« السابقةمتابعة »
Ciu. III. 101. 3), and at Lilybaeum in December, 47 B.C. (Bell. Afr. I. 1). But surely it follows from the passages quoted that Curio was given exactly four legions, and that two of them are identical with the Domitianae cohortes.'
Now this agrees very well with the number of cohorts that surrendered at Corfinium. Caesar puts Domitius' whole force at about thirty-three cohorts, some twenty of which he had raised himself (Bell. Ciu. I. 15. 5, 7). But seven of these were in garrison at Sulmo (Bell. Ciu. I. 18) and six at Alba Fucens (Bell. Ciu. I. 24. 3, cf. ad Att. VIII. 11. A. 1). It follows that only about twenty, or more exactly eighteen (cf. Rice Holmes, III. 371), actually surrendered at Corfinium. Now it is these troops (with the possible addition of the garrison at Sulmo) who would naturally be called the Domitian cohorts sent forthwith from Corfinium to Sicily' (Bell Ciu. I. 25. 2), and these would be the men whom Domitius had deserted and betrayed (Bell. Ciu. II. 32. 7-10, cf. I. 19, 20). The cohorts from Alba, Tarracina, and other places who surrendered to Caesar while he was on the march to Brundisium (Bell. Ciu. I. 24. 3, 4), had neither been sent at once from Corfinium to Sicily, nor been betrayed by Domitius. They are only dragged in by Dr. Rice Holmes because they are necessary to complete his three legions.
But if we once admit that Caesar formed only two legions from the Domitian cohorts (as indeed is stated or implied in Bell. Ciu. II. 28, u.s.), all becomes clear. Curio's four legions (Bell. Ciu. II. 23, u.s.) are these cohorts sent on from Corfinium under Asinius Pollio (Plut. Cat. Min. 53; App. Bell. Ciu. II. 40), and two other legions of recruits sent from Brundisium (Bell. Ciu. I. 30. 2, u.s.). The only stumblingblock is the III. of the MSS. in that passage. Surely the editors who adopt there Hofmann's easy correction of II. for III. are right; and Dr. Holmes has neglected the cumulative evidence of a number of passages in the Civil War in his attempt to defend, not the text of Caesar, but the venial error of some unknown copyist.
W. W. How.
MERTON COLLege, Oxford.
'VALERIVS PROBVS ON EARLY ACCENTUATION.'
PROFESSOR E. LINWOOD LEHMAN (of the University of Virginia) writes to point out that Professor W. M. Lindsay, following Christ, Metrik, p. 59, is in error in this note, as Gellius (N.A. VI. 7) gives Annianus, and not Probus, as his authority for the alleged older accentuation exáduersum, and Annianus only stated this as a matter of opinion.
(Continued from C.Q., Vol. XVI., pp. 163-174.)
In this paper it is proposed to be argued that the tendency in Latin known as the Iambic Law' is actuated by one cause, and one only-viz., the intensity of the prior syllable of the two. Intensity' means higher tone and increased force of utterance (plus sonat, Keil, 4, 426; acuto accentu elatum, as Charisius (K. 1, p. 227) says of ut exclamatory). It is of three kinds :
(1) Initial-proper to the first syllable of a disyllabic, tetrasyllabic, or pentesyllabic word of a sentence or (as Bentley first noted) of a verse.
(2) Appropriate to the sense of interrogatives (which therefore must normally stand first) and other words of natural emphasis, such as ego, or the expletives1 pol, malum, or imperatives,2 or words like at and sed, before which there is a pause in Latin.
(3) Attaching to particular words in a particular context because of the meaning of the sentence (cf. Donat. ad Phorm. 341, acuenda uox in eo quod ait, 'tibi'). Also it is proposed to bring into account another feature of the Latin senarius not hitherto detached or explained.
