of imperial times and once in a prose writer the perfect infinitive is joined with the verb decere, but in all these cases it can readily be shown that the perfect is used in its proper sense. Plin. Ep. VI. 29. 11: in posterum opto ut ea potissimum iubear, quae me deceatuel sponte fecisse. (I desire to be bidden to do that which I ought to have done of my own accord.) Ov. Am. III. 7. 81: nec mora, desiluit tunica uelata soluta: et decuit nudos frorijfuisse pedes. Vs. 81 contains the idea proripuit pedes; cf. the following example : Ov. Met. IV. 329: Nais ab his tacuit, pueri rubor ora notauit: nescit enim quid amor; sed et erubuissedecebat.

The Perfect Infinitive with the Force of the Present. Juv. Sat. XI.

201:

133

spectent iuuenes, quos clamor et audax sponsio, quos cultae decetadsedisse puellae.

This example may be explained in the same way as the two preceding ones, but here there is further to be observed that the present infinitive for metrical reasons cannot be used in hexameter verse. Ov. Ar. Am. III. 431:

ire solutis crinibus et fletus non tenuisse decet.

Ov. Ar. Am. III. 145: huic decetinflatos laxe iacuisse capillos. The expression ire solutis crinibus, when compared with the expression laxe iacuisse capillos, illustrates very forcibly what was said above about the condition or state represented in one case by the perfect and in another by the present tense; cf. p. x117. Tib. I. 2. 27: quisquisamore tenetur, eat tutusquesacerque qualibet: insidias non timuisse decet. Vs. 24 fg. show that there has been fear felt, and so our verse shows the perfect in its proper sense (it is not becoming to have feared). Ov. Am. II. 17. 23: tu quoque me, mea lux, in quaslibetaccipe leges: te deceatmedio iura dedisse toro. A long and careful search for other instances of the so called aorist infinitive in prose writers, has led to the discovery of but a single example, and even this admits of a better explanation. Cic. de div. II. 73: turn igitur esset auspicium, si modo esset ei (aui) liberum, se ostendisse. Madvig (Opusc. Acad. II. 122) says the words se ostendisse are not to be joined with the phrase si ei liberum esset, but rather with the words auspicium esset, and both Baiter and Mtiller have accepted this view. By this explanation all difficulty is removed, and the perfect ostendisse has its proper force. The classes of cases so far treated are those in which the freer use of the perfect infinitive can be seen to be an extension of its legitimate normal use, to express completed action. There are, however, in poetry uses of the perfect infinitive which cannot be accounted for by any of the explanations offered above. In many of these cases the infinitive seems to have lost all sense of time, and seems

A. A. Howard.

134

simply to express the fundamental idea of the verb, so that it may easily be regarded as an aorist. This use occurs most frequently in Horace and in such poets as imitated him, or themselves drew from Greek sources. Not infrequently, too, the use is found in connection with constructions which are foreign to the Latin language and which are ordinarily recognized as formed on Greek models. In many of these cases the metre will not admit the present infinitive of the verb, the perfect of which is thus used, and especially in Ovid and the elegiac poets the ease with which the perfect infinitive fitted into the pentameter furnished a temptation to use it too strong to be resisted. A reasonable explanation of this phenomenon is, therefore, that it is a still farther extension of the use of the perfect infinitive, for metrical convenience, beyond what was legitimate, and this principle, once established, developed a laxer use of the perfect infinitive, which was not however a conscious imitation of the Greek aorist, but rather a matter of convenience, and which found its justification in the analogous construction of verbs, the present of which could not be used in elegiac verse. The fact that the present and perfect infinitive are found side by side in this construction with no difference of meaning whatever, and even in indirect discourse, goes far to prove that we have to do, not with an aorist, but with a perfect used for a present tense. In the following examples, roughly classified, all verses are designated which contain the perfect infinitive of a verb, the present infinitive of which offers metrical difficulties:--I. Constructions formed on Greek models. Hor. car. saec. 25 [B]: uosque ueracescecinisse Parcae. mire ofizfex . . . intendisse. Pers. VI. 3: Pers. VI. 6: egregius lusisse senes. Pers. VI. 76: Pers. IV. 7

ne sit fraestantior alter Cappadocasrigida pingues jfauisse catasta. [B] : fert animus calidae fecisse silentia turbae maiestate manus.

Mart. VI. 52. 3: [B]

uix tangente uagos ferro resecarecapillos doctus et hirsutasexcoluissegenas.

The Perfect bIfinitive with the Forceof the Present. 135 saepe recusatos farcus duxisse triumphos

Mart. IX. o10. 19:

uictor Hyperboreo nomen ab orbe tulit. II. The infinitive depends on a verb. nec qui abaco numeroset secto in pulueremetas scit risisse uafer, multumgaudere paratus, si cynico barbampetulans nonaria uellat.

Pers. I. 131:

The metre allows ridere without any other change. Ov. Ar. Am. III. 319: nec plectrum dextra, citharamtenuisse sinistra nesciat arbitriofemina docta meo. Ov. Ar. Am. III. 455: discite ab alterius uestris timuisse querellis. Pers. V. 33: fermisit sfarsisse oculos iam candidus umbo. haec baccam conchae rasisse, et stringere uenas Pers. II. 66: feruentis massae crudo de puluereiussit. at uos admoniti nostris quoque casibus este, Ov. Tr. IV. 8. 5I: [A] aequantemsuperos emeruisseuirum. Ov. Tr. III. I. 79: interea, quoniamstatio mihi publica clausa est priuatoliceat delituisse loco. [A] Ov. Fas. IV. 131: Mart. II. I. 9: Mart. I. 55. 7: [A]

uere monet curuas maternaper aequorapuppes ire, nec hibernas iam timuisse minas. te conuiua leget mixto quincunce, sed ante inci~iat positus quamtepuisse calix. cui licet exuuiis nemoris rurisquebeato ante focum plenas ex#flicuisseplagas et piscem .

.

. ducere . . . et promere mella.

quondamlaudatas quocunquelibebatad undas currerenec longas fertimuisse uias. [A] Ov. Ar. Am. III. 525: quis uetat a magnis ad res exempla minores sumere, nec nomen fertimuisse ducis? [A] Ov. Ib. I : ille relegatumgelidos aquilonis ad ortus non sinit exilio delituisse meo. [A] Ov. ex P. II. 2. 124 [C] : nec licet ante ipsos procubuissedeos. Mart. VI. 43. 7:

Ov. Fas. VI. 230 [A] : non ungues ferro subsecuisselicet.

A. A. Howard.

136

III. The infinitive is used substantively. uirtus est uitium fugere et safientia prima stultitia caruisse.

Hor. Ep. I. I. 41:

quae tibi summa boni est ? uncta uixisse patella

Pers. IV. 17:

semper, et adsiduo curatacuticulasole? quis minor est autem, quam tacuisse, labor?

Ov. Am. II. 2. 28: Ov. ex P. IV. Io. 82: quis labor est puramnon temerassefidem? Ov.Ar.Am.III.370 [C]: maius opus mores comfosuisse suos. Ov. Ar. Am. I. 380 [A]: consilium tamen est abstinuissemeum. Mart. XIV. 135. 2 [C] : hoc opus est, pictis accubuissetoris. Ov. Ar. Am. II. 20 [C]: difficileest illis infosuisse modum. Ov. Rem. Am. 626 [A]: utile finitimis abstinuisse locis.

Ov. ex P. III. 7. 35: est tamen utilius, studium cessare meorum, quam, quas admorint, non ualuisse preces. Ov. ex P. I. 3. 45: effice. talibus ut leuius sit caruisse malum. Mart. V. 25. 7: [A] Mart. VI. 2. I : [A] Mart. V. 19. II :

hoc, rogo, non melius,quamrubropulpitanimbo spargereet effuso fermaduisse croco? lusus erat sacrae conubia fallere taedae. lusus et inmeritos execuissemares. saturnaliciae ligulam misisse selibrae

. . luxuriaest.

tanquamparuaforet sexus iniurianostri foedandos populo frostituisse mares. [A] nec turpe putaris Ov. Ar. Am. I. 733: palliolumnitidis infosuisse comis. [C] Ov. Ar. Am. II. 215 : nec tibi turpeputa... quamuissit turpe,placebit... [A] ingenua speculumsustinuisse manu. Ov. ex P. II. 6. I9: turpe erit in miseris ueteri tibi rebus amico auxiliumnulla parte tulisse tuum: turpe referrepedem, nec passu stare tenaci: turpe laborantemdeseruisse ratem. [B] Ov. Am. I. 10. 41: turpe, tori reditu census augere paternos, et faciem lucrofirostituisse suam. [A]

Mart. IX. 8. I :

The Perfect Infinitive

with the Force of the Present.

137

In these last two examples the perfect infinitives might be regarded as having their proper force of completed action were it not for the present infinitives in the same construction. The same holds true for the following examples : Mart. VI. 44. I: [A]

festiue credis te, Calliodore,iocari et solum multo permaduisse sale.

[C]

exiguos secto comentem dente capillos dicet Achilleas disposu/ssecomas.

Mart. XII. 82. 9:

Although both these examples are cases of indirect discourse, iocari and comentem show that the time of the infinitives is present, and not past. In this use, then, the Latin does not follow the Greek, for the aorist infinitive in indirect discourse should denote past time. To recapitulate briefly the results of this investigation: in early Latin the perfect infinitive with its proper significance was made to depend on the verb nolo or uolo in prohibitions; but since the verb of wishing contained the idea of futurity, the whole clause acquired the force of a future perfect expression. Later writers, and especially the poets, transferred this use to negative clauses, not prohibitive, containing verbs of wishing, and secondly to clauses containing verbs like laboro, amo, and timeo, " Verba der Willensrichtung." Since these verbs contain the idea of futurity, the present infinitive joined with them has the force of a future, the perfect infinitive the force of a future perfect. The tendency of the Latin writers to use the future perfect for the future, through an overstrained desire to be exact, led them in these clauses to use the perfect infinitive instead of the present. The poets, and especially the elegiac poets, took advantage of the opportunity thus offered and transferred the use to other constructions which did not contain a verb of wishing. The reasons for this were two: first, the present infinitive of a large number of verbs which they wished to use, on account of metrical difficulties could not be used in their verse, or could only be used under certain restrictions; second, the perfect infinitive of these verbs was peculiarly adapted to the necessities of the last half of pentameter verse. The infinitive in this use seemed to have the force of an aorist in-

138

A. A. Howard.

finitive in Greek, and, in course of time, came to be used by the poets even where the metre admitted the use of the present infinitive. No examples are found in prose which cannot be explained as regular uses of the perfect. The ease with which the perfect infinitive could be used in the last half of the pentameter led to such constant use that it at times actually constitutes a blemish; e.g. Tib. I. 8. 7-12: desine dissimulare: deus crudeliusurit, quos uidet inuitos succubuissesibi. quid tibi nunc molles prodest coluisse capillos saepeque mutatas disjfosuissecomas, quid fuco splendente genas ornare, quid ungues artificisdocta subsecuissemanu? Ov. Her. IX. 71: detrahatAntaeus duro redimicula collo, ne pigeat molli succubuisseuiro. inter Ioniacas calathumtenuisse puellas diceris, et dominae fertimuisse minas. non fugis, Alcide, uictricemmille laborum rasilibus calathis infosuisse manum? In the fourteen distichs of this last poem, beginning with vs. 59, the pentasyllabic perfect infinitive occurs seven times in the last half of the pentameter.

PLUTARCH

IEPI

EYOYMIAY.

BY HAROLD N. FOWLER.

THIS

treatiseis in the formof a letterfromPlutarchto Paccius, who had asked foran explanationof certain points in Plato's of mind." PluTimaeus, and also for" somethingabout tranquillity tarchexcuses himself,on the score of lack of time,fromdiscussing theTimaeus,and says thatwhathe offerson the subjectof tranquillity is merelyput togetherfromthe notes and quotationshe happened to haveat hand (dvEcX& e Jiv 7rep'L as6K rTWV EVOvtL wv clavr~ rvro!VV/dTpWV In other this treatiseis professedly words, 7rTETOtIevoseiTyXaVov). made up of extractsfromPlutarch'sphilosophicalnotebook. Aftera ratherlong introduction(? i), Plutarchattacksthe Epicurean doctrinethathe who wishesto attaintranquillity should withdraw himselffromthe world,and busy himselfas little as possible with public and privateaffairs. This doctrine,he says,is like the advice given to the sick man,IeV,)

W o aXatlrop,d7pAcacoto ev 8clVbLs,

and to prove its worthlessnesshe brings forwardthe lack of tranquillityin women in spite of theirdomesticand retiredlife,and cites also the examples of Laertes and Achilles to show that retirement 1 Eur. Or. 258. One is frequently temptedto use the quotationswithwhich thephilosophicalworksof Plutarchand his contemporaries are garnishedas convenientsignsby therecurrenceof whichone maybe guidedin the search forthe sourcesof philosophicaldoctrines. That such merelyaccidentalsigns mustbe used withcautionis a matterof course,but thisparticularline is well adapted to serve as a warning. Among the writingswhich go under Plutarch'sname, it occursat least fivetimes(here,Anim.an Corp.Aff.sintpeior.III= 501 C, an Seni sitger. Res P. IX= 788 F, de Plac. Phil. IV, 12= go0 A, adv. Colot. XXXII = so thatit is absurdto supsurroundings, S126 A), and each timein verydifferent butit mustbe derivedeither pose thatit is quotedfromanypreviousphilosopher, directlyfromEuripides,or (which is far more probable) froma florilegiumor book of quotations.

H. N. Fow/er.

14o

does not bring tranquillity. Substantiallythe same doctrineswhich Plutarchhere advocates are advanced by Seneca de Tranq. An. i, who cites Zeno, Cleanthes,and Chrysippus(i.e. the Stoics in general) as authorities. Very similar,too, is the doctrineattributedto Athenodorus by Seneca de Tranq. An. III.x The example of Achillesis also cited by Seneca de Tranq. An. II,' and by Cicero, Tusc. III, viii,who refersto a discussionby DionysiusHeracleotes of the versesiris tristibus Corquemeumpenitusturgescit Cumdecoreatque omnime orbatumlaude recordor. As these verses are in no way identicalwith those quoted by Plutarch (II. I, 488 sqq. and XVIII, I04), it appears thatAchilleswas a stock example of lonelydiscontent. Afterquotingthe verses of the Iliad, Plutarchgoes on to say: 0~cvovS elrT7tL8E v jqovXa"'ErrlKovpoo El t Atv, a KOLVa o7rXTrcEVOt~LVOV~rpaoTovra aTXhX ,Kal ~rbr, X7t'OraL L;aXXOV cLXo0rqOV" KaU KaKOcrOatL

TOVw"

Ka'L

dqop, So'eov,"

7"cdVKdOT'a, 1,V

a7rpayLxoovvr-vTrapEdrrcoOat

vov L /i TVYXa OpE'OVTay 1Vra V/o'tv, KOLVa

EKAVOA X

dAXX 7'IpT'oLtV To roVT8iVLEVOVu 01o, aLv Seneca ad SereThis agrees with rpOTPE7rOc'VOs,% Trob ,Toros dyEwV 8vvacivovs. p, duae maximeet in hac re dissidentsectae Epide Otio III, 2: num(Vlxav cureorum et Stoicorum,sed utraque ad otium diuersa uia mittit. Epicurus ait: "non accedet ad rem publicam sapiens nisi si quid interuenerit." Zenon ait: "accedet ad rem publicam nisi si quid show plainly The words 'Ocv oO&6 'E"rKovpoS O"erat impedierit."' rest is not of absolute the doctrine attack the that upon enough derived froman Epicurean source (as indeed it hardly could be), but there is no direct indication of the source fromwhich it is

1 The doctrineof restis attributed by Seneca de Tranq. An. XIII, to Democritus: hoc secutumputo Democritumita coepisse"qui tranquillevoletvivere,nec Laert. privatimagat multanec publice,"ad supervacaneascilicetreferentem.Cf. Diog. IX, c. vii, 12, ? 45. Epicurus took this doctrine,like so many others, fromDemocritus. In opposingthisdoctrine,Seneca de Ben. IV, 13, is evidently opposingthe Epicureans. this passage in Seneca to Democritus 2 R. Hirzel,HermesXIV, p. 356, refers 7repleOupras,and comparesPlato Phileb. p. 46, whereDemocritusis evidently I, p. 145to. See also Hirzel, Unters.zu Cic. Phil. Schriften, referred Cf. Sen. de Tranq. An. XIII: ubi uero nul8 See Usener,Epicurea,p. 95. sollemnenos citat,inhibendaeactiones,which is to be referredto lum officium Democritus.

Plutarch

WrepIebvylaqda.

I41

derived. The last part, at least, of this chapter (II) seems to be carelesslycopied fromsome previouswriter. The chapterends with TWV aXaWV the words: TWV 7q KOAWv oI TV7TTOV I 7 yp e.apjXcELq X this has not been 7 but WS deTL p t; Ka 7pate divLapov TrapaXwc, stated anywhereby Plutarch, so that itTap is evident that the words Ok with what immediatelyprecedes, must have been copied Ep7raL, without due regard to the connectionin which theynow come to stand. The latterpart of Chapter III is in substancethe same as part of de Virt.et Vit. IV. de Tranq.

de Virt. et Vit.

OX Spas robs vo-VoTvras,

Kat

rwV

Kat rorT KaOapLWTaTa flpwporo XvrEXO'Tpa Svo'XpaLvov'LKaiSLKat 7rapatTOVVTaL arTTVovO'L 7rpoo'EKai Kpa- poVTWVKai flLa~OwvE' ET7a 7q "

ctra

T~vso'ov SaXVOE6laS E XOVS, XOe OewS Tpas yEvoL

KpaEw)IaaXO?

, Kat vE-

Ka yXUKOs alaTOs yela (OAXa'rvTa 7rotoV(a Kal 7rpoO- LTaos XPrl7TTOV eP OEp s wa Kal 7V?. yo p T7LTO vXLaEyVOpEOV KaL OLKEaS,

Kat pTov tLa7rTvWV, 7TiLE' 'v7TVELtOV XaLa pov arT7Irvpov ir' Kap-

i.

'TreLrTat rpooTLX

V

TaoVTE~v

Ka

Kap4u'

Ka OrpoOv- / ovcKLv

0 uiLqrotLe ToaV'aTrV XoyL,rht '

E0,,. IV.

apTOV

lXpovOL

XLTOV f7rTVP,) Kal

~v

Eo'OoVTE; r Xvoe ; TOmLaT7rV

r 'BaO Kal a3T qvXJ SL

E O77, N7v CVKOX'av Kal ucr7afoX-qVyyEvO!EVO' TavpKv, o KaWTTOV ,LEravotLeL 8LOV.. KaL a rpos

LA OJ1S 7t 7T KOAoV TL.

There can be no doubt that these passages are derivedfromthe same original,thoughit may be thattheypassed throughsome other hand beforetheywere adopted by Plutarch. Perhaps theyare to be ascribed to Chrysippus,whose habitof comparingthe diseases of the mind withthose of the body is well known. Galen. de Plac. Hipp. ' "L et Plat. V, 439 sq. quotes Chrysippusiv 7d 7rep' 7raOv 0/"LK KaTa7pO7OV XO'yos Ts Pvgsvdaooso r 7rpOV)KTaL TO 70(

Zovwvt po

Oaros3T

dKaaoTauTS'.

l iv a T^ Op8~p0Ka~

LErpla TGV S iev r 0/artL O

yt7ta. EKpaTLQa

e"7so

XyETaL 86 vaL O/jaTo

XpO^, 7r

a cS KaL

Ta7T cOLoTd

voodqaOviLs pov Ka' 'ypo," and again "

V

T7WV8" elpyreVOV."

.uT7pLa Alexander'sdisconChapter IV begins with a series of contrasts:

142

H.

.. Fowler.

tentand Crates'happiness, of spiritand heaviness Agamemnon's

Diogenes' jokes, Socrates happy in his prisonand Phaethon in tears at being refusedpermissionto drive the chariot of the sun. The treatise 7repL vyFs ends (607 F) with a similar set of contrasts: TOV KVKXOV ?EV TcOJW7T1pLp TVy 'Avaeayopasjie iv TE7PaywVLtoLuOV Jypa . 8& KaKL EapuLaKOV7rLVWv fOLOXoTo'/CL, 7rapCKActEL OdrVTOvq ,,KpadrT; LXoo' a v 7r Ka' TrVT'VTraXOV (TV4VjIe, Easovd ~V? aVrTov.ovy8'aEOOVTra os E To v ovpavov&vaflavraso 7rolra'TL Trais Z;Euytrat~ avupopats It is XEyovrL t rvy possible that the collocation of pre~p~~e 8'L &4poo-vYv. in thesetwopassagesis purelyfortuitous, Socratesand Phaethon but

it seems more probable thatboth passages are derivedfromthe same

from source,wherea large numberof exampleswas put together,

which Plutarch and his contemporariescould take and leave what theypleased. This source may have been a mere collectionof anecdotes arranged under ethical heads, or it may have been a philo-

stories. withcopiousillustratory sophicaltreatise

The next part of this chapter opposes the doctrine that habit T avvcLamakes the best lifeagreeable: oVvTO V7~r68ya r ^rroS o-7rrep aL GLaOEcL~ KaloV rTOvaV7rOV, -rpEkceraL, svvEoluOLOVOLV Oo7 TOVS/Lcovs O . oVy Cp avvvtCa 7rotero- 'Xo/~LotsTrvIprTrov8l'ov 'Siw, abraiSC io T LEL KaL Lpt(TOVKaL lov rot Trt E7rv, &XXa'rb povdv aLa Tov arrov . that 1 TL3 7MV thinks Hirzel (HermesXIV,p. 366,f) (8srTov. refersto Democritus,and compares fr.84 ed. Mullach rro'vos vvcXgr and Sen. de XackpdOrcpo, 3ovroT

^7rT vvrlOd ylvTraL

Tranq. X, I, 2, 4-.

If Chapter II (see above) refersdirectlyto Democritus,it is probable that this passage does also. Then the words &XXarTo povdv . . 78oL-rovmight be taken from some opponent of Democritus (Hirzel thinks Panaetius), but they agree remarkablywell with ovTc XpyJ7aOTL Democr. fr. 5 (Democrat. Orell. n. 6), ov*Ta;E ac wro . Perhaps this , 'XX"opo00vl KaL eVJ4bs ovovcTK roXvpoov'va to Democritus,in which is to be referredultimately entire passagea.vOp be merelya general expressionforany one who case s L~ 7rev may dissents. The doctrinethathabit is of great importancein calming facile. 2. nullomeliore nomine 1 I. necessitas ferre fortiter docet,consuetudo nasceremur, cum sciret de nobisnaturameruit, quibusaerumnis quamquod cito in familiaritatem grauismollimentum consuetudinem inuenit, calamitatum suae et quamminimum estitaquecondicioni simaadducens.4. adsuescendum de illaquerendum,

Plutarch 7rept ebvvt/ia9.

