'■i,-3»->' S93 Cornell University Library PA 2182.S93 Contraction In the cafe forms of the U^^^ 3 1924 021 615 152 dlassical pbilolooie UNDBB THE EDITORIAL SDFBBVISION OF H. W. JOHNSTON, Ph.D.. EDWARD CAPPS, Ph.D., XBB IKDIAHA CHIYBBSITT TBB CNIYBRSITT OV OHIOAOO No. 1. Lex De Imperio TeBpasiani. By Fbed B. R. Hbllems, Doctor of Philosophy of the University of Chicago ; Professor of Latin in the University of CSolorado, SOc. JN PSESS No. 9. Contraetion in the Case Formg of the Latin -io and -4a Btems and deus, is, and idem. By Edoab Howard Stxjktevant, Doctor of Philosophy of the Uni- versity of Chicago; Instructor in Latin in the Indiana University No. 3. The Oenltlve of Talne in Latin, By Gordon J. Laino, Doctor of Philosophy of the Johns Hopkins University; Instructor in Latin in the University of Chicago CONTRACTION IN THE CASE FORMS OF THE LATIN' 20- AND ia- stems, AND OF deus, is, AND idem A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTIES OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOLS OF ARTS, LITERATURE, AND SCIENCE, OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY {JDEFAItTMENT OF SANSKRIT ANJ) INJ)0-EUSOPEAN OOMPABATIVE PHILOLOQT) BY EDGAR HOWARD STURTEVANT SOMETIME rSLLOW Or THE UNIVEKSITY OF CHICAGO CHICAGO SCOTT, POEESMAN AND COMPANY 1902 COPYRIGHT, 1902, BY 6C0TT, FOEESMAN AND COMPANY TTPOGBAPHY BT MARSH, AITKBN A 0U3.IIS COMPAITS CONTEACTION IN THE CASE FORMS OF THE LATIN ip- AND ia- STEMS, AND OF dews, «s, AND idem I The object of this paper is the investigation of some ques- The mbjtct tions relating to the nominative plural and dative-ablative plural of deus and to the nominative plural masculine and dative- ablative plural of is and idem. But as we shall have frequent occasion to refer to the history of the io- and ja-stems, we shall first consider briefly the contracted genitives singular like fill and the contracted plural cases like_^K xadifilis. The history of the genitive in -i has been treated very often.' oenuive Hn- The results of the discussion may be summarized as follows : ^- "Lm* the form with -i was the only one in use in early Latin for substantives. Adjectives, however, ended in -ii. Varro, and after him the whole school of the analogists, prescribed the ending -ii because the genitive must not have fewer syllables than the nominative. The effect of this theory is seen already in Propertius, and in Vergil, if one accepts Aen. IIL 702 with its genitive fluvii. Ovid and most of the later poets use -ii prevailingly, but Manilius, Persius, and Martial use -i with a very few exceptions. The use of -ii on inscriptions dates from the end of Augustus's reign, but -i is the prevalent form throughout the empire. Proper names are especially conservative in the retention of -i. The short forms of the nominative and dative-ablative plural have attracted less attention. 'Notably by Bentley, note on Terence, Andr. II 1, 20j Sverdsjo, VIndlclae praeceptl Bentleianl de genitlvo substantlvorum In -lus et -lum deslnentlnm, Klga and Dorpat 1832; Laolimann, note on Lucretius V 1006; Neue, Formenlehre der latelnlscheu Sprache 1' 134-154, II» 44 t. ; Eitschl, Abhandlungen der bayerlschen Akademle der Wlssenscbaften I Classe X 338 ft. =Opuscula IV 623 fl. ; Mommsen, Hermes I 461 fl. ; Brambach, Die Neugestaltung der latelulschen Ortbograpble 188 fl. , 328 fl. ; Corssen, Uber Ausspraobe, Vokalismus and Betonung der latelnlschen Spraohe II» 696 fl. ; Weissbrodt, Fbllologus XLiIII 450 fl. 29 Plural cases_ of lo- and j^a- stems. — His^ tory of the question. 4. CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS The usage of the early poets has been pretty well determined. Eitschl, Prolegomena to Plautus, Trinummus, p. CLXI (1848), observed that, although filio, filios, filii, fiUus and the like often appeared as dissyllables in Plautus's anapaests, they were never so scanned in the more common meters.^ He thought that gratis and ingratis, later the regular forms, did not occur in Plautus. Corssen, Aussprache IP 698 ff. (1870), held that Plautus never used the short forms. Ussing, on the other hand. Prolegomena to Plautus 212 (1875), thought that even gratis must be read at Capt. 406 (= 408 Ritschl) and perhaps ingratis at Amph. 162 (= 164 Eitschl). Three years later, in his edition of the Captivi, Ussing wrote gratiis. Klotz, Altromische Metrik 60 (1890), pointed out that the iambic' shortening law would do away with the necessity for scanning filio, filios, filii, filiis, etc., as dissyllables in Plautus; for example, Bacch. 1304: II I I Filii vos expectant intus. Quam quidem actutum emoriamur, instead of: Fill vos expectant Stolz, however, Historische Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache 330 (1894) , wrote : ' 'Auch f iir den Nominativ und Dativ- Ablativ des Plural ist die Urspriinglichkeit der Ausgange -i und -is zum mindesten nicht unwahrscheinlich. " In Miiller's Handbuch der klassischen Alterthumswissenschaft IF 3, 130 (1900), he expresses a similar view: "Bei den io- Stammen bevorzugte die altere Sprache die kontrahierten Formen, zum Beispiel_/??CT _/fZi (und_^Zm) . . ." Lachmann, note on Lucretius IV 680 (1850), held that the poets always used the nominative in -ii. But in his note on V 85 he gave a number of examples of the contracted dative- ablative plural- ranging from Plautus to Martial. Neue, Formenlehre V 159 f., admitted the contraction in the nominative plural also.' Lindsay, The Latin Language (1894), > C. F. W. MttUer, Plautlnlsohe Prosodle 464 (1869), repeats EltsoU's remark, and discusses several passages that apparently sliow the short form. » The view of the applloaWUty of the Iambic law assumed In this paper Is, In the main, that of Klotz, Altromische Metrik 53 to 97, with the modlfloatlon urged by Manning, Harvard Studies In Classical Philology IX 87 fl. sHe was followed by Corssen, Aussprache II' 698 £t., and by BUcheler-Wlnde- kllde, Gnmdrlss der lateinischen Declination 88, 129. 30 CONTEACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS 5 treated the nominatiye and the dative-ablative differently. Of the latter he said (p. 403) : "We find -its contracted in the course of time into -isj thus gratiis (always with -Us ... in Plautus and Terence . . . ) became gratis in classical Latin." On p. 398 we read: "A nominative plural of an io- stem with -is occurs on an inscription of the first century A. D. (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum I 1541 b), jilis. It is impossible to say whether filei (I 1272), feilei (I 1284, compare socei, I 1041) is meant for this form (compare Clodi for Clodis nominative singular), or is a misspelling of filiei (I 1275) or a contraction of it (like gratis for older gratiis).'''' Brambach, Neugestaltung 196 (1868), pointed out that the Eoman grammarians barely mention the contracted forms of the plural cases. This fact he considered proof that the scholastic theory never adopted them. Corssen, Aussprache IP 698 ff., noted that the short form occurred on state inscriptions. Weissbrodt, Philologus XLIII 453 f. (1884), observed that on imperial inscriptions fili and filis were far more common than fiUi and Jiliis. Proper names, on the other hand, usually showed -ii and -iis. The most economical way of bringing order into this chaos will be to state the results of the discussion along with what- ever additions I have to make. As already stated, Klotz has finally banished fili, filis and The early the like from Plautas and Terence. If the contracted forms Evidence of had been in use at that period we should almost certainly find some of them among the exceedingly frequent io- and id- stems of early comedy. In the Asin., Bacch., Capt. and Merc, I find the following forms where the meter will not permit contraction : alii - 2 exitiis aliis - 4 fallaciis-3 astutiis filii bracchiis filiis-rZ comoediis gaudiis custodiis gratiis - 5 deliciis ingeniis ditiis ingratiis Ephesiis insidiis eximiis laniis 31 6 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS mendaciis patriciis miseriis perfidiis negotiis periuriis - 2 noxiis (Merc. 983 b?) piscariis oinoxii Samiis offuciis saviis olearii sycopJiantiis In the same plays I find fourteen places where the meter would admit either the contracted or the uncontracted form. This is exactly the state of affairs that other considerations would lead one to expect in Plautus. In his time the diph- thongs oi, ai of the nominative and dative-ablative plural had only reached the stage e (compare Brugmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen I' 184; 227 f.) and there is no reason in the nature of the case why the combination U should contract. But when, about the year 600 a. u. c. (see Solmsen, Indogermanische For- schungen IV 244) , the change of e to t had brought two like vowels together, contraction was almost inevitable (Stolz, Miiller's Handbuch IP 2, 49 f., has collected a large num- ber of examples). Accordingly the following, line of Tur- pilius (162 Eibbeck, quoted by Nonius, 306, 3) shows just the form that we should expect early in the seventh century a. u. c. : r I It Detegere, despoliare opplereque adeo fama ac flagitis.