MASTER NEGATIVE NO. 93-81240- MICROFILMED 1 993 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK 55 as part of the Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project" Funded by the NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES Reproductions may not be made without permission from Columbia University Library COPYRIGHT STATEMENT The copyright law of the United States - Title 17, United States Code - concerns the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified In the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or other reproduction Is not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fuifillment of the order would involve violation of the copyright law. A UTHOR: FOSTER, WALTER EUGENE TITLE: STUDIES IN ARCHAISM IN AULUS GELLIUS PLACE: EW YORK DA IE: 1912 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT BIBLIOGRA PHIC MTr R QFORM TARnFT Master Negative # Restrictions on Use: Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record •sap m 28 tltH^^ ' fjpjiri.nLiijwpii .1 'SSJ*'"" I'^p^ *r ■ '.> Poster, Walter Eugeno, 1870- Studies in archaism in Aulus Gellius, by Walter Eu- ?o?o ^^^^^^ ••• N^^^' York [Princeton university pressj cm 2 p. I., [3i-67, ill p. 23^ Thesis (ph. d.)— Columbia university, 1912. Vita. "Selected bibliographical index": p. [6S1-66 37R.7CX0 Copy 2 Fri2 ■ 067000 I'j Jr ■ 1. Gellius, Aulus. Copy in Classios Library of Congress Columbia Univ. Libr. Reading Room. 13-3720 y^ TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA FILM SIZE: J.>fl<^ _ REDUCTION RATIO- //y IMAGE PLACEMENT: L\ ^ IB HB ^^''^^~I(JL ^^JS^r. FILMED: XZ^^± INITIALS ^_^c^ HLMEDBY: RESEARCH PI JBLICATTOM.c;^ iNC WOODRRTJ ^i "^ BIBLIOGRAPHIC IRREGULARITIES MAIN ENTRY: PoSk-t. LOajl-e^ Bo^e^e. Bibliographic Irregularif jes in the Original Dnnim pnt Ust volumes and pages affected; include name of institution if filming borrowed text. Page(s) missing/not available:. yolumes(s) missing/not available:. Illegible and/or damaged page(s):. _Page(s) or volumes(s) misnumbered: Bound out of sequence: Page(s) or mustration(s) filmed from copy bo;rrowed from: Umr^ s/4w ^ Other: FILMED IN WHOLE OR PART FROM A OP Y B ORRO WED FROM UNI VERS IT Y OF MINNESOTA c Association for Information and image IManagement HOOWayne Avenue, Suite 1100 Silver Spring Maryland 20910 301/587-8202 Centimeter UJ HI lllllllllllllllni llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll I I M I I I I M I I I M I M Inches 5 iiiiliii 7 8 9 iiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiili TTJ 1.0 I.I 1.25 10 11 12 13 14 iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliii Mill m 1^ mil 3 2 ( t 3 liii^u. 3.6 4.0 1.4 2.5 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 I II I 5 mf 15 mm MfiNUFPCTURED TO HUM STflNDflRDS BY fiPPLIED INfiGE, INC. Studies In Archaism IN Aulus Gellius WALTER EUGENE FOSTER f Cohmtbja (LlntbcviSittp intljcCupofilrUigork LIBRARY GIVEN BY i .. r ■ ^•*' -■* .. • , ....» •;; . ■ I " . -•' ; . • - -> y' )5 ;:::-•--■•:"-••' •':.-•- *".»•••*"'* "•,.*■•• ■,. ■;...»•';..-•" . '•^.— ' :j; ' -.\-' '•..* V' %« ,.»«f?:: Z''^^- 4r Ai: y^f hf JL?. An«^ ■j?i>ir- a"'**' ' • •■•1";: --• :fl :*.> .*^':ir' :i ,-H *fe * - ^^■• ^ K' i STUDIES IN ARCHAISM IN AULUS GELLIUS \ By WALTER EUGENE FOSTER Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Philosophy Columbia University NEW YORK I 9 I 2 If! I V ^ . VU . ^ ^ ^ ^ 1 G .^^ UXORI CARISSIMAE ETHEL FOSTER \ / STUDIES IN ARCHAISM IN AULUS GELLIUS INTRODUCTION The following pages, which have to do primarily with archaisms in the vocabulary and the syntax of the Noctes Atticae of Aulus Gellius, are intended to be, in general, sup- plementary to the work which has already been done in this field by Professor Charles Knapp, of Columbia University.^ Not only has Professor Knapp aided the author of this paper with suggestions and encouragement, but he has, as well, most generously turned over no inconsiderable amount of material which he had gathered from time to time, with the intention, at some later date, of publishing it and thus completing his studies in the archaisms of Gellius.^ An entirely independent examination of the material has, however, been made. In some instances, the results have been merely corroborative, in some supplementary, and again in others corrective. In the course of the investigation, again, certain phases of the archaistic elements in Gellius which had been either entirely overlooked or merely hinted at by previous investigators receive due emphasis. The Introduction to this paper (pages 1-28) deals with certain general questions relating to the archaistic movement in the second century A.D. and, in particular, with the varying relations of Pronto, Gellius, and Apuleius to that movement. In Part I (pages 29-47), which deals with archaisms of form and vocabulary, the lists given are intended to be supple- mentary to the lists published by Professor Knapp,^ or cor- ^ See the Bibliography below, page 65, s. v. Knapp. *It should be noted that it is impossible to study archaism in Gellius without at the same time examining carefully Pronto and Apuleius. For the relation of Gellius to Pronto see below, pages 16- 20; for Gellius and Apuleius see below, 21-23. *Drisler Studies, 141-146. For the citations in this paper see the Bibliographical Appendix, pages 65-67 under the names of the authors of the books and articles cited or quoted (some few books or articles, cited or quoted but once or twice, have not been listed there; in all such cases the book or article will be sufficiently identified in text or :' \ \ A 4 Archaism in Aulus Gellius rective of those lists. Part II (pages 48-64) is devoted to an attempt to set forth in full the archaic qualities of Gellius's syntax, a task which no one else, so far as I am aware, has essayed. It is not the writer's purpose to attempt, in any compre- hensive way, an explanation of the intense archaising fervor which characterized the literary spirit of the second Chris- tian century.