143

sorrowwas accepted by Chrysippus,as quoted by Galen. de Plac. Hipp. et Plat. IV, 419. The fourthchapter ends with Eur. fr.289 Nauck Tos 7rpaPdyyaCLV )yp otxa Xppdv" OvolVOOaL ' yp aVTroL7 /LEXCL oV`3v,&XX rvyXavov Ta 7rpdyt/aT opOwsar7'r, V 7^rp'?EL KaXoj. Afterthis,Chapter V begins with Plato's comparisonof life to a game at dice, in whichwe are not responsibleforthe throw,but only forthe use we make of it, and leads up by three further comparisons to the openingwordsof Chapter KaV TroVo oUJvESTrpTOrov aTKdtV VI": 0 T( XOT,KaTipV W'"j7rcp 77tq Kvvo Jl7rTpvav 7TraTae"a dtxap7owv icLvrau,

This stateof contentment, undisturbed by

OS'3 ovTw, E&Yf, KaKj. unexpected reverses,is furtherexemplifiedby Diogenes' acceptance of his exile, and Zeno's quiet acquiescence in the loss of his last ship. This last storyoccurs also in Sen. de Tranq. XIV, 3, as the storyof Anaxagoras in Chapter XVI occurs in Seneca XI, whence Hirzel concludes thatSeneca and Plutarchboth took it fromPanaetius; but the same storyis foundde Cap. ex Inim. Util. II, de Exil. XI, Sen. de Tranq. XIV, Laert. Diog. VII, 5, Anton.et Max. p. 820. That it is in all these instancestaken directlyfromPanaetius -rep appears highlyimprobable,and leaves room forsome doubt WOOvptjai regardingthe source fromwhich Plutarch and Seneca derived it in theirtreatiseson tranquillity of mind. It is, however,reasonable to suppose thatboth Plutarchand Seneca had read Panaetius,and they mayperhapshave taken thisanecdote fromhimwithoutthe interventionofa florilegium.The advice givenby Plutarchin thesame chapter, thatwe comfortourselvesby consideringthe misfortunes of the great el I vuav/Lya, T o o vs46$ovs KaLTrOVOrpo vUOv v (LO , &ro9topodv is and in

V7rorWv aVrTj

rE7rovOa-TLv)given

elaborated somewhat differ-

ent formsby Seneca ad Polyb. de Consol. XIV sqq., and ad Marciam de Consol. XII sq. It is to be remarkedthatthe treatise7rcp't e'0vClas has a stronggeneral resemblanceto the "Consolationes," even when particularpassages do not exactlycorrespond. ChapterVII may be passed over withthe remarkthat its prevailing characteris Stoic. The line of Sophocles,--7rLKpaV KXdeOVUc iiapLpOKOu occurs also de Facie in0rXval Orbe Lunae VII.

7TLKpP

H. N. Fowler.

I44

Chapter VIII begins: 3Ocvi'Kdvov aVO 7Ov 7rep'L rTv irpayldryowv Xo'yov&vaXafl/wev.These words refer apparentlyto the end of Chapter IV, so that the interveningchapters may be regarded as an additioninsertedafterChapter IV and its continuationin Chapter VIII had been written. Yet this is not a connected episode, but rathera numberof looselyjoined anecdotes and remarks. The first part of ChapterVIII is the development of the idea advanced in Plutarch goes on to Chapter IV, fromwhich,by a naturaltransition, recommend that we pay attentionto those points in which we are fortunateratherthan to those in whichwe are the reverse.' o TO ChapterX begins: KErTOLKal TOo70 Lro ya 7rp rUTLI, EvL~Ltv ' avTov,Ed& t`T, TOV* KalTrbKaO dLcLcrraLv aVrT "v rLUKO7rf7V V7roccEETrKa i/rl, KaOarEcpOL VTLpovSda7ro0CeWpEL, 7rpo TOrVv7rcpEXovTras rroXXot withwhichDemocritus,frg.20 (Stob. Flor. I, 40), may wrapc$4yovrv, Kal ro E7TL be WvSEL 3 XC a TJqv TroL SvvacroTLcOL compared": yV1rIqV t V OX oLVOV Kal OOJvu1 7rapEOlXTL ApKeeaTmL,TOjV/LEV ZqLEVJ&V OXLyv/LVT/L%7)V

eXovTa Ka&7TTStavOL'L OewpplE,

vvo

TPOOESpE OvTa,

7 LEVOVrTICXOVL

Koc

7T Tr,

& TaXaL7rL7pE0VTV TOVU

O

)- 4v 7T 7rapE~ovTa KO crOL Ka

KaL IqKETL 7rXEL~yWVOV ErWL KaLa VLOV7L xyeAycL 1rrpXovrTa 7lXoa'r 4aLvwrwC TV) fvXV). . aL S T0 &O7TMp &TStr /lqT FLEV $vl43aflr KaKorrIEEtLV XPfW'v, riTro7L SE T'v 8 EvLE0vF 7rpok eOaL XpEdV, iwvTroV rrapafldXXovra flov rTv KaLELaKapUlt?V EVOV7T Tr&v aVXTdrEpov 7rpP~7T rmcOVTOv, wTOrroV, VV/RLVpt EaVTfJv /EXTLOVrp-(qT

TE K

is ThatPlutarch

y7. fKOJw &dTyal here makinguse of Democrituscannot be doubted,but there is so littleverbal agreementbetweenthe above passages, that the conclusion is forced upon us that, although Democritus is the ultimate source of Plutarch'sdoctrine,the wordsare derivedfromsome other writer. The versesof Archilochus,-

7raarxov0L,

o

~OL r

LAXEL, KTX., wroXvXpv'ov furnishanotherproof thatPlutarchcopied his quotationsnot directly fromthe worksof the poets, but fromanthologies; forafterquoting the verses he 0c4-to yp qv iKLVOS, that is, of course, proceeds": Archilochus,who emigratedfromhis native Paros to Thasos. But Aristotle(Rhet. III, i7, p. 1418 b) says: rroti^ y&p (sc. Archilochus) 1

oto

TyO

70o

The versesin ChapterVIII occuralso de CuriositateI.

145

Plutarchk rept evbOvttla. O, j P EV Ulaj O, Tov Xoyov7a rEIKTOVa to referto thattheXapwva EKEdVO1 Of Plutarch

'

/.OLT

rv'yEw,SO Charon,not to Archiloought chus. If Plutarch had known this (i.e. if he had read the whole poem, and not merelythe familiarquotation),he musthave expressed himselfdifferently. The next illustrationis very like Sen. de Tranq. IV, 5. Plutarch says: ~Xxog84 Ttg Xdog,aXXog8 raXaTys "7 BtOvv0',OVK &yairyv,d 0

LrVOo

r7 7d/av /LCpitO~o

v

,vaLLv

Ev ToLg dXX7 EavroV

01

rOXLaLF

5tt 4Op t LjW iaV SKaiL Oppo,OrTL KXatovV, oT0L 7toCLPrLKLOV"

'Pwixatw' -EcV

KSEN Kai

T7pa7n,

on/A OTL )v7raTEVEL

-irlXev,

cr(paTvT7L

KadLV7raTfvOV, oTL tL%)

os XA'Xcpos avqyYopE*l0r.Seneca: non uis enim nisi consul TrpWTR aut prytanisaut ceryxaut sufesadministrarerem publicam. quid si ? and in a different militarenolis nisi imperatoraut tribunus connection the same illustrationis found in Sen. de Ben. II, 27, 4: aeque ambitionon patiturquemquam in ea mensurahonorumconquiescere quae quondam eius fuitimpudens uotum: nemo agit de tribunatu gratias,sed queritur,quod non est ad praeturamusque perductus. nec haec grata est, si deest consulatus. ne hic quidem satiat,si unus est. It is not veryprobable that these three passages are derived immediatelyfromthe same source. Seneca de Beneficiisis, forthe most part,taken fromHecato; 1 Hirzel has shown2thatSeneca de TranquillitateimitatesDemocritus; Plutarchfollowsvariousauthorities. The illustrationin question is a very natural one, and was doubtless employed by some earlywriter. Perhaps Democrituswas the firstto use it, and Seneca de Tranq. gives it in a less Roman and more Greek formthan that of the other two passages where it occurs; but it does not followfromthis that Hecato or Seneca or Plutarch took it from Democritus, but only that it had become familiar,and was foundin various places and connections. The storytold of Socrates near the end of ChapterX is told by Teles (Peerlkamp, Musonius, p. 185; Stob. Flor. V, 67) in nearly the same formof Diogenes. It is easy for such anecdotes to be shiftedfromone person to another. Plutarch'sadvice in ChapterXI, thatone should not be dazzled by the outwardhappinessof others,&AX' U7Mp ovlaKaXal Ka'L WtaoTredXacL 1 Transactionsof the AmericanPhilologicalAssociation,1886,p. 24 . 2 HermesXIV, p. 354ff

H. N

146 N KaE aTcY/LcTav 077O?1p VTpWV

Fowler.

EVT0 yfvov, KcUTv ETiLcXLveav, avTWVv

Ki 7TroaXX has been a378cL vOV' s aVTroLF, KaOL KaTot/EL 7roL SVO'XEp?/ Hirzel with Democr. 18, comparedby frg. d&o8wa circorv(withMeineke foralcr-OltKL) Kai Kd~60/ &a , rpok arperrca copl~ &X1 Kapsq KEVEc. recursde Virt.et Vit. II. The firstpoetic illustration The firstpart of ChapterXII (oKX cVvUIlav KOXOv'L 'TOLVVv V/K-TTr r ,,xrrp swvalzv 'lv TOKEL/UflV ;0ro ,rpo? 1C~ oV~lzlz7PO XP~Oa,, 8vVcMV Tv 7 va4LLErpotsp e,LztvrAv opluats, OptL, YEp yJOOat, ,7p"T 7

LorTLos,

p.ELodvwv lotep.Vovs

aXXa, a'V aLTLOcY8atL <ova Ka" 7TVXl, djAXa

raTT XrtoLv,drLTa VrorvyX/vov7a,c aLvTOJV is com7TVv

L/3EXTf-lplaT)

pared by Hirzel withSen. de Tranq. X, 5 (non suntpraeterea cupiditates in longinquummittendae,sed in uicinum illis egredi permittamus,quoniam includi ex toto non patiuntur,relictishis, quae aut non possunt, prope posita speique nostrae possunt fieri aut difficulter adludentia sequamur), and Democr. frg. 79 (Xi-trrrSat rTwvopOh E LKTaLt, al TE Uv Uwv The same idea is ETV bpoveorvTwv laTvvarot). repeated by Seneca ib. XII, I: proximumab his erit, ne aut in superuacuis aut ex superuacuo laboremus,id est, ne quae aut non possumusconsequiconcupiscamus,aut adepti uanitatemcupiditatium nostrarumsero post multum pudorem intellegamus. Hirzel also observesthatthe firstpart of this chapterhas points of resemblance to Sen. de Tranq. VI and Democr. frg. 147 and 14. The reference to the Stoic paradox thatthe wise man is not only good and noble, but also a general,a poet, a king,etc., is evidentlyderived froma Stoic source. The saying of Aristotleabout Alexander, o3K 'AXcv8p tto' pvov 7TOXX^) V &Vp(OlWV, ovX ?TTOVo O pOVEV, LO KprTE 7rpoo(TKEL &X.*de Profect.in .ya in ChapterXIII, occurs xrdpxairep~Ot&va SiE 8So$dLtv, o both in connection times citr. Laud. de and Virt.VI Inv. XVI, Seips. with Agesilaus' query in respect to the Persian king, ti Aoi .iZov so thatthese two passages may probably E EiKELVOs t/l Kat LKaRLdOTEpO; be derivedfromthe same source,but thatthe passage in ~E ,repdOvl'ag has any real connectionwiththemdoes not appear.' The beginningof Chapter XIV, OrTt8E EKacTOs eVvTr) TLrTa"s is comparedby Hirzel with VO 1x; 8veOvp'la' 3Ovjla; Kai mrTaLEca, Democr. frg.96 (Plut. vol. VII, p. 950, ed. Reiske, p. 500, ed. Xyl.), 1 The first, third,and fourthlines of the quotationfromPindarare foundalso de Virt.Mor. XII.

Plutarch rept ebOvjylaa.

av

vTov

e;pqGELsKat

I47

rvoOcv&voi'?), qS 7roLKLXov 7L Ka\7roXv,7raO KaKq V TLLEdv the likeness is not so as to striking OqalpLaEpa,though

lead one to assign thispassage to Democritus,except forthe likeness of the teachingof this chapter to that in the firstpart of Chapter XII, where a comparisonwith Democrituswas easy. The doctrine that every man is the steward of his own happiness is sufficiently common to make a referenceto any particularsource unnecessary and ratherforced,but the use of the word rajEda lends countenance to Hirzel's assumptionthat Democritus is the original of at least the beginningof this chapter. The figureof the two casks iv atLs oBe&EL (I1. O 527) is carried out in detail de Exil. IV (cf. de Aud. Poet. VI). The figureof the ass eatingthe strawrope may have been,- like the cask of the Danaides, - a common one to express thankless and fruitlesstoil,but it is at anyrate a verynaturalfigureforPlutarch to employ,as he must have been familiarwith the famous picture by Polygnotusat Delphi (Paus. X, 29). This chapter agrees with what Cicero, Tusc. III, 15, 32, gives as the doctrine of Epicurus: leuationem autem aegritudinisin duabus rebus ponit, auocatione a cogitanda molestia et reuocatione ad contemplandas uoluptatis: parere enim censet animum rationi posse et quo illa ducat sequi. uetat igiturratio intuerimolestias,abstrahitab acerbis cogitationibus, hebetemfacit aciem ad miseriascontemplandas,a quibus cum cecinitreceptuiimpellitrursumet incitat ad conspiciendas totaque mente contrectandasuarias uoluptatis,quibus ille et praeteritorum memoriaet spe consequentiumsapientisuitam refertamputat. The firstpart of ChapterXV cannotbe separated fromwhat precedes. In ChapterXVI 0r', avpLov VrKLOTa8EO'MVOs TP/V 7pOrdELLL V&/&Tra 7po" avpLovis quoted fromEpicurus,' and the recommendationto moderation which followsis in agreementwith his doctrines. The rest of the chapteris taken up withthe Cyrenaic2 doctrine that unexpected evils are more painful. The calmness of Anaxagoras upon the announcementof his child's death is a favoriteanecdote.3

1

For similarpassages,see Usener,Epicurea,p. 307. 2 Cic. Tusc. III, 22: Cyrenaicorum restatsententia: qui aegritudinem censent exsisteresi necopinatoquid euenit. est id quidemmagnum,ut supra (14) dixi. 8 It is told or referredto: de Cohib. Ira XVI, 463 D; de Cons. ad Apoll. XXXIII; Sen. de Tranq. XI; ad Polyb.de Cons.XI; Cic. Tusc. III, 14, Cicero

H. N Fowler.

148

In oppositionto the Epicurean doctrinethatone should not think of unpleasantpossibilities,'Plutarchadvises to prepare the mind for

whichis also taughtin ChapterXIX, everychance,a Stoicdoctrine

Cic. Tusc. III, 14; Sen. de Tranq. XI; ad Marc. de Consol. IX; Pseudo Plut. Cons. ad Apoll. XXI; Posidonius ap. Galen. de Plac. Hipp. et Plat. IV, 417. Chapter XVII begins with the doctrine that our troubles are a matter of opinion. This is an Epicurean doctrine,2 but was also accepted by Stoic philosophers.3 It is summed up froma negative point of view in the verse of Menander (quoted also de Exil. I) :--

ob~Svtr'rovOea8whyiv i1 rpoo-roty. The passage JOcvov86&. . Tv 8& OcEtL is quoted 78rapcXe'-Oat a fragmentof Plutarch's lost treatise, by Stob. Ecl. Eth. p. 199, as .o re. tXLa rCpL4 The firstpart of ChapterXVIII is Epicurean. The passage T-v

from towhomit is ascribedbyGalen. seemstohavetakenthestory Posidonius, is herecontending de Plac.Hipp.etPlat.IV, 7,p. 418. Posidonius againstthe i ofgrief definition AtlrlEICAd a irpdopar'os givenbyChrysippus: KaKo rapovrlas theextract goes on (p. 417): Kai N0cL (p. 416). Aftersomeotherarguments TE E'ov &Opdws poO-rs7rrovrkjl7r7E1 b aE'ptyroV KalCC (sc. Posidonius), fLdr rwavy t oa'o i 8E Kal ovvev oO V Kal Xpovioav a'O78V ?tr[O-oT KptOewv, seV 8AwS d[o-rlrowu, r1 cs Kacr idos KVev, , 6Kal b ot, /LPbrdOos rpoev6rtze KOcMpI, TE 6' b

Kal TCWvraXativ 57r

TO ;rL 7rpay/LaoL /LfhW 7 70L

rapoValY

oo'

f tocw't-wqvf

ib oiov

rpoavadlrXTTELYVTE Kal

7SMev fj4qa 7C)M raph cavTrC Tb?

Adov

yEvJie-OOat

$ob6Xera8 lrpoEvirpOTzvrOV T'b I7rpa-yua v L40wdv irva roirLELOa Kal I Wsirpbs 877 yEvdSr/vo lrapovoL

XpOe*aL.

68 b Kal Tb ToO 'Avagaydpov7rpoeA77fPev vTaraOa,&s &pa TL'bs avayyetE TWS E7rEV,?OEI OV8rIbjy yervvoas, ICCLa eOpvdpvaTVb' iUV, E Mdha AavPTos aUT^ KaOeT77 Eurip. frg. Kal &s 'OVTO Xaf& V Evbpr[Grls Tb dv477a 'Tb OioEa relrol7Ke XAEyora: and frg.818. r TL IV 7T Xpdvqy K&P ai6dlaL 392 Nauck, Pa.TrrETralT& 7rdO~r roi ,KaKdV 'rt a TroYs ycEovEv'a, Kal 6 XplLIIlros 'v 7r 6ev'p replppraO<^v lEwa & r KaOt obE v Ir VravEal iaTros 61 Xpd4vt C-XA., and p. 420 8Obrv ?rs od ah taprTVpE, av'bs 6 Xpiarnrros 6oXooy7eL. L&ateuvora-s, 1 male KaTr&Spax6.

Cic. Tusc. III, I6: principio

(sc. Epicurei) praemeditareprehendunt

rerum futurarum. tionem esse 2 Cic.Tusc. III, 13, 28: Epicuroplacetopinionem mali aegritudinem id si sibiaccidisse in aliquodmaiusmalum, intueatur utquicumque natura, opineCf.ibid.15,32. in aegritudine. tur,sitcontinuo Posidoro-aK ibrCW aa rapEivwat7 T'v Xh;?rrlv. ydpdeh'ac 7Tpdocparov 0l-r S&36?'4 nius as citedabove. r

Plutarckh 7rept ebOv/ial.

149

is compared by Hirzel with Democr. frg. 54, &vogtov~srT o 0 much expressed(,yv oaVyEovrTEs, k8L/soT'At`o7. Epicurus EOXovoL ,V in paradoxical form. Seneca Epist. 24, 22, says: the same idea non minus eos qui mortem concupiscunt quam Epicurus obiurgat eos qui timent,et ait: "ridiculum est curreread mortem taedio uitae, cum genere uitae ut currendumad mortemesset effeceris." item alio loco dicit: "quid tam ridiculumquam adpetere mortem, cum uitam inquietam tibi fecerismetu mortis?"1 The rest of the chapter is Stoic2 in character,forit is taken up with an argument against the (Epicurean) doctrine that one should not think of unpleasant things. This part of the chapteris, however,not directed againstthe firstpart. ChapterXX resemblesin a generalway the last chapterof Sen. de Tranq. Up to this point both Plutarchand Seneca have givenprecepts forthe banishmentof care and trouble; now theyturnto the recommendationof joy and gayety. Hirzel, Hermes XIV, p. 354 ff.,discusses Seneca de Tranq., and showsthat a greatpart of thattreatiseis derived fromDemocritus rept 9Ovdl'as. There can be no doubt thatthisconclusionis correct. Seneca, who appears forthe most part as a Stoic, stands throughout thistreatiseupon Epicurean (or, more strictly, Democritean) ground, and when he cites Stoic authorities(I, Io; III, I ; VII, 2; XIV, 3), uses them merelyas illustrations. The points of resemblance betweenPlutarch'streatiseand thatof Seneca have been noticed above. Hirzel thinks that Plutarch opposes the doctrines of Democritus. This is certainlythe case in Chapter II, if the doctrine of absolute rest is properlyascribed to Democritus. But the passages cited above show that neitherDemocritus nor Epicurus really advanced any such doctrine. If the polemic againstthis doctrineis meant to be directedagainstDemocritus,it musthave been conceived by some 1 See Usener, Epicurea,p. 309f. See Posidonius,as quotedabove.

150

H

N. Fowler.

one who did not understandDemocritus; and that Panaetius was guiltyof such carelessnessis, even afterHirzel's explanation,hard to believe. It is, however,not true that Plutarch opposes Democritus throughouthis treatise. Grantingthat he does so in Chapter II, he does not in Chapter IV (see above), Chapters X, XI, XII, XIV, XVI,' XVII, XVIII, nor XX. These are the onlypassages in which traces of Democritus7rept 4 Ov/tas can be believed to exist.2 The restof the treatiseis mainlyStoic in character,but it is not so connected as to seem a systematicrevisionor reductionof one work by a previouswriter. Chapter IV is taken up again in Chapter VIII, and Stoic and Epicurean doctrines alternatewithoutpolemic. The whole is interspersedwith quotations fromvarious poets and anecdotes of philosophersand rulers. .That the poetic quotations are taken, not directlyfrom the works of the poets, but froma florilegium or common-placebook, is made clear by the recurrenceof the same lines in different places, as well as by the somewhatforced manner of their introduction. The same is doubtless true of the anecdotes, thoughperhapsnot to such an extent.3 The best known works on tranquillitywere doubtless those of Democritusand Panaetius rtp' CtEOvp'as. The firstof these furnished the greaterpart of the matterfor Seneca de Tranquillitate. Hirzel thinks the second is followed by Plutarch. But Seneca wrote in withoutdiscredit,followDemocritus or Latin, and could, therefore, any otherGreek writer. Plutarchwrote in Greek, and must,therefore,borrowwith discretion. I do not mean to say by this that Seneca was so entirelydependent upon his Greek originalas Cicero was, but merelythathe did not findit necessaryto borrow frequently froma varietyof sources in order to hide his own lack of originality. Plutarchcould hardlyfollowPanaetius as Seneca could Democritus, for any one who was interestedin cEOvutuaand could read Greek, 1 Unless the doctrinethatone should not thinkof unpleasantpossibilitiesbe in whichcase Seneca,ChapterXI, opposes him quite as ascribedto Democritus, strongly. 2 Hirzel does notexplicitlyascribeall thesepassagesto Democritus,but seems inclined to considerhim responsiblefor all the non-Stoicparts of Plutarch's treatise. 8 The books called Xpeat,as, forinstance,those of Hecato (frg. XX-XXIV, ed. Fowler), werecollectionsof such anecdotes.