^ Hieronymus, Interpretatio Chronicorum Eusebi 1914 = 651 a. u. c. says, "Turpilius comicus senex admodum Sinuessae moritur." Kitschl, Parerga 188, thinks that he stopped writing about 600 a. u. c. , but there is nothing against the sup- position that his activity lasted a few years into the new century. Evidence _oj So far as I know, the earliest instances of the short forms tiom. on inscriptions are controversis, flovi, lanuaris, Veituris, Vituris of the Sententia Minuciorum (a. u. c. 637). The 1 C. F. W. Miiller, Plautlnlsclie Prosodle 464, suggested the emendation famae ae flagiti, but Eibbeck, Commloorum Komanorum Fragmenta,'' p. XXXIX, baa answered the syntactical objection to the manuscript reading. Cf. also F. LeOi Flautinlsche Forschungen 337. 32 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS 7 following table includes all instances of our cases of the io- and jd- steins on the inscriptions of the Corpus Inscrip- tionum Latinarum Volume I which fall before the year 650 a. u. c. : ANNO tJRBIS OONDITAE COBPUS I 4941 195 socieis sixth century 42 Atilies 608 542 alieis 637 199 controversieis Minucieis controversis fiovi lanuaris - Vituries (twice) Veituris Vituris 643 200 aedificieis moinicipieis stipendiarieis (twice) vieis - viasieis first half of the seventh century 823 lunils] The spellings -iei, -ieis remained the usual ones up to the end of the republic, although the shorter forms were used occasionally. The following list with tjie one just given embraces all the shorter forms that appear on the numbered inscriptions of Corpus I : coloneis — 206 (three times) — a. u. c. 709. filei — 1272 — "litt^ris bonis et antiquis." feilei—128i. filis (nominative) — 1541 b — first century a.d. lani — 1131. ZtSmret— 206— a. u. c. 709. oficeis — 1050. socei — 1041. 1 WolfBin, Sltzungsberlchte der bayerisohen Akademle der Wlssenschaften, March 1890, argued that the Inscription on the existing Colunma Eostrata Is a copy of the one on the stone set up by Dullius. He succeeds, I think. In making his theory probable. But the presence of such modernized spellings as praesent^d], praeda, aes, praedad, poenicat, claeeis, naveis, however they may be explained, shows that we can place no reliance upon the speUlng of the stone as we have It. 33 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS The spelling lei /or the Bound 1. Classical and late Latin.— Evidence of the literature. The spelling iei after 600 is to be regarded as a bit of ortbographical conservatism rather than an exact representa- tion of contemporary speech. We have seen that the pronun- ciation -I, -IS is what we should expect, and that early in the seventh century it had become common enough to find a place in literature. We have also direct evidence that the combina- tion iei might stand for a single syllable. The epitaph of Gnaens Cornelius Scipio Hispanus (praetor a. u. c. 615), Corpus VI 1293 = I 38, contains the hexameter line: Virtutes generis mieis moribus accumulavi. We have also lumphieis Corpus I 1238 = X 6797, from the late years of the republic ; sacrieis Corpus X 5055, not earlier than 732 a. u. c. ; suieis Corpus VI 15700; IX 4666; and meritieis Corpus VI 19419 (compare Eitschl, Priscae Lati- nitatis Monumenta Epigraphica, p. 69). I shall return to this matter later on. A re-formation, however, was possible at any time, and in the literary speech the pronunciation -li, -lis was actually intro- duced as early as the time of Lucretius. He used the con- tracted form only in the words gratis and ingratis (Lach- mann, note on Lucretius V 85), which permanently escaped re-formation on account of their use as adverbs and their consequent separation from the system. Aside from them there are only a few certain instances of contraction in the poets. Propertius VI 34 Miiller (pentameter) : Et, qui nunc nulli, maxima turba Gobi. Compare Lachmann, note on Lucretius IV 680. Vergil, Aen. V 269 : Puniceis ibant evincti tempora taenis. Vergil, Aen. VII 631 : Ardea Crustumerique et turrigerae Antemnae Compare Lachmann, note on Lucretius IV 680. Seneca, Phoen. 635 L. (iambic) : Eegna cum scelere omnibus Sunt exilis graviora. Nunc belli mala Propone. Seneca, Med. 743 (trochaic) : SuppUcis, animae, remissis currite ad thalamos novos. 34 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS » Seneca, Med. 1015 (iambic): Moramque saltern suppKcis dona meis. Martial I 117, 17 Gilbert (hendecasyllables) : Deprimo dabit alterove nido Easum pumice purpuraque cultum Denaris tibi quinqne Martialem. Martial IX 100, 1 (elegiac) : Denaris tribus invitas et mane togatum Observare iubes atria, Basse tua. Martial IX 100, 6 (pentameter) : Denaris tamen banc non emo, Basse, tribus. Lucian Miiller, de Ee Metrical 301, says that Vipsanis at Martial IV 18, 1 comes from Vipsanus, and compares Vip- sanas (or Vipsanias?) at 1 108, 3, which also refers to the porch of Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa. The nomen Vipsanus occurs Corpus III 3031; 3084; V 1008. But such trifling with the name of a prominent man as Miiller 's theory involves, seems strange, to say the least. Lachmann, note on Lucretius IV 680, approves Bentley's insertion of -que at Manilius, I 787 — Certantes^'j^e Deci votis. There is no sufficient reason for rejecting the manuscript read- ing: Certantes Deciivotis. Lucian Miiller, ibid. p. 303, shows that we may read conubils in the dactylic poets. Eibbeck, however, retains conHbis at Vergil, Aen. Ill 136 and Culex 299. The phrase in somnis occurs frequently in the dactylic poets meaning either "during sleep" or "in a dream" (for example Vergil, Aen. I 353 ; II 270; III 151 ; IV 353 ; 466). The latter alternative is certainly the more natural. But at Ennius, Ann. 225 Miiller, contraction is, as we have seen, impossible, and the word must therefore be taken from soinnus. Other cases, also, of somnus are used where the idea of dreams seems to us more prominent than that of sleep. Lavinis, Propertius III 32, 64 Miiller, is probably from Lavinus (attested by Vergil, Aen. I 2), the adjective to Lavinum, Juvenal XII 71 (see L. Miiller, ibid. p. 300). Further evidence that the contracted forms were in good use in the best period is furnished by state inscriptions. The Acta Ludorum Saecularium of 737, Ephemeris Epi- EviOmeeof graphica VIII p. 225 ff., contain Milicheis and Ilithyis. tiom. The Decree of the Municipal Senate of Pisae in honor of 35 10 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS Gaius Caesar, Corpus XI 1431, has all and spoMs. The Monumentum Ancyranmn shows auspicis, provincis (twice), municipis, stipendis, beside iudiciis, consiliis, maniiiis (four times), municipiis, alii. The Edict of Claudius, Corpus V 5050, has alis, Martis and controversis. The Address of Claudius, Corpus XIII 1668, has reliquis and Gallis. The Leges Malacitana et Salpensana, Corpus II 1963, 1964, show alis, comitis (twice), praedis (twice) and suffragis, beside alii (twice), socii, comitiis (three times) and curiis. The Lex Coloniae G-enetivae, Ephemeris Epigraphica II 105 f. and III 87 f., has Jluvi, aedificis and comitis (twice), but also auspiciis and sacrificiis. To get a proportional view of the usage of the imperial inscriptions I have read Corpus VI 1 — 30681. As the common word filius shows the short forms very much more often than other words, I treat it separately. The personal names must also be, kept by themselves. The adverb gratis, which occurs four times, is omitted from the statistics. Owing to the impossibility of dating a majority of the inscriptions included in the count, I group together all inscriptions that cannot be shown to be earlier than Caesar's death or later than 300 a.d. To supply more exact chronological data, I give statistics from several of the longer inscriptions.' The table includes a few instances of ei in the i columns, and of iei in the ii columns. Filii fill filiis filis Corpus VI ( B.C. 44-A.D. 300 21 \ after 300 4 75 57 197 Other inscrip' tions - j second century ( third century Personal Names 1 3 -a -i •iis -is Corpus VI j B.C. 44-A.D. 300 68 ( after 300 10 19 1 13 Corpus XI 1147 (Trajan) 64 1 Besides those cited above, these are : the Addltamenta ad Acta Fratrum Arvallum, Eph. Ep. VIII 3)6-340; the Military Diplomas, Corpus III pp. 843 £t., Eph. Ep. II pp 454 ff., IV pp. 181 fl., 495 ft., V pp. 98 ft., 610 «., 652 ff. ; Corpus X 1401 ; the Lex MetalU Vlpascensls, Eph. Ep. Ill pp. 165 f.; Corpus IX 2438; the Obligatio Praedlorum of Trajan, Corpus XI 1147; the Lex Manciana, L'Aunfie Epigraphlque 1897 pp. 13-19; Corpus XI 3614; VIII 2532; XIV- 2112; V 532; the Aes Italioense, Eph. Ep. VII 385 Tab. A; Corpus VIII 212; the Acta Ludorum Saecularlum ol A.D. 204, Eph. Ep. VIII pp. 274 B. 36 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS 11 Other Words -ii -i -iis -ie c-p-^i &Jtor''' ' '' s 'I other inscrip-(fi'^^*^^^*^7 ^ ? ?