* Nor, indeed, is such a comprehensive survey any longer necessary. Nevertheless, some special remarks will be offered a little later (pages 5-6). For the present a very rapid resume of the history of Latin literature will be made, to pave the way to what is said below (page 5) about the reaction in the time of Gellius and Fronto in favor of the Latin of the archaic period. First, we have the early, crude efforts of the pioneers who are striking out for themselves new paths in untrodden fields. The quaUties of freshness and vigor in part, at least, compensate for what may be lacking in perfection of form and in workmanlike finish. Next comes the classic, or the golden age. Now is the high tide of national life. In this period, poetry and prose reach a perfection be- yond which, except in rare instances, the genius of the race is unable to go. Dignity of manner is combined with freshness and originality of theme. With the close of the period of ex- pansion, there was a tendency towards the fixed and the con- ventional in all spheres of life. This tendency is marked in the realm of letters. There is, therefore, in turn, ushered in now the age which, taking the great classical masterpieces as models,^ pays less and less attention to substance, and seeks more and more ex- quisite refinement of manner and uniformity of method. In t he fir st Christian century, the opponents of antiquarianism footnotes). The abbreviations employed in the citations will also be found listed in their alphabetical places in the Bibliographical Appendix. *For discussions of this matter, see e.g. Vogel, 19-22; Mackail, 233 flF. ; Teuffel, §345; Kretschmann, 2-4; Schmalz, 664-665; Stolz i. § 36; Nettleship, Lectures and Essays (First Series), 279; Piechotta, 5 ff.; Brock, 25-35, 181-183; E. Norden, 344 ff., 361 ff.; and especially Drisler Studies, 126-141 (with literature there cited). " Duff, 30. Archaism in Aulus Gellius 5 were supreme.* Here the goal is symmetry, harmony, ele- gance; but after this refining process has been carried to the extreme limit a reaction sets in. In Rome the reaction against this super-refinement, under the leadership of such men as Fronto and Gellius, contributed no doubt to that reversion to the preclassical manner^ which is the marked characteristic of the Latin writings of the second Christian century. Cato, Ennius,^ and Plautus were studied with diligence, and the more vigorous but simpler style be- came, for a time, especially under Hadrian and his immediate successors, the vogue among the literary classes. It would be instructive and interesting if we could discover in full the forces at work which produced men of the type of Fronto, Gellius, and Apuleius, men who differed so widely in their temperaments and literary gifts, and yet, in spite of their marked differences, have a general likeness, in this one particular: the archaic qualities of their style. Some of these forces, probably — nay beyond doubt — the most important, in the case of Gellius, at least, have been set forth in the views of the writers named above, note 4, and in the authorities cited by them.® These authorities, and others, lay stress, and rightly, on conscious and deliberate imi- tation of the earlier authors by the writers of the second Christian century. There is, however, another factor which, though noted by some scholars,^^ has not received, it seems to me, the attention which it deserves. I have in mind a kind of unconscious and wholly natural archaism, which, I think, was inevitable to a writer born and reared in Africa, as Apuleius surely was,^^ •Nettleship, Lectures and Essays (Second Series), 74; Drisler Studies, 137-138; Bernhardy, 327 ff. ^ Stolz, § 36; Nettleship, Essays in Latin Literature (First Series), 279 ff.; Duff, 31. ' Vahlen, Ixxx ff. • I do not regard Gellius as specifically an African writer ; see be- low, note 51; also pages 14-16 in general. "Compare e.g. Cooper, xxvii ff. In Piechotta, i-io, a good discus- sion of the matter, the various authorities are cited and their views considered. "See e.g. Flor. § 18 (page 35, Helm). :1 / 1 6 Archaism in Aulus Gellius because of the conditions under which Latin became the speech of Africa and remained in use there. A priori there seems, to me at least, to be no valid reason why the Latin language in Africa, in the second Christian century, should not already have developed along lines such as resulted in a speech, still Latin, to be sure, but yet distinct in a variety of important particulars from the Latin language as it had developed during the same period in Italy, and par- ticularly at Rome.^^ Analogies and comparisons rarely prove anything, though they may shed a flood of light upon the question at issue. Ireland, for example, has been under English domination for four centuries. Yet the language of Ireland to-day, though officially English, varies through countless gradations from pure English to Gaelic. Even in a country so small, so near England, and so easy of access, so often visited by residents of England, with so many of its own people visiting England, the native language still leaves its impress, not only on the oral speech, but on literature. For example, the numerous ballads of Ireland^^ written even within the last century^* furnish a rich field for the student of the early Gaelic lan- guage and literature. The Scotchman usually betrays his nationality in his speech. Furthermore, the Gaelic has left its impress on the later literary products ; for example, not only many of the poems of Robert Burns, but comparatively recent works of literature show the influence of the ballad. ^^ In Canada there is a rich store of ballad literature in a patois which is neither French nor English but a curious com- mingling of both.