Plutarch

rept

evovlt.ia.

' 15

would naturallybe acquainted with the work of Panaetius. It is naturalin the search for the sources of a treatise like this to look firstforothertreatiseson the same subject; but one mustbe on one's guard against relyingtoo implicitlyupon titles. Democritus and and Chryci0vu'las,but Epicuruswrote Panaetiuswrote flowv, r-cp8 r-cp, and in both of these works there must have been sippus7rcp ~i-aeOv, sectionstreatingof the means by which a calm and happy life may be attained. The same is trueof otherworksknownby othertitles.' We have seen thatPlutarchtook his quotations and anecdotes from collectionsof such matters,and collectionsof philosophicaldoctrines are well knownto have existed.2 Stobaeus' florilegiumand eclogae consist of selections from various writers,arranged under heads accordingto theircontents. The extent to which this sort of compilation was carried cannot be accurately determined,but it must have been greatlyin vogue long before the time of Plutarch. In Plutarch'sown writingsethical doctrinesrecur (e.g. Chapter III) in fromone another,and it is not unreasonformsbut slightlydifferent able to suppose that he who turned to common-place books for quotationsand anecdotes obtained his ethical doctrinesfromsimilar sources. Not that Plutarch had not read Plato and otherphilosohe did not need phers,but in writinga treatiselike that r-cp'E;cOvtlas to have recourseto them. He could turn more easily to his book of selections (which he himselfmay have made or at least added to), wherehe could find underthe headings e;0vuta, lrvapat'a, X'1ir, and the like, all the materialhe needed. Then forhis introduction and his last chapterhe only needed to adapt the correspondingparts of Democritus'7rcpt E;vvptas,and the workwas done. That thiswas his methodPlutarchhimselfseems to say in the opening sectionof this treatise,and the examinationof his work confirmshis words. In spite of this the truthremains,thatmuch of the material of Plutarch'streatisebelongs in the firstinstance to Democritus,but that does not show the direct use 'of Democritus by Plutarch,but only the influencewhichthe firstgreatwriteron cE'vutlaexerted over all subsequentwriterson the same subject. 01Kcs 8tard~EWsand 7repl raO.v, 1 e.g. CrantorEpl w rEvOovs,Sphaerusrepl "rTis Cleanthesand Hecato irepl&pErawv, etc. 2 Such as those of Aetius and Arius Didymus,treatedby Diels, Doxographi Graeci,

152

H. N. Fowler.

The results of this examinationare mainly negative. Only in a few instances has it been possible to find any indication of the origin of Plutarch's words or doctrines; but something has been accomplished if a little light has been thrownupon the method he pursued.

VITRUVIANA. BY GEORGE M. RICHARDSON.

POLLIO, whose treatise De architectura, inscribed Augustus, must from internal evidence1 have been written about 14 B.C.,has characterized his work on the grammatical side in an apology of his own: I. I, 17 peto, Caesar, et a te et ab is qui ea volumina sunt lecturi, ut si quid parum ad regulam ards gramma/cae fuerit explicatum zgnoscatur. namque non u/i summus philosophus nec rhetor disertus nec grammaticus summis ra/jonibus artis exercitatus sed ut architectus his litteris imbutus haec nisus sum scribere. Some anomalies of syntax and style, noted in reading Vitruvius, I propose to indicate in this paper. They are mainly vulgar, colloquial expressions such as an unpractised literary hand would be likely to use.

VITRUVIUS to

The limitative use of the preposition a, ab, though doubtless common in every-day language, is rare in literature and mainly confined to those prime sources of vulgar Latin, Plautus and Cicero's Letters, e.g. Plaut. Truc. 47 bis periit amator, ab re atque ab animo simul. Vitruvius has this example: I. , 17 cum ergo talia ingenia ab naturahl sollertia non passim cunctis gen/ibus sed paucis viris habere concedatur, ... peto e. q. s. Some interesting instances of the descriptive use of cum are seen in the following passages, where cum with a noun has the force of an adjective or adverb: I. 2, 5 decor autem est emendatus operis aspectus proba/is rebus compositi cum auctoritate; ib. 6 si enim interiora prospectus habuerint elegantes, aditus autem humiles et inhonestos, non erunt cum decore; ib. 7 ita eficietur udt ex natura loci maiores auctasque cum dignitate divinitas excipziatopiniones; lb. 8 distributio autem est copiarum locique commoda dispensatio farcaque in operi1 Cf. Teuffel, R6m. Lit.4 p. 575-

George 3M. Richardson.

154

bus sumptus cum ratione temperatio,; III. I, 4 ergo si ita natlura composuit corpus hominis uti proportionibus membra ad summam figuradionem eius respondeant, cum causa constituisse videntur andiqui ut e. q. s. Aliter repeated with a distributive force is not uncommon, but in this instance the phrase, with atque as its connective, has a peculiar turn: I. I, 7 incursibus enim et circumitionibus et librata planitie expressionibus spiritus naturales aliter atque aliter fiunt (aliter nunc, aliter nunc). " Das kopulative nec wird durch folgende Negation nicht aufgehoben, sondern verstairkt,aber nur in der alten Sprache mit Nachahmung bei Apuleius u. Gellius, z. B. 17, 21, 35 neque 4aud longe post und in der pleb. Sprache des Petron." 1 I add an example from Vitruvius: I. I, 14 nec tamen non tantum architecti non possunt in omnibus rebus habere summum effectum, sed etiam ipsi qui privatim proprietates tenent ar/lum non efficiunt/ ut habeant omnes summum laudis princi.atum. Oppido, in Quintilian's time (VIII. 3, 25) already antiquated, was a purely vulgar word. Vitruvius has it four times followed by quam : I. 3, 7 aquatiles autem piscium naturae quod temperatae sunt a calido plurimoque et aeris et terreni sunt compositae sed umoris habent oppido quam paulum, quo minus habent e principlis umoris in corpore, facilius in umoreperdurant, e. q. s. ; VII. Praef. 14 et ideo maxime quod animadver/i in ea re ab Graecis volumina plura edita, ab nostris oppido quam pauca; VIII. 3, i i admiscetur ei fonticulus oppido quam parvulus; IX. (2), 2 cum (luna) praeteriens vadat ad orientis caeli partes, relaxari ab impelu solis extremumque eius partem candentiae oppido quam tenui linea ad terrain mittere splendorem et ita ex eo earn secundam vocari. The preference of certain writers for certain words is a familiar fact. Vitruvius' favorite is the somewhat cumbersome quemadmodum, which he uses in all one hundred and eighteen times. I have grouped the examples as follows, beginning with the ordinary relative use of the word, where it introduces a clause. I. 4, I2 1

Schmalz, Handb. d. Alt.-Wiss. II, p. 304-

Vitruviana.

155

item in Apulia oppidum Salpia vetus, quod Diomedes ab Troia rediens constituit sive quemadmodum nonnulli scripserunt Elpias Rhodius, in eiusmodi locis fuerat conlocatum e. q. s.; II. praef., 5 itaque quemadmodum ab his sum institutus exponam ; 8, 20; 9, 13; III. I, 7; 2, 2 (bis) ; ib. i i; 3, 3 (bis) ; IV. 3, 3; V. praef., I; 9, 6; 12, 3; ib. 6; VI. I, 2 ; 4, 6; 8, i ; VII. praef., 3; ib. 6; VIII. 3, IX. 4, 12; ib. 14; X. 6, 12; 8, 3; 19, 7; ib. 8; 21, 1. Num20; ber of examples: 28. In the following passages there is an adverb, or adverbial phrase, corresponding to quemadmodum, e.g. ita : I. 4, 8 ergo si haec ita videntur quemadmodum proposuimus e. q. s. ; II. 6, 3 videtur esse certum ab ignis vehementia e lofo terraque quemadmodum in fornacibus ex calce, ita ex his ereptum esse liquorem ; 8, 13 ; IV. 2, 4 ; 3, 6 ; V. 3, 3; 9, 4; 11, 2; X. 4, 5. Number of examples: 9. In these examples we have sic: II. praef., 3 itaque quemadmodum formationem puto probandam sic iudico locum inprobandum; IV. 2, 5; et quemadmodum mutuli cantheriorum proiecturaeferunt imaginem, sic in ionicis denticuli ex proiecturis asserum habent imitationem ; VII. praef., 4; ib. I7; 2, 2; 3, 9; IX. 9, io; X. 8,9; 11, 4. Number of examples: 9. In one instance we have etiam : IX. Praef. (2) ea autem ratio quemadmodumin multis rebus et mensuris est utilis, etiam in aedificiis scalarum aedifcationibus u/i temperalas habeant graduum libradones est expedita. In one, item : III. i, 3 non minus quemadmodum schema rotundationis in corpore eficitur, item quadrata designatio in ea invenietur. Eodem modo occurs once: X. 15, 5 namque quemadmodum vectis cum est longitudine pedum V, quod onus IIII hominibus ex/ollit, id cum est X duobus elevat, eodem modo bracchia quo longiora sunt mollius, quo breviora durius ducuntur. Eadem ratione once: VI. i, 11 quemadmodum enim lovis stella inter Mardts ferven/issimam et Saturni frigidissimam media currens temperatur, eadem ratione Italia inter sep/entrionalem meridianamque ab utraque parte mixtionibus temperatas et invictas habet laudes. Furthermore quemadmodum introduces an illustrative clause and means "for example" : I. , 5 quemadmodum si quis statuas marmoreas muliebres stolatas, quae caryatides dicunturpro columnis in opere statuerit et insuper mutulos et coronas conlocarent, percontantibus ita reddet rationem ; 6, I quemadmodum in insula Lesbo oppi-

156

George M. Richardson.

dum Mytilene magniftcenter est aedificatum et eleganter sedpositum non prudenter; VI. 2, 2; IX. 4, 15; X. 8, 2; ib. 5. Number of examples: 6. In the following examples quemadmodum introduces a single word or phrase with an ellipsis of the verbal idea: I. I, 13 non enim debet nec potest esse architectus grammaticus uti fuit Aristarchus, sed non agrammatos, nec musicus ut Aristoxenus, sed non amusos . . . nec plastes quemadmodum Myron seu Polyclitus; 5, 3 turnm in crassitudine perpetuae taleae oleagineae ustilatae quam creberrimae instruantur, uti utraeque muri frontes inter se, quemadmodumfibulis, his taleis conligatae aeternam habeantfirmitatem ; ib. 7; II. , 6 ; 2, 4; 7, 3; III. 1,3; (2), 3 (bis) ; 3,3; VI. I1I, 8; VII. 6; ii, I;VIII. 7, 5; ib. I3; IX. 3, I5 ; 8, 2; 9, II; X. 8, 7; 15, 3; 16, 2; 19, 7; Intwo cases ad eundem 21, I ; ib. 6; 22, 6. No. of examples : 25. modum corresponds to quemadmodum : IV. 6, 3 sin autem ionico genere futura erunt, lumen altum ad eundem modum quemadmodum in doricis fieri videtur; ib. 4 hyperthyra autem ad eundem modum componantur quemadmodum in doricis, pro ratis partibus. Once we have sic: VII. praef., 17 id vero si marmoreum fuisset, ut haberet quemadmodum ab arte subtilitatem sic ab magntifcentia et inpensis auctoritatem, in primis et summis operibus nominaretur. I conclude with the interrogative use of the word. It stands in this sense in thirty-three passages: I. I, 14 ergo si in singulis doctrinis singuli artifices neque omnes sedpauci aevo perpetuo nobilitatem vix sunt consecuti, quemadmodumpotest archilectus, ... non id izsum mirum et magnum facere ne quid ex his indigeat ... 6, 12; II. ib. ib. III. ; ; praef., 6, 3; 2, 13; (5), 8; 117; 5; 9, 15 I i, 9 (bis) ; IV. 2, I; 6, 6; V. 11, I; 12, 7; VI. , 12; 8, I; 9,7; 1o, 7; I1, 8 (bis); ib. Io; VIII. praef., 4; IX. praef., 4; 3, i8; 4, 13; X. 1, 5; 7, I; 9, I; 14, 7; 7, 9; 19, I; 22, i. Quemadmodumcumque stands once as an indefinite relative: IX. (6), 3 de naturalibus autem rebus Thales Milesius, Anaxagoras Clazomenius. . . rationes, quibus eae res natura rerum gubernarentur, quemadmodum cumque effectus habeant excogitatas reliquerunt. The repetition in the apodosis of the word which in the protasis forms the conditional particle is a survival by way of correlation from the days of parataxis. Compare even in modern German: Schiller,

Vitruviana.

157

W. Tell, 198 (4, 3) So du Gerechtzgkeit von Himmel hofest, so erzeig sie uns.1 Says Schmalz,2" Das mit deiktischem ce aus si entstandene sic korrespondiert mit si erst seit Horaz z. B. ep. i, 7, 69 sic ignovisse putato, si cenas hodie mecum (ist aber vielleicht die urpriingliche Konstruktion = "so du heute mit mir speisest, so darfst du glauben "). Vitruvius affords this instance: I. 2, 7 naturalis autem decor sic erit, siprimum omnibus templis saluberrimae regiones aquarumque fontes in his locis idonei eligentur in quibus fana constituantur, deinde e. q. s. The use of ut with the subjunctive in wishes, exhortations, and commands is especially interesting, as showing clearly the origin of its use in final clauses, which were originally paratactically expressed. This use of ut was practically confined to familiar discourse. For examples see Dahl, "Die Latein. Part. Ut," pp. 293-295, to which may be added: C. I. L. I. 196 haice utei in coventionid exdeicatis ne minus trinum nundinum. Vitruvius supplies these examples: I. i, 3 et ut litteratus sit, peritus graphidos, eruditus geometria, historias comnpluresnoverit, ... astrologiam caelique ra/iones cognitas habeat; VIII. 7, I si canalibus, ut structura fiat quam solidissima. In indirect questions originally the indicative was used, which gave place to the subjunctive, when the need of a more intimate connection of the two sentences was felt (Schmalz, Handb. d. Alt. Wiss. The indicative survived in vulgar speech, and in II., p. 316). Vitruvius we read: II. 6, 4 relinquetur desiderado, quoniam item sunt in Etruria ex aqua calida crebrifontes, quid ita non efiam ibi nascitur pulvis, e quo eadem ratione sub aqua structura solidescat; 8, I8 quoniam ergo explicata ratio, est quid ita in urbe prop/er necessitatem angustiarum non patiuntur esse latericios parietes, cum extra urbem opus erit his uti, sine vitio ad vetustatem sic erit faciendum ; 9, 17 insequitur animadversis quid ita quae in urbe supernas dicitur abies deterior est, quae infernas egregios in aedifciis ad diuturnitatem praestat usus; IV. 2, I ; VII. 5, 4; IX. 3, I18; 4, 13 ; 5, i. 1 Vernaleken Deutsche Syntax, II., p. 4232 Handb. d. klass. Altertums-Wiss. II., p. 357.

Richardson. M•. A rather uncommon use of the infinitive as predicate after esse is seen in this passage: II. 9, 15 ea autem materies quemadmodum sit inventa est causa cognoscere. 158

George

Putare in the sense of "intend" and taking a complementary infinitive stands once: II. i, 8 cum corpus architecturae scriberem, primo volumine putavi quibus eruditionibus et disciplinis esset ornata exponere finireque terminationibus eius species et e quibus esset nala dicere.

THE SOCIAL AND DOMESTIC

POSITION

OF WOMEN IN

ARISTOPHANES. BY HERMAN W. HALEY.

THE

objectofthispaperis to collectthepassagesinAristophanes

which bear upon the social and domestic position of women (except hetaerae) and to state brieflysome of the inferenceswhich maybe drawnfromthem. Statementsof otherauthorsand generally receivedopinionsare referredto onlyincidentally. The moreimportant passages are quoted at length; the others are merely cited. Meineke's text has been used for the extant plays; Kock's, in his "Comicorum AtticorumFragmenta,"Vol. I., forthe fragments. The testimonyof Aristophanesas to the life and manners of his time mustnot be accepted withoutimportantallowances. We must constantlyask to what extentthe poet was influencedby the wish to produce a comiceffect. It should also be kept in mind that he wrote chiefly- if not exclusively- fora male public, and that his fertile imaginationsometimes conceived scenes and situationswhich had only the semblance of reality. Yet his unhesitatingfranknessand freedomof expression make him an extremelyvaluable authority; and he abounds in incidental touches and "1side-lights"in which therecan be no intentionalmisrepresentation. POPULAR ESTIMATE OF WOMAN.

This question mustbe treatedwithspecial caution. It would not be safe, perhaps, to inferthat any single passage in Aristophanes embodies the common estimateof women,or even the poet's own opinion about them; but the consensusof a large numberof passages showsconclusivelythatin the time of Aristophanesthe popular estimate of woman was a low one. Women'sEstimate of Themselves. Especiallystrikingare the passages in whichwomen are representedas depreciatingtheirown sex. For example take Lys. 8-11 :

Herman

i6o A.

W. Haley.

W"'KaXovbcq mTVv Kap&'av, KqaO/JXL Ka&VrOX Vrrp yVVatKCoW 7lA"tV T(i JxOouat,

0TL7 7raph Fev ToLt av3pLtv

vEvoElAtLcOa

Jvat 7rzavovpyoL, K. Kai yap i6o-1 vqi a.

Similaris Lys. 42-5 : T a' V yVVaL^KEf 43PVL4PLOV pyaca4lEPa

7 Xaa~rirpo'v, at KaO7/0E'ieav6LOtLEaL, KPOKWT1L 4jopovcrauKat KEKaXXonTLctLEvat Kat Kt1A/3pt'K Opco-Tda'&aKa 7rcEpt/8apl18a3

Cf. also Lys. 3I; 137-9; 1124; Thesm. 371; 531-2. Doubtless in writingthus Aristophaneswas influencedby the fact that he was composing for a male audience. Women in real life would probably not have spoken so disparaginglyof themselves. But surelyhe would not have used such language unless theywere actuallyinclined to put a low estimateon theirown sex. A certain is necessaryto comiceffect. degreeof verisimilitude Yet Aristophanesdoes not by any means representwomenas altogetherdevoid of self-respect. The ladies in the Thesmophoriazusae (520 seqq.) show a very natural indignationafter listeningto the audacious speech of Mnesilochus,and afterwardsmake a veryingenious but somewhatwhimsicaldefence of theirsex (785 seqq.). Men's Estimate of Women. There are not a fewpassages which express,or implyin general terms,a low opinion of women on the part of the men. The best examplesare Lys. 8-11, alreadyquoted, and Thesm. 786 seqq.: 3TO -VvatKEfOV4VXOVKaKa rtOXX KaL-Tot7tas TL1 &xyopcvet, an 7 7aV cT/LEVyKaKOV aVUPW7rTOLS Kdt ?/bWV ECTaTVaEraVTa, ft' X 1pEL80vdy & &pyaXEaXi?ry E7r6XcLo.

Cf. Lys. 261; o1014-15; 1037-9; Thesm. 737-8. Less definite are Av. 1639; Eq. o1056-7; perhaps Nub. 691-2. Influenceof Euripides. The plays of Euripides no doubt helped to forman unfavorableestimateof woman,though Aristophaneshas much exaggeratedtheireffect. In Thesm. 385 seqq. the severityof Euripides towardwomenand its supposed consequencesare described at length. Cf. Ran. o1049-55 ; 1079-82 ; Lys. 283 ; 368-9 ; Thesm. 81-6; 378-9 ; 466-70o 544-8; 1160-70, and indeed the entireplot of the play.

Position of Women in Aristophanes.

161

The Popular Estimate as exemplified in Aristophanes. We may also draw some inferencesas to the general estimationin which womenwere held fromthe light in which they are representedby Aristophaneshimself. His plays reflectthe sentimentsof the public forwhich he wrote as well as his own personal tastes and feelings. He would never have treatedwomenwithsuch severityif he had not been sure thathe would please his audience by so doing. We findwomen frequently representedas fond of drink. Cf. Lys. 113-4; 195-239; 395; 465-6; Thesm. 347-8; 556-7; 630-1; 689-759, especially the amusing outburstat 735:

WcEpoU'TaTaLY vvarLKE,W7rotWTa~at

vp 7raVToS mEV. tdsrxavwi4cvaL K7K Add Eccl. 44-5; 132-46; 227; 1118-22; P1. 644-6; 153-5; 737 ; 972.' They are oftenspoken of or representedas licentious. Cf. Ach. 1058-60; Nub. 51-2; o168-70; Pax 979-85 ; Av. 793-6; Lys.

23-5;

107-10;

125-147;

158-9;

212-5;

403-19;

705-60;

Thesm. 340-5 ; 476-501; 558-9 ; Eccl. 7-10; 225 ; 228; 693-701; 877-111- ; P1. 959-1o96. The passages wheretheyuse coarse language are exceedingly numerous. For instances of this, cf. Lys. 23-5 ; 59-60; 88-92; 107-10; 120 seqq.; 158-9 ; 227-32; 3623 ; 715 ; 742-57 ; 771; 800; 825-8; 1112-21 ; Eccl. 256-7; 884937. For their practice of deceiving their husbands with supposititiouschildren,cf.Thesm. 339-40; 407-9 ; 502-16; 564-5. They are also representedas accomplished liars and deceivers. Cf. Eccl. cf. 237-8; 528-46; Thesm. 483-5 ; 558-9. For theirsuperstition, Lys. 63-4 ; P1. 688-93; Thesm. 534. The factthatAristophanesventuredto draw such a picture of the women of his time showsnot onlythattheirstandardof moralitywas lower than that of the women of our day, but also that theywere viewed harshlyand unfavorably by men. WOMEN NOT THE EQUALS AND CONFIDANTES OF THEIR HUSBANDS.

In the historicperiod the wife occupied a much lower position than in earliertimes. She came to be regardednot as the peer and companion of her husband,but ratheras the managerof his house1 So Eupolis and Euripides: cf.Nub. 555; Thesm.393.

162

Herman W. Haley.

hold, respected,it is true,in her own separate sphere, but playing no importantpart in his personallife. Husband's Authorityover the Wife. There are manypassages in Aristophaneswhich illustratethe husband's authorityover the wife. The best is Lys. 507-20, which is undoubtedlya picture fromreal life. The wifewas obliged to bear in silence the miserycaused by the war (verse 509) ; if she venturedto ask the simplest question about public matters,herhusband roughlytold herto hold hertongue (514-5); if she undertook to remonstratewith him about some unwise measure, he angrilybade her tend to her spinningor she would catch it (519-20). Strepsiades indeed seems to have been to hint his wishes to his wife (Nub. 53-5) ; but, excepting compelled such unusualcases, the husbandmightgive his wifeordersand expect to be obeyed. Cf. Ach. 262; Av. 665-6; Thesm. 790; Eccl. 335-1 Passages like Pax 1329-31 ; Av. 1759-61 ; Lys. 873; 877-8; 883; 899; 904; 924 et al.; Eccl. 562-3 and the like,furnishless definite evidence, althoughtheyare spoken by a husbandto his wife. The husband could compel his wifeto submit by physical force, and sometimes by beating her. Cf. Lys. 160-2; 516; 519-20, P ( Frag. I o : TO, 7VVaZKEC, oVK p Tr&TL -'q KaKOtcnv 4xwootv

KcLoTroO LaVtpes.