I. INTENSITY AND IAMBIC-SHortening.
That all the various manifestations which are combined under the name of Iambic Law (German IKG), or Breves Breviantes, have a common basis, is a logical probability; that the universal basis cannot be metrical is self-evident, since, even without Lindsay's rehabilitation and extension of Bentley's arguments for the general conformity of Comic with colloquial rhythm, no metrical answer can be given to the question why citŏ, beně, rogo, dedīt, domi, mihi, nisi, diŭ are found, not citō, benē, rogō, etc., unless one supposes that poetry carelessly slurred what current speech pronounced correctly. And who can believe that? To that 'why' we can give a provisional answer in Dziatzko's words: 'Der auf der ersten Silbe ruhende, im
Andr. 939 ne istam multimodis tuam inueniri
Haut. 866 desponsam quoque esse dicito. MEN.
Hec. 347 hem istoc uerbo animus mihi redit et
Phorm. 723 datum esse dotis. DE. Quid tua malum id refert? . . .
Haut. 730 faciet nisi caueo, BA. Dormiunt. ego pol istos commouebo.
Hec. 772 nec pol istae metuont deos . . . (in Hec. 747 Dziatzko's nec pol ista is unmetrical).
Eho not merely shortens a subjoined ăn in an non, but even gives
Andr. 781 eam uxorem ducet. MYS. Eho obsecro, an non ciuis est ?
Andr. 489 uel hoc quis non credat . . . Phorm. 143. . . uel occidito (unless you prefer to call this uel an imperative still). Cf. uel hic
qui me aperte effrenata impudentia Accius (Ribb., p. 177).
Hec. 494 iube illam redire...
Haut. 332 age, age, cedo istuc tuom consilium.
Phorm. 993 qui hercle ubi sit nescit. CH. Caue
Phorm. 784 agedum, ut soles, Nausistrata, fac
Eun. 189 tu, Parmeno, huc fac illi adducantur.
As has been pointed out before, 'dominant' words have varying degrees of dominance : quis has the highest; a mere imperative has not force enough to reduce hoc in Terence:
Eun. 595 cape höc flabellum (it would be rash to substitute cape uentilabrum from Lex. Maii).
Haut. 831 cape hōc argentum ac defer
Or even in Plautus:
Pseud. 20 cape hās tabellas...
Latein stark exspiratorische, Wortakzent' (Dz.-Hauler, Phormio, p. 59); or in those of Plessis, quoting Havet: 'La première syllabe d'un mot ou d'un groupe étant intense, il arrivait, si elle était brève et suivie d'une longue, qu'il y avait en latin une tendance à rétablir l'équilibre en abrégeant la longue. L'intensité n'est autre chose que l'accent moderne, mais l'accent antique a un autre caractère' (Métrique, p. 295). Next, why uoluptatem, per-impluuium, etc.? Answer: Because Latin speakers could not pronounce (at the usual rate of utterance, without mouthing), or, if you prefer, would not be bothered, until a sort of literary legislation compelled them, to pronounce - or - in attacking a word or a word-group measuring five morae. And the Comic poet, whatever Ennius might do in heroics, must compromise. There are not very many of these in Terence: uoluptati Andr. 944, 960, Haut. 71, cf. Eun. 1034, Hec. 593; uoluntate Haut. 1025; uenŭstatis Hec. 848; magistratus Eun. prol. 22; dehortatus Phorm. 910; praeoptares Hec. 532; senectutem Phorm. 434; uerěbamini Phorm. 901 (Dz.-H., pp. 60, 268); supellectile Phorm. 666; pudicitiam Andr. 288. I do not reckon among these deâmbulatum Haut. 587, 806; prodeâmbulare Ad. 766; coêmisse Ad. 225.
The scansion uoluptatem, etc., is only allowed by Terence in the fourth foot, which (with the fifth) is of course the normal place for inversion of accent in a senarius: exx. Haut. 149; Hec. 69, 119, 858; Phorm. 403; Ad. 490.
It is notable that even in tragedy Ennius scanned malăm-pestem (Ribb.3, p. 69), and probably uerecunde (ib., p. 42); Livius Andronicus scanned Clytemestra. The fragments of Caecilius preserve senectutem, magistratus, gubernator. It is hard to believe that in Ribb.3, p. 49, we ought not to read <in> egěstate aliquantisper iactati forent. Titinius has gubernator; Afranius, uoluptatem (initial); and even Pomponius uoluptatibus, but in the fourth-fifth feet of a senarius uoluptati.