^^ To one who has travelled in Brittany, and " DufiF, 27, says : "If we pass to the fourth century A.D., it is not for a moment to be thought that African Latin was identical with that spoken on the Rhine or the Danube". " See Hayes, The Ballads of Ireland, Introduction, 13-14. "See The International Cyclopaedia, under Irish (GaeHc) Language and Literature. ^ Child's English and Scottish Popular Ballads is a great work on the subject. See also Eyre-Todd, Scottish Ballad Poetry, 29-34. "See Henry Drummond, The Habitant (New York, 1897). Archaism in Aulus Gellius 7 noted the dialect spoken there, which differs so markedly from Parisian French, surely the claim that there was a marked difference between African Latin and Roman Latin would cause no surprise. We need not go, however, far afield to find examples of archaic words and usages in language. In out-of-the-way parts of our own country, which lie outside the sweep of the great currents of our modern life, survivals from earlier times have for centuries maintained themselves almost unchanged.^^ Thus in the less frequented parts of Virginia are heard, to this day, words which have been obsolete for two centuries or more, but were current when the cavaliers of the Elizabethan period settled in the New World. Many archaic words and phrases may still be heard among the New England hills. If, in spite of the railroad, the telegraph, the daily, weekly, and monthly publications, such differences of language, dif- ferences which, in some instances, amount practically to dif- ferent dialects, can maintain themselves or develop in our own country, there seems to be no a priori ground for asserting that the Latin of the African province did not have marked qualities of its own which differentiated it from Latin in other parts of the empire, and, more particularly, from the Latin at the capital. On the contrary the probabilities all point to such a variation.^^ Africa became a Roman province in 146 B.C. From that time on, the official language was Latin.^^ The Roman soldiers who brought Latin into Africa did not bring with them the polished speech of the Scipionic circle. The rugged speech of Plautus would more nearly correspond to the vernacular of the Roman conquerors.^^ The Latin which was first carried to Carthage was thus still highly archaic.^^ In this province, separated from Rome by a sea voyage, if "See Lodge (entire article); Cooper, xxviii, and note 3; Brock, 26, note 3. " Cooper, xxi-xxx ; Olcott, xv-xxi. "Kiibler, 161. Cooper, xxvi f., and authorities cited there. Ott, Neue Jahr., 109. 767; Cooper xxxv. 20 21 8 Archaism in Anliis Gellius we may disregard the Roman governors and their staffs, whose mfluence upon the Latin language as spoken and written in Africa must have been so slight as to be practically negligible, m addition to the legionaries, the peasants and the traders constituted the principal Latin and Roman elements of the population. It is evident, therefore, that, while the literary language and the sermo cotidianus of the cultivated classes at Rome were relatively unimportant factors in the development of the sermo Africus, the influence of the sermo pleheius was very great. That the sermo Africus abounds in plebeian ele- ments is, then, to be expected. To the cultivated classes at Rome the sermo Africus would seem at once plebeian and archaic.^^ At Rome, apparently, it was a recognized fact that the people from different provinces of the empire had peculiarities or tricks of speech which betrayed the place of their nativity.^^ Asinius Pollio's criticism of Livy's Patavinitas^^ is well known. It is important to note in this connection that, in the opinion of some scholars at least, this criticism was aimed, not at the poetical coloring of Livy's style, but at his use of foreign words.2-^ Lucilius in a similar manner had charged Vectius with "Praenestinity".26 "For the intimate relationship existing between the plebeian and the archaic see below, pages 9-10. It is interesting in this connection to recall the extent to which the language of Cicero's letters reproduces the language of Plautus (see e.g. Tyrrell, Cicero in his Letters, Ixxii- Ixxvni). If in Italy itself the sermo cotidianus of the cultured could still in Cicero's time so strongly resemble the Latin of Plautus's day, surely, keeping in mind Roman conservatism, we need find no diffi- culty in believing that the Latin language as spoken in Africa for long centuries retained evidences of its origin, as the plebeian speech of soMiers, traders, and the like, of the second century B.C. "^ Cicero, Pro Arch. 26, charges the poets from Cordova with a foreign brogue; see also Spartianus (Vit. Sept. Sev. 19): sed Afrum quiddam usque ad senectutem sonans. Jerome (Ep. 1.30.5) mentions the stridor Punicus; Cyprian (Ep. 25) remarks: Latinitas et regioni- Dus mutatur et tempore. "^See Quint, Inst. Or. 1.5.56; 8.1.2-3. ''See e.g. Duff, 639, note i. For this view Quint. 8.1.2-3 makes strongly. "•Quint., Inst. Or. 1.5.56. See here Olcott, xvii-xviii. ■ * Archaism in Aulus Gellius 9 On the foregoing pages (6-9) we have been dealing with a priori considerations. That African Latin does in fact display marked peculiarities has been shown at length by competent scholars, after careful investigation, and full consideration of the opposing view, long warmly urged in certain quarters. References may be made here to the discussions of Cooper, xxi-xlvi, passim; Olcott, xv-xxi; and Kiibler, 161 if. Cooper, xlvi, sums up his elaborate discussion with a brief summary of peculiarities in word-formation "which are now generally recognized as characteristic of the African writers". With his results Olcott, page xxi, and Kiibler, 161 if., are in sub- stantial accord. Cooper, xlv-xlvi, and Kiibler, 202, emphasize the plebeian and the archaic elements.^^ The intimate relationship, which often approximates iden- tity, that exists between the plebeian and the archaic Latin requires no demonstration here.