The fearof being divorcedwas also an incentiveto obedience on the part of wives. Cf. Lys. 157. On the otherhand, when a wifewished to gain an end fromher and littleattentions(Vesp. husband,she eitherobtained it by flattery to him(Lys. herselfuncomfortable cf. Lys. 512), bymaking 610-2; her attractions of use or cf. Nub. 60-7), by personal (Lys. 164-5; 120-4 ; 149-54, cf. 46-8 ; 219-22 ; 551-4 ; 900-3 ; 931-2; 950-1, and indeed the whole plot of the play). Exceptions. Other evidence of the husband's authoritywill be givenin otherconnections. But thereare a fewapparentexceptions which require examination. In Nub. 60-7 we have an account of a wife's quarrel with her husband over the naming of their child, whichlasted untilthe matterwas settled by a compromise; but this 1 Ach. addressedare the wife and Ioo3-6 are also in point if the ,yuva-ces daughterofDicaeopolis,as Merrysupposes; but thisis notproved.

Position of Womenin Aristophanes.

163

was clearly a very unusual case. As we learn from 46 seqq., the wifewas a haughty,luxuriousdame fromthe city,belongingto the aristocraticand ancient familyof the Alcmaeonidae; she therefore naturallydespised her rustichusband,and treatedhim with an independence whichmost wiveswould not have dared to assume. The behaviorof Myrrhineto herhusband (Lys. 872-95 1, especially 873, 893, 896, 900-904) is also exceptional. She is acting under the directions of Lysistrata (839-41), and according to the plan agreed upon. The whole scene is imaginary,and not taken from real life. The same is true in part of the scene between Praxagora and Blepyrus(Eccl. 520-729, especially 520-49, 596). Praxagora has the governmentof the state to the just succeeded in transferring chosen herself has been and women, orpacrqyl'; it is natural,therewith unusual her boldness. Besides, this very to for fore, speak that in the ordinarystate of shows when studied, carefully scene, affairsthe man was master. Observe what questions Blepyrus puts to his wife about her absence, and his undisguised astonishmentat her answers(520 seqq.).

betweenHusband and Wife. The evidence Lack of Confidence

shows conclusivelythattherewas a lack of confidencebetweenhusband and wife. It will be seen later that the wife could not leave the house withoutarousingher husband'ssuspicions. It is clear from Lys. 507-20 thatmen were generallyunwillingto talkwiththeirwives about public affairs. This reticence was perhaps to be expected. But it is a strikingfactthat there is no instance in Aristophanesof a husband confidingto his wife any importantsecret or asking her advice about any contemplatedstep. This lack of confidence often became actual suspicion. Frag. 187, 7rTaoLL k evo" vTpoi7ov yvvawL$vEoo y"Ero) o(rEP 7rapoot MAOLX1 v'caO/cLVOs,

no doubt expressed exactlythe belief of many Athenian husbands. Hence theytook precautionslike those described in Thesm. 395404; 414-8; where, however,there is probablysome comic exaggeration. Lack of Conjugal Affection. Expressions of a husband's affection forhis wife or of her love for him are noticeablyrare in the Aris-

164

Herman

W. Haley.

tophanicplays. Those whichdo occur, e.g. Lys. 99 seqq.; 710o-8o0; 853-60; 865-71; 872; 885-8; 905; 918-9; 950, when taken in connectionwiththe contextpoint chieflyto sensual love. Passages likeAch. 132; Pax 1325; Av.368; P1.249-51 proveonlythatthe husbandwas interestedin the wife as a memberof his household, but show no strongpersonal affection. Cf. Ran. 586-8; P1. 11o3-6, where the wife is similarlymentioned as a part of the household. Nub. 1445 shows only the horrorwhich a son's beating his own motherwould naturallyexcite in the father'smind. (Cf. Ran. 149.) It does not implythat Strepsiades felt any stronglove forhis wife as such. Evidences of Domestic Unhappiness. Passages which point to occasional domestic unhappiness are Nub. 41 seqq.; Lys. 260-I; Eccl. 323-6; Frag. 588, and the passages regardingadultery,which will be cited elsewhere. Ach. 816-7; Pax 1i38; Thesm. 289-90 also suggest a lack of love and respectbetweenhusband and wife. The evidence of Aristophanesconfirmsthe usual viewthatconjugal affectionwas rare among the Athenians. Yet it is hard to believe that the poet who drew such a picture of home life as that in Pax 1127-58 did not see the brighterside of the marriagerelation. WOMEN NOT ALLOWED TO APPEAR IN PUBLIC

BUT CONFINED TO THE

HOUSE. Athenianwomen were strictlyexcluded frompublic affairs. Cf. Av. 828-31; Lys. 492-6 1o (especially 499-500; 503; 507-29); 128; 132 626-9; 649-51; Eccl. 110-310o (especially II-2o; seqq.; 240-44). Women of the betterclass were not even allowed to appear in public except on certain special occasions, and were not permittedto associate withmen unless theywere near relatives. As will be seen, women enjoyed a certain degree of liberty; but in IOJioS, generalthe words of Calonice (Lys. 16), 7rroL yvvatLKv XaXer were strictlytrue. Restrainton Unmarried Women. Maidens were closely confined to the gynaeconitis,and were expected to behave quietlyand demurely. Thus the women in Lys. 473-5 say: dOXoyA

o(0EpL Oreol /rL'&V' toKPOv"WV3, Xv7rov-a , KLVOikTLa jVEaEW

Kpl7 8c Kpfoo. KKaO?.ct&L,

Position of Womenin Aristophanes.

165

It is noticeablethatAristophanesseldom representsyoungwomen as speaking. The girlsof the Megarian in the Acharnensesand of Trygaeusin the Pax are children not fullygrown. Eccl. 884-1042 is not to be taken into account,as the girlwho appears there is an hetaera. Besides, this scene is supposed to occur afterthe women have become rulersof the state,and so have gained greaterliberty. The daughterof Dicaeopolis speaks two verses (Ach. 245-6) when assistingat the celebration of the Rural Dionysia. These are the only cases in the extant plays where young women speak on the stage,if we except the goddess Iris, who speaks in Av. I202 seqq. If we exclude slaves and members of choruses,the only other instanceswhereyoungwomenappear on the stage are Pax 520-728; 819-91io; 1316-5 7; Av. 1720 seqq. But Opora, Theoria and Basileia are not mortalwomen,and Opora and Basileia are brides accompanyingtheirrespectivebridegrooms. Probablyit was not easy for the poet to bringunmarriedgirlsupon the stage,because in real life it was consideredimproperforthemto be seen out of doors. Married women,old womenand rrdpvat appear more frequently. Not onlywere girlsconfinedto the house, but theywere watched by their parents and even by their brothers(Thesm. 405-6). We may conclude fromLys. 593 that even unmarriedwomen who had passed their prime were quite closely confined to the women's apartments. Libertyof UnmarriedWomenon ReligiousOccasions. Yet maidens sometimesappeared in public on special occasions, particularlyat certainfestivals. Thus a girl of noble family,when between seven and eleven years of age, mightbe chosen one of the App~bo'pot.1 When ten yearsold, she mightbe one of the &XCrp[l8c2 who ground the meal forthe sacrificeto Athena&pXydre'L.3 At the Brauronia, whichfestivalwas celebratedeveryfiveyearsin the deme of Brauron I

On the Arrhephoriaor Ersephoria,cf. Schol. on Lys. 642; Etymol.Mag.

149, 13; Harpocration s.v. appr7pope'W;Pausanias I. 27, 3. 2 Schol. on Lys. 643: yifovraL5 -rETvs rd6v -ye-yovuiw &eTplses E elsriv OueaCvIrdrava aohieo, iacl toTLV OEiot afslrver prVTL/ovrov7o.

eTn trap7.j Cf. Eusta-

thius1885,9. 3 The Schol. on is Artemisor Demeter; but in Lys. 644 saysthat' apX-yE-'rs Atticinscriptions the titleis givento Athena. Cf.C. I. G. 476; 477; 2155; 666 (in addendis).

Herman W. Haley.

166

in honorof Artemis, chosenAthenian maidensbetweenfiveand ten yearsold wentin processionto the templeof the goddess,wearing a propitiatory saffron-colored robes,and thereperformed rite,imiwhence women were called also they tatingbears, apKToL.1 Young as a took partin religiousprocessions canephori, carrying (7rojural) were sacredutensilsor offerings. basket(Kavo^v)containing They carried and sometimes richlydressedand woregoldenornaments,2 in a stringof driedfigs. These variousfunctions are enumerated Lys. 641-7 :

~'E.L

EVOV /pprloCpOVW 1LWV E Vfl YE77o ,' o'' 9,9

KT AE7OVOL

7TOVKpOKWTOVapKTO7

pfpavpWVLoLS

x XovoU K&Kav7 )copovv 7TOToUVaVra KaXq 'SXw3ov 'petao'v.

in the phallicproThe daughter of Dicaeopolisactsas Kavrlo'pos is celebrating theRuralDionysia. Cf.Ach. cessionwhenherfather 242-66; 253-60. Therewerecanephorialso in the sacredprocessionswhichwentout to Eleusis in honorof Demeter. Theywere followedby attendants bearingsun-shadesand stools.3 It is clear fromRan. 409-13 and 444-6 thatthereweregirlsas well as men in theEleusinian and womenamongthe mystaeor personsinitiated to in the and thattheyjoined procession the templeand mysteries, the arrivalin Eleusis." We tookpartin the7TravvvXtL whichfollowed maidensdancedin honor that from Thesm. infer 101-3 mayperhaps of theXOvLa O8r,Demeterand Persephone. Libertyof UnmarriedWomenon Secular Occasions. Girlswere toexcitethecompassion intocourtbytheirparents sometimes brought excluded of thedicasts. Cf.Vesp. 568-73. Theywerenotentirely fromthe societyof theirown sex, as is clear fromEq. I300-15, as a groupof womentalking wherethe triremesare personified a and maiden together (v. 1306) speaks. Comparealso Nub. 530-I, 1 Cf. Schol. on Lys. 645, and Suidas s.v. &pKros. For theirtoilette,cf.Lys. 1188-94and Schol. on 1195; also Eccl. 732.

2

Pa b a'rrLdalov, ro d r? rcLa'5Cov KaraKeCvl roVrb KalleaLat sre& 'EAevautpa brep 70o4v-

8 Cf. Av. 1508, where the Schol. says: 5sep

XovocL ate Kav?7r6pot

arro0vaL

and 1550-52 with the Schol.: 'ra-s y&p oaKds5meovKal 8ppov iav0dpots i CAKoAovOeL 4 Cf Ran. oss'Xovoa. 371, and Kock's noteon 316 seqq.

jlxov;

Position of Womenin Aristophanes.

i67

where an unmarriedgirl exposes her child and anothergirl comes like the preceding,yet and takes it up. This passage is figurative, both no doubt contain a picture of real life. But in spite of these exceptionsthe restraintupon unmarriedgirlswas clearlyverystrong. Restraint upon Married Women. The questionas to the degree of libertyenjoyed by marriedwomen is a more difficultone. The evidence of Aristophanesshowsthat it was much greaterthansome authoritieswould have us believe. Among the higher class etiquette forbade a woman to pass the thresholdof the house withoutsome imperativereason fordoing so. the word which to To stay at home was an element in of all female virtues. Even the Attic mind representedthe sum,awpoo-v'V,1 the ,oLXEVI'/jcvaL merely peeped out of the frontdoor and yvvaZKEc the with passers-by,drawingback if anyone gave attention coquetted to themand peeping out again when he wentaway. Cf. Pax 979-85. The portresswas liable to punishmentif she opened the door secretly (Vesp. 768). Women of the better class did not like to be seen lookingout of the window,as we learn fromThesm. 797-9: E&&Oat 7 Krv4KOvplGS KaKVT r7TEdTE " 7rapaKv'rV7J)V, 7roX /A O7r As Svet Kv aTXvVO"d'dvaXwpry', ov av tsrT' KaIKVTRapaKa^/vI 1iWv. The pressureof domesticdutiesrenderedit hard forwomen to go out. Thus we read in Lys. 16-9: o08o9. rotyvvaLKWv Xa7rT yap EKV7rTcWEV, 7q/LWV 1 77 lERV rpl TovJ~vSp /Se & 7=860V S' O'KETJVvfl'LPEV, KaTEKXLVEV, 77S XOVOEIV, ; S' ?O'quacv.

The difficulty was increased by the jealous care of theirhusbands. Cf. Thesm. 789-94: Tt yaELOBZ/AcE.L~s, ELTEP &x?102s EUi8KaKOV

v,

Karaoe Mam'veqr',o1 Kt Enp iAr7/8 Xp Carirvv XaL)pT', V SOeov wItroPeE VETXjVOV. 8 KaTECXapC 'pofov vT KaKoVKaK/

1 Cf.Lys. 508.

I68

HermanW Haley.

Even the easy-goingBlepyrus is vexed when his wife goes out with-

out his knowledge(Eccl.

311-2;

323-6; 335-8), and questions

her sharplyon her return(520-50). The precautionswhich husbands sometimesadopted are described in Thesm. 414-7: ELMa&tL TOV^TOVrag Y-VVaLKOVLTLcTLV KfU/_LXX0V' u/paytoas TrL/aXMovovtLv ?*782

-/laP,KaUL /7XOOTTLKOV9 T7rpo0VVTES 7Trpo0t Kv'ag.1 TrpCovatL /Aop/LoXvKcla T0'OILoOLXo0'

When women leftthe house withoutpermission(except in certain cases, to be mentionedhereafter),it was generallyby stealth,without the knowledgeof theirhusbands,and oftenundercover of the dark. Cf. Lys. 72 ; Thesm. 478-89 ; 792 ; Eccl. 33-5 1; 287-8 (cf. 478503); 311-9; 323-6; 335-50; 510-3; 520 seqq.2 If the husband awoke or detected his wife, she quieted him by some false excuse. Cf. Thesm. 483-5 ; Eccl. 520-51. The house is frequentlyspoken of as the sphere in which the wife regularlylived and moved. Thus in Lys. 260-I the old men say of the women:

aex yVVaKaS, % OTKOKV KaT OLKOV 9.LcavEcKaKOv.

a Cf. the women's oath (Lys. 217), OKOL0 ~' apWTI TOV Wlov. cVpT Similarare Lys. 149 ; 510o; 866, and passages whichwill be cited withreferenceto women's duties.3 It followsalmost as a matterof course fromwhat has been said thatmen, except near relatives,were excluded fromthe gynaeconitis. We do not find any instance where men visit openly the wives of other men,4or enter the women's apartmentof any house except 1 But G611 (Charikles, Vol. III. p. 332) is no doubt right in supposing that there is a good deal of comic exaggeration in this passage. Such precautions could not have been usual, or even common. 2 The women in the Ecclesiazusae had, of course, an additional motive for secrecy because they ventured to attend the ecclesia at great risk of punishment fromthe state. 3 Women of the better class are never mentioned as present at the men's banquets or symposia. P1. 613-5 simply refers to sumptuous living, not to the banquets of the men. But hetaerae, dancing-girls,etc., were frequentlypresent at the men's feasts. Cf. Ach. 1091-3; Vesp. 1342 seqq.; Ran. 513-5 et al. 4 Very curious is Frag. 451: a 8? -yvvala v 1?v4qcw

es C77TroUJ'Er

e'Oa

elvai rap& ore.

iKOcpEp,

Positionof Womenin Aristoplianes.

169

their own. Even such a case as P1. 249-5I, where Chremylus invites the god in to see his wife and children,is clearly exceptional. The wife while busy about her household duties must sometimes have seen men who came to visit her husband and have heard them talk, but only incidentally. It was perhaps in this way that women gained some knowledge of public matters. Eccl. Cf. Lys. 510-I; 517; cf. II26; 137-43. Liberty of Afarried Women on Religious Occasions. Married women attended and took part in numerousfestivals,and on such occasions enjoyed considerable freedom. The most importantof the women's festivalswas the Thesmophoria.' This was celebrated entirelyby women, men being carefullyexcluded. Cf. Thesm. 91-2; 184-92; 204-5 ; 575-687, and indeed the entireplot of the play. If a man was caught intruding, he was severelypunished. Cf. Thesm. 930-44; iooi seqq. Slaves (Thesm. 293-4) and unmarriedwomen (cf. 619) were not admitted. The restraintupon women was much relaxed during the Thesmophoria; but the assemblyand debate of the women in the Thesmophoriazusaeare purelyan inventionof the poet. They lived in tents or booths duringa part of the festival(Thesm. 658; 796), and had tent-mates(624). They sometimesbecame tired and fell asleep in others'quarters,and thentheirhusbandswentabout among the tents and searchedforthem (Thesm. 795-6). The crowdof womenassembled at the festivalwas verylarge (Thesm. 280-1). Women were also admittedto the Eleusinianmysteries(Ran. 157 ; 444), and some of themrode on wagons in the great procession to Eleusis (P1. o1013). Anotherfestivalin whichwomen took part was the Scira, celebratedin Pyanepsion in honorof Athena Sciras (Eccl. 18; 59). Wives of men prominentin the state had the privilegeof It is the onlyextantfragment of the lnoircrLs. We maysuppose eitherthat the had been takenaway,like Elphynin thePax, and thatthespeaker goddess olotprls and his companionshad come in searchof her: or possiblyAristophanesrepresented loh5o-sas his ownwife,who had strayedawayfromhome and forwhom he was searchingwhen he spoke the wordsin the fragment.Cf.Thesm. 795-6. It is well knownthatin the Cratinuspersonified as his ownwife. IUrIivt Kwt~qopa Cf. Schol. on Eq. 4oo. Either of thesehypotheses would accountforthe unusual situationin the fragment. 1 For a fullaccountof this festival, vid. Schimann,GriechischeAlterthiimer, Vol. II. p. 482 (3d edition).

170

Herman

W Haley.

occupyingfrontseats at this festivaland at the Stenia.1 Cf. Thesm. 834 seqq. Married womenwere present,at least as spectators,at the Rural Dionysia. Cf. Ach. 245-6; 262. Women took part in the Panathenaic festival,and the wives of meticsacted as S&tpofo'pot in the procession. Cf. Eccl. 734; 738. and i8pta4go'pot Besides these greatfestivalstherewere manyless importantfeasts and ceremonies in whichwomen took part. They celebrated noisy orgiesin honorof Pan.2 They had a special cult of Aphroditeat the promontoryof Colias where women of loose character resorted.3 They worshipped the same goddess with lascivious rites under the name of Genetyllis. They also celebrated the Adonia, a festival whichbegan withmourningover the death of Adonis and ended with noisyrejoicingsoverhis returnto life. It was a timeof greatlicense, as is clear fromLys. 389-97. The festivalis also mentionedin Pax 420. Atticwomen did not at home engage5 in wild Bacchic orgies such as are referredto in Nub. 603-6 and Lys. I284; but it may be inferredfromLys. 16 and 388 that theyhad separate feastsof their own in honor of Bacchus. They used drums (T'vprava) in the worship of Bacchus and Cybele (Lys. 3; 388). Women visited the A woman sometimes shrine of Aesculapius (P1. 674; 688-93). held a private feast in honor of Hecate and invited her female friends (Lys. 700-3). In Lys. 63-4 a woman is mentioned as having inquired at the shrine of Hecate, which probablystood not A woman comes bringing far from the door (cf. Vesp. 805). KaTaXv;TaL7Ta to pour over Plutus in honor of his recovering his

An old woman walks in a procession eyesight (P1. 768 seqq.). carryingthe pots with which the statue of Plutus is to be consecrated (P1. 1197-1207). Attendanceof Womenat the Theatre. Aristophanessupplies considerable evidence that Athenianwomen sometimes attended the 1 The Schol. on Thesm. 834 regardsthe Stenia as a festivaldistinctfromthe Thesmophoria. 2 Lys. 2 and Schol. 3 Lys. 2 and Schol. Cf.Nub. 52. 4 Lys. 2 and Schol.; Nub. 52; Thesm. 130o. 5 Cf. Sch6mann,Vol. II. p. 503. , 6 The Schol. on this verse observes: Kal yppwoXXhs eoprhAs al yuvaces , yov iILa aUVepX4EUYOaL. 7"'V 8rllO7reACV

Qo

Position of Womenin Aristophalnes.

171

theatre. It is not certain just how much importanceought to be attached to Frag. 472, X KvOov T7V

ie7r7aKOTv7X OVI, T7IV XVpEV,

tv ?7v ECOpd6,u-vW,

OLLL

T7N

cyK7qV,

-VvOcarptav,

forwe have not the context. More satisfactory is Ran. zo49 seqq., which showsthatwomenwere presentat tragedies:

E.

KaLTL V aL e3oLL av8piw a; (o AtXLV o,,EV ,wXE& rTv /ka-TO,T A. onLyerwata KatycvvatVv OXd ov SaaV8pOv s aO B &vraeoras a toUv rL toV cXXpO dVTar. aoa

KOIvELra

TOvOU6

We cannot suppose thatthe plays of Euripides would have produced such a powerfuleffectupon the minds of the women if theyhad not witnessed them in person.' But the attendance of women at the presentationof tragedieswas not invariable,as is clear fromThesm. 395 seqq., wherethe husbandsare said to come home and view their wiveswithsuspicion and search the house forconcealed adulterers afterhearingthe plays of Euripides. Whetherwomenwere present also when comedieswere performedis more doubtful. The evidence of Aristophanesseems to be againstthe supposition. There are two passages whichappear to point to the absence of womenwhen the Aristophanicplays were represented. In Av. 793-6 we read: rTe oL0xcv(OVL TLuV oTZTWaOngT YdVay, El /OVXEVTLKW, VVat TOV vY VpC v,,oV T7 KUpT UaLKO" rap' Vuwvv OVTOS To aVvarTXW 7TTr~vy7o'a vrTT ELTa /3vrqal

EKELOeiv aieV taL

Kia9E4To.

This clearlyimpliesthatwomen of the higherclasses were not present in the audience. Add Pax 962-7: T.

KaL TO'1 OEaraRL p"t7TE TOV KpLOOjV.

0.

t80V.