^ ^^ tioas j second century 1 13 23 ( third century 10 13 The spellings fili and filis are a little more than three times as frequent as the longer forms.' In personal names the nominative in -ii is nearly ten times as frequent as that in -i. Weissbrodt, Philologus XLIII 454 f., shows that this spelling was used for the sake of distinguishing the nominative plural from the genitive singular which in these words generally ended in a single -i. The dative-ablative plural shows -iis a little more frequently than -is (the sixty-four instances of -is in the Obligatio Praediorum of Trajan certainly do not repre- sent the common usage). Other words show the short forms a little more frequently than the long ones up to about the end of the third century. After that date the long forms are almost the only ones in use. We noticed above, p. 8, that the spelling iei sometimes Thetpeiung stood for the sound i. After the writing i had been suhsti-' sound i in the tuted for ei, the combination ii was likewise used for the sound *°' ' ^'' of i. It is not necessary to suppose a mechanical substitution of ii for -Jei (=i), after the analogy of the change to i from ei (=i). We have seen that the pronunciations I and it were both in use from the time of Lucretius on. Both spellings, therefore, must have existed side by side, and many people would read i when ii was written. The same persons would then be likely to write ii when they meant i. Accordingly we find the writing ii for I in the following lines from metrical inscriptions (hexameter) : Biicheler, Carmina Epigraphica 709 = Corpus V 6728 : Liliis ceu vernantibus artus conservans ab alvo. 'Cf. Zlegel, De Is et hie pronominlbus, p. 10; "In PentateucM pallmps. frag- meuto Mouacensl -ii et -iis In vocum exltu raro iUo modo contrahuntur. Exciplendae autem J!Ji et flits plurales formae quae, nisi perpauols locls . . . nusquam dupUcem i Utteram exbibent." 37 12 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS In the case of other words. The line contains an extra foot, but that fact -will not help us to get llliis into dactylic verse. Biicheler 716 = Corpus XII 1045 : lura sacerdotii servans nomenque iugalis. Biicheler 787 line 51 = De Eossi, Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Eomae II, 83, 36 and 85, 31 a: Per patris Ecfilii nomen cui credimus omnes. When the use of ii for I had once become established the spelling spread to words where it had no historical justification. Examples on inscriptions have been collected by Eitschl, Priscae Latinitatis Monumenta Epigraphica, p. 69; Garrucci, Sylloge, p. 31; and Weissbrodt, Braunsberger Lektionska- talog fiir den Wintersemester, 1883-84, p. 33, and Philologus XLIII 449 f. Only the first and last named works are accessi- ble to me. I give their citations with a few of my own: amicus anniis audiiorii higiis collegiis {=collegls) coniugii (dative) defundiis diivius divii (genitive) fiiliae Honoratianii honorii (dative) ingenuiis lisidi libertii (genitive) libertiis matrii merentii ministrii (nominative plural) nuliis {=nuUls) opii (dative) piissimiis posteriis 23ubliciis 38 Corpus VI 11464 VI 4594, 36984 {aniis) VI 1678 X7395 VI 330 VI 5439 ; X 583 V4683 IX 3718 VI 9005 VI 11590 VI 1733 VI 1683 11493 IX 4773 VI 6381 V7633; VI 9138 VI 19538 VI 16937 IX 3657 VI 10097 Fasti Vallensis 35 VI 6633 VI 19878; X 3039 VI 1893 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS 13 quii (nominative plural) Bullettino 1856 p. 157 sacrii VI 1727 sancfissimiis VI 629 suiis II 3477; V 402; VI 6482 9138 ; 13498 (twice) ; 14435 19310; 19311; 19878 27002; IX 2303; Bullet- tino 1856 p. 257 tahuliis VI 3970 uxorii III 5065; 1X1783 Ziegel, De is et hie pronominibus, p. 39, notes the vriting ii for i (and t) in carefully written sixth and seventh century manuscripts. Like all the other signs of a long vowel, this also was occasionally used for a short one. So we have : mannbus Corpus VI 13177 siibi VI 28674 Suriis (cognomen. feminine nominative) VI 5019 Valeriius VI 28090 viiro VI 29046 On the other hand we find inferis written for inferiis at Biicheler 1050 = Corpus VI 12307 (elegiac) : Debuit hoc natus nobis praestare duobus, Ut cineres patrios dederat inferis. Compare Henzen and Biicheler ad loc. We cannot, therefore, regard the spelling with i or ii as an exact index of pronunciation. But while the spelling ii for I may have been fairly common, the use of i for li was probably extremely rare. Hence the usual pronunciation of our words during the first three centuries of the Christian era was all, alls, etc. The metrical inscriptions, however, seem to follow the poets. I find only the following sure cases of contraction in Biicheler : Antoni 1218 = Corpus VI 12009 fiUs 533 = Corpus VI 13735; 652 = Corpus XI 3276 39 14 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS geneis 934 = Fotizie degli scavi 1883, p. 52, gratis 1247 = Corpus VI 7193; 1414 = De Eossi Inscrip- tiones Christianae II 106, 49 liUis (scanned lills) 709 = Corpus V 6738 (quoted above). Summary. Interpreta- tion.— Tlie plural cases The genitive singular. In the time of Plautus and Terence the nominative plural of io- stems ended in -ie (written -iei or -ie) and the dative-abla- tive plural of io- and id- stems ended in -ies (written -ieis or -ies). About 600 a. u. c. e became -i and -il, -iis contracted to -I, -is. The spelling -iei, -ieis, however, persisted by the side of the newer -ei, -eis, -i, -is. The re-formations -m, -lis were introduced in the literary language as early as Lucretius and almost entirely banished the contracted forms from formal dis- course. In common use, however, the pronunciation -i, -is predominated until after the end of the third century after Christ. During the empire the spelling -ii, -iis was almost as common as the phonetic -i, -is. There is no doubt that the short forms in the plural are due to contraction (but compare Stolz, Historische Grammatik 230, and Miiller's Handbuch II' 2, 120, quoted above) . The origin of the genitive singular in -i is not so clear. There are two principal theories about it. Brugmann, Grundriss II 585 f., followed by Lindsay, The Latin Language 380, and Stolz, Miiller's Handbuch IP 2, 125, calls fili a "genitivische Loca- tivform" with -i, the weak grade of the suffix io-, iio-. The corresponding case of o-stems, he says, originally ended in -ei, but the diphthong became -i earlier here than elsewhere through the influence otjilt and so forth. Hence the spelling with -i on the earliest Latin inscriptions. Von Planta, Grammatik der oskisch-umbrischen Dialekte II 105 f., suggests that perhaps the Indo-European ending of the genitive singular of the o-declension was -I, weak form of {s)-io, before which the stem vowel was lost as before the suffix of io- stems. Brugraann's explanation is unsatisfactory for several rea- sons. (1) If the genitive and locative singular of the o- and p- stems were originally expressed by a single form it is strange that the two cases are kept separate in every language except Latin. (2) There is no good evidence for a locative in -I from the io- stems. Lith. 