صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

and four, and in 'furi, furei,' in Fr. 4, if we accept the version here printed, and I should myself in Fr. 3 write 'pueri' in the first line. It may be noted that the reading I suggest actually involves less deviation from the MSS. than Scaliger's. 'iam' will of course introduce the new point, just as it does in Fr. 3.

With 'militiam' eliminated, it will not be difficult to deal with 'pilam.' The last three lines may be written and punctuated in several ways. I should on the whole prefer the following:

meilia, iam tenuist i pila, in qua1 ludimus: 'pila,'

qua piso, tenui ī: si plura haec feceris pila

quae iacimus addes e: peila; ut plenius fiat.

The alteration 'pila qua' for 'pilum quo' has some support from Longus, K. 56, who, evidently alluding to this passage, speaks of 'pilam qua pinsitur.' But what chiefly attracts me to this reading is that by it we get the actual word 'pila' in three different senses, which is what Lucilius needs for his argument. He tells us that 'pila' (ball) has the 'i tenue' short, 'pila' (mortar) 'i tenue' long, while 'pila' with the 'i pingue' is the plural of 'pilum' (javelin), and should be written 'peila.' And this clears out of our way a serious difficulty. Why did not Lucilius write 'pilum, quod iacimus'? it has been asked. Marx can only answer 'non iam intelligi potest.' But if the point is to exhibit three times over the same combination of four letters, and to show how each case was distinguishable from the others, the plural was


I now turn to Fr. 4, which has been written and interpreted in three different ways:

(A) As printed above, or perhaps—

mendaci furique. addes e, cum dare furei

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The meaning is that the dative of 'fur' and (it is implied) mendax' should be written 'furei,' mendacei.' Very possibly the second line went on 'iusseris mendaceique.'

(B) Lachmann on Lucr. IV. 602 emended this to

'mendaci furique.' addes e cum 'dato, Furei.'

I.e. write the dative with i. 'furei' is vocative of 'Furius,' not dative of 'fur.' (C) Müller carried this further, and regards Fr. 4 as a continuation of Fr. 2. Thus we should read:

1 Müller has 'tenuest i pilai, qua.' I believe, however, that the sense needs the actual word 'pila,' and the examples quoted by Marx for 'in qua ludimus' (lusimus) are fairly adequate. I may here note that 'huc' (huce) has often

been corrected, but Marx defends it from Plautus, Rud. 726 'huc arido argentost opus.'

2 That he ignores "" 'pila" pestles' need not trouble us. It would not introduce a new type.

ut Corneli Cornificique

mendaci Furique. addes e cum 'dabis,' Furei,

Here the substitution of 'dabis' for 'dato' is unimportant.1 The main point is that on this view Frs. 2 and 4 together state that nouns in -ius make their genitive in i, but their vocative in ei.

I will take (C) first. There seems to me to be very strong reasons against it. In the first place Charisius, who quotes 2 and 3, speaks of the latter as being 'paulo post' the former. Quintilian, after quoting 3, proceeds to 4, and introduces it with 'deinceps.' If the two authorities are right, clearly 3 came between 2 and 4. Müller had noticed this, but brushed it away with the dictum that Charisius was wrong. It seems to me to be just the sort of thing in which I should expect the grammarians to be right. But the main objection is 'mendaci '; apart from the oddness of a common noun in -ium being interposed between three names in -ius, it would seem to break into the argument, which Müller postulates, as it has no vocative in ei. I cannot doubt that Fr. 2 refers to a totally different question-viz. one discussed by all grammarians, whether nouns in -ius made their genitive in i or ii. In fact, I have only printed it here because it is required to understand Müller's theory.

(B) stands, I think, on firmer ground; but before discussing it it will be as well to see what objections there are to (A). Lachmann, when he first propounded his emendation, merely remarked that the phrase 'cum dare furei iusseris' is unintelligible. I certainly think that while 'dare' no doubt fits in well with the 'casus dandi,' 'iusseris' is, to say the least, exceedingly otiose. Why should the person addressed tell somebody else to put 'fur' in the dative? Why did he not simply write cum dabis furei'? But if that were the only objection to (A), it might be cured more simply by reading addent' (or 'addet "). The context may have taken the form of saying what the correct speller would use, When you tell him to make the dative of fur,' he will add the e. The question that really seems to me important is whether (A) is consistent with Fr. 5, where undoubtedly i, not ei, is enjoined in illi' (dat.). It is of course answered that Lucilius writes i in datives that require distinction from the plural, otherwise the normal ei. How far this is a satisfactory answer I will consider later. Meanwhile let us return to (B).

One objection to Lachmann's theory is that it leaves 'mendaci' out of account. Obviously there is no vocative to correspond to it as there is to 'furi.' Lachmann entirely ignores this, but I think the difficulty may be removed. If the theory is otherwise acceptable, I should suggest that wrapped up with the grammatical injunction is a bitter personality. There was perhaps a Furius who was Lucilio indice a fur et mendax.' Indeed, though

1 Müller had at one time approved of Lachmann's 'datò' from a metrical point of view. I

do not know whether his later 'dabis' implies any doubts on this point.

the Furius who supported Saturninus was chiefly prominent two or three years after the accepted date of Lucilius' death, he may well have incurred his hostility earlier. But of course we need not expect to know otherwise the person attacked. We shall on this view get a forcible bit of Lucilian sarcasm: 'When you use the vocative of "Furius," you will be adding an e to his dative, for he is "fur" and "mendax" to boot.'1

I do not find it easy to strike a balance between (A) and (B). The decision will finally rest on the questions put at the end of this paper, and on the view which we take of Lucilius' purpose in giving these rules. It is quite clear that he is demurring to the new principle ascribed to Accius, by which long i was regularly to be written as ei, and laying down that this should be done in some cases, but not in others. But what is the principle of distinction which he advocates?