T. w eye ~F j oKa7876;0. iv 'EIOqEpvz TOVTmWy OOL7Trp

CTL TOjVvEWOLEWY

OVOEL1 3OTL3OVKpWrjY OV;ETrLV ~EL. T. o Xat y' 0. &XA' dlsonepav yvvaKEsavspES. aov. SwoTcwtLYauTaZs Some, like Benndorf,have inferredfromthispassage thatthe women sat in the theatreat a considerabledistance fromthe stage. But it clearlyimplies that therewere no womenamong the Oed~pvoL.The 1 Cf.the Schol. on /74Sola Eccl. 22: 6 S '4up64,Laxos &-or-e ris ae'lorra'ro c al r&SE7alpas Xwp yvva&iasKal TOU'SidapS XWPIS KaE'aCe'aO r 7iw Jv AEvOepw.

172

Herman

W. Haley.

women are mentioned simply to give opportunityfor a low joke turningon the double meaningof the word KpL0'. There are otherfactswhichtend to confirmthisview. It is noteworthythat in several passages men and childrenare mentionedas the audience, but neverwomen. Cf. Pax 50-2: constituting

Eyo) TO XoyovyeT-OYL7=aLo6L KatTmOLv K(L p &'poLOL 'lpaYdLV rTOOL

KatTot fparO). av8pCaYLV Vs7EpTaToLroLV Cf. also Eccl. 146, KaXELsycpovra lEtLpaKLOV Nub. 539-40 7raLKov, and Pax 766. The audience are never addressed as women but only as men. Lys. o1049-5o has been twistedinto a supposed proof that there were women in the audience; but the words mean simply,"Let everyman and woman" (i.e. in the chorus,which is now composed of both sexes) "make the proclamation." On the otherhand, the address of the chorus of women to the men in Thesm. 785 seqq. is apparentlyto the audience as a whole. Rai. I iI3-4, where it is said of the audience: oo'TpaTEV/JcVOL "yap do'L,

T EXWVEa /8L/3XLOV

Ta pxwsavoveSL

m',

cannotbe meant to include women. It is noticeable that there are no personal jests on womenwhich point themout as present among the spectators; no deicticjests as we mightcall them,such as Pax 883-5 ; P1. 8oo; Nub. Io99-IIoI, and the like. Anotherfactwhichis oftenoverlookedis the strongly political characterof manyof the comedies. The parabases especially often contain political addresses and arguments. Now as womenwere carefullyexcluded fromparticipationin, and even from knowledge of, public affairs,it does not seem probable that plays so stronglypolitical were intended for an audience of which they formeda part. The evidence of Aristophanes,though not decisive, appears then,on thewhole,to justifythe conclusionthatwomenwere presentat the performanceof tragediesbut not 6f comedies. Marriage and Burial. Women enjoyed a considerabledegree of freedom in connexion with the various ceremonies of marriage. IrL Frag. 142, TvOvv L'ov, ya OipaS ArOSXEVOr

r~iyZEpov,

o1v

,4

Position of Women in Aristophanes.

173

is spoken by a bride to a formeradmirer on her marriage-day. the context is lost, so that we cannot tell how the Unfortunately scene was motived. In Ach. io56 seqq. the bridesmaid (vva?cirpta) brings a message fromthe bride to Dicaeopolis. In marriageprocessions the bride rode in a carriagewiththe bridegroom1; she was dressed in costly attire,2wore a chaplet,3and was perfumed.4 No doubt otherwomen beside the bride were present at the marriagefeastin Pax 1305 seqq., and formedpart of the marriageprocessions in Pax 1316 seqq. and Av. 1721 seqq.; but we have no direct evidence of thisin the text.5 Women had also theirpart in the ceremonies of burial. Thus a woman kneaded the honey-cakewhichwas given to the dead. Cf. Lys. 6oi. Women attendedto the layingout of the body (,rpohcOEs). Thus Lysistratasays to the rrpopovXos (Lys. 6I1 ) : p~5v ~yKaXEZW t r cE; The process is described in Eccl. 1030 seqq., obXL nrpov0/w,9'Ocowherethe youngman says to the old woman: v7rrocYrodpeavvv 7rpOTa 7'

( optyavov,

KatKX-"//la' VroOov vyKXacao-a Tr&Tapa, T Xrl/KVOVS, O KatratvLmoat Kat7rapaaov vRTOSaTE KarTOovro'7TpaKOV7rp T7 Ov'pas. Cf. Eccl. 536-8, whereBlepyrussays to Praxagora: &aJ' ep aroSoao- 6rt3LaLXovoa roVyKvKXOV cXOV KaTaXL7TrovTO OrrEpEt WrpOKEL/LVOV, /Ldvovoo o8~' ?rleto XaXiKVOOV. crec avaOa'

Women seem to have preparedthe sacrificialmeal whichwas offered on the thirdday. Cf. Lys. 612-3, whereLysistratasays:

X' s rplTrrlvV yo1vpav ,pay o rrp 7rrvv

sToqjv 7rt 7rap"

Ta TplT E7rcoeKevaoYLeva.

Libertyof Womenon Secular Occasions. There was a numerous class of women at Athenswho,thoughgenuineacrat, were compelled 1 Cf. Schol. on Av. 1737 and on Pax 1340. P1. 530 and Schol. S Cf. Schol. on Pax 869 and on Av. i6o. 4 Cf. Pl. 529. 6 Av. such as was sung 1731 seqq. is called by the scholiastan epithalamium, by maidensbeforethe door of the thalamos. Women must be includedin the appeal in Pax 1317, (xp?) 7rdv7aAeiv KO7XOpe6keW. 2

rVyxalpEL

Herman

174

W.

Haley.

by povertyto go abroad and ply a trade forsupport. Such were many of the AprorAXLs8e (Vesp. 1387 seqq.; Lys. 457; Ran. 858 ; cf. Vesp. 238); the (Eccl. 841); the 0rTc4avordXtS~s avpo7rdXLS~ the 45 7 ; 562 ; P1. 427); the ixXa(Lys. 446); (Thesm. ; the (Vesp. 497 ; Thesm. 387 ; Lys. (Lys. 564)XEKLiord.XLSe~ XaXavorrXLE SorrdXLes (cf. the humorouscompound in Lys. 457); 456); the KopoSordAXLSS the KarrrqXtes (P1. 435; 1120; Thesm. 347); the 7rpoavrj'rptat(Nub. (Lys. 746) ; the trLTa'(Eq. 715 seqq.; Thesm. 609 ; 41); the pttZaL the rravSothe Lys. 958); ao-rporrot(Thesm. 558; cf. II72 seqq.); the and Ran. perhaps Y-vKodbcVTptaL 114; Lys. 458), KEcYrTLL(P1. 426; (P1. 970). They are representedas appearing in public in several comes to serve of the plays. Thus in Vesp. 1387-1414 an aprorwOXt a summonson Philocleon fordamage done to the bread in her stall, In Thesm. 446 seqq. the and takes Chaerephon for her KXrrqTjp.

says: a~r~aV&OrrwOXL'

'v yap dvvp ie KiErpO 7'~OavEv ILot TE'VTe KaraXLt7r(v, ayw M/o'XLs

7raLtq3Lc

o-TcavqrXoKoxoc' /3poaoKoviv Ta^L /JvpplvaLts. Tes 1ev Ovv cXXa iELLKaKjs /o3KTOrlV

iv

t 7icTa 7roL&v 'pay8tlaL elvatOEOV; OVK vSpas oLKV avar7ewev TOvS W0T .utV. O;VO 1t/ oL7TOAWLEoV OVKET" ~ p vSpa~atv V Settd &a' El rcEL dayopav VV V" OV'TO1

7TXedaLorEaivovs

aO-aVVO7/aLUUOVS LKhOELV.

Cf. also the two rav8oK0Erptatin Ran. 549-78 (who are, however, metics,as is clear from569) ; and Vesp. 497. Women of this class are not very favorablyrepresentedby Aristophanes. They are a stout and sturdyset (Lys. 456-60), excel in abuse and "rail like fisherwomen"(Lys. 460; Ran. 857-8; P1. 426-8; cf. Vesp. 1396 seqq. and Ran. 571-8), are fondof cheating,especiallythe KaMrrrXCS~s (P1. 435-6; cf.Thesm. 347-8 and Eccl. 153-5), and the occupations of some of them, e.g. the XaXavo7r1oXLS~e (Ach. 478; Eq. 19; Ran. Thesm. 387; 455-6; 90I), are considered degrading. 840; 947; In Ran. 1349-5 1 a womanof the poorerclass is described as spinning a skein of linen threadin orderto carryit earlyin the morningto the 1 The Schol. on Pax 535 says: Kal r7'dAwElpivos otms ar yuvarKEsha4'ws eis This no doubt applies chieflyto areKdal aveoAoyovrtv.

TrolS cypobs EpX'ora

and the like. OavowrcA~es

Position of Womenin Aristophanes.

175

agora to sell it. The women of the poorer classes also went to the springforwater. The scene is vividlydescribedin Lys. 327 seqq.: Women of allclasses seem to have been associatea permittedto where Lysistrataand her neighbor KaCalonice comeKaout and converse, SovX?

EV27 (RTLV(0o017L

AipaaLcEv TratutLvCeIML &)/LOTLYLV KaOpLmvYLa

/O?)0~. 0povo' r~&op

a as is IncRan. 1361 seqq. wtheman represented going to search a house for stolen neighbor's property. Women of all classes seem to have been permittedto associate quite freelywithpersonsof theirown sex. Scenes like Lys. 5 seqq., where Lysistrataand her neighborCalonice come out and converse, cannot have been uncommon. In Eq. 1300 seqq. the triremesare personifiedas a group of women conversing. Women lend to one another povats(Eccl. 446-9) ; theyinvite theirfemale friends ptvassometimes withouttheir husband's to a lunch, permission (Eccl. 348-9, wherethisis spoken of as a verynaturalthing; cf. Lys. 7004), and go out to assist women in child-bed (Eccl. 528 seqq.). Passages like Lys. 13 and 1oo7, though theyrelate to an imaginary occurrence,neverthelessimplyconsiderablefreedomof communication among the women of Greece; otherwisetheywould be absurd and meaningless. Women were of course obliged to have some dealings with the familyslaves. This libertywas often abused (Thesm. 491; Frag. 695). Slaves1 were used as a meansof communication. Cf.Thesm. From them also, their mistressesprocured information 340-42. about what was going on. Cf. Pl. 644-770, where the lady listens to the storyof the slave Carion. The Athenian man spent a great deal of his time away from home; and this gave some marriedwomen an opportunityto receive lovers into the house secretly. The precautions mentioned in Thesm. 414-7 were not always employed,or theyproved unsuccessful. Cf. Av. 793-6; Thesm. 395-7; 491-6; Eccl. 225. Even 1 Therewerealso pimps(aarpovrol) whoactedas go-betweens. Cf.Thesm.

558-9.

Herman

176

W.

Haley.

when the husband was at home,' the wife sometimes contrivedto slip out to her paramourwithoutbeing detected (Thesm. 479-89; cf. Eccl. 522-6). If the husband came home unexpectedly,she enabled her lover to escape by trickslike that described in Thesm. 499-501. It would appear fromLys. 403-20 that the men sometimes connived at their wives' receivinglovers at home and even aided themto do so. Women knew also how to take advantage of theirhusbands' absence forotherpurposes. Cf. Eccl. 62-4. Pax 1144-5 shows that in the country,where the bounds of etiquette were less strictlydefined than in the city,a man might occasionally say a fewwords to a neighbor's wife withoutfear of her husband. offending The old womenseem to have enjoyed much more freedomthan the younger ones. It is noteworthythat they do much speaking in the plays, e.g. Lys. 797-800; 821-8; Thesm. 852-935 (cf. 896); Eccl. 877-1097. Especially strikingis P1. 959-1094, which is probably true to real life. The old woman comes to the house of a man who is not her husband, and is on the point of calling some one out (964) when Chremylushimself comes out, whereupon she converseswithhim forsome time. She has a younglover2 (975 seqq.) and sends him presents3and messages (995-6), goes to see him evenings(997-8), and receives visits fromhim (1046; 1 ProbablyFrag. 18: A. yivac, TTi )4bIopfdv TrJ

' KlMXLKa Ka-ai3Ei3A?1KEY.

B. a'cKrpvIYw aO'; A. oWCovad -Ye,

refersto a situationof thiskind. The lovercomesand taps at the door,or possiblymakesa noisesomewherein the house. The husbandhearsit,and asks his wifewhatit is thatmade the noise. She is readywiththe usual lie, and answers that it was the hen. The husband,having perhaps an inklingof the truth, ye. This would make a verycomic situation. Cobet supresponds oridov& posed thatthehusbandhearda noiseand senthis wifeto see whatwas the cause ofit,and thaton herreturnhe asked her,ydval,7i-b oqacrav WoO'.Kock agrees withhim,and thinksthat thisviewis provedby the word aoipaav. But this is the case, forthe aoristparticiplesimplyshows that the noise had not necessarily ceased beforethe questionwas asked. The husbandlistensa moment,and then resemblesThesm.479-85. strikingly questionshis wife. The fragment 2 The vice here satirizedprevailedeven in the timeof Solon. Cf. Plutarch Solon,20oad fin. 3 Cf.Thesm.345; perhapsFrag. 25,

Position of Womenin Aristophanes.

177

Old women of the lower class (the ypast8a KoXocrvpTroZ, P1. sometimes took advantage of theirlibertyto ply the trade of 536) procuresses. Cf. Thesm. 558; and also i i6o seqq., in which scene Euripides outwitsthe Scythianby disguisinghimselfas an old woman of thissort. i2o0).

DOMESTIC

OF WOMEN.

DUTIES

The WifeMistressand StewardessoftheHouse. The wifestood next in authorityto her husband in the home, and withinher own sphere she was mistressand head. In Lys. 894-5 Cinesias admits his wife's joint ownershipwith him in the household propertyby saying:

VOV ovLvra -h "'

Odq. T&h XetpovBSart

Kalth XpY7ara

The lady of the house gave her own orders to the servants. Cf. Ran. 1338-9; Thesm. 279; 280; 284-5 ; 293 (where Mnesilochus is imitatinga woman). She waked them in the morning(Lys. i8), and sat by and kept thembusy at theirwork(P1. 533). This supervision was of course chieflyexercisedover the femaleslaves. The wifewas the stewardessof the household and kept the keys of the storerooms. The words i?rrlporos and ra~Letcvctvare used of her in thisconnexion. Thus Lysistrataasks (Lys. 495) o

Kal 7'TVoV

I/Actsc

XJ)Loat7araWraWoo

In Thesm. 418-20 a woman complains:

Ta/GvqO$cV vt.Lv

A KaLr XaOCLiv arratat TLCoTaL poapoowaLs C ~TL aXL\4rovlXaLov o vOV, o

Trav

EOkT"LV.

In Eccl. 2IO-2 Praxagoraargues thus:

,rasyapyvvaLr r4oq/LLXpl7vaLtL mq'v7-oXLvt ?)/LAa 7apaoVoVaL. Kal yap Cv TaLs OLKL'ats

KatTcqLLaLOL TavrLVCTL7=TpOIrOLS Xp jueEa.

Cf. Pax 1144, where a man tells a housewifeto bring out and prepare some food. The women sometimes took advantage of their access to the storeroomsto help themselvessecretlyto provisions, especiallywine. Cf. Eccl. 14-5 ; Thesm. 418-20 ; 556-9 ; 812-3. To preventthis the men sometimeskept the keys themselvesand

178

Herman

W. Haley.

even sealed1 the doors of the storerooms(Thesm. 421 seqq.). But as it was easy forthe women to obtain fac-similesof ordinaryseals, theirhusbandswere obliged to use those of a veryintricatepattern, whichwere hard to counterfeit(Thesm. 424-8). There were some husbands who looked very sharplyafter household affairsand did not leave them to their wives, as appears fromRan. 980-8. But both this passage and the one cited just beforeit probablycontain a good deal of exaggeration. In both passages the increased caution of the husbandsis attributedto the influenceof Euripides. Care of Children. The childrenremainedunder the care of their mothersduringthe firstyears of theirlife,the boys untilold enough to begin theirstudiesat school,the girlsuntiltheirmarriage. Often, however, children were placed under the care of nurses (LTratl). Cf. Eq. 715-8; Thesm. 609; Lys. 958. This was the usual custom among the well-to-doclasses. But in some cases the mothercared forthe child herself,gave it the breast (Lys. 88i ; Thesm. 691) or fed it with morsels(quJlt'aZcLv, Lys. 19; Thesm. 692; cf. Eq. 715-8 forthe process), bathed it (Lys. ig; 881) and put it to bed (Lys. thatthe fathersometimesgave the child the It is noteworthy 19). we should care which expect fromthe mother. Cf. Nub. 1380-5. like the wife of Strepsiades thoughtit dames Probably high-born beneath theirdignityto take care of theirchildrenthemselves. They sometimespetted and spoiled their sons. Cf. Nub. 68-70, where the motheris described as pettingher son and fosteringhis aristocratic tendencies. We may remarkin passing thatGreek children seem to have felt a high degree of affectionand respect for their mother,while to ill-treather in any way was considered a crime of peculiar heinousness. Cf. the proverbin Ach. 730; also Nub. 1444 seqq.; Ran. 149. Cooking. In general the mistressof the house did not do the cooking herself,but the female slaves did it under her superintendence. "Chefs " were rare until a comparativelylate period. We must not suppose, however,that the housewifewas idle during the preparationof the meal, and no doubt she sometimesassisted in person in cooking the food. In Ach. 100oo3-6Dicaeopolis, who is in greathaste, exclaims: 1 For thisuse ofseals,cf.Lys. I 195-1201.

Position of Women in Aristophanes. W

S7ra8E

yvUlOKCE

OVK

179

KovOcraLTc;

0'EXKCTE 4va/3pcTTc , 7oErTLaT TpE'7"MT Ta XaypaTaXEO') &VqcpTe. 1TOVS .7TC4aOXV . Some commentators, e.g. Merry,suppose that wa'8s~e is addressed to the servantsand w"yvairKC to the wife and daughterof Dicaeopolis. But it is not certainthat7vva7LKcin thispassage implies any and the word may refermerely more respect or affectionthan to thefemale servants. Even if-raZ6tE, Merryis right,it is possible thatonly the last part of the command,roVsOrEcfXoVoavcElpET,was intended forthe yvvaiKrs. Ran. 504-I i proves nothing,forthe goddess would not do the cooking herself,except in the sense that"1quifacit per alium facit per se." Baking bread (verse 505) was especially a thingwhichshe would not be likelyto do in person. Eq. i i68 seqq. is mere burlesque. But in Pax II144-5, which describes a rustic scene, the farmertells his neighbor'swife:

In Eccl.

cT- xv car-wV(wyvvaL \X TrpSlXOvLKas, lA"EVE K $XE. TawTr TVpO)V ,i4ovaJTOLS TEqKOJV TWV V

221-3, we are told that women and 'ppfyovrtv Kac&j'vat 7rrTovU 7ov ro 7rXaKogvrasas of old. Cf. Eccl. 845, which,however,

describesthe preparationsfora feastunder the new orderof things., There were women who made a business of cooking and selling but certain kinds of victuals,e.g. the AprorwAt8ESand XCKELOorOtLSE8; these belonged to the lowerclasses. Prep.arationof Wool. The manufactureof clothing fromwool was one of the most importantof women's functions. In Lys. 574 seqq. is given a verycomplete picture of all the processes whichthe wool passed throughin its change fromthe raw fleece to the completed garment:

LEVXPJqV, iTOKov ivfXAavdO( 7pWTrov T1?V OLa7rLv~1V, "7TEp K TqS 7rO6XEO ?Tl KXLI'V7

fKTXv'vavTas

Kal EKpa/ELv TOV1 9LoXO,7pokv arokT rpldXoved.roXEVaL,

9TOUTOVS aUvTOv Kat70o 7rTLXovvrav yE KacT70o 7fVLUTTa/AVOV1

OLn* irt Talt &pXaiL6t OaL jOVat KEqs KOLtqV a7rOTvAaL JITa $?aELV E91KaXacL&aTKOVKOLV-qV CVVooiV &iavraVT,

1 Cf.alsoVesp.6io, wherethewifebrings inorder herhusband a barley-cake himoutof histhreeobols. Women's dishes is mentioned in towheedle breaking Thesm.401-2; cf,Vesp, 435,

180

Herman

W. Haley.

I 7 EVOS7OtXoSLJL/LV, sKEL 7LTo cE KTa7aLLyovrvT o70KOv Kat T"eTOV1 EyKata/lLaL TL~ O4)EX? Tc SO(TL( KLv1/ AlaTG 'yE 7XEXL, '7ro(aL'7 '1 ELY a 7rOLKOL,

KEt

&LayLyl/(aKtKELv 5tL TraVO7k j//.LW(Owprap T&

d'y/Aa~

KELaL

T EKTTaov K*ialoTV 7oTWV 7TLVTwV TO KcL7a-y/AaXafloYTQ Se~PO VYwyeLv Kcat OVVcpOLS eLv ds El&, KcLTaeLea 7TOLr L XWPI)

T KT EKra '-qLrW^ XXaLvav vq4nvaL. ToXV,7TV LEYX~vV, T,7a

The different stages of the manufactureseem to have been as follows. First the fleece was washed in the washing-house(paXa('K-XV'vew) In this operation hot vmiov)to cleanse it from filth waterwas used. Cf. Eccl. 215-7(oiw,rnw').' : 7rpJara lEv yap TapLa TpXaOov 2 OEp/lvKa7a ToV /LaWrTOVO

vO6/ov

w7raewaoaL.

The fleecewas next spread3 on the bench or table (KXivr)and beaten withrods (AapIfl&ew) to free it fromimpuritiesclingingto the hairs, and the burrs(rTpI'oXoL) were picked out. The matted portions4of the wool were then separated (StLaat~'av), and the ends of the hairs

were plucked clean (rTs KEqaXak~ This last phrase may sror7XaL). referto the process of pulling offmatted balls of hair,grease, etc., whichclung to ends of the hairs and were not sufficiently removed by mere washingand beating. These balls would resemble heads in 1 Schol. on Lys. 575:

70o ippouv

ziros o rcdrrW X*yera.

Wool uncleansed

and withthe greasestillin it was said to be (Ach. II77). 2 This word mayalso mean dye,and oneoo-avrrpdv mightbe temptedto take it in that sense; but the Schol. explainsit by wA'rovai. Besides, dyeingwas more frethan by women. Thus in Lys. 51 Calonice says quentlydone by men Id notBd4'w. (Bae-s) *otiaa, 3 There is perhapsan allusionto this part of the processin Lys. 732, where the woman says that she will return r icAfs K el Idvov, i.e. after itaerdoaa' spreadingout the wool on the table to dryin readinessforbeating. Cf.Nub. 343:

~' ov'v

t revrra/AevowiL. The sight of wool spread out on the

eplor musthave been a familiarone. Wool was liable to be damagedby cocks if icAliYeaOLv the womenleftit lyingunwatched(Lys. 896); also by moths(Lys. 729-30,from whichpassage it also appears that Milesianwool was especiallyprized). Other passagesrelatingto wool are Av. 714,wherethe springshearingis mentioned(cf. OaL is used metaphorically);also Ran. 1386-7,where the Lys. 685, where 7werTa tricksofwool-sellers are described.