'zodyje, etc., may be due to the analogy of the i- stems. (See Wiedemann, Handbuch der litau- 40 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS 15 ischen Sprache 66.) Sommer,* Handbuch der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre 370, points out that even in Latin of the early period the longer form of this case seems to have existed beside the genitive in -I. He quotes Ennius, Sat. 54 Miiller (hexameter) : Finis; Brundusii sargust; hunc magnus erit si, and Terence, Eun. 519, where the tradition gives Sunii, but the meter permits either form. (3) Such a locative is very strange in itself. We have locatives with weak stem form, but only from consonant stems where they could be influenced by the other oblique cases in which the weak stem was regular. (See Brug- mann, Grundriss II 610.) In the io- stems we have no evidence for the weak form of the suffix except in the nominative and accusative singular and in composition.'' At any rate a nomin- ative -Is or a dative -iai (or iei) could not be responsible for the change of a locative -iei (or -iiei) to -I. There is nothing in the way of assuming that the original genitive singular ending of o- and io- stems alike was -I. It is preserved only in Latin and Celtic. The Oscan -eis is the ending of the i- stems. (See Buck, Vocalismus der oskischen Sprache 154.) The contraction of -il in the io- stems would occur very early. II The triple set of forms in use for the nominative plural and pens, is, and dative-ablative plural of deus, and for the nominative plural masculine and dative-ablative plural of the pronouns is and idem, presents a problem which has engaged the attention of the Koman grammarians and of many modem scholars, but which still offers much that is perplexing both as to the actual facts and as to their explanation. The statements of the Eoman grammarians (compare Theories of Brambach, Neugestaltung 137 ff.) show that they recognized grammanam. 1 Sommer, however, does not go so far as Von Planta. See ibid. p. 371. " The evidence lor the weak grade even In these positions has been steadily decreasing since the appearance of Streltberg's article (PBB. XIV, 165 ft.). See Slevers, PBB. XVI, 566 f.; Hlrt, IF. 113; Streltberg, Urgermanische Grammatlk 234; Wiedemann, Handbuch der litaulschen Sprache 67; Von Planta, Grammatik d. osklsch-umbrischen Dlalekte II 127 ft.; Lindsay, Lat. Lang. 375; Sommer, Hand- buch der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre 368 Anmerkung. 41 16 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS dii, ii, etc., as the normal spelling but with monosyllabic pronunciation. They put forward two theories to account for the writing of ii in a single syllable. The usual one is that the cases in question must have the same number of syllables as the nominatiTe singular and therefore the i is doubled. This, of course, does not apply to the pronouns. Priscian, however, p. 398 Keil, says: "Puto autem, quod in his quoque differentiae causa servata est geminatio i, ne si di et dis, et i et is dicamus, dubitatio fiat significationis ; nam di etiam praepositio est et dis et praepositio est et i et is verba. . . . Itaque in compositione idem et isdem per unam i scripsisse, quia nulla confusio sit significationis, inveniuntur pro eidem et eisdem." We are told that dei, ei, stood for dissyllables. Vismsaiomby Eitschl, Prolegomena to Plautus, Trin. XCVIII (1848), scholars. condemned the spelling with ii in editions of Plautus. The early forms were di, i, etc.* He thought, Opuscula IV 320 ff. (1855), that ii, lis, iisdem were still unknown in the time of Cicero, and that they belonged to the period of the decline. Lachmann, note on Lucretius IV 933 (1850), thought that the monosyllabic forms of the pronouns were the usual ones in the early period. Plautus, he said, occasionally used lis and els and several times (probably) els {eieis or eiis). Neue, Formenlehre P 161 ff., IP 381 ff., 395," concluded from the statements of the grammarians that dii, diis were pronounced dl, dis. He also noted that the words were usually scanned as monosyllables by the early poets. The pronouns are similarly treated by the grammarians, but he thought that , iei, ieis on republican inscriptions proved that the pronuncia- tion il, iis was not unknown. For the compound, however, he recognized only idem and isdem. Mommsen, Hermes I 464 ff. (1866), published statistics from the Military Diplomas to show that iis was the favorite spelling under the empire. He found is, however, frequently during the period from 110 to 167, and eis twice in the years 71 and 80. Brambach, Neugestaltung 137-140 (1868), showed that Mommsen's deductions as to spelling were confirmed by the remarks of the Eoman gram- marians. Dii and ii, however, were pronounced dl and I. 1 So Brix, note on Triu. 17, and others. "My references are to the third edition (1892 to 1902), but the first (1861) also contained these same statements ■with the possible exception of those about deus. The latter occur in Vol. I of the first edition, to which I have not had a«cess. 42 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS 17 Corssen, Aussprache IF 340 (1868), made the curious state- ment that di^s appears after Caesar's Gallic AYar. Spillmann, Prog. St. Gallen, 1878, 21 f. (according to Neue, Pormenlehre IP 382), argued that Caesar always wrote ii, iis.^ Biicheler- Windekilde, Grundriss der lateinischen Declination 38, 41, 129, 131 (1879), said that the occasional deis of literature was employed through metrical necessity. He followed Lachmann in his treatment of the pronouns. Thurneysen, Kuhn's Zeitschrift XXX 500 (1890), adopted Neue's view that iei and ieis were dissyllabic. He also gave eeis of the Senatus Consul- turn de Bacchanalibus its face value, and read ei and eis of republican inscriptions as I and 'is. Havet, Eevue de Philo- logie XVI 74 f. (1892), thought that instead of ii having been invented by the grammarians, i had been invented by the Germans. The iambic shortening law would, in his opinion, make it possible to read it wherever I had been assumed in the early dramatists. During the same year, Bronisch, Die oskischen i- and e- Vocale 180, spoke of the "Thatsache . . . dass im lateinischen der Nominativus, Dativus, Ablativus Pluralis dieser Stamme (id est eio-, meio-, deio-) als urspriinglich einsilbige Langen durch Schreibung und Metrum und Gram- matiker erwiesen werden." Lindsay, Latin Language 19, 399, 439, 442 (1894), set up two series of forms, dissyllalDic dei, ei, etc., and monosyllabic di, i, etc., also spelled dii, ii).^ In Plautus, he said, Introduction to the Captivi of Plautus, pp. 27 f. (1900), del and deis seem not to occur, while ei and eis are found only occasionally. There is substantial agreement' in regard to the practice summary. under the empire. All three spellings were employed, although ii, the favorite writing of the grammarians, was always pro- nounced 1. As to the republican usage it is agreed that the early dramatists regularly used the monosyllabic di, dis.* For the pronoun is there are no less than six distinct theories. (1) The pronunciations i, i'l, el and el (and eiei-s?) are all assumed by Lachmann and Biicheler Windekilde. (2) Thur- ' He was foUowed by Meusel, Lexicon Caesarianum II 251 (1893). 'His remark, p. 21, that "dii, diis represented the pronunciation, although spelt dei, deis to agree with the other cases," must he a slip. ' Except for Havet. * I can explain the remarlc quoted from Corssen only as a bit of carelessness. It helps but little to suppose that he referred to spelling, cf. Ritschl, Prolegomena p. 98. 43 18 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS Skutsch and synizesis. Early dra- 9natic meters admit dei for di. neysen rejects only el. (3) N"eue finds evidence lor i and it. (4) Lindsay thinks that i and el were pronounced. (5) Bronisch reads all spellings I. (6) Havet thinks that the dis- syllabic form n (and also el?) was the only one in use. Before turning to the evidence we must notice briefly a dis- cussion that touches our subject only indirectly. Skutsch, Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift 1894, 365 f., expressed the belief that the dissyllabic pronunciation of meo, suo, etc. , Is the only one to be assumed for the early dramatists. He objected to the usual assumption of synizesis on the ground that one could not tell where to read meb and where meo (with iambic shortening) since each would form a half-foot equally well. Leo, Plautinische Forschungen 323 (1895), replied with two new arguments for synizesis. (1) The proceleusmaticus never contains a shortened iambus in Plautus (compare id. ibid. 246 f.), but feet like eo quia (that is eb quia) occur a number of times. (2) Plautus seldom puts a dactyl in the fourth place of the trochaic septenarius, and especially seldom a dactyl containing a shortened iambus ; but he sometimes con- structs the foot of a long syllable followed by eb, m^mst, etc. In an article entitled "lambenkiirzung und Synizese," Satura Viadrina 122-144, Skutsch undertook a thorough sifting of the arguments for synizesis in the early dramatists. He did not disprove the phenomenon,' but he showed that the evidence for it is extremely scanty. He completely demolished Leo's two arguments by citing a number of passages which con- tain shortened iambi in the positions in question." Now, Skutsch's observation that meo makes as good a half- foot as meo suggests a similar objection to the usual dogma that only di and dis are found in Plautus. Indeed we may say that di would be certain only (1) as the final syllable of an iambic cadence, or (2) as the second syllable of a resolved the- sis or arsis, being shortened by the iambic law (that is, ^ ^ di ^ or _L ^ di j_), or (3) where the meter requires the complete loss of the word by elision. For dis, of course, the third case is excluded. We must remember, however, that while a long monosylla- ble, even one of very frequent use, might never occur in one of these three positions, an iambic word would be almost certain 1 Cf. Lindsay, Introduction to the Captivi pp. 26 ff. 2 Cf. Lindsay, ibid. p. 40. 