-^ It is precisely this identity that makes any study of archaism so difficult. Some have been so impressed with the Plautine qualities in Apuleius that they have not hesitated to assert and to attempt to prove that Apuleius borrowed wholesale from Plautus words-® and syn- " In his edition of the Cupid and Psyche episode of the Metamor- phoses of Apuleius (1910), Mr. L. C. Purser discusses elaborately the style and language of Apuleius (Ixx-c). On page Ixxxiv he describes, in vigorous terms, as wholly discredited the doctrine that there was a special Latin style which might properly be labelled Africanism ; he thinks this "phantom . . . may be considered as finally laid to rest by the crushing chapter of E. Norden, Kunstprosa, pp. 588-598". As a matter of fact, Norden does not deny (see 588) that there was an African Latin in the sphere of language (in phonetics, use of words, and syntax) ; he does, indeed, add that, for the most part, the views current on these subjects seem to him "vorlaufig mehr oder weniger problematisch", but he concludes with the words : "Doch das geht mich hier nicht an : ich habe es mit denen zu thun, die von einem afrikanischen Stil sprechen". Norden's discussion, there- fore, does not cross the lines of the present paper at all. Brock, 164 ff., also is not pertinent to our discussion. ^For an admirable discussion of this important problem see Cooper, xxi-xxx, with footnotes. See also Knapp, 151 (s.v. lac), 155-156 (s.v. aspernabilis), 157 (s.v. complusculus), 162, etc. ^ Desertine, 3. "I I i H 10 Archaism in Aulus Gelliiis tactical usages.^*' But while Desertine confines himself tc illustrating by examples the many striking echoes, resemb- lances, and identities between Plautine and Apuleian vocabu- lary and syntax, he is well aware that Plautus is only one of many of the older writers^^ of whose works Apuleius con- tains so many reminiscences. It is important to note that the Metamorphoses are most strikingly plebeian (and archaic) in quality. The fact that certain of Apuleius's writings, the Apologia and philosophical works, for example, are written in a style which much more nearly approximates the classic norm,^^ has been used as an argument to support the theory that Apuleius's archaisms in the Metamorphoses are entirely the results of intentional imi- tation of the ancients, by the use of which he aims to give to this work an atmosphere of strangeness, and perhaps of mystery. If we could be sure of the chronological order of the composition of the different works, we could discuss the matter more satisfactorily.^^ Admitting the difficulties in the way of definite knowledge as to the time of composition, we may still hold that both the subject matter and the style of the Metamorphoses seem more likely to be from the hand of an author in the early flush of youth. The philosophical works appear to belong rather to his maturer years. Whether the Metamorphoses were written before his other extant works or not (they may well have come from his brain when it was riotous with the vivid imaginings of youth), one is on con- servative ground who maintains that in writing these tales, a work not intended for small coteries of scholars, Apuleius allowed himself greater freedom, giving full rein to his fancy, using the words and phrases with which his fertile mind teemed, and not circumscribing himself by classic canons. A popular book, for general circulation among all classes. 30 Leky, 5 ff. For a more detailed consideration of Leky's views, see below, pages 23-26. '^See Desertine, 5 f. ; Helm's Praefatio to Flor., xxii ff. ^ Brock, 185, note i. '^Helm, in Praefatio to the Florida, x f., discusses the matter; see also Teuffel, § 367.1 ; Purser, xv-xxi, evidently regards the Metamor- phoses as an early work. Archaism in Aulus Gellius II recounting the supposedly contemporaneous adventures of the hero, who often is strangely confused with the author him- self, would hardly have been written in a style which, because of hundreds of words really rare and obsolete, would make every page seem not only unfamiliar but often almost unin- telligible. To me, at least, the more natural view of the mat- ter is that in the Metamorphoses we have, on the whole, the language and style natural to Apuleius, the resultant of birth, training, and his own natural literary gifts.^* Of course, we must not forget that his training included a wide reading in the Latin classics. His quotations from the old masters of Latin and his allusions to them prove how intimate was his knowledge of their works.^^ Miss Brock,^^ however, takes a position almost diametrically opposed to the views outlined above. Many of her assertions seem to lack verification and consistency. She sometimes brushes aside as trivial and hardly worthy of her serious con- sideration the opinions of scholars who have devoted years of study and research to this field. In general, it may fairly be said that she gives insufficient evidence in support of her con- clusions ; sometimes she fails to give any evidence at all.