Thirdly: Why quis hic loquitur?, Sed hic Pamphilus, Quid istuc est? etc. Some will answer: Because the word-group quis-hic-lóquitur is, by slurring, exactly equivalent to pér-implúuium. I gave reasons in a former article for not regarding quis-hicloquitur as a word-group' in quite the same sense that ob-eám-rem, intereá-loci, etc., are. It was never written up' év. But even if this distinction be judged unimportant, it is vitally important to note that what is sometimes stated (e.g. DziatzkoHauler, p. 59) is not a true account: viz. that any two monosyllables coalesce likewise and produce the same result. Quis abridges the subjoined syllable by its explosive intensity as an interrogative. It is the sense, the spoken force, of the words that makes the difference.
Here are the proofs :
Phorm. 38 nummorum : id ût conficerem: confeci, adfero.
Cf. Caecilius (Ribb.3, p. 42) sepulchrum plenum taeniarum ita ūt solet.
Haut. 856 id est profecto: id amicae dabitur : scilicet
(But quid ēst would be impossible unless a full-stop followed.)
Haut. 495, 6 Dic. Quod sensisti illos me incipere fallere,
id ūt maturent. (However, G may be right in reading id uti.)
Haut. 354 Quasi īstic mea res minor agatur quam tua.
And, in conclusion,
Ad. 656 quid ipsae? Quid aiunt?
Haut. 779 id ipsum
and Eun. 908 id ipsum. Pr. id ipsum?
If these are irreducible, then, I take it, there is still no valid objection to the statement that a native intensity in quis ego sed at1 is what abridges a weak subsequent syllable.
Also the Pregnant Relative (qui=is qui), treated in a previous article (C.Q. XVI., pp. 166 sq.), has shown that it is not the mere monosyllabic length of the word, but its quality and meaning, which determine its abridging effect on the next syllable.
Thus a demonstrative which is 'recessive' when subjoined, in a weak sense, to quis or ego may in turn become intense, and reduce the quantity of another demonstrative subjoined in turn to itself. Thus we have ego id timeo? (Eun. 162). Here we have id recessive losing to ego its positional quantity; but when it bears an emphatic sense, it is differently pronounced, and therefore must be differently placed in the verse :
(1) Andr. Prol. 15 id isti uituperant factum atque in eo disputant.
(5) Eun. 953 PA. Nescio. PY. Atqui sic inuentast: eam istic uitiauit miser. 'THAT'S Who she is...'
So also Andr. 787, hic est ille: non te credas Dauom ludere-like quid-est-quod. This hic est ille occurs even in Laberius (Ribb.,3 p. 341), hic est ílle gurdus quem égo me abhinc mensés duos in África; also cf. Phorm. 266.2 Of course it is the emphatic significance of id, eam that throws it to the front of the sentence. It is to be remarked that we find id iste, id ille, id istic, but never id ipsum. Ipsum is always the more emphatic part of the combination. The Italian il desso confesses the accent of its origin. So that in Ad. 627, ipsum id metuo ut credant: tot concurrunt ueri similia, the MS. rending is sound and unobjectionable: Dziatzko's id ipsum metuo . . false quantity and a contresens, for id ipsum = 'just that'; ipsum id='even that.' The behaviour of ipse is instructive. Starting with Phorm. 809, consider it first with prepositions:
eamus ad ipsam :3 una omnis nos aut scire aut nescire hoc uolo.
Which is it?―eamus ad ipsam, or eamus ád ĭpsam? The question is decided by
1 To the Terentian instances, detailed in previous articles, it may be added that even in the tragic verse of Pacuvius we find :
<abiit ubi illic est? me miseram! Quonam clam se eliminet (Ribb., p. 105); and Accius :
Sed quis hic est qui matutinum . . . (ib., p. 175). Quid est cur componere ausis mihi te aut me tibi' (ib., p. 179).