44 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS 19 to betray itself. That is, it would be almost certain to occur in positions where a monosyllable could not be substituted for it. For example, we must read dSae, not d^e at Merc. 793 : / ' r At te, vicine, di cZeaeque perduint. If, then, we find no places where the words are certainly dis- syllables we shall be safe in calling them monosyllables. For our cases of deus this seems to be the state of affairs Nominative in Plautus* and Terence." I find the nominative in Plautus attauve 287 times and in Terence 80 times, the dative-ablative in aeus.— rA« Plautus 25 times and in .Terence 6 times. But in every ^* instance where the meter is at all certain it will admit either a monosyllable or a dissyllable. In several passages, to be sure, the manuscripts read d\ dii or dis where the meter requires a dissyllable. But the trouble is not always helped by reading dels. Ps. 1253, the only case of the sort, I think, which is preserved in the Ambrosian Palimpsest, runs: I I I • Ita victu excurato, ita magnis munditiis dis dignis. The place of dis must evidently be supplied by a trochee or one of its equivalents. Gotz and SchoU in the edition of 1896 read dilm^s. That divus is used as a substantive by Plautus has been shown by Leo, Eheinisches Museum XXXVIII 3. This emendation is certainly preferable to Studemund's [ef] dis which Gotz adopted in the edition of 1887 and Leo retains in his edition of 1896. Likewise in the bacchiac hexameter at Amph. 635 dlvls (with Gotz and SchoU) , not dels, must be read. tit II Ita d'\\m\s est placitum, voluptatem ut maeror comes con- sequatur. In the trochaic verse at True. 701, ' ' ' . . .' B'Hiy'Yi magni ! ut ego [nunc] laetus sum et laetitia differor ! (So SchoU, 1881) , I think that divi is probable whatever one does with the rest of the verse. Gotz and SchoU (1896) give the line up. Hence we need have no hesitation in accepting the emendation dlvl where del also is possible. This is the case » I have used the edition of G&tz and SchoU, Leipzig, 1893-1898, ^1 have used the edition of Dziatzko, Leipzig, 1884. 45 20 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS Other forms of deus com- pared. CorreipoTid- (ng forme of meus eo?n- pared. at Merc. 436 (Seyffert); Most. 233 (Bothe) ; Eud. 1316 (Leo), wliere Gotz and Scholl (1896) write Di homines although SchoU (1887) followed Leo. Neue, Formenlehre P 164, cites deis at Ps. 1358 as dissyllabic. Eitschl (1850) made the verse a bacchiac tetrameter : I til Deis proxumum esse arbitror suavi[tatem]. Gotz (1887) read an iambic dimeter: Deis proxumum esse [hoc] arbitror. (Compare the discussion ad loc. and the references given there.) Gotz and Scholl (1896) prefer hiatus to the inser- tion of hoc. A line whose scansion is so uncertain has no value as evidence, and in any case divis is admissible. In every instance, then, the meter permits either di, dis or dei, deis, and, according to the principle laid down above, we should prefer the former. But the case is not so weak as that. Decs, deae, and deas do not occur with anything like the frequency of di and yet the meter requires that they be read as dissyllables in a number of The following list is incomplete : deos— Gas. 670; Cist. 343; Poen. 950; And. 533; Hec. 476; Ad. 693. e— Cure. 719; Merc. 793; Mil. 501; 735; Phor. 687; Hec. 103. s— Cas. 670; Poen. 950. Furthermore we may compare the nominative plural mascu- line and the dative-ablative plural of the common word meus which presents nearly the same rhythmical and phonetic charac- ter as deus. We must read mei, ineis at the following places: mei— Merc. 348; Mil. 815; Trin. 1163; True. 741. mm— Amph. 967; As. 67; 504; 639; Ba. 598; Capt. 630 536; Cas. 116; Men. 597; 849; 1001; Mil. 167; 390 ilQ4; Merc. 787 {meeis in the Ambrosian Palimpsest) Pers. 813; Poen. 473; 1000; Ps. 127; 779; Eud. 972 974; Stich. 81; 580; 679; Trin. 509; 846; True. 378 Heaut. 491; 699; Hec. 271; 720; Ad. 563; 879. There is no reason for this difference in the treatment of di and dis on the one hand, and of deos, deae, deas, mei and meis on 46 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS 21 the other, unless the former are monosyllables and the latter are dissyllables.' The spelling of the Ambrosian Palimpsest points to the ^j*"^/-^'** monosyllabic pronunciation. Di is preserved in numerous ^«i"««»^i'« of places; for example, Cist. 512; 522; Mil. 701; Most. 655; 668; 684; 717; Pers. 292; 296; 298; 483; 488; 492; 581; 639; Poen. 439; 449; 667; Ps. 271; 943; 1130; 1230; 1294; Stich. 505; 595; 685. Dei (for example. Cist. 497; Men. 451; Poen. 460; 588; 687; 751; 859; 900; 909; 967; 988; 1219; 1252; 1253; 1255; 1258; 1274) and cZeis (for example, Capt. 922 ; Ep. 675; Pers. 26; 332; Poen. 452; Stich. 296) are ambiguous. The rarer dii and diis may be modernized forms of di, dis or of d&i, dels. In either case they indicate a monosyllable. (Com- pare pages 12 ff.) I know of no spelling of this word similar to meeis, Merc. 787 (Ambrosian Palimpsest). All doubt vanishes as soon as we turn to the coniemnorarv di and ais in hexameters of Ennius. We must read di at Ann. 116 Miiller, and dis at Ann. 110; 117; 203; 233 Miiller. The earliest instance of the dissyllabic pronunciation in classical and poetry is in Catullus. From his time on it was used with E^mce'of increasing frequency, especially in the dative-ablative. I give a few statistics which are intended to be complete for the ground covered.^ di del dis deis Lucretius 3 Catullus 9 11 Vergil 27 13 Horace 21 14 Propertius 11 1 Ovid 102 9 45 6 Persius 1 4 Lucan 7 5 2 25 Martial 9 7 3 Juvenal 4 8 3 > In this connection It Is Interesting to note that at a later i>erlod, when dei and deis had been Introduced hy the analogy of the other forms, we find deis at the end of a trochaic septenarius. BUcheler 227 = Corpus III 47: Audit et donat Camena, musa nam cordl deis. ' I have used the following editions : Lucretius— Brieger, Leipzig, 1894. Catul- lus—Ellis, Oxford, 1878. Vergil— Hlbbeck, Leipzig, 1862 (only the Eclogues, Georgics and Aeneid). Horace— Hirschfelder, Berlin, 1886. (I have relied on the Index.) Propertius— L. MUller, Leipzig, 1894. Ovid— Merkel, Leipzig, Vol. I' 1887, 11', IIP 1897. Persius— Conington, Oxford, 1874. Lucan— Hosius, Leipzig, 1892. Martial— Gilbert, Leipzig, 1886. Juvenal— Hermann, Leipzig, 1890. 47 22 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS SvideTiee oj the inscrip- tions. I add a list of the passages where I have found the dissyl- labic forms : (fei— Ovid, Met. II 389; VIII 650; IX Ml; 259; XIV 593; 673; Trist. I 2, 59; Ex P. I 5,70; Past. IV 788; Persius VI 30; Lucan I 634; III 36; IV 123; 493; V240; Mar- tial I 103, 4; V 19, 4; VII 60, 4; VIII 4, 4; IX 3, 4; XI 60, 9 ; XII 6, 10. Probably no one nowadays would defend tbe scansion «s, proposed lor tbls line by Lachmann, note on Lucretius IV 934, and adopted by Bilcbeler-VTlnde- kllde, Grundrlss der lateinlschen Declination, p. 131. The editors keep tbe He of the manuscripts. 50 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS 25 Stich. 