^^ A few quotations will disclose her point of view. On page 178, we read: "As far as direct evidence as to specific African- isms goes, there is nothing to suggest that the Latin of Africa was in any way peculiar". This conclusion is reached in spite of the evidence cited by the author herself, 174-178! Note the M But see Brock, 32. Purser, Ixxiii, makes ''Apuleius . . . —at least in the Metamorphoses and the Florida— the most signal representative of the Asianic manner". ^ See below, pages 22-23. '•Studies in Pronto and His Age, 163 fT. I give so much space to Miss Brock's work, not so much because of the importance of her book, as because it is the latest discussion of the subject. The very elaborateness of her treatment might well, in itself, give to her book, in the opinion of the casual observer, a weight which it does not deserve. " See e.g. 174, the discussion of the language of Vitruvius. Miss Brock shows here no knowledge whatever of Professor Morris Hickey Morgan's important studies in the language of Vitruvius. k 12 Archaism in Aulus Gellius Archaism in Aulus Gellius 15 following from 178-179: "It is possible to collect, from the extant writings of African authors, a number of usages, sty- listic and linguistic, which occur first or chiefly in writers of African birth, and some which occur solely in such writers". Statements such as the following on page 1S2 do not require comment : 'In other words, we are to suppose that the Afri- cans who spoke and wrote Latin spoke and wrote it after the manner of Plautus and Cato right on till the second century A.D., and that, therefore, when they began to have a literature, that literature was naturally archaic. The theory is so im- probable that it would seem almost unnecessary to refute it, were it not soberly put forth by such eminent scholars as Wolfflin and Monceaux, who urge as modern parallels the history of French in Canada or of English in the United States".3« Again, on pages 183-184, we read: "One scholar has actually claimed to determine the condition of vulgar Latin at the moment of each provincial conquest by the specific traits of the language spoken in the various countries to-day. . . . The whole theory arose from an erroneous and far- fetched attempt to explain the archaistic movement". Such a theory is, however, still held by competent scholars,^^ and I fail to discover any adequate refutation of it in Miss Brock's book. A final quotation from 184-185 must suffice: "But the greater proportion of archaisms in the conscious archaists, such as Fronto, Apuleius, Aulus Gellius, and Arnobius, found acceptance not because they were still living words on African lips, but because they were sacred by reason of their appear- ance in the old Latin literature, while on the other hand such archaisms as were likewise living vulgarisms were not peculiar to Africa, but formed part of the popular speech wherever Latin was spoken".*® Such sweeping statements as the above demand careful veri- fication. No adequate verification, however, appears ; the in- complete lists of words on pages 186-254 present no convinc- ing e vidence. Without attempting to prove the contrary, I ^ See above, pages 6-9, especially 6-7. " For recent utterances, see e.g. Grandgent, 2 f . ; Duff, 5 ; for earlier support of this view see Cooper xxviii, and note i. *" Here Miss Brock errs through failure to note the important differ- ences between the first three of the four writers named by her; on these see below, especially 16-17, 21-23. 1^ 'I shall examine the two statements made in the last citation in the light of other statements made by Miss Brock in other parts of her book. If I correctly understand what is meant in the clause "But the greater proportion of the archaisms ... in the old Latin literature", it means, in part, that the greater proportion of the archaisms in the authors named by her were not survival archaisms, as I should myself incline to believe in the case of Apuleius, but, if I may use the phrase, revival archaisms culled from the ancients. She has not established the truth of this affirmation. How does she know that these words were not really current? In view of the scanty literary remains from Africa before Fronto's time, how can we be sure, in the absence of further evidence, that an archaic word found in Apuleius," a writer born and reared in Africa, was taken di- rectly from Plautus or Ennius or other ancient writer, rather than employed in accordance with the usage of the day and country? In other words, how does she know that these archaic words were not in general use in Africa at the time when Apuleius, for example, wrote? How can she be sure that they were used in the period subsequent to Apuleius, be- cause of their "sacred" character and not rather because they were the natural words to use, and had been long current even before his time? Since we have practically no data to argue from, the truth of neither side of the argument can be firmly established. With the scanty data now at hand, it is often im- possible to decide whether an archaic word was borrowed directly from the old writers or had long formed a part of the pl ebeian vocabulary.*^ U more of the writings of Plautus, "Gellius's case is rather different from Apuleius's, in view of his own repeated declarations that he memorized words from the earlier authors for later use; see beiow, note 106. It will appear below (page 27), also, that it is in vocabulary rather than in syntax that his archaizing tendencies show themselves. See also note 9. "Miss Brock, 26, writes: "Indeed, vulgarism and archaism could not but overlap, in view of the large proportion of vulgarisms in the archaic vocabulary, in the days when the gulf between the written and the spoken language was not so firmly fixed". Reference may be made to note 22 above, to prove, if need be, that there were different kinds even of written language, and that the gulf between one of these kinds and early Latin was not so wide or deep. i' 14 Archaism in Aulus Gellius Archaism in Aulus Gellius 15 of Ennius, of Cato, and other old writers were extant, it is probable that we should have to revise our views of what is archaic and what is plebeian. An examination of the Meta- morphoses of Apuleius has disclosed more than fifty words which appear nowhere else in extant literature.