4 Schol. on Lys. 578: T'v 7~p Jptwvof ,~4a ol aXovL Ths iopvhips WrevrX.ltcEas 5raA1cra 6 M AAds; also r7Ts IKE4CaAds -(s rTh&KCpaT 'V EpIwV. I'rv r'ThqOo

Kal

Position of Womenin Aristophanes.

ISI

shape. Such may oftenbe seen on uncleansed fleecesat the present day. Next came the carding (?alv'vv),to whichthere are frequent references. Cf. Eccl. 82-91 ; Lys. 535-6; 579; Frag. 717.1 The wool was carded into a basket called Cf. Lys. 579 ; 535 ; KLXaLOa0Kos. Thesm. 822. Both the washing and the carding2 were generally done by servants; but poor women no doubt prepared theirwool withtheirown hands,as is clear fromEccl. 82 seqq. Cf. Lys. 536, wherethe insultto the irppofovXos is heightenedby his being bidden to do workwhich properlybelonged only to people of a low class. In P1. I66 washingfleeces is mentionedby the slave along withthieving, sellingonions,and otherlow occupations. The differentflocks of wool were then united and (KaTayyaa)3 collected into a singleball or clew (roXi)rr-) ready forspinning. Spinning. One of the most importantof women's dutieswas spinning. The spinnerheld in herlefthand the distaff(pXaK'drV),round which the preparedwool or flax was fastened,while with her right she drew out the thread, at the end of which hung the spindle and spun it between her thumb and fore-finger, (aTpaKros), giving a rotarymotionto the spindle (aTpoKTov Ran. 1348; 1ELXto'ov07a XfpoLv, 4 rova cf. the expressionELcXlOrET 1KrVaXOLT ~rdXaayyelafr 7r7VYUtLarTa, used of spiders in an intentionallyabsurd passage, Ran. 1314-5). When the threadbecame snarled,the women disentangledit arvcEyEKE much as a modern KoZTratL roto-rv aTrpKTOL7 Tob/LV EV7TavL7o i2UE, knitteruses her knitting-needlesto disentanglesnarls in the yarn; cf. Lys. 567-70. The spun thread was called KXoar-Tp (Lys. 567; a termmore usually 571; Ran. 1349), sometimes aTrjwv (Lys. 519), applied to the warp as distinguishedfromthe woof (KxpO'K). Aris1

In Av. 827 Zavoi ev is used in a generalsense,includingnot onlythe cardof the peplus. Cf. ing but the spinningand otherprocessesin the manufacture Blaydes'snote ad loc. 2 It shouldbe notedthatcardingwool is veryhardlabor. At thepresent day it is done eitherby machinery or by strongmen. Hence the delicatewomen of the upperclasseswouldnaturally shrinkfromit.

3 So the Schol. who defines Kardyayara as Karao-7rcAjuara rc-Pvpitov,i.e. the flocks or slivers of wool into which the tangled mass of hairs is drawn out by the

card. Bliimner, and less probable explaTechnologie,I. p. io6, givesa different nation of the word Kdray-ya,makingit meanthe wool drawnfromthe distaff but stillunspun. Cf.Bliimner, ibid.I. 107 if.; also Marquardt,Privatlebender ROimer, II. 501.

Herman

182

W Haley.

tophanesgave the name Oarrjtvi~otepvosto fine thread.' The word forspinningis vedv(Lys. 519). Probablythe spinningwas done chieflyby female slaves, but the mistresssometimes"took a hand " in it herself. Cf. Lys. 519; 567 seqq.; especiallyRan. 1346 seqq., where a woman in moderate circumstancesbut stillrichenoughto have femaleservantsis represented as spinningflaxin order to sell the thread. Weaving. Much more frequentare referencesto weaving2(ZQat'yvev),whichwas perhaps the most importantdutyof the housewife. Aristophanesdoes not mentionthe loom (a1r~-s)except in the phrase (Ran. 1315), applied to the spider's web.3 We Lr?Tr7ova7rV7VrJvlTra in Nub. have, however, 53-5 a clear indication that in his time the loom upright (lo-Tr' pLOs) had not yet been entirelydiscarded by the women in favorof the horizontalloom; forthe cra~rc, the flat, heavywooden blade withwhichthe threadsof the woof were beaten close (w-raO&v) so as to make the cloth of close texture,was used onlywiththe uprightloom ; whereaswith the horizontalloom the comb (KrdEs) was employed. Parts of the loom are mentioned several times. The KEpKt"; is referredto in Av. 831 as an implement Cleisthenes. used but employedby the effeminate bywomen, properly The exact range of significaCf. Ran. 1316, KrpKtos0 &doL80peXuwcVas.

tion of the word KcpK ; is uncertain; but in Ran. 1316 it seems to mean a shuttle,and the epithet &oL3oi must refer to its well-known 1 Pollux VII. 32.

2 Cf.Bliimner,ibid. I. 12o ff.;Marquardt,ibid. II. 500 ff. 8 rl7vl ara are probablythe threadsof thewoofwhichwerecoiledroundthe bobbin(7rfvliov). Cf. Hesychiusand Suidas s.v.7rPviov; Marquardt,Privatleben der Rmer, II. 509. SMarquardt,ibid. II. 505; Bliimner,Technologie,I. I376 Marquardt(Privatlebender R6mer,II. 508; cf. Rich, Dict. of Greek and Roman Antiquities, 1881,s.v. radius) thinksthattheword denotes not onlythe but also the long,needle-shapedrod (radius), whichwas sometimesused shuttle, ofthewarp,and someto introducethe threadsofthewoofthroughtheinterstices timesto battenthe threadsclose. Accordingto Marquardtthe rod was used in the uprightloom,and the shuttlein the horizontalone. Bliimner(I. 134) is inclined to make KepKiCalways mean shuttle. But more probablythe word denoted the rod in earlytimesand laterwas applied also to the shuttle. 6 Yet the Schol. strangely understandsit of thewomensingingas theywove. He says: &oLo^" 7roj,r" l~ofrw orrEpacti 4vTptac &SrcV i& fepic3v yuvaies C- ,v -r^ 'ioveiv

"

Mcrap.v

Position of Women in Aristophanes.

183

sound. The shuttleand its bobbin (7r-'l'ov) must have come into use before the time of Aristophanes,forhe uses the words 7rqfVLr/Ja (Ran. 1315) and eOaL 1 (Ran. 578, where a woman is speakCKrrr1qV and the Kaviovare mentionedamong ing). In Thesm. 822 the is clear that theywere distinctfromone women's implements. It avt'ov another,but whattheywere is hard to say.2 The Kavwv in Thesm. 822 is probably the long, double-pointed rod (radius) with which the woofwas pushed throughthe warp. The referenceto the spearhandle (verse 825) is .then clear, forthe radius resembled a spear in shape. The may be the cloth-beam,or more probablythe &v'oV "heddle-rod " (liciatorium). The evidence that weaving was done by women,and by women

of thebetterclass,is abundant. As hasbeen seen,the KEpKL',

'VTL'OV and Kav'v are mentioned as implementsbelonging distinctively to women. In Thesm. 822 the chorus,who boast that theyhave never lost their &~vlo, Kaviv or are all free Athenianwomen. KaXaL'TKOL, In Nub. 53-5 Strepsiadesuses the figureof a weaverin orderto hint to his wife to be less extravagant. In Eccl. 556, when Praxagora is told that the state has been put into the hands of the women, she asks rt Spa-v; i'caLtvev; and in 654 she promises that in the new state the women shall weave 1iTru for the men. In Lys. 586 XXahvav vZfalveLv is the last step in the series of operationswhich the women performwith the wool. In Lys. 630 the old men say: &XXa'a"' 'vrlqvav Lju7 ~vpc irE its double 'in using 4alvw Tvpavv&'Xt, sense of "weave " and "contrive."

1 Explainedby the Schol. as roDr7lptov. equivalentto ZAiuev airwb 2 Rich thinksthat (Latin insubulum)means the " cloth-beam"at the Aurtov

top of the loom,aroundwhichthe clothwas rolledwhen it became longerthan the heightof the loom. Bliimnerthinksthat iKavcc, like Kavces, denotesthe "heddle-rods" (liciatoria) to whichthe leashes licia) werefastened;and (I'-rot, thata&rtovin earliertimeswas perhapsthe name of one of the "heddle-rods," whilelaterthe wordbecame exactlyequivalentto Kavcdv. See his elaboratenote, sometimesdenotes p. 130 of the"1Technologie." It seems probablethatiKawdv the "heddle-rod" and sometimesthe radius. The different meaningswere often confusedwithone another,and thisgave riseto great uncertainty about the true meaningof the word. Cf. Eustathius1328, 43. So far as the name goes, any straightrod or bar maybe called cKatv. 8 Other referencesto weavingare Vesp. 143-7; Av. 712; 943. In Thesm. 738 Mnesilochuscalls womenKcrKbKal ro-s arcvaptOLsS al7r iKpJ. The word cpdKcn maymean either"thread,"" woof,"or " cloth,"

184

Herman

W. Haley.

Workingin Flax. Women workedin flaxas well as wool. Thus in Lys. 735 seqq. a woman pretends thatshe wants to go home on account of some Amorgineflax which she has left unhackled,and promisesto come back as soon as she has cleaned it. In Ran. 1346 seqq. it is flax (Xt'vov)that the womanwas spinningin order to sell the thread. 1 Embroidering. References to embroideryare quite common in it women is but that was done scanty. We by Aristophanes, proof which was woven evidence that the of have, however, peplus Athena, it the Athenian had embroidered noble maidens, by upon figuresof These men 4LOLTO7 ir7rXov(Eq. 566; cf. II8o, and Av. 827). girlsmustthereforehave been taughtto embroider. OtherDuties of Women. As we have seen, women of the poorer classes went to the spring forwater(Lys. 327 seqq.) ; theycarried burdens on their heads (Eccl. 222) ; they sometimes turned the hand-mill,though this was generallydone by the slaves (cf. Nub. 1358). EDUCATION OF WOMEN.

The evidence of Aristophaneson thispoint is not veryabundant; yet it tends stronglyto prove that the amount of education which Athenianwomenof the betterclass received was veryslight. Knowledgeof theElements. Probablymostwomen received sufficient instructionin ra ypi/tparato aid them in theirdomestic economy. Praxagorais representedas well acquainted withthe alphabet (Eccl. 684-6). In Lys. 767 seqq. it is not certainfromthe context whetherLysistratareads the oracle or repeats it frommemory; but in Eccl. i oii seqq. the old woman clearlyreads the decree at the youngman's request. In Thesm. 432 a woman in concluding her speech says that she will have the restwrittenout withthe aid of the female clerk (r7i, ) of the assembly; and a woman named Lysilla is menypaljl.qarEW tioned as havingbeen clerkat a councilof women (verse 375). This is of course a burlesque; neverthelessit implies thata knowledgeof reading and writingwas not uncommon among Athenian women. 1 E.g. Eq. 967; Vesp. 475; 1215; Lys. 1189; Ran. 937-8; Pi. 1199. Cf. P1.

530 and Schol.

Position of Women in Aristophanes.

I85

Still it is noteworthy that there is no instancein Aristophanesof a or woman's writing receivinga letter. Of course the tradeswomen to keep theiraccounts. musthave been able to calculate sufficiently They also had some knowledgeof law. Cf.Vesp. 1387 seqq. Knowleage of Singingand Dancing. A knowledgeof singingand dancingseems to have been quite widelydiffusedamong the women. To say nothingof the numerousplaces in the Lysistrata, Thesmophoriazusae and Ecclesiazusae wherea chorusof women,or of men and women,sing and dance, even the poor womenwho ground barleyat the mill could sing (Nub. 1358). In Eccl. 893 seqq. (cf. 880-3; and again in 952 seqq. the 887) the ypavsand vEav'ssing alternately, and much too but vuavdas; importancemustnot be attachedto vcavea this fact,forthe women clearlybelong to the class of hetaerae. In Lys. 408-9 a husbandis said to tell the goldsmiththat his wife lost the pin of her necklace whiledancing at evening. Women danced at the festivalof Adonis (Lys. 392), and apparentlymaidens performeddances in honorof Ceres and Proserpine(Thesm. o101-3). Both womenand girlsshared in the songs and dances of the mystae (Ran. 324 seqq.: cf. 409 seqq.; 444). Women were sometimes introduced on the stage to dance the licentious "cordax" (Nub.

540; 555)'

Sources of Information. Women no doubt gained considerable information by listeningto the talk of the men. Cf. Lys. 513. They were in a mannereducated by hearingthe wordsof theirparentsand elders (Lys. 1126-7), though such instructionwas ratherincidental than intentional. They received a certain amount of intellectual trainingfrom hearing the tragedies at the theatre. Aristophanes even makes a younggirl speak familiarly of the tragedies of Euripides (Pax 146-8), thoughhe manifestly wishes to add to the humor of the scene by puttingthe words into the mouthof a child. But the women quote Euripides (Thesm. 390 seqq.), and throughout the Thesmophoriazusaetheirfamiliarity withhis plays is assumed. 1 The curious Spartan dance called 0IaarLsis referredto in Lys. 82. Cf. Pollux, IV. Io2. It was performedby persons of eithersex, and required strengthand enduranceratherthan skill, the object being to strikethe posteriors with the sole of the foot (7rko wrvyv hElO0at)

as many times as pos-

sible. The dances of Spartanyouthsand maidensare beautifully describedin

Lys. 30o8seqq.

186

Herman W Haley.

Ignorance of Public Life. Women's ignorance of public life and mattersbelongingto it is best illustratedby the amusingscene at the opening of the Ecclesiazusae, where the women meet to rehearse before going to the assembly. It is noteworthythat Aristophanes has made both Lysistrataand Praxagora assign a special reason for Eccl. 243-4), thus theirknowledge of public affairs(Lys. 1124-7; clearlymarkingboth cases as exceptional. Women of the higherclasses mustalso have been veryignorantof mattersof business. By the Attic law a woman could not make a contract involvingmore than the value of a bushel and a half of barley(Eccl. 1o25).' It would seem fromthisbrief surveyof the subject that the position of the Athenianwoman,thoughbetterthan is sometimesrepresented,was yet decidedlylower than that of the women of civilized nationsat the presentday. Still it had its redeemingfeatures,above all in the respect shownto the motherof childrenand the mistress of the home. I

764.

AttischeProcess,pp. 563, Cf.the Schol. ad loc.; also Meier and Schirmann,

NOTES.

4ravo

IN ALCMAN.

Schol. A, Iliad M I37 (on the word a;a) : &wso 4 fPleapw~ V?)TraL, KaLTpa0os K pLov, Kat TO•aO 0r ap Ka' 7 vaios C/3apvvCro, e7rd II Poet. HerodianTr

'AXKIUV&L.See

Lenz's Lyr. Graec., 4th ed., III p. 77.

I p. Iog,

p. 8i; Bergk's

Probably qtaiosis miswritten for 4aios = cdos. AtoXas, ipcitaL. 'PROXVMA FAENISICEI,'

Hesych. vaudvopom

CIL. I. i99.

In the inscriptional' Sententia Minuciorum,'I. 37, we read prata

quae fuerunt proxuma faenisicei L. Caecilio Q. Muucio cos. The

meaningis evidently 'last hay-cutting.' Mommsensupposeda femininefaenisex, of whichthis shouldbe the ablative(asfontei in line 7) : this I followedin my ' Remnants of Early Latin.' But it is impossible that faenisex should have had such an abstract meaning. We have ratherthe ablativeof a *faenisicies,the counterpartoffaenisicia. The spellingfaenisicei I am inclined to explainas a simple errorof the graver forfaenisicie. foprtKEVOC.&at, SCHOL.

ARIST.

c/

7rap'

RAN.

pVLXOo. •v J vv AL',•VUO•s Ppw•Xo, &aL', SOpT7KCVOELVOjV EOU CKraaTa Ve 7aTa KeWt/At

V d S Kal •ov, Eivopt'Sou KO•L-0OLS•8a W dXX3c tapuiX yow( Kat NKaKo/JTpa.

13.

TO on 70 KWtLKOVO /JVr7qTaL,

KaL

-t

STL

T7r •XW •'7 0OP'OlAO770V,

7ra7pos

,Kat

Compare Suidas s.v. A 0KL : Sc4pvVLXo~ 7VTa S KOalto•V evos, KoJpWOL8CLTaL KaaTra 4opTLKCVCT0 70 Kal ( &XXO'TpLa XCyoJvKaLO KaKo/ljcTpc. Ttfl/7oL&?Twv, 4KLavXoT1TqL

So the Scholiast. K(O/LwLtaL1 trap' O

That Phrynichus's plays contained S4opLKa is credible enough, but

the statement is beside the point here. Didymus'swords are evi-

Notes.

188

dently a paraphrase of verse 15 of the text,

o-KEc5

IpovO('

KrTTOT EV

Read f opr aKcVOUEvov, and correspondingly in Suidas C ,popTaO. There was a word bp'ra. ' porter.' Pollux VII 132:

KCCT

7 sc K rTOV") papas~ KOJtloJ8la rTOV XOpopOVVTaS tLCVrTOL raLXaLcaK " "opLov should disappear from our dictionaries. KaXCt. The verb 4boprLKCvOp/aL

apTrO)

IN THE HERACLEAN TABLES.

There is a passage in the Heraclean Tables, I 105 fig., which seems not yet rightly understood. The talk is of leasing the sacred lands of Dionysus. aXX)L7rcapIjvrTL rav yav, v Ka avTrot, Kata'l •vWKa , -A 3 L•.o•o'•WTo' Ta ()VT& rT &a Tra , PT

OOV

7/ yVoW ot 7apXa/SoVTS v a Kat 0

aL

rLKa P7rlaV,

4aVaa

Ol CK C7Tv (Tc& -q O

7 rCpE$/WwaL 71p0y-

-p qLEOLTaY E'7rLac=aprrtav,

apXas 'EcluOcr WUE"vo 1

Franz (CIG. III p. 708) and Meister (Curtius' Studien IV p. 436) take aprv' as 'exerceo,' 'bewirthschaften.' The translation would then be 'if they till the land for another,' and below 'those for whom he tills it.' Meister explains that three classes of sub-lessees are named: (I) sub-lessee in full, (2) sub-lessee for whom the lessee is to work the land "quasi villicus," and (3) man to whom crops are sold. By what process this sense can be got out of aprvo I cannot imagine; nor does the Hesychian gloss quoted by Meister, aprvOwva raafford much light. Rather the reference is to partnerpat•KEcvacLO-Vat, ship; the second class of sub-lessees are those with whom the lessee 'makes a compact' or ' goes shares' in the tillage of the land. apprv /LnltVKatL Hesych. SLapr"v's vra,;tL. rpQflarv. p7va"p &ap-T7-;is properly 'joining,' so 'agreement.' Thence apr7io 0?K)I. 'put together,' ' covenant,' ' arrange,' ' compound' a dish, etc. &prvTCp (' umpire' ?) was the title of a magistrate in Thera. ARISTOPHANES FROGS I80 FLG.

The manuscripts give us these verses in the following order: the distribution of the speeches wavers somewhat, but. is substantially as follows: -

Notes.

189

Dion. XPr27rodC Kat yEvvmSas. 180 XpO#P4.CvrtTOl 7rXoZov. Charon. oW'r, rapapaXoo. TE 7; ? Dion.2 TovTo; X1V?1 v taa. Xanth.1 rovrirL Xanth.3 aqryq 'c Tiv v Ka' 7 Xo0ov y opo. patc" '4viV

IvoHroE2,

KCaY1Ty'

b

w Xapw Xcpwv, Xacp' Xc^pwv,

XOpwOVOTro0oL.

p Xap'

183

X4apwv.

The older editors retained this order, distributing the words among the speakers as suited them. But v. I8o made difficulty. The boat is mentioned before it is seen. Charon's voice is heard by the spectators, but the actors pay no attention to it; afterwards Charon is espied and greeted. Then whom is Charon addressing? In 269 he commands the oarsman Dionysus 7rapa/paXor7TL but now he is KCor•wL, alone in his boat. Hamaker and others have thrown out verse i8o. Ritschl put it after 182. This removes a part of the trouble, but the repetition of becomes annoying (XompW/crv 7rXo^ov ..' avro would be the natural ceases to be the responsive asseverthing to say), and vq TIoyaewS rov ation which its position suggests; compare 276, 285, 295, Io67. Verse i8o should be put after I83,6 and the words o0r, 'rapaflaXoi should be given to Xanthias. The whole should read:-TOVrt 7 ETrTL;

SAN.

AIO. XP7Terre J KatyevvdSa&. . hIO. V Atla, 18I OV Y'pW. SAN. Kal roTXO

Toiro;Xlo;

q)v 4pate. avrT 'TTeV AIO. vq rvV IHIoo-E8, Ko-TLy'" Xpowv oTrootC SAN. ~Zr, Xwpwmv •ri7 roXoiov. r •rapcLpaXo0. AIO.

Xa*p'

X4apwv,Xacp'o X4pov, XaZp' Xpowv.

183 I8o 184

is huc apPelle. (O•I, as a KEXV a EpEcr7vrw v lIapapaXoio TrV K•a7a(Schol. Av. I395), must be distinguished from r~V•Kw•r•Xact'av the or Zoorir (208), proper, signal for rowing. EXarTLKOVY •i'•0yAea

7ravov

2 Xantk. R. R marks no change of speaker. RM mark no change. 4 V assigns this verse to Dion.; the other manuscriptsmark no change. r AU assign to Dion.; the others mark no change. 6 This order has been suggested, I see, by Roethe, Leipziger Studien, III p. 203. It is right so far as it goes, but does not meet the whole difficulty. 1

190 o

Notes. VI 57, ANDTHEVOTESOF THESPARTAN KINGS. HERODOTUS

Herodotus, in the 57th chapter of the 6th book, enumerates the rights and powers of the kings of Sparta; and has at the end a sentence which means, or has been interpreted to mean, that they cast or Senate. Thucydides I so, gives this two votes apiece in the yepov•la as a sample of popular errors in his time; and it is very probable that he had Herodotus in mind, inasmuch as the other wrong opinion which he adduces about the Pitanian lochos, is also to be found in Herodotus. As a matter of fact, we may rest assured that the kings did not have this two-ballot privilege: the question is, how we are to understand the passage of Herodotus. It is very conceivable that Herodotus should have made a wrong statement: it is also possible that he did not make it, but that Thucydides misunderstood him. We cannot therefore decide the question of Herodotus's meaning in advance, on a priori grounds. Herodotus's words are: 'v S~~t'X OwL (that is, if the kings are , absent from a meeting of the Senate) oTL T^OvyepdOov TO- JdXLaTr'd TwY TOa C9(ELV yepea, SVo 'fr?74oovsTL0E/EcVOV PfaLXEwV 7rpOOKOVTaT T6' v WovTWV. 8s TpLTq•7v This is not the clearest language in the world, and it has been understood in at least three ways. I. Cobet in Mnemosyne xi, p. 345, understands the plural Tovs ... - though differ7rpo'?KovTra, as meaning only one man at each time as ent men on different occasions: loosely used, therefore, for T•• His idea EL is, then, that if the kings are ab~ LpdAUra 7rpoOY)KOvra. sent, the one senator nearest of kin to them casts two votes for the kings (one for each) and a third for himself. This idea of Cobet's is not entirely new: it may be found in Gaisford's note (appended to But neither Cobet nor Gaisford Wesseling's) in his edition (1826). tell us how it could always (or indeed ever) happen that the same senator should at once be next of kin to the Agid and the Eurypontid king. as two senators, the SVo II. Taking then roV.S.. 'FNom 7rpoG/Kov'Tas V TLO it were mean as if two apiece, may KTEp d V'Bo tfovS for a Each of the two senators would cast three votes; two votes/AEVo•s. king and one for himself: and it would follow that the kings had two votes each. This is the old way of understanding the place: and

Notes.