Pacuvius has also:
possum ego istam capite cladem auerruncassere (ib., 122).
Sed ut cuique (ib., p. 196). Sed implies a pause before it, for it was correct to punctuate before sed (Diomed. ap. Keil I., p. 437).
2 In Phorm. 178 is est ipsus or i'st ipsus would do; but in Andr. 906 certe is ěst, before a fullstop and a change of speaker, is an impossibility. Read certe i'st; and likewise in Ad. 439 i'st hercle, which accounts for the reading of A.
3 The phrase is colloquial: it happens to be preserved in a fragment of early prose: eamus ad ipsam': atque ipsa commode (commodum ?) de parte superiore descendebat (Sisenna Milesiar. XIII. ap. Charisium, Keil, I., p. 196).
Phorm. 960 nunc, quód ipsa ex aliis auditura sit, Chremes, and (probably)
Eun. 449 quod doleat: metuit semper quem ipsa nunc capit
fructum nequando iratus tu alio conferas.
Hec. 670 ut alamus nostrum. PA. Quém ipse neclexit pater? For the explanation see C.Q. XVI., pp. 166 sq.
But now come two more difficult examples:
(1) Haut. 894 ME. Non. CH. Quid? Non? Mɛ. Non, inquam. Cн. Neque ipse gnatus? ME. Nil prorsum, Chremes.
Whence does neque derive its intensity? Partly from being initial (to the sentence), partly from emphasis, as representing ovde.
(2) Phorm. 725 uolo ipsius quoque uoluntate haec fieri, ne se eiectam praedicet. On this Dz.-Hauler remarks, wenn ipsius zweisilbig gemessen u. nach einsilbigen uol(o) die erste Silbe verkürzt wird.' Then you scan
uol' ipsius / quoqué uŏ/lüntát/e haec fieri.
This may possibly be the right scansion, but uol being a monosyllable does not settle the question, as the lately received doctrine taught us it did: quod, nec, et are all monosyllables, but comparison of the four lines
Phorm. 960 nunc quod ipsa ex aliis auditura sit, Chremes.
Andr. 905 uel tu, uel quod uerumst, uel quod ipsi cupio Glycerio.
Hec. 161 illum diiunxit ab illa postquam et ipse se.
-shows how differently ipse was pronounced according as it combined with one or other of them. No; if ipsius is to be so scanned, the reason is that uolo has initial intensity, and (probably) also must have been pronounced with a certain petulance. In any case it is a rough verse (Terence's admirers regretted that he had not confined himself to trimeters, we know), whether we take Dz.-Hauler's
and ipsius quoque is a paraphrase-gloss of et ipsius.
One more pair of examples exhibit a test case for et :
Hec. 161 illum diiunxit ab illa postquam et ipse se (correct, since et is unemphatic). Ad. 888 hoc uerumst et ipsa re experiere1 propediem.
Nothing justifies the shortening of ipsa-re; either et should be cut out (dittogram from ST) or reapse read. (Our MSS. nowhere give reapse, but Fleckeisen introduced it into various places, among them this-with better reason than he knew. We find ipsa re five times: And. 359; Haut. 266, 824; Ad. 733, 888; reipsa four times: Phorm. 889; Hec. 417, 778; Ad. 860; and in Ad. 955 A gives reipsa, the Calliopians ipsare).
Now in order to complete the demonstration that monosyllables only by (1) initial intensity or (2) intensity of significance, and not simply qua monosyllables, have the power to abridge a subjoined long syllable, we come to the crucial instances in et and nec. These afford crucial tests just because monosyllabic words are so scarce in Latin. It is necessary to show that true examples of et hoc, nec iste, due to a merely metrical stress on an unemphatic et or nec, are either none or practically none.
1 By the way, the variant EXPERIRE in A1 and D perhaps indicates an original experibere, as in Haut. 824, ipsa-re experibere; though the No
Proceleusmatics-in-the-Fifth-Foot party will not