The view taken, I think, by modern editors, and certainly by Longus and Marius Victorinus, is that Lucilius recommends two forms of spelling to distinguish words identical in form but differing in meaning. On this view I should certainly plump for (A), at any rate with the slight correction of 'addes' which I have suggested. On this theory ei would be the normal spelling, not only in the nominative plural, but in the dative singular; but where that clashes with a nominative plural, as in 'ille,' it must be changed to i. My difficulty in accepting this view is as follows: Lucilius seems to me to be throughout considering pronunciation as well as spelling. The words 'tenue,' 'pingue,' 'plenum' can only refer to sound; and in another fragment,2 where he is evidently controverting Accius on another point of spelling, he says, ut dicimus . . . scribimus.' If this is true, two explanations are possible: (1) pueri' (sing.) and 'pueri' (plur.) were pronounced identically, but Lucilius, to avoid confusion, wished them to be pronounced differently as well as spelt differently; or (2) the two sounds really differed in his time, and he wished them to be spelt accordingly. The first of these two seems to me to make considerable demands on our belief. That a man should propose that two identically sounding words should be spelt differently is conceivable enough, though it was perhaps as Longus says 'superuacanea obseruatio'—a Mrs. Partington's mop in the face of the sea of Latin words which can be parsed in two ways. But that he should also ask the public to pronounce them

1 Following up this suggestion, we might perhaps improve it still further. It may be noted that, while (B) gives a real meaning to the 'iusseris,' so meaningless under (A) as it stands, it loses the special force which (A) gives to the verb 'do' as introducing the dative. Suppose we were to read 'cum dato Furei, ius" erit' on the analogy of the 'ius petis' and 'ius oras' of Plautus, we should then get a still grimmer joke, When you say, "pay your dues for once, Furius," you give the false thief an extra e.' But I only throw this out as a possible alternative.


[blocks in formation]

differently against all usage is another matter. An obvious illustration will serve. If literary English had made no distinction in writing between 'boys' (poss. sing.) and 'boys' (plural), a spelling reformer might suggest the use of the apostrophe, and we should listen to him with respect, though perhaps with indifference. If he told us that henceforth we must pronounce them differently we should laugh in his face.

The second explanation, as we have seen, will be that 'pueri,' 'puerei,' etc., really had two different sounds, which Lucilius calls 'tenue' and 'pingue,' and that his rules amount to nothing more than that the spelling should correspond. In this case the idea of distinguishing identical or similar words really passes out of sight. Naturally enough Lucilius illustrates his point from words of identical form, just as we should illustrate the difference of sound in i before nd by wind (v.) and wind (n.) rather than by 'bind' and 'India.' When the difference of sound in ‘i tenue' and 'i pingue' had passed away, the grammarians lost the key to the passages and fastened on this quite subsidiary feature, as being the main consideration.

Now it is quite conceivable that the phoneticians and philologists may say that this view is on other grounds untenable, and to them I would address two questions. First, is it possible that the genitive singular and nominative plural of the second declension had in Lucilius' time1 a difference of sound, which afterwards disappeared? If the answer is affirmative, it seems to me that these words of his may have more value in the history of Latin phonetics, and perhaps of case-morphology in general, than has hitherto been ascribed to them. And if it is affirmative, I proceed to my second question. Is it possible that the same difference of sound existed between the dative singular of the third declension and that of the demonstrative pronoun? Prima facie I should suppose it much less likely, though I tread with all uncertainty in such matters. For while the nominative plural and genitive singular are obviously different in origin, the two datives are generally held to be both locatives in origin. And if while answering 'yes' to my first question they say 'no' to the second, it seems to me that we shall have to abandon the usual reading and interpretation of Fr. 4. If the sound in 'illi' was 'tenuis,' it can hardly have been 'pinguis' in 'furi.' We should have to fall back on Lachmann's theory; and it would be an interesting fact that that great scholar's instinct led him to a right conclusion, though on different, and to my mind inadequate, grounds.

One thing should be added in conclusion. It seems clear that Lucilius lays some stress on the point that the fuller sound expressed by two letters in the nominative plural is in accordance with the idea of plurality. I take this

1 It will quite sufficiently satisfy the conditions if it was already practically obsolete in Lucilius' time, or at least so obsolescent that only purists like himself still clung to it.

2 Lindsay indeed was inclined to think that this was the leading idea. Thus he would read

'meille... miles,' and supposes 'pilum' (sing.) to be contrasted with 'peila' (plur.). For the same reason I suppose he suggests 'date, Furei ' (voc. plur.). But we need not credit Lucilius with what he rightly calls an absurdity, and the doctrine of avμma@ela quite accounts for the facts.

to be an example of the etymological doctrine of συμπαθεία τῆς φωνῆς τῷ onpaivoμéve, of which Steinthal gives several examples.1 The nearest analogy to our case perhaps is the idea that the augment in the imperfect marked prolongation of action as opposed to the present. But it must not be supposed, so far as I know, that this doctrine was called in to justify innovations. It might decide in doubtful cases, but its proper function was to give an etymological reason for what actually existed, and this is how I should suppose Lucilius to have used it.


1 Sprachwissenschaft bei den G. und R. I. p. 351. 2 A still better example would be 'saeculum' (not 'seculum') for the same reason. But this


is from Apuleius' 'de diphthongo,' who is said to be of very late date.


« السابقةمتابعة »