9

certainly the most natural. Yet Trplr'v makes trouble: it is out of consonance with the plurals rovs. . . 7rporKovTa and rrVTOv. We should expect at least, as Stein remarks, Tp t' a Se 7 ai'wvrTv. III. Still understanding two senators, we can take 8'o0 pove as two altogether, one for each king. So Wesseling interprets: and so also B~ihr. But then rptrTV is worse than ever; as if the two senators cast one vote between them ! It is this Tp~r v that makes all the trouble, and prevents any rational understanding of the passage. The truth, I believe, is this: Herodotus wrote Svo q4ovse TLO9LVovs,and stopped. He probably meant, ' each man casting two votes '- one for himself, and one for a king: and did not see that there was a possibility of being wrongly understood. But many (and among them, it would seem, Thucydides) brought Suo q'oovs into a false connexion with the word yepea, as if it were this in which the y'pEc or privilege of the kings consisted: to cast two votes. Or in other words they understood y~pca as being 'special royal privilege' instead of merely ' right of voting,' and interpreted 8V'0 o iovs accordingly. Later some well-meaning fellow, that there might be no mistake about it, added rpltrv SZrTv vrrTv: but fitted it on, as interpolators often do, rather clumsily. FREDERICD. ALLEN.

MART. V. 78, vv. 31, 32.

The two last verses of Martial's Epigram, V. 78, have given much trouble to commentators. So much so that Friedliinder, in his late edition of the poet, gives the passage up as unintelligible. A possible interpretation seems, so far as I know, to have been overlooked. After giving Toranius the bill of fare and an account of the other attractions of his dinner, Martial in the two closing lines, evidently referring to the company, says, "Claudiamsequeris Quamnobiscupisesse tu priorem." Almost all commentators have taken quam as relative referring to Claudia. If, however, it is taken as interrogative, it would make Martial leave it to his friend to decide who the fourth member of the

Notes.

192

partie carree should be. You shall come next to Claudia; who do you wish should take the place above me ? As they reclined on the stiba-

dium or sigma, Claudiawould come first at the right,followed by Toranius,leavinga place between the two men for the second dame. What more natural than that Martial should leave the selection of this lady to his guest?

•

*

. • ??*?

I. Claudia. 1.

.

,,?? ..'*

2. Toranius.

*.*

... "*

3.? 44. Martial.

For recent interpretationsof the passage in other senses see Cambr. Philol. Soc. Proceedings IV-VI, p. 25, and Friedliinder's criticalcommentarysub versu. J. B. G.

ELLVM.

There are three indisputable examples of the word ellum, one in Plautus and two in Terence, as follows: Relictus. ellum: non in busto Achilli, sed in lecto accubat Bacchides 939. Nescio qui senex modo uenit: ellum, confidens, catus Andria 855. te ubist? sy. Aeschinus Ellum, cT. O Syre, sY. O Ctesipho. Adelfkhoe260. exspectat domi. cT. Hem A doubtful example occurs in Terence Adelphoe 389, where ellam is sometimes read on the authority of Donatus. But the manuscript reading is not ellam but et iam, a pleasing emphasis of iam, vs. 388, and adopted in the text by Umpfenbach. Two other examples of ellam, sometimes quoted from Plautus Aulularia 781, and Miles 789, are both spurious, eccillam being the only reading of the manuscripts. In Curculia 278 the manuscripts really have the unmetrical ellum, altered however by MUillerinto the eccillum now adopted in the text. Of the formation of ellum a rough and ready explanation is given by Priscian, XII, p. 594, Keil:

Notes.

193

quid est enim ' eccum' nisi ' ecce eum' ? 'eccam' nisi ' ecce eamrn'? 'eccos' nisi ' ecce cos' ? 'eccas ' nisi ' ecce eas'? 'ellum' nisi ' ecce illum' ? Obviously wrong as this explanation is, it has come down into some modern books. For instance, in the Forcellini of De-Vit (s.v. ecce, 6), it is said: Pro eccillumleges et ellum, per syncopen inde factum. A more plausible explanation is still almost universally adopted: ellam = en illam, the reading established on the authorityof Donatus, the manuscriptshaving either est iam or etiam. Wagner to Ter. Ad. 389. Durch Tonanschluss von illum, illam an vorangehendes en sind zu Compositenverwachsen ll/um, dllam. Corssen, Aussfr. II2, 846. See also II2, 642. en illum, en illam wird in ellum, ellam verschmolzen. Neue II2, 313. That ellum or ellam cannot be compounded of en illum or en illam can be shown in a word. In the days of Plautus and Terence an interrogative en was in use in the combination en umquam ? The deictic or demonstrative en with an accusative is of later origin; in this sense the dramatists know only em: see K6hler in W61fflin's Archiv, VI, 25. Hence ellum must be formed from em illum. The only person, as far as I have seen, who has observed this, is A. Spengel, in his note to Andria 855. G. M. L.

GENERAL

a, ab, limitative use of, 153. &Aerplbes,165. aliter, with distributiveforce, I54. ALLEN,F. D., Notes on ai~os, faenisicei, IoprTLeopat, 187. a&prc,Ar. Ran. (180 ff.), 188. Votes of Spartan kings, 190. &vwith E6eaetc., 79 ff. avdCXaars,meaning of, 44 f. Archimedes and the Roman fleet, 52 ff. apls, meaning of, 24. Aristophanes, position of women in, 159 ff. (Schol. Ran. 13), emended, 187. 166. AItc'ro, 165. app7jodpoi, meaning of, 188. aprti•, apXo7-ErLs,I65.

INDEX.

debebat,with inf., 87 f. deberet,with inf., 87 f. debuerat,with inf., 88. debuisset,with inf., 88. debuit, with inf., 88. decet,with perf. inf., 132 f. delicatus, deliciae, etym. of, Ioo f. desidero,etym. of, 96. div3m or div'm ?, 89 f. duzmviratus, 9o.

Aet, xpijv,etc., with inf., construction of, 77 ff. Education of women, 184 ff. egregium publicum in Tac. A. iii, (7o, 4), Io7 ff. elcbs Jv, with inf., 77iff &JKanua'ra,meaning of, 42. elementum, etym. of, 97. Eleusinian Mysteries, women at, I66, Beckmann on mirrors, 50. 169. iBaoals, 185 n. Buffon's reflectors, 53. ellum, 192 f. Burial ceremonies, women at, 173. Elmsley's theory on o'b h, 73 f. Emendations suggested: Schol. Ar. Ran. (I3), withinf., 77 if. 187. Xp?V Hesych. s.v. oTope~s,33. Xpgvwith inf., Hermann on, 78 n. Hdt. vi (57), 190. XpgvGv,81 n., 85 ff. Schol. A, II. xii, (137), 187Clothing, made by women, 179 ff. Plut. (Num. 9), 58 ff. Concessive sentences with e'aei etc., in Quint. i, (4, I6), 9I f.; (27), 90 f. apod., 79 f. Suid. s.v.- As, 187. considero, etym. of, 97. Tac. A. iii, (70, 4), 107 ff. cremia, meaning of, 42. Theophr. Ig. (73), 48. Crystal, its nature unknown till late in meaning of, 16. antiquity, 48 f. di4jApevj.a, o-xdpa,meaning and material, 26. Crystals used in kindling fire, 49. Etymologies, Some Latin, 93 ff. crystallum, see KpIcraAAos. Euripides, influence on estimate of women, 16o. Dawes, canon of, 73, 75 n. debebas,with inf., 77. qfvwith inf., 77 ff.

196

General Index.

faenisicei, 187. Fauces of the Roman house, I ff. ferula, see vdpO4j. Fire, fables of nations without, 15. how kept lighted at home and on campaigns, 16 f. newly lighted annually in dwellings, 56. lighted from neighbor's fire, IS. four methods of newly kindling, 19. kindled by rubbing or boring wood, 19-34. from two stones, 35-38. from stone and iron, 38 f. from the sun's rays, 44-56. by mirrors,see Mirrors. Fire of Vesta, see Vestal fire. Fire-tools, illustrations of, 14. fomes, meaning of, 39. FOWLER,H. N., Plutarch rept 0Vou•las, 139 ff. fut. ind. with oab 65-76. t', gaudeo, perf. inf. with, 130. Glass in use at Athens, 44, 46. Glass mirrors,see Mirrors. with the GOODWIN,W. W., on odi .,J 65 ft. subjv. and fut. indic., on the construction of EMEL, etc., with inf., 77 ff. GREENOUGH, J. B., on the Fauces of the Roman house, I ff. Mart. V, (78, 31), 191 f. Some Latin etymologies, 93 ff.

igniarium, meaning of, 20, 27 ff. igniculus, meaning of, 16. ignitabulum, meaning of, 20, 27 ff. improbus,etym. of, 95. Indicative in indir. questions, 157Infinitive as predicate, 158. perfect, as present, i i ff. see YiOa. &wcaKa, Y'OKa,meaning of, 40 f. Ivanoff, on the Fauces, 2. Jordan, on the Vestal fire, 56 n. iuvo, perf. inf. with, 128 ff. meaning of, 42. KdydKava,

166. Kav-rpdpos, Kavzv,183 n. 2. KaCa'TXaots,meaning of, 44 f. KEpILS, 182.

meaning of, 48 f. Kpvro'ra.AAo, die Herabkunft des Feuers, 15, Kuhn, I9, 21, 26, 33-

KviEala,on o'b/ , 75 n. 2. LANE,G. M., Notes on Quintilian, 89 ff. on ellum, 192 f. La Roche, onn v with 'eLt etc., 81 n. meaning of, 16. xAe•tava, licebat, liceret, with inf., 87 ft. Liddell and Scott, errors in Lexicon of, 24 (ter), 32, 34, 35Loom, as used in time of Aristophanes, 182 f.

mamphur, meaning of, 23. Marriages,women at, 172. Matches, sulphur, 15, 42 f. HALEY,H. W., Position of women in l4, subjv. with, in .cautious assertion, Aristophanes, 159 ff. 67 ff. Hermann, on Xpiv with inf., 78 n. Mirrors,concave, used in kindling fire, Herodotus (vi, 57), emended, 190 f. 51 f. duty of the, 59. ltpocpdv'Ls, glass, unknown till late antiquity, Hesychius (s.v. oTopets), emended, 33. 50 f. Homer (Schol. A, Il. xii, 137), emended, metallic, 51. 187. plane, used in kindling fire, 52 ff. House, proportions of the Roman, 9 f. M. H., de ignis eliciendi modis, MORGAN, of the Surgeon, Plan of, I I. 13 f. HOWARD,

A. A., on the Lat. Perf. Inf., III ff.

Husband and wife, see Women.

nartheca, see vEdp0-t. vdpOtn,nature of and use, 43 f-

General Index. nec, strengthened by a following negative, 154. neque haud, in Roman comic poets, 72.

197

Quintilian, Notes on, 89 if. (i, 4, 16), emended, 91 f. (i, 4, 27), emended, 90 f.

ramenta sulpurata, 42 f. recens, etym. of, 93 f. recipero, etym. of, 93 f. reciprocus, etym. of, 93 f. t recus, 93 f. ireCvp/.vov, meaning of, 41 and n. repercussus,see c&vdXcaaros. Perfect inf. in Latin with pres. force, RICHARDSON, G. M., Vitruviana, 153 if. III ff. rudimentum, Etym. of, 95. Peyrard'sreflectors, 53. sic, in apodosis, 156 f. cpopTcdoP/aL, emended, 187. SMITH, C. L., on Tac. Ann. iii, (70, 4), piget with perf. inf., 132. Planck, Feuerzeuge, 13 n., 19 . 2. 107. Plutarch (Num. 9), emended, 58 ff. Spartan kings, votes of the, 190 f. Plutarch, repl dbOv~irar, sources of, Spinning, I8I f. 139 ff. Stieglitz on the Fauces, I. possum with perf. inf., 124 ff. meaning of, 32 ff. o'rope's, error for praemium, etym. of, 99 f. ropvY-q, r7opbvrl, 34. pramantha,21. Subjunctive with ob l , 65 ff. with I4A in cautious assertion, 67 ff. probus, etym. of, 95. Suidas (s.v. A6rs), emended, 187. Procas, etym. of, 93 f. procax, etym. of, 94. tabula, material and meaning of, 26. proceres, etym. of, 93 f. Tacitus (A. iii, 70, 4), emended, 107 ff. procul, etym. of, 93. Proculeius, etym. of, 93 f. terebra, material and meaning of, 2o n. Proculus, etym. of, 93 f. 2, 26. procum, etym. of, 93 f. parts and use of, 22 ff. tprocus, 93 f. ,r'perpov,meaning of, 22. Prometheus and Skt. pramantha, 21. Theatre, women at the, 170 ff. with inf., 77 ff. Theophrastus (Ig. 73), emended, 48. Wpoa~iKEv provincia, etym. of, io f. Thesmophoria, 169. tprovincus, IoI f. meaning of, 34. "rop•'y, proximus, etym. of, 93 f. 'rptravov, material and meaning of, 20, 4av-osin Alcman, 187. 26. pudet and pudor with perf. inf., 130 ff. parts and use of, 22 ff. -om, quantity of, in gen. pl., 89 f. oppido, 154. obj4 with subjv. and fut. ind., 65 ff.

irtpSava, meaning of, 16. w•rpaAa, 7rup6ea, irupelov, meaning and use of,

20 ff., 30 f., 35, 39-

rupe3dXAov, meaning of, 39.

rupo6dXca, rvpdBoAot,meaning of, 38. duty of the, 17. uvpodpos, ' putare, intend,' with inf., 158.

rpvtravoVxos,

meaning of, 24 f.

6breKKca6Aara, meaning of, 42.

go-ia, see t2orca. ut with subjv. in wishes, 157.

Vestal fire, origin of, 16 and n. lighted annually, 56. Quantity of -om in gen. pl., 89 f. how lighted, 56 ff. use quemadmodum, of, in Vitruvius, Plutarch's account of, corrupted, 154 ff. 58 ff.

198

General Index.

Women, not generally allowed in public, 164 ff. liberty of, 169 ff. at religious ceremonies, I65, 169. at the theatre, 170 ff. Weaving, 182 f. at marriage and burials, 172 f. Women, position of, in Aristophanes, in business, 174. '59 ff. domestic duties of, 177 popular estimate of, 159 f. ft. education of, I84 f. not the equal or confidantesof hushow Wool, 179 prepared, bands, I6I ff. f. husband's authority over, 162. lack of conjugal affection, 163 f. 7rupa,meaning of, 16. T

Vestal fire, Julian's reference to, 61 f. Vitruviana, 153 ff. volo with inf., II3 f.

INDEX OF CITATIONS. Aristophanes- continued. Eccl. (14 f.), 177; (18), 169; (33 ff.), 168; (59), 169; (62 ff.), 176; (schol. 72), 171;

Accius, Frag. (io), 6. Aelian, N. A. xv (8), 49. Aeschylus, Ag. (970), 63. Cho. (493), 30. Prom. (109), 43;

(384 Schol.),

40. Sept. (38), 70.

(215 ff.), 180; (221 ff.), 179;

Frag. 51. Aetius, vii (91), 42; viii (3), 41.

Alexander Aphrodisiensis, i (38), 39; (132), 51.

Allegor. Hom. (26), 52. Anthemius, frag. (2), 52 f. Anthol. Pal. i (118), 32; vi (205), 33. Anton. Mon. (1480 c.), 38. Anton. et Max. (p. 820), 143. Apollod. Poliorcet. (p. 148), 24. 21; 32; Apollonius Rhod. i (1182), 42. Appian, B. C. i (31), 18. Appuleius, Apol. s. Mag. (16), 51; 55. Aristides, i (p. 785), 16. Aristophanes, Ach. (73), 44; (132), 164; (137 ff.), 169; (242 ff.), 166; (245 ff.), 165; 170; (253 ff.), 166; (262), 162; 170; (478), 174; (730), 178; (816 f.), 164; (1oo3 ff.), 162 n.; 178; (1056 ff.), 173; (1177), 180 n. Av. (Schol. 16o), 173 n.; (368), 164; (665 f.), 162; (712), 183 n.; (714), I80 n.; (793 ff.),

171;

175;

(82 ff.), 181; (11o if.), 164; (153 ft.), 174; (21o ff.), 177;

(827),

I81 n.;

184; (828 ff.), 164; (831), 182; (943), 183 n. ; (1202 ff.),

165; (1639), 160; (schol. 1713), I73 n.; (720 ff.), 165; 173; (schol. 1737), 173 n.

184; (225), 175; (243 f.), 186; (287 f.), 168; (311 ff.), 168; (323ff.),

164; 168; (335

ff.), 162; 168; (348 f.), 175; (446 ff.), 175; (478 ff.), 168; (510oft), 168; (520 if.), 163; 168; (522 ff.), 176; (528 ff.), 175; (536 if.), 173; (556), 183; (650), 65; (654), 183; (684 ff.), 184; (734 ff.), 170; (795), 69; (845), 179; (877 ff.), 176; (884 ff.), 165; (893 ff.), 185; (952 ff.), 185; (IOII if.), 184; (1025), 186; (1030 ff.), 173; (1146), 172. Eq. (19), 174; (schol. 4oo), 169 n.; (566), 184; (715 if.), 178; (1056 f.), 160; (I168 ff.), 179; (1180), 184; (1286), 33; f.), 166; 175. (13oo00

Lys. (I), 170; (2), 170 n.; (3), 170; (5 if.), 175; (8 ff.), 159;

160; (13), 175; (16 ff.), 164; 167; (18), 177; (19), 178; (31), 160; (42 ff.), 160; (46 ff.), 162; (51), I8o n.; (63 f.), 170; (72), 168; (82), 185 n., (99 ff.), 164; (120 ff.), 162;

(137 ff.), 160; (149 ff.), 162; 168; (157), 162; (160 ff.),

162; (164 f.), 162; (217), 168; (219 f.),

162; (260 f.),

Index of Citations.

200

Aristophanres,Lys. - continued. I6o; 164; 168; (283), I6o; (327 ff.), 175; 184; (368 f.), 160; (388), 170; (389 ff.), 170; (392), 185; (403 ff.), 176; (408 f.), 185; (456 ff.), 174; (473 ff.), 164; (492 ff.), 164; (495), 177; (507 ff.), 162; 163; (508), 167; (510), 168; 169; (512), 162; (513), 185; (516), 162; (519 f.), 162; 181; 182; (535 f.), 181; (55I ff.), 162; (567 ff.), 181; 182; (574 ff.), 179; (schol. 575), I80on.; (schol. 578), 18o n. ; (579), 181; (586), 183; (593), 165; (601), 173; (6II f.), 173; (626 ff.), 164; (630), 183; (641 ff.), 166; (schol. 642 ff.), 165 n.; (649 ff.), 164; (700 ff.), 175; (704), 66; (710 ff.), 164; (729 ff.), 18o n.; (732), 18o n.; (735 ff.), 161; 184; (767 ff.), 184; (797 ff-), 176; (821 ff.), 176; (853 ff.), 164; (866), 168; (872 ff.), 163; (881), 178; (894 f.), 177; (896), 18o n.; (900 ff.), 162; (931 ff.), 162; (950 f.), 162; (958), 178; (0oo),

175;

f.),

(1284),

170; (1308 ff.), 185.

I60;

(1037 f.), 160; (1oI4 (1o49 f.), 172; (I124ff.), 160; 186; (II26f.), 169; 185; (II95 ff.), 178 n.; Nub. (41 ff.), 164; (52), 170 n.; (53 ff.), 162; 182; 183; (60 ff.), 162; (68 ff.), 178; (296), 66; 67 n.; 74; (367), 67 n.; 74; (505), 67 n.; 74; (539 f.), 172;

185; (555),

185;

(603

ff.), 170; (691 f.), 160; (764), 45; 47; (1o99 ff.), 172; (1144 ff.), 178; (1352), 73; (1358), 184;

185;

(1380

ff.),

178;

(1445), 164. Pax (50 ff.), 172; (146 ff.), 185; (420), 170; (520 ff.), 165; (535), 174 n.; (766), 172;

Aristophanes, Pax - continued. (819 ff.), 165; (schol. 869), 173 n.; (883 ff.), 172; (962 if.), 171; (979 ff.), 167; (1127 ff.), 164;

(1138),

164;

(1144

f.), 176; 177; 179; (1305 if.), 173; (1316 ff.), 165; 173 and n.; (1325), 164; (schol. 1340), 173 n. Pl. (166), 181; (249 ff.), 164; 169; (426 ff.), 174; (435 f.), 174; (529), 173 n.; (schol. 530), 173 n.; (533), 177; (613 ff.), 168 n.; (644 ff.), 175; (674), 170; (688 ff.), 170; (768 ff.), 170; (800), 172; (959 ff.), 176; (IOI3), 169; (1103 ff.), 164; (1197 ff.), 170o. Ran. (schol. 13), 187; (149), I78; (I57), 169; (180 ff.), 188; (324 ff.), 185; (409 ff.), 166; 185; (444 ff.), 166; 169; 185; (504 ff.), 179; (5o8), 72; (549 ff.), 174; (571 ff.), 174; (578), 183; (586 ff.), 164; (840), 174; (857 f.), 174; (947), 174; (980 ff.), 178; (1049 ff.), 160; 171; (1079 ff.), 160; (1113 f.), 172; (1314 f.), 181; 182; 183; (1338 f.), 177; (1346 ff.), 182; 184; (1348), 181; (1349 ff.), 174; 181; (1361 ff.), 175; (1386 f.), 18o n. Thesm. (81 ff.), 160; (91 f.) 169; (IoI ff.), 166; 185; (130), 170 n.; (184 ff.), 169; (204 f.), 169; (279 ff.), 169; 177; (289 f.), 164; (293 f.), 169; (340 ff.), 175; (345), 176; (347 f.), 174; (371), 160; (375), 184; (378 f.), 160; (385 ff.), 160; (387), 174; (390 ff.), 185; (395 ff.), 163; 171; 175; (401 f.), 179 n.; (405 f.), 165; (414 if.), 163; 168; 175; (418 ff.), 177; (421 ff.), 178; (432), 184;

Indexrof Citations. Aristophanes, Thesm.- continued. (446 ff.), 174; (455 f.), 174; (466 ff.), 160; (478 ff.), 168; 176; (483 ff.), 168; (491 ff.), 175; (499 ff.), 176; (520 ff.), 160; (531 f.), 160; (544 ff.), 160; (556 if.), 177; (558 f.), 175 n.; 177; (575 ff.), 169; (609), 178; (619), 169; (624), 169; (658), 169; (691 f.), 178; (737 f.), 160, 183 n.; (785 ff.), 160; 172; (789 ff.),162; 167; (792), 168; (795 f.), 169; (797 ff.), 167; (812 f.), 177; (822 f.), 181; 183; (834 ff.), 170; (schol. 834), 170 n.; (852 ff.), 176; (910), 174; (930 ff.), 169; (oo001ff.), 169; (1160 ff.), 160; 177. Vesp. (397), 73; (497), 174; (568 ff.), 166; (61o ff.), 162; 179 n.; (768 ff.), 167; (805), 170; (II43 ff.), 183 n.; (1387 ff.), 174; 185; (1396 ff.), 174; (I435), 179 n. Frag. (io), 162; (18), 176 n.; (25), 176 n.; (142), 172; (187), 163; (451), 168; (472), 171; (588), 164; (695), 175; (717), 181. Aristotle, Meteor. i (7, 8), 45; iii (2, 7), 45P. A. ii. (9, 1o), 36. Prob. xi (23), 45; (51), 44. Respir. (6), 42. Rhet. iii ('7), 144. Sens. ii (6), 45. Arrian, B. AL (II6), 99.