^^ Some of them, doubtless, Apuleius himself coined, some probably were words in common use, and others, without doubt, he borrowed from ancient works which are not extant. The most surprising statement in the citations given above from Miss Brock's book, however, is in the last clause ("While . . . was spoken": see above, page 12). The process of de- duction does not appear, at least to the present writer, by which she arrives at the broad generalization that all archa- • isms which were also living vulgarisms were found in the '''popular speech wherever Latin was spoken". In view of her t statement (163), that "it is not the Latin of Africa but the contemporary Latin of other countries which is unknown ground, and it is our ignorance of the latter which obscures our judgment of the former",** her sweeping generalization given above is all the more astonishing. At any rate, she sup- plies no evidence to offset the results of the careful investiga- tions of Cooper, Olcott, and Kiibler, referred to above (page 9). We are ready now to revert to the remark made above (page 5), that it would be instructive and interesting if we could discover in full the forces at work which produced men of the type of Pronto, Gellius, and Apuleius, etc. It would appear, from pages 5-14, that one force to be reckoned with in the case of at least two of them, is African Latin, or, to put the matter better, the effects of the African environment into which they were born. Apuleius and Pronto, though probably Romans by blood, were of African birth. Apuleius, particularly, gives striking evidence of his southern origin.*^ Pronto aimed at the archaic simplicity of Cato and Ennius,*® ** For the new words in the Cupid and Psyche story see Purser, xciii. ** Brock, 163 f. ** Kretschmann, 4 ; Cooper, xli. ** Kretschmann, 16-17; Purser, Ixxv-lxxvi, '\ I but he could not free himself entirely from the forces of heredity and environment.*^ A repeated reading of the works of Apuleius, and more especially of the Metamorphoses, has convinced me that the archaic qualities in Apuleius are not, as they seem to be in the case of Gellius, primarily labored imitations of the pre- classical writers,*® but, on the contrary, are more often the natural and spontaneous result of heredity and environment*® on an emotional and impressionable temperament.^^ Though Gellius's African extraction is only conjectural at best,^^ yet in his case too the African element has to be reckoned with to some extent, indirectly, because he was so deeply influenced by Pronto (see below, pages 16-17). The other important factor to be reckoned with in the case of all three, though in varying degrees, is deliberate study of the earlier Latin writers and, as a consequence, conscious or unconscious reproduction of the vocabulary, and, far less often, *^ Mackail, 235 f . *' Cf . Kretschmann, 17: "Longe aliter Apuleius versatus est, qui quamvis multa et fortasse plura quam primo aspectu videatur antiqua prorsusque obsoleta verba receperit, tamen aliquantum ab orationis prisca quadam specie remotus est. Neque enim ilia antiquitatis vere- cundia eiusque castitatis admiratione commotus, qua Pronto fuit, priscae consuetudinis verba revocavit ; sed ut eorum illecebris orationem docte exornaret, rhetorum praecepta secutus, non aliter atque earn omnibus rhetoricae artis exquisitissimis munditiis distinxit . . . Sed si totum dictionis tenorem priscum aut ad vetustatis imitationem adap- latum esse negamus, eo non infitiamur, totos refertos esse libros veteris consuetudinis vocibus proprietatibusque". Cf. also Piechotta, 20-21 ; Purser, xv, note 2, and, more especially, xciii-xciv. ^ See Cooper, xviii, xxi-xxvi, with citations ; Grandgent, Vulgar Latin, 3. Piechotta, 5 ff., has a suggestive discussion of this problem. ** See Kretschmann, 4-5; 8(fin)-9; Kiibler, Archiv, 8.162,201. In this view the author finds himself in sharp disagreement with the opinions of most scholars who have written on Apuleius (compare, for the current view, e.g. Teuffel § 367.1; Brock, 32; Knapp, 135, with the authorities there cited). For another particular in which Apuleius's style reflects the influence of environment, see below, pages 19-20, on his attitude toward the Greeks. "See Teuffel, § 365.1; Cooper, xl, and note 3; Knapp, Stories from Aulus Gellius, 5-6. i6 Archaism in Aulus Gellius Archaism in Aiiliis Gellius 17 of the syntax of those writers (compare above, page 5). Fronto^2 ^^^ Gellius^^'* freely avow their devotion to the early Latin writers. Apuleius, not only by certain elements of his own style, but by numerous quotations^* from earlier Latin works attests his intimate acquaintance with the classical and the preclassical writers. One other special detail may be noted here. Gellius was a student of the old writers on law;^^ we may be pretty certain he memorized matters in the course of such reading, as he did, he tells us, in other connections.^® Legal writings" tend toward the use of archaic words and phrases. Their style is inclined to be stereotyped. Gellius's legal training must have given him an additional bias towards the archaic in language. See also below, page 38, on censio. These three writers, Fronto, Gellius, and Apuleius, are commonly placed in the same class as the most conspicuous examples of the second century archaisers.^^ In this paper, too, heretofore their general likeness to one another has been emphasized. Yet, on closer examination, we find considerable difference between them. Striking as is the agreement, in some respects, in the views of Fronto and Gellius, there are equally striking differences. Some of these differences will be noted ; then the striking contrast between Gellius and Apuleius in their attitudes toward the earlier Latin writers will be discussed. In the Drisler Studies, 140, we find the following with reference to the mutual relations of Fronto and Gellius: "These passages, few as they are, are sufficient of themselves to make it clear that Fronto exercised a considerable influence 63 See Knapp, Drisler Studies, 135; Kretschmann, 4; Priebe, 6 ff. "'See below, page 17. ■^See below, page 22; Vahlen, Ixxx-lxxxi. "Cf. 14.2.1. For Apuleius's legal vocabulary see Helm's Praefatio to Florida, xii-xiii. °*Cf. 10.25.1; 11.3.1; 17.2.1; 20.10.4. " Cf. Purser's remark, page Ixxv, that "the jurists, such as Gaius, wrote in a rational way, with a natural leaning towards archaic style^ yet not pedantically affecting it". "Kretschmann, 2; Drisler Studies, 127, 135, 138-140; Cooper, xl; Priebe, 2. 