17 (anapaestic dimeter catalectic) : Nosque ab eis abducere volt. Eun. 250: ' . .' ' ' Sed \e\is ultro adrideo at eorum ingenia admiror simul. Trin. 625 also belongs here if we follow Camerarius and read ei for the senseless in of tbe manuscripts, and Men. 585 if it is an iambic octonarius. Ei at Naevius, Bellnm Poenicum 45 Miiller, is read as a dissyllable by the adherents of the quantitatiye (for example, L. Miiller) and accentual (for example, Lindsay, American Journal of Philology XIV 154, 320) schools. But where both text and meter are so uncertain we cannot attach much weight to the form. The meter requires eidem at Mil. 758 / r I Sed \e\idmn hominis numquam dicunt, quamquam adposi- tumst ampliter. At Ennius, Ann. 194, Miiller's text requires us to read isdem, but the fragment is hopelessly corrupt. There is a badly corrupted passage at Cicero, Or. 157, which has been supposed to refer to Ennius's use of the ablative plural isdem. Eitschl, Opuscula IV 319 fE., discusses the point at length and decides to read with change of the position of probavit: Isdem campus habet inquit Ennius, et in templis isdem. Eisdem erat verius: nee tamen probavit ut opimius, male sonabat isdem: impetratum est a consuetudine ut peccare suavitatis causa liceret. Heerdegen (Leipzig, 1884) restores the order of the manu- scripts and reads: Isdem campus habet inquit Ennius; et in templis: eidem probavit; at isdem erat verius, nee tamen eisdem ut opimins, male sonabat isdem: etc. This is certainly better than Eitschl's reading, although it is still far from lucid. At any rate it is clear that the passage cannot count as evidence on our question. So all the direct evidence that we have points toward the 51 26 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS Other forms of is corn- longer forms in the early poets. But if these forms were the only ones in use, is it not strauge that we find only seven (including the one instance of eidem) passages where the meter requires a dissyllable? In order to answer this question I have compared other cases of the pronoun is which were certainly dissyllabic. The following table contains complete statistics for Plautus and Terence in the case of the nominative plural masculine and the dative-ablative plural. The statistics on the ablative singular (all genders) and the accusative plural mascu- line and feminine cover the Assin., Bacch. and Merc, of Plautus. dissyllabic 1 doubtful 9 eo and ea 3 15 5 31 eos and eaa 2 7 Mvidence of republican inecriptiom. There is no reason, then, for continuing the time-honored statement that Plautus usually employed the monosyllabic i and is. Still, we shall see (page 35) that these forms were probably in use in his day, and we may scan in that way some- times. The following tables are intended to contain all the forma of the nominative plural masculine and the dative-ablative plural of is and idem that occur on the numbered inscriptions of Corpus I, except where abbreviated : Nominative Plural Masculine ANNO UBBIS CONDITAE CORPUS ei eis ie before 535 185 1 568 196 621-636 197 2 631-3 198 4 637 199 l(eMs) 643 200 3 649 577 673 202 4 1 683 204 1 5 about 705 205 1 709 206 3 1 leis eeta 1(?) 52 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS 27 Dative-AUative Plural ANNO UBBIS CONDIIAK CORPUS eis ieis eieis eeis is 494' 195 1 568 196 2 631-2 198 8 1 637 199 2 643 200 10 mid. VII century 201 2 673 202 13 676 203 7 683 204 12 696 603 1 about 705 205 4 709 206 15^ 9' 710 624 1 NOMINATIVI! PLUBAL MASCULINE Dative-Ablative Plukal anno urbig conditae eidem eisdem idem isdem eisdem isdem iisdem 621-636 I 197 631-632 I 198 648 1566 648 I 567 673 683 I 202(5) 1204 709 I 1140 1161 1162 1143 1 1421 1149 1285 (iidem]) 1187 1 1270 (.ieideml I 206 I 206(?) 1 1163 1178 1192(?) 1189 1216 1227 1247 The evidence for the period before 600 a. u. c. is extremely scanty. Ms of the Oolumna Eostrata must stand for a monosyl- lable if the form is genuine ; for at this period the diphthong in unaccented syllables had only reached the stage e and could not be written i. But perhaps the spelling is as modern as that of Poenicas, praesente, and aes of the same inscription (compare p. 7, footnote). lei on one of the old inscriptions from 1 On the date of tMs Inscription, see above p. 7, footnote. ' Corpus I, Index vocabulorum, omits ineie, line 27 and line 96, and abieis, line 148 and line 154. 53 28 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS Evidence of the classical poetry, — The forms of Is. Venusia, Corpus I 185 = IX 439, is very doubtful. The stone has been lost, and the extant transcriptions are evidently not exact. In fact, they do not quite agree about our word. The readings are: ieid (Cimaglia), iei (Lupoli), iei (Aegyptius), et (Fabretti), lei (Saracen), Mommsen's ieis seems in itself a probable conjecture. Still, as the only spellings that we find for more than a hundred years from the time of this inscription are eeis, ei and eis, a good deal of scepticism is justifiable. The only sixth century form that one can rely on is eeis of the Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus. It tallies precisely with what we have learned from Plantus and Terence. For the first half of the seventh century the common spelling is ei, eis, eidem, eisdem. At this period ei is usually ambiguous. But the Tabula Bantina (Corpus I 197) consistently writes ei for i in plural case endings and accordingly eis and eidem must stand for is and idem. Is of the Lex Eepetundarum is, of course, a monosyllable. The spelling iei, ieis appears with the year 649 and is very common for the next one hundred years. We have seen (p. 8) that iei sometimes stands for i and it may well do so here. Similarly eieis of the Senatus Consultum de Tiburtibus probably stands for eis. Idem, is[dem] (nominative plural) and isdem (709 a. u. c.) are clear. lisdem, 206, (beside isdem) is probably for isdem. There are, as far as I know, only three other instances of the writing ii on republican inscriptions. Ingenuiis, I 1493, must stand for ingenuis. Statii, Caesii (genitive singular). Corpus I 757 and 758 respectively, stand on diflBcult inscriptions of doubtful date and authenticity (see Mommsen ad loc). Brambach, Neugestaltung 140, points out that in iisdem there is a space after the first i, and sees in that fact an indication that the spelling is a graver's error. I think it is more probably an early instance of the use of ii = i. Dissyllabic ei and eis do not occur in any of the later poets* that I have examined — Lucretius, Catullus, Vergil, Horace, Propertius, Ovid, Persius, Lucan, Martial, Juvenal. Is and iis occur sometimes in the best manuscripts, but the editors " Meader-WSlffllu, ALL. XI 373 f., says that the nominative plural ci, ii 13 wanting In golden, silver and late Latin poetry. For the datlve-ahlatlve plural "daa ganze Belegmaterial bescrankt sich auf elne Stelle des Manlllus II 744: Vlresque in eis et iura capessunt, wozu nooh die andere unsiohere Stelle II, 377 hiuzukommt." 54 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS 29 always write his (see Lachmann, note on Lucretius IV 934; Neue, Formenlehre IP 386). The very extensive confusion of i and is with hi and his makes the manuscript reading of very little authority on this point (see Lindsay, note on Plautus, Capt. 2) . And it has been thought that the more dignified poets had a prejudice against the pronoun is (see Meader, The Latin Pronouns 6 ff.) and especially against the contractions i and t> (compare the remark of L. Miiller, de Ee Metrica* 297, quoted above, p. 24). Ziegel, De is et hie pronominibus quatenus confusa sint apud antiques, attempts to show by the collation of certain manuscripts that scribes of the fifth century substituted hi and his for the corresponding cases of is (1) where the pronoun was used with a substantive, and (2) where it was followed by the relative. A change in the other direction was extremely rare. He remarks (p. 60): "Certe tamen nonnumquam etiam in libris classicae aetatis edendis et recensendis ilia praecepta quibus librarii a quinto saeculo paruerunt cognovisse ex usu f ore expectamus. " He then shows in detail how his theory restores several instances of the weaker pronoun to the text of Vitruvius. As remarked by Meader, The Latin Pronouns, p. 23, his results cannot be accepted until they receive con- firmation from other manuscripts. Still it is likely that some instances of hi and his in our present editions of the poets enumerated above will eventually be read i and is. I find idem and isdem in the later poets as follows : T/ie formt of ■^ Idem. idem isdem Lucretius 2 1' Vergil 3 1 Horace 2 4 Propertius 1 Ovid 6 16 Lucan 1 Juvenal 1 4 Juvenal uses eisdem also at XIV 30 : Implet et ad moechum dat eisdem ferre cinaedis. L. Miiller, de Ee Metrica' 298, condemns the reading eisdem at Claudian XVIII 412. > At II 698, tut cf . Lachmann, note on IV 934. 55 The evidence of imperial imcriptiom. The orthog- raphy of the Muitary Dlplomae. 30 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS We have noticed that ei, eis and iei, ieis were the usual spellings on inscriptions of the last sixty years of the republic. The same system remained in vogue up to about the beginning of the Christian era: for example, eis Corpus VI 1375 twice (after 733 a. u. c); iei Ephemeris Epigraphica VIII, p. 225 fl. twice (Acta Ludorum Saecularium anni 737 u. c); ieis 1. c. twice. Soon after that date, however, the use of ei and m for I died out, and consequently our forms were spelled differently. The following tables give statistics for Corpus VI 1 — 30681, and from a number of other inscriptions^ most of which can be dated. I have omitted all instances of iei and ieis, and all of eis where it may stand for is (for example, Corpus XI 1421 line 54, beside spoleis line 35). ei ii i eis iis is Corpus VI 5 15 11 5 Other inscriptions — first century 11 13 1 14 116 24 second century 1 9 47 29 third century 11 4 doubtful date 3 3 « 11 19 1 41 188 62 idem eisdem iisdem isdem Corpus VI 11 3 91 Other inscriptions 1 1 5 11 4 1 96 We have also isdem (nominative plural) Corpus VI 2041, 56; 3078 II 10; 23318; and idem {=lsdem) Corpus VI 2075 II 34. The great predominance of the spelling iis is due to the Military Diplomas which give eis 3 times, iis 142 times and is > The MlUtary Diplomas, Corpus III pp. 843 ft. ; Eph. Ep. II pp. 464 «., IV pp. 181 «.. 495 ft., V pp. 92 ft., 610 ft., 652 ft. ; Corpus XII 4333; tlie Decrees of the Municipal Senate of Plsae, Corpus XI 1430, 1421 ; the Monumentum Anoyranum, Corpus III pp. 769 ft. ; the Edict of Claudius, Corpus V 5050; Corpus X 1401 ; the Eplstula VespasianJ ad Vanacinos, Bruus, Fontes Juris 193=Or. 4031; the Leges Malacltana et Salpen- Sana, Corpus II 1963, 1964; The Lex MetalU Vipascensls, Eph. Ep. Ill pp. 165 f. ; the Lex Colonlae Genetlvae, Eph. Ep. II pp. 105 ft., Ill pp. 91 ft. ; the ObUgatlo Praedl- orum of Trajan, Corpus XI 1147; the Lex Manciana, L'Annfie Eplgr. 1897 pp. 13-19; Corpus XI 3614; XIV 2112; Eph. Ep. VIII pp. 316 ft. ; Corpus IX 2438; the Aes ItaU- cense, Eph. Ep. VII p. 385 Tah. A.; Corpus XIII 2036; III 781; the Acta Ludorum Saecularium of a.d. 304, Eph. Ep. Vni pp. 274 1. ; Corpus X 114; Xn 3861 ; 6038; Eph. Ep. V498; 1218. 56 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS - 31 36 times. In Hermes I 465 ff., Mommsen published statistics from these inscriptions which brought out some striking pecul- iarities in their spelling of the pronouns. I include the instances from inscriptions published since Mommsen wrote. A.D. eis lis is -108 1 102 6 110-166 3 23 27 167-300 17 3 That is, the spelling iis is almost always used except from 110 to 166. Mommsen ascribes the more frequent appearance of is during these years to the archaizing tendencies of the period. But no such peculiarities are to be observed on other state inscriptions. We find is three times on the Edict of Claudius, Corpus V 5050; once on the Letter of Vespasian, Bruns. 192; fourteen times on the Leges Malacitana et Salpensana, Corpus II 1963, 1964; and eis once on the Lex Malacitana; and twelve times on the Lex Coloniae Genetivae, Ephemeris Epigraphica II 105 ff., Ill 91 fF. Furthermore the Military Diplomas show other similar peculiarities of orthography. Siipendiis occurs sixteen times before 110. On the diploma of that year (number XXV in the Corpus) we have siipendiis once and stipendis twice. After 110 we have stipendis twelve times without a single instance of the longer form. I think that the explana- tion lies in the fact that up to about 110 the diplomas followed closely an exact legal formula,* which happened to contain the longer spelling iis. At about that date, however, the care with which the documents were executed seems to have waned. This is seen especially in the use of extensive abbreviations. In a decree of 113 or 114, Corpus III, p. 869, the inside copy of the text abbreviates nearly every polysyllable except proper names. And so, from 110 on, we find the same variation in orthography that is seen on other state inscriptions. As to the period after 167 our material is very scanty, both that from the diplomas and that from other sources. But it is altogether likely that the spelling iis gained ground during the third cen- '^ ^ 1 There is some variation in the first part of the decrees which contains the description of the soldiers concerned ; but the phraseology of the second part— the decree proper— In which nearly all of the pronominal forms occur, hardly varies at all. 57 32 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS The spelling 11, lis /or I, is. If we subtract the figures of the Military Diplomas from the table given above I think that we shall not be far from the average practice of the empire. This gives us : Interpretation. Several theories which have been advanced. eis 38 46 26 These figures go very well with those given above for the nom- inative ; except that i was especially unpopular : 11 19 The spellings ii and its of course represented monosyllables. As we have seen (p. 16) Priscian says that ii was written to distinguish the pronominal from the verbal forms i and is. Perhaps there was a more urgent need of a mark to distin- guish the nominative singular is from the dative-ablative plural is. The very shortness of the form i may have made the spell- ing ii more popular. Idem shows almost always the short forms idem and isdem. Eisdem on Corpus VI 2083 a; 2099 III 11; 2101; Ephemeris Epigraphica V 1218 goes with Juvenal's eisdem. lisdem on a Military Diploma of the year 249, Corpus III p. 899, is as much of a curiosity as suiis, etc. (See above pp. 12 f.) The dissyllabic ei and eis (written eeis on the Senatus Con- sultum de Bacchanalibus, and eieis on the Senatus Consultum de Tiburtibus), were in use throughout the history of the lan- guage. The monosyllabic i and is (spelled also ei, eis and iei, ieis in the early period, and ii, iis later) are certain from about a. u. c. 630 on. They were the usual forms under the empire. Mdem and eisdem{?) were probably the forms employed by the early poets. Idem and isdem (spelled also eidem and eisdem in the early period) are certain from a. u. c. 621-636 on. Under the empire they were almost the only forms in use. Ill We- have, then, to account for two sets of forms, dei, ei, etc., and di, i, etc. Only the second series calls for any explanation. Several theories have been suggested. Corssen, Aussprache II'' 699 (1870), says that in dis and isdejn the i is "aus der Lautfolge ei getriibt in de-is, e -is- dem.'''' What he means to say at 11^ 340 I cannot understand. 58 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS 33 Georges, Lexicon der lateinischen Wortformen, s. v. deus (1890), speaks of di and dis as syncopated. Thnrneysen, Kuhn's Zeitschrift XXX 499 f. (1890), derives di, etc., from dei, etc., by a process of two stages. (1) e became z before ei (> i). His evidence, aside from the pronominal forms iei and ieis, is: mieis Corpus I 38 (scanned as a monosyllable) ; the statement of Velius Longus, p. 77 Keil, that Terence wrote miis; abiegnim and aesculnieis Corpus I 577, beside aliegnea (twice) and abiegneas. (3) Contraction took place. ^ Bronisch, die oski- schen i- und e- Vocale 180 ff. (1892), assumes that in primitive italic eioi contracted to di on the loss of intervocalic i. Hence di goes back to *doi {<*deioi).^ Lindsay, Introduction to the Captivi of Plautus 27 (1900), suggests that di and dis may be from divi and divis. The remarks of Corssen and Georges require no comment. The Oscan support of Bronisch's theory vanished on the dis- covery, independently by Buck, Vocalismus der oskischen Sprache 93 f., and Von Planta, Grammatik der oskisch- umbrischen Dialekte I 63, 175 fE., that Oscan /and i represent the close e in hiatus. His vulgar Latin forms do, dae, etc., have little in their favor since Skutsch's article on synizesis in Satura Viadrina (compare Stolz, Miiller's Handbuch IP 3, 34). Di and dis could hardly come from *doi and *d6is in any case ; for accented oi would yield m, and forms of deus could hardly be used as enclitics or proclitics. Thurneysen's view is also untenable. Both of his processes must have been completed before the time of Plautus, with whom the forms were already monosyllabic. But we have seen that oi in the case-endings had only reached the stage e at that period. The process 6e>u> e is improbable in itself, and furthermore we have seen (pp. 5 f.) that the combination u, in the io- and id- stems, never contracts in Plautus. Lindsay's derivation of di and dis from divi and divis is shattered on the same rock. There is no evidence that m was lost before oi or between i and e. In any case te would be no more likely to contract than te. The problem presented by di and dis differs somewhat accord- / ' — ■ -^ . 1 Thurneysen's theory has been adopted by Brugmann, Grundrlss II 770, 1» 123; Lindsay, Latin Language 19; Stolz, MilUer's Handbuch 11= 2, 86; Sommer, Hand- buch der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre 379. ' He was followed by Stolz In the Hlstorlsohe Grammatik, pp. 16 f., and In the first two editions of Mailer's Handbuch. 59 other eo- stems. 34 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS The history of ing to the view that One holds of the historj of rffiMS. Thurney- S^di* sen/ Kuhn's Zeitschrift XXVIII 155, assumes that after ""■ *^- *deiuos became *deios the ei went through the usual development to e. Then e was shortened on account of the hiatus. Solm- sen,^ Lateinische Lautgeschichte 71 (compare Lindsay, Latin Language 344), prefers to suppose that after the loss of u *deios became *deos by the regular loss of i between vowels. He objects to Thurneysen's theory, "Ware aber in diesem falle nicht *dius an stelle von deus zu erwarten?" If deus goes back to *deos {<*deios), the dative-ablative plural (supposing that the declension of dens was filled out by analogy at the earliest possible moment) must have passed through the stages *deiois and *dees. If deus goes back to *deos {<*deios), the corresponding stages of the dative-ablative plural are *deiois and *dees. Either *dees or *dees would naturally contract into des. Hence di and dis (in the time of Plautus and Terence de and des) go back to *de6 and *dees or to *dee and *dees. Contraction in The corresponding cases of is and also of meus and all other Is, meus, and eo- stems must have suffered a similar contraction of ee to e.' "We have seen that the evidence does not require us to assume monosyllabic forms of the nominative plural mas- culine and dative -ablative plural of is before the seventh century of the city. There is nothing, however, against sup- posing that they existed beside the dissyllables. In fact we have seen a number of more or less uncertain indica- tions of their existence during the early period in eis of the Columna Kostrata, is (or eis?) at Plautus, Men. 973, is (or Jiis?) at Ennins, Ann. 320 Miiller, and isde7n{?) at Ennius, Ann. 194 Miiller. M, eis, and also eidem at Plautus, Mil. 758, as well as Juvenal's eisdem, are easily explained as analogical restorations. It has often been stated that meus sometimes made mi (nominative and vocative plural) and mis in the early period.* I do not think that the monosyllabic forms are ever ' He is followed by Brugmann IP. VI 87 f., and Grundriss I" 184, 318, 800, and by Sommer, Handbucb der lateinischeu Laut- und Formenlehre 87. " He Is loUowed apparently by Stolz, Mailer's Haudbuch II» 2, 33. s Of course a form *mees never existed ; for in *meioe the i was not protected by a following consonant as in *deiuoe. Forms *e, *ee, *me, *mes must bave existed at one time. ' For example, Neue-Wagener, Formenlebre II' 366 tt. ; Bttcbeler-Windeltilde, Grundriss der latelnlscben Dekllnation, 129; Georges, Lexicon der lateinischen Worttormen s. V. ; Thurneysen, Kuhn's Zeitschrift XXX 600; Sommer, Handbuoh der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre 446. 60 CONTRACTION IN LATIN CASE FORMS 35 required by the meter of the poets.^ But, as already pointed out (p. 8), we must read mieis Corpus I 38 = VI 1292 (after a. u. 0. G15) as a monosyllable. Mieis of the Ambrosian Palimpsest at Men. 202 must date from the sixth or seventh century of the city and was probably employed by some scribe to indicate the monosyllabic pronunciation. The same may be said of the mieis (rather than miis) which Velius Longus (p. 77 Keil) read at Terence, Heaut. 699." Other eo- stems almost always show the analogical re-formations. But in ahiegnieis and aescuhnieis Corpus I 577 iei probably stands for I. At some time after the diphthong oi in unaccented syllables summary. had become e and before the beginning of Plautns's literary actiyity the groups ee and ee were contracted into e. And so we have from deus, dS and des; from is, e and es. The change of e to t, about 600 a. u. c, yielded the familiar dl, dis, etc. The analogical re-formations del and dels did not appear until the time of Catullus. They were peculiar to the literary language and never became universal even there. The corresponding re-formations of the pronoun were earlier and more widespread. Plautus ordinarily employed ee and ees, and once at least he used eedem. Later on the monosyllabic I and Is were decidedly more frequent, wliile Idem and isdem were almost the only forms in use. The spellings iei = i in the early period and ii = t at a later time originated with the io- and id- stems, where both iei and ii, on the one hand, and ei and i, on the other, stood originally for actual pronunciations. The writings spread, however, to other words and became especially common in our monosylla- bles. Dii, dlis, ii, and iis were the favorite spellings of the Roman grammarians. • The often quoted line, Plautus, Cist. 678, may be read as follows (anapaestic) : Mei homings, mei speetato'res, taclte indfolum, siquls vldet. " And yet mieis is a dlssyUable at Bticheler, Carm. Epigraph. 1533 (senarlus) : Cara mieis vlxi, virgo vitam reddidl. 61 LIFE I was born at Jacksonville, 111., in 1875, the son of Alfred Henry Sturtevant and Harriet Morse Sturtevant, both of whom still live. After completing my primary education I attended the Whipple Academy in Jacksonville for three years. For two years I was a student at Illinois College in Jacksonville, and for three years at Indiana University in-Bloomington. I received the degree of Bachelor of Arts from the latter institution in 1898. The subsequent three years were spent in study at the University of Chicago. I desire to express my deep gratitude to my teachers: Doctor Joseph R. Harker, formerly of "Whipple Academy, Professor Milton E. Churchill of Illinois College, Mrs. Charles Henry Beeson, formerly of Indiana University, Professor Horace Addison Hoffman and Professor Harold Whetstone Johnston of Indiana University, Doctor John Jacob Mej'er of the University of Chicago, Doctor Alfred Stratton, formerly of the University of Chicago, Professor William Gardner Hale of the University of Chicago. To Professor Frank Frost Abbott and especially to Professor Carl Darling Buck of the University of Chicago I am indebted not only for instruction, but also for their care- ful criticism of the accompanying paper. The paper was suggested by Professor Buck and to him it owes much of whatever merit it may possess. Departments CLASSICAL PHILOLOGT Under the aaperTlslon ot tbe editors of tbe IrUtrcolttgiatt Olanleal 8trU» ENGLISH LAKGITAOE AND LITEBATUBS Under (be superrlsioa of tbe editor ot tbe Lakt Snglith OUuttot GEBMANIC PHILOLOGY Under the supervision of tbe editor of tbe Zakt Otrman Seriet BOMAirCE Under the Buperrlsion of the editor of the La^e Wreneh 3etU§ PHYSICAL SCIENCES Under the supervlslou of tbe editor ot tbe Lake Seienct StrUt prospectus We desire to call the attention of uniTersities, libraries, and the learned public to thia Series of representative Doctoral Theses, which it is proposed eventually to extend so as to embrace the various fields of research cultivated in all the larger American universities. Only such theses will be taken into the Series aa are especially recommended to our editorial staff by the professors in charge of the departments of the universities at which they have been presented for the degree. Each department of the Series will be under the immediate supervision of the editors of our several series of educational text-books. With this twofold con- trol it is believed that the Dissebtationes Amebicanae will maintain a high standard of excellence and will prove a valuable repository of the best scientific product of our younger scholars. Each monograph will be published separately, but for the convenience of libraries the monographs in each depart- ment will be bound together in volumes with continuous pagination. The publications will be put upon the market in the usual way, and, through our foreign agents, will be catalogued in all the bibliographies of current acientlflo literature, and sent to the leading departmental journals for review. SCOTT, FORESMAN AND COMPANY CHICAGO PBf*5.'