201

Cicero, Caecil. (21), I14. Cael. (8), 114. Cluent. (18), 88. Div. ii (73), 133. Dom. (78), 18. Fam. xi (1, 2), 18. Fin. v. (18), 16. Mil. (o103), 115N.AD. ii (25), 19; 35; (37), 4. iii (54), 18. i Off. (52), 18; Or. (156), 93Phil. i (23),

18; vi (Io),

18;

ii (99), 88.

Rep. ii (26), 58. Rosc. A. (25), 114; (73), 117. Tusc. iii (8), 14o; (14), 147 n. 3; 148; (16), 148 n. 1; (22), 147 n. 2; (28), 148 n. 2; (32), 147; 148 n. 2. Verr. ii (I49), 117; (5, 50), 88; iii (7), 114; (I8o), 117. Cinna, Helvius, Frag., 49. Cleom. ii (p. 86), 45; 52. Columella, Arb. viii (3), 25 n. 1. R. R. xii (19, 3), 42. Const. Porphyr. (p. 471, 17), 39Curtius,iii (8, 19), 7-

Democritus, Frag. (5), 142; (14), 146; (18), 146; (20), 144; (54), 149; (79), 146; (147), 146. Demosthenes, iv (I), 81; 81 n.; 86; ix (6), 78; 82; xv (28), 79; xviii (190), 88; (095), 81 n.; 85; (199), 79; (248), 78; 84; xix (124), 77; xxiii (37), 83; (107), 79; xxiv (146), 81 n.; 84; xxv (61), 19; xxviii (io), 80o; xxxiii (37), 78; 81; Ivii Caesar, B. A. (36), 5. (47), 81 n.; lviii (15), 32; B. C. iii (99), 96. frag. (96), 146. B. G. vi (44), 18; vii (51), 96. Dinarchus, ii (9), 19. Cato, R. R. v (4), I6; (6), 113; cxliii, Dio Cass. xxxix (45), I8. I6. Diod. Sic. ii (49, 3), 42; v (37), 53; Catullus, xvii (I5), 100; lxix (I), 121. (67), 21; xvii (82), 45; frag. xxxviii (7), 60. Cicero, Acad. i (7, 26), 98. Arch. 10 (25), Ioo00 Diogenes Laertius, vii (5), 143; ix (7, 12, 45), 14o n. I. AMt.xiv (Io, 2), 128. Brut. (329), log109. Diogenianus,vii (I5), i8.

202

Index of Citations.

Herodotus - continued. 48; v (79), 69; vi (57), 190 f.; vii (56), 79 f.; (65), 63; (231), 19; viii (6), 18; (37 f.), 60. Hesiod, OP. (50), 43Ennius, ap. Cic. Div. i (48), 4. Theog. (563), I5 ; (565), 43; ap. Cic. Off. i (51), 18; ii (23), (567), 21. 116. Hesychius, s.v. 41rjtpew/a, 16; vapeqEpinicus, Mrnes.i (8), 46. Ico1AhpTrov, 43; irvtov, 182 n. 2; Euclid, El. xi (def. 18), 63. 16; uvprrus, w•r5aAov, (31), 51. Catoptr. 37; rupcdpos,18; (rropE6d,32Euripides, Alc. (315), 69. Hippocrates, (789 G.), 24. Homer, II. i (488), 14o; ii (195), 68; Cycl. (460),22. xii (schol. A., I37), 187; xvi H. F. (x399), 69. Hipp. (606), 66. (128), 68; xviii (8), 68; (104), I. T. (18), 70. 140; xxi (364), 42; xxiv (12), Afed. (131), 92; (49o), 34; (527), 14783; Od. iii (158), 32; v (246), 22; (586), 82; (1320), 73. Or. (258), 139; (776), 69; (356), 68; (415), 68; (488), 70o. Phoen. (I377), 17; (I590), 72. 16; 18; ix (382), 22; xiv (477), 48; xvi (255), 68; MEes.(115), 69. xviii (308), 42. Suppfl:(1o84), 87. Troad. (982), 69; 70; 71 n. Hymn. Aferc. (1o8), 19; 30; (113), 42. Frag. (299), 183; (392), 148 n.; Horace, C. i (1, 4), 128; (34, 16), 130; (818), 148 n. Eustathius ad II. v (5), 54; (P. 1328, ii (4, 51), 123; iii (18, 15), 130. C. S. (25), 134. 43), 183 n. 2. Epod. xvi (58), 92. S. i (2, 28), 120; (IO, 60), 122; Festus, (p. io8 M.), 27; (344), 62; s.v. ii (3, 187), fomites, 41; ignis, 21; mam117Ep. i (1, 41), 136; (17, 4), 123; phur, 23. Fronto, Ep. (2), io8. (18, 59), 123; ii (2, 109), i19. A. P. (98), 123; (168), 124; Gaius, Inst. i (128), 18. Galen, i. (p. 657), 54; (p. 658), 31; (347), I14; (434), 123; (455), 123. 40; xiv (423), 41; de plac. Hipp. et Plat. iv (7, p. 418), 148 n.; (419), 143; v (439 Inscriptions, C. I. A. iii (264), 17. C. I. G. (186, 353), 17; (432, f.), 141. Gellius, vii (3), I08; xiii (15, I), 116; 435), 59; (476, 477, 666, xv (2, 3), 28; xvi (5), 7; xviii 2155), 165 n. 3. C. I. L. i (p. 9), 89; (no. 196), (7, 3), 28. Gracchus, C., ap. Gell. x (3, 3), xI6. 157; (I99), 187; vi (5, 3143*), 90o; x (io81), 90. I. R. N. (2096), 90. x165n. I. Harpocration, s.v. S. C. de Bacchan., 112. i (lo5 ff.), 188. Heraclean Tables, app•qpope'o, Herodotus, i (8), 77; (39), 78; 80o; Isaeus, iv (4), 81 n.; vi (44), 79; x 82; 87; ii (69), 46; iv (28), (I3), 81 n.; 84. Dionysius Hal. ii (67), 56; 62; iii (67), 62. Dionysius Perieg. (780), 49. Dioscorides, v (143), 37Diphilus, Paras. frag. (3), I8.

Index of Citations. Isidore, xiv (826), 8; xvi. (3, I), 37; (4, 5), 37; (13, I), 49Isocrates, vi (87), 83; xii (71), 80; 83; 84; xv (17), 81; xviii (19), 79; 84; (21), 78; 83.

203

Lucretius- continued. (Io96), 20; vi (I60), 36; 38; (314), 38; (702), 4. Lysias, i (14),

I8; iv (I3),

8I n.;

xii

(32), 85; (48), 8I n.; 85; frag. (47), 8I n.; (56), 81 n.

Julian, ad Sol. reg. (I55 A.), 61. Juvenal, i (134), 19; v (48 et schol.), Macrobius, S. i (12, 6), 56; ii (8, 4), 43; viii (226), 130; xi. (201), 28; vi (8), 8. 133; xiii (145), 43; xiv (85), Marcellus, Empir., (33), 35130. (270), II9; Martial, Sp. (32), I23. Ep. i (4I, 4), 43; (55, 7), 135; Lactantius, de Ira (Io), 48. (107, 5), 123; ii (I, 9), 135; Leo Phil. ii (I, 3), (34, 3), 127; iv (31, 3), 122; 1o8. ii v (19, II), 136; (25, 7), 136; Livy, (praef 3), 128; (I, 3), 1o8; (24, 5), 127; iii (2), 102; (78, 31), 191 f.; vi (2, I), 136; (4), 103; (22, 3), 104; (41, (29, 8), 119; (43, 7), 135; (44, 3), 127; (48, 3), 127; iv (24), I), 137; (52, 3), I34; vii (21, 105; (37), 102; (43), 10o2; 4), 125; (93, 3), 130; ix (8, v (12), 104; vi (24, 3), 109; I), 136; (28, 2), 125; (39, (39, 6), IIo; vii (6), 10o2; I), 122; (81, 3), 119; (IOI, (38), 102; 104; (39), 6; viii 19), I35; x (3, I), 43; xii (57, 14), 43; (82, 9), 137; (Io, I3), IO8; (29), 104; ix (2), 6; (41), o04; x (I), 6; (84, I), 120; xiv (91), 127; xxi (9), 5; (23), 6; (30), 6; 135 (2), 136; xv (6), 125. (38), 6; (63), 104; xxii (4), MartianusCap., vi (597), 64. 6; (15), 6; (59, 1o), I19; xxiv (16, 11), 114; xxvi (25), Nepos, Eum. (9), I19. 6; xxviii (11, 7), 56; xxx (I14, Niceph. Greg. (p. 529 A.), 18. 6), II9; xxxi (I), 128; xxxii Nicol. Dam. frag., 17. (5), 7; (21, 32), 114; xxxvii Nonnus, Dion. ii (493), 37; xxxvii (56), (19, 5), 118; xxxviii (11, 9), 40; (62), 16. xxxix (14, 8), 116; I11; (I7, Novum Testamentum,Matth. xxiii (32), 88. 3), 116; (18, 8), 112; xl (IO,

5), I17; xlii(01, I), 114; II5; (54), 6; (67), 6; xliv (I8), 104; (22, 8), 128; (36, I3), 128.

Lucan, iv (594), 5. Lucian, Hipp. (2), 54. Hist. Consc. (19), 48. Tim. (3), 16. V. H. i (32), 31. Lucilius, v (ii), ii7; xxviii, 98. Lucretius, i (58), 98; (182), 97; (196) 97; (483), 97; (822), 97; (897), 20; ii (688), 97; (912), 98; (981), 98; iii (69), II8; (244), 98; v (953), 15;

Oribasius,iv (p. 156), 24. Orphica, Lapid. (p. 380), 50; (p. 389), 50. Ovid, Her. (2, 28), 125; (3, IIo), 122; (4, 87), 129; (9, 59), 131;

(9, 71 ff.), 138; (9, 75),

124; (II, 109), 125; (12, 4), (12, 164), 125; (12, 186),

125; 123;

(12, 210),

132;

(I5,

350),

132; (16, 169), 128; (17, 95), 123. Sapph. (77), I23; (172),

123Am. i (4, 38), 116; (Io, 41), 136;

(13, 15), 130; ii (2, IO), 117;

204

Index of Citations.

Persius, i (4n), 119; (91), 119; (131), 135; ii (66), 135; iv (7), 134; (17), 136; v (33), 135; vi (3), 134; (6), 135; (I5), 124; (76), 134. (19, 56), 117; iii (2, 29), 122; Petronius, (136), I8. (2, 63), 126; (6, 9), 129; (7, Phaedrus, iii (19), I8. (14 81), 132; (II, I), 130; Philemon, Lex. (248), 47. 21), 131. A. A. i (293), 122; (380), 136; Philo, i (t. 2, p. 109, 34), I8. (405), 131; (428), 129; (733), Philostratus,Imag. ii (24), 37. 136; ii (20), 136; (98), 123; Philyll. ap. Poll. vii (192), 33. I8. Photius, s.v. wrvpqdpos, (121), 123; (215), 136; (252), Pindar, Nem. (7, 14), 51. 131; (583), 126; (6o09), I19; iii. (145), 133; (165), 131; Plato, Alc. i (119 B), 81 n. Apol. (17 D), 87. (215), 122; (319), 135; (333), Crat. (414 C), 32; (425 B), 67; 126; (370), 136; (43I), 133; (435 C), 68 n. (455), 135; (525), 135; (768), Crit. (48 C), 68 n.; (52 C), 84. 131. Euthyd. (272 C), 69; 70. 125; (574), 125; R. A. (112), Gorg. (514 A), 81 n. (626), 136; (735), 118. Med. Fac. (47), 132. Legg. (677 B), 16; (861 E), 70. Men. (94 E), 69. Met. i (175), 124; ii (564), 126; Parm. (163 D), 69. iv (329), 132; v. (225), 126; Phaed. (64 C), 69. vii (59), I19; (301), 92; Phileb. (46), 14o n. 2; (48 D), (712), 118; viii (63I), 16; x (171), 68; 71. 124; (733), 124; Prot. (343 D), 32. (220), II8; xiv (570), 117. Fast. i (205), 131; (354), 125; Rep. (328 C), 81 n.; (341 B), ii (321), 127; iii (135), 56; 68; (435 A), 30; (474 D),84; (479 D), 78; (603 C), 69. (282), 131; (696), 129; iv Symp. (i93 B), 69; (220 B), 48; (03I), 135; (367), 131; (795), (387 C), 69. 36; v (689), I29; vi (71), Theaet. (169 E), 81 n. II19; (230), 135. Tr. i (I, 50), 131; (5, 4), 122; Tim. (53 C), 64; (61 B), 46. iii (1, 79), 135; (I3, 4), 125; Plautus, Amph. (33), 114; (534), loo; iv (2, 2), 126; (8, 51), 135; (6o8), 124. v (3, 16), 125; (3, 32), Aul. (90), 124; (91), 18; (618), 126. 124; (781), 192; (828), 125Bacch. (939), 192; (1o37), 72. Ibis, (II), 135; (348), 125. Curc. (278), 192. Ex Pont. i (3, 45), 136; ii (2, Men. (994), 124124), 135; (6, 14), 132; (6, Mil. (789), 192. 19), 136; iii (I, 9), 115; (4, Most. (1165), 130. 30), 126; (4, 59), 126; (6, 36), Poen. (570), (872), 116; 15; 127; (7, 25), 128; (7, 35), (1157), 113; (1206), 115. 136; iv (io, 82), 136. Pseud. (282), 130; (662), 115. Rud. (766), 18. Paul. Aegin. vi (49), 41. Trin. (347), 131; (iii, 2, 53), 18. Pausanias, i (27, 3), 165 n. I; ix (7, Truc. (47), 1534), 60; x (5), 60; (29), 147.

Ovid, Am. - continued. (2, 28), 136; (4, 22), 122; (4, 25), 120; (16, 13), 119; (17, 23), 133; (17, 29), 119;

Index of Citations. Pliny, N. H. ii (113), 37; (239), 19; 51; iii (x), 5; iv (66), 28 n.; v (35), 45; vi (praef.), 29; (188), x5; vii (198), 22; 35; 43; xiii (I22), 43; xiv (98), 30; xvi (207), 27; (2o8),40; xvii (223), 41; xxiv (I24), 26; xxxiii (81), 47; (128), 50; xxxiv (160), 50; xxxv (177), 40; xxxvi (I37), 37; (138), 17; 40; (193),50; (196), 51 (bis); (199),48; xxxvii (23), 49; (28), 49; (31),47. Pliny, Ep. ii (17, 17), 45; vi (29, II), 132. Plutarch, Mor. (p. 538 A), 19; (651 B), 42; (897 D), 45; (953 E), 48. Adv. Colot.(32), 139. An Seni sitger. (9), 139. Anim. aut corp. aff. sint peior. (3), 139. Aqua aut ig. util. (2, 3), 15. Arist. (2o), 6o. Cam. (20), 58; (3I), 61. Cap.ex. inim. util. (2), 143. Cons. ad Aoll. (21), 148; (33), 147 n. 3. Cohib.ira, (16), 147 n. 3. Cor. (Io), 99. Curios. (I), 144 n. Exil. (I), 148; (4), 147; (1I), 143. Fac. in orb. lunae, (7), 143; (23), 151. Inst. Lac. (240 A), 16. Numa, (9), 58, (io), 62. Plac.phil. (2, 20), 45; (4), 139. Profect. in virt. (6), 146. Seips. citr. inv. laud. (16), 146. Sulla, (12), 60; (13), 59. Virt. et vit. (2), 146; (4), 141. Virt. Moral. (12), 146. Pollux, iv (102), 185 n.; vii (32), 182 n. I; (133), 24; x (146), 23; (149), 33. Pomponius Mela, iii (9), 15. Posidonius ap. Gell., I48. Priapeia, (63, 6), 48.

205

Priscian, i (366 H.), 89; xii (594 K.), 192; (406), II3. Propertius, i (7, 15), 119; iii (7, 22), 130; iv (4, 19), 128; (12, 20), 130o.

Quintilian,i (4, 16), 91f.; (4, 27), 9gof.; (5, 13), 92; (6, 18), go; iii (I, 22), 132; viii (3, 25), 154.

Sallust, 7. (31, 27), II5. Seneca, Ben. ii (27, 4), 145; iv (I3), I40.

Epist. (24, 22), 149. Marc. de consol. (9), 148, (12 f.), 143. Otio, (3, 2), 140. Polyb. de consol. (II),

147 n. 3;

(14), I43. Q. N. i (I, 8), 43 n. 1; (6, 5), 46; ii (22), 19; 20; 31. Tranq. i (Io), 149; iii (I), 149; iv (5), 145; vii (2), 149; x (I, 2, 4), 142; (5), 146; xii (I), 146; xiv (3), 143; 149. Serv. ad Verg. Aen. i (176), 41; vi (79), III.

Simplicius ad Arist. Cael. iii (3, 3), 31. Solinus, (I, 35), 56; (II, I9), 28; (05, 29), 49 n.; (15, 30), 49. Sophocles, Aj. (560), 66. El. (1029), 66; 70; (1052), 66;

72; (1505),78 n.

O.T.(22I), 87 n.; (255), 79; 85-

Phil. (35), 35; (295), 19; 35; 36; (381), 66; 70; 73; (611), 72. Tr. (7o4), 63; (1183), 75. Frag. 30; (206), 42. Statius, Silv. i (6, 73), 43. Stobaeus, Ed. i (26), 45; ii (p. 199), 148. Flor. i (4o), 144; v (67), 145. Strabo, (p. 717), 49; (P. 779), 45Suidas, s.v. 16; Eva6lvw,I9; 4tirtpev•ua, 182 n. 2; 41; rlplov, 9o'ka, vrpe~a, 31; wvpopdpos, 18;

47Synesius, de reg. (31 C), 16.

5dhAn,

206

Index of Citations.

Tacitus,Ann. i (13, 1), o109;(73), 132; Varro, Ap. Non. (p. 394), 116.

Vergil, Aen. i (174), 36; 4o; ii (586), 129; iii (282), 129; (606), 129; vi (79), 126; (241), 5; Dial. (24), 118. (273), 5; 7; vii (233), 132; Hist. i (io), Io8; (45), l08. (569), 5; x (94), 125; xi (516), Terence, Ad. (18o), 128; (260), 192; 5; (525), 5; xii (687), 95. Georg. i (I19), 95; (135), 36; (389), 192; (458), 124; (519), (145),95; (207), 5; iii (525), II5. Andr. (205), 72; (239), 125; 129; iv (427), 5; (467), 5Ciris, (463), 6. (855), 192; 193. Moret. (8), 16. Heaut. (536), 125; (560), 116. Catalect. (2, 10o), 1oo. Theo, ad Ptolem. (p. Io), 55. Theocritus, vii (57), 32; xi (4I schol.), *Vitruvius, i (I, 3), 157; (I, 7), 154; 23; xxii (32), 30; xxiv (87), (I, 14), 154; (1, 17), 153; (2, 5), 153; (3, 7), 154; ii (I, 42. 8), 158; (6, 4), 157; (8, I8), Theophrastus, H. P. v (9), 39; (9, 6), 157; (9, 15), 158; iii (1, 4), 25 f. iv (2, 1), 157; vi (1 ft.); 42; 154; (63), 30; (29), (i), 30; Ig. 2 ff.; vii (praef I4), 154; 36; 41; (64), 25; (73), 42; (5, 4), 157; viii (3, I1), 154; 48; 51. (7, I), 157; ix [2] (2), '54; Sens. (36), 45. Thucydides, i (38), 8o; 84; (74), 8i (3, I8), I57; (4, 13), I57; n.; iii (23), 48. (5, I), 157; (9, I), 63. Tibullus, i (i, 29), 131; (1, 45), 129; Vulgate, Exod. xxvii (3), 27; Ps. cii (3), 42. (I, 73), 129; (2 27), 133; (2, 93), 132; (4, 55), 122; (6, 51), 132; (6, 63), I19; (6, 73), 118; Xenophon, A., i (4, 4), 7. Cyr. ii (2, 15), 30. (8, 7 f.), 138; (9, 29), 130; Hell. i (6, 32), 72. iii (5, 30), 114; (6, 63), 125; iv (4, 3), 132; (6, 6), I I9. A/em. ii (I, 25), 65; (2, 12), 18; iv (2, 12), 69. Tzetzes, Chil. ii (I18), 54; (149), 54; 2 (15), I8. Oec. xii (973), 55R. L. 13 (2, 3), 17. Syup. 4 (25), 42. Ulpian, Dig. xlii (1, 15), 128. iii (70, 4), o107ff.; (75, I), Iio; iv (6, 2), Io8; vi (7, I),

Varro, L. L. (p. 513), 21. R. R. i (13, 7), lo8; (4), oo00

Zenobius,v (34), 17.

Zonaras,Epit. xiv (3), 55-

* The zi8 passages in which quemadmodum occurs are not indexed; see p. 154f.