1 Upon Gellius; yet they afford no ground whatever for the statement sometimes made that he was a pupil of Fronto. Indeed, our author's words at xix. 8.1 are enough to disprove this assertion". J. Kretschmer, De A. Gellii Fontibus, 103, writes: '*Non tarn magister fuit Gellii quam amicus honoratissimus, cuius sermonibus non sine magna utili- tate adfuisse se fateatur xix.8.1. Scripti libri Frontonis Gel- lius nullius meminit, neque ego vestigium ullum satis certum deprehendi". Professor Knapp states :^^ "Among poets Plautus and En- nius, among orators Cato Censor, stand highest in his (=Gel- lius's) estimation. Plautus in mentioned or cited by him in at least thirty-five places, and the quotations cover the whole ^ange of the extant plays".^^ The number of references to .^lautus or citations from his plays is even larger than this esti- mate. About forty-five such references and citations are found m the Noctes Atticae. Ennius also is referred to or cited about the same number of times; Cato's name appears ap- proximately seventy times; in many instances there are ex- tended quotations. H. Kretschmann^^ does not seem war- ranted in his assertion, at least so far as it refers to our author, that, while Fronto took Ennius as a model, Gellius imitated Plautus, for the weight of the evidence is certainly in favor of Cato (see Drisler Studies, 133-134)- If, however, we were to judge of Gellius's preferences solely by frequency of citation and reference, we should have to ex- tend our list of favorites. Vergil would be high up in any such list. The actual num- ber of references and citations is even greater than in the case of Cato.^^ Not one of the twelve books of the Aeneid or of the four books of the Georgics is neglected, and, on the aver- " Drisler Studies, 132. •* Cf . Stolz, 1.30: **Sicherlich mehr auf Rechnung archaistischer Liebhaberei ist es zu setzen, wenn Gellius vi. 17.4 Plautus also 'homo linguae atque elegantiae in verbis latinae princeps' und xix.8.6 als 'linguae latinae decus' bezeichnet". Cf. also Cooper, xxxviii. " Kretschmann, 16-17. "Drisler Studies, 140. See the references in the Index Auctorum, pages 325-326, of Hosius's edition of Gellius. I i8 Archaism in Aulus Gellius Archaism in Aulus Gellius age, there are four or five citations from each book. There are also three citations (eight lines in all) from the Eclogues.^^ Varro is another favorite, and M. Tullius Cicero,^* by sheer frequency and range of citation, must be placed near the head of the list. The following are the works of Cicero which are re- ferred to or quoted: Brutus, Orator, De Oratore, Orationes in Antonium, Pro Caecina, Pro Caelio, Pro Cluentio, Pro Milone, In L. Pisonem, Pro Cn. Plancio, De Imperio Cn. Pompei, De Provinciis Consularibus, Pro Quinctio, Pro C. Raberio, Pro S. Roscio, Contra Rullum, Pro Sestio, Pro Sulla, In Verrem, Oratio de Accusatore Constituendo, Epistulae^^ ad Atticum, ad L. Plancum, ad Ser. Sulpicium, De Amicitia, De Divinatione, De Fato, De Finibus, De Officiis, De Republica, De Gloria, De lure Civili, Tusculanae Disputationes. ,- In view of the incomplete and fragmentary character of th extant works of Fronto, it would not be safe to attempt tc draw too definite conclusions concerning his favorite Latin authors. The Index Scriptorum in Naber's edition (268-270) includes references to citations from these Latin authors, be- side others: Accius (four citations), Caecilius (two), C. Caesar (three), Cato (twenty- four), Cicero (twenty-two), Ennius (fifteen), Lucretius (five), Naevius (three), Plautus (seven), Sallust (fourteen). Doubtless, if more of Fronto's literary works had survived, they would only emphasize the facts just stated. Cato and Ennius are in high favor. Plautus is in fifth place. We do not find Vergil and Varro in Naber's list. 19 «3 On Vergil's influence upon the literature of the centuries since his time see e.g. Knapp, Originality of Latin Literature, The Classical Journal 3.252; Sellar, Virgil, 60 ff. •"Drisler Studies, 130. It is to be noted that Cicero was rated by Gellius, as by others before him, among the antiqui and the veteres; see below, page 30; Drisler Studies, 129-132. Hence Gellius's frequent citation of Cicero is after all but one more proof of his archaizing. Varro's antiquarian tendencies in scholarship and re- search need no illustration beyond a reference to Teuffel, 164. 2. In language, too, Varro was an archaist; see e.g. Schmalz, 665. For the reading of Varro in Gellius's time see the Prologomena to A. Riese's edition of Varro, Saturae Menippeae, pages 51-52. Tor Fronto's opinion of Cicero's letters see below, page 19. In this connection it is worth while to note the difference in attitude of Fronto and Gellius toward Cicero's letters. An- toninus writes (Epistulae 2.4: Naber, page 107) to Fronto.- as follows : Ciceronis epistulas, si forte electas, totas vel dimi- diatas habes, imperitas,vel mone quas potissimum legendas mihi censeas ad facultatem sermonis fovendam. Fronto replies (2.5) : Memini me excerpisse ex Ciceronis epistulis ea dum- taxat quibus inesset aliqua de eloquentia vel philosophia vel de republica disputatio: praeterea si quid eleganti aut verbo notabili dictum videretur, excerpsi. Quae in usu meo ad manum erant, misi tibi. . . Omnes autem Ciceronis epistulas legendas censeo mea sententia vel magis quam omnes eius orationes. Epistulis Ciceronis nihil est perfectius. Gellius mentions Cicero's letters only three times (1.22. 19; 4.9.6; 12.13.21). In the first instance, merely to illustrate a certain use of superesse, he quotes from Ad Fam. 10.35.5: Nam neque deesse rei pubHcae volo neque superesse. This is quite in accord with the Gellian manner. With a like purpose in mind, that is, to define the phrase dies religiosus, he makes his second quotation, from Ad Att. 9.5.2. It is to comment on the phrase intra modum that the third quotation (Ad Fam. 4.4.4) is given. In none of the three passages does he utter one word of formal or special commendation of Cicero's let- ters, prone as he was to eulogize in set terms those from whom he cites. From all this, however, we may hardly be justified in the inference that Gellius did not regard the letters highly, but it is at least safe to conclude that he did not find in them the material suited to his needs. In the Drisler Studies, 140, attention is called to Fronto's attitude toward the Greeks as contrasted with that of Gel- lius.®® Apuleius shared with Gellius his admiration for the "See Gellius, 1.8.6; 10.22.3; 11.16.1,9; 12.1.24; 14.1.32; 15.11.3; 17.20.7,8; 18.13.5. Two of these passages may be cited in full: 10.22.3 Verba . . . Platonis . . . scripsi, quoniam vertere ea consilium non fuit, cum ad proprietates eorum nequaquam possit Latina oratio aspi- rare ac multo minus etiam mea; 12.1.24 Haec Favorinum dicentem audivi Graeca oratione. Cuius sententias communis utilitatis gratia, quantum meminisse potui, rettuli, amoenitates vero et copias ubertates- que verborum Latina omnis facundia vix quadam indipisci potuerit, N 20 Archaism in Aulus Gcllius Archaism in Aulus Gellius 21 Greeks. A glance at the Index Auctorum in Helm's edition will be sufficient to prove this interest. Almost every page of the Florida reveals the name of some Greek poet or philos- opher. Apparently one of the accusations against Apuleius was the charge that he was equally a master both of Latin and of Greek (Apol. 5.5).^^ Fronto, on the other hand, de- spised, or affected to despise, the Greeks: see e.g. Drisler Studies, 140; Brock, 38, 41.^^ Although Gellius's chief interests lie mainly with the early classical and the preclassical writers, he was by no means ignor- ant of the literature of the first century. However, when one remembers the great number of Latin authors mentioned by him (I have noted well over seventy), his silence in regard to Propertius and Tibullus, Livy and Tacitus, Quintilian and Juvenal, is surprising.^^ The nearer he approaches his own time, the less he has to say about literary men and their works.^** Still, references to the writers named below attest some knowledge on his part of the literature from the opening of the Christian era to his own day: Augustus Caesar (10.11.5; 157.3) ; L. Annaeus Seneca (12.2.3 ff.) f^ C. Ateius Capito (1.12.8) ; Valerius Maximus (12.7.8) ; Valerius Probus (i. 15.18); Q. Asconius Pedianus (15.28.4); Suetonius Tran- quillus (9.7.3; 15.4.4). Of Gellius's contemporaries many are named; some of these, with others unnamed, share Gellius's love for the early Latin writers. Fronto^- especially is looked upon as an authority in mea tenuitas nequaquam. For references to Gellius's visit to Greece see 1.2.1; 2.2.1,2; 7131,2; 7.16.1; 8.10; 94.1; lo.i.i; 12.5.1; 15.2.3; 15.20.5: 16.6.1; 17.8.1; 18.2.1; 18.9.5; 18.10.3; 18.13.1; 19.114; 19.6.2; 18.8. 1 ; 19. 12. 1. \et, as Kretschmann, 67 ff., and Purser, xcv, note, Apuleius uses few Greek words. For the wide use of Greek in Africa in Apuleius's time see e.g. Purser, xvi. note. " Purser, l.xxi, disregards this attitude of Fronto. • Drisler Studies, 134. - Teuffel. § 365.5. " But Gellius names Seneca chiefly to criticize him severely. Fronto, too. shows a decided antipathy to Seneca; see Teuffel, § 298.1. "See above. 5; Drisler Studies, 139-140. 11. I matters linguistic (2.26; 13.29; 19.8.10-13). Apuleius is not mentioned, although it is possible that his student days at Athens^^ fell at about the time when Gellius was in that city."^* The standards and aims of Gellius and Apuleius were so different that the former's silence with respect to his more gifted contemporary should cause no surprise (cf. page 20, above). It is interesting now to compare Apuleius and Gellius in respect to their citations from Latin authors. Gellius is par- ticularly interested in the subject-matter of his citations. The ipse dixit of an Ennius, a Cato, or a Varro settles beyond fur- ther argument any point relating to customs or language (see, for example, 16.14 or 18.9). Gellius seems to have mainly two objects in view: first, to display his erudition, and, sec- ondly, to instruct.^^ His quotations have a practical purpose, not an aesthetic.''^ Not the beauty of a passage, the imagin- ative, the literary qualities, appeal to our author. He quotes a passage because it has an unusual word or form in it, or an allusion to some old law, to some quite- or half-forgotten cus- tom, or for some other similar reason which appeals to his prosaic grammarian's taste (see, for example, 1.7.11; 1.11.16; 1.16.1-5; 1. 18.2; 1.21; 1.25. 17; 2.14; 19.8). Apuleius has quite a different purpose in view. He is the popular lecturer, the elegant raconteur, the eloquent and gifted orator, the learned expounder of a mystic philosophy. He is interested in making his point, in entertaining his readers, in dazzling his auditors.*^^ His citations are mere literary orna- " Apuleius refers to his sojourn at Athens in Met. (Helm's edition : references are to page and line) 4.2; 22.12; Ap. 80.16; Flor. 35.15; 39.6. See Purser, xii-xiii. '* For Gellius's references to his stay at Athens see above, note 66. Purser, xiii, holds that Apuleius remained at Athens "probably . . . till 150 A.D. ; possibly he remained later". Knapp, Stories from Aulus Gellius, 7, showed that Gellius's sojourn in Athens antedated 166 A.D., though by how many years he did not venture to say. " Praefatio, 2, 10, 12-13. "See, however, 19.11; 1.24. "If Purser, Ixix-lxxxiv, is right in regarding Apuleius as an "Asianic" in style, his remarks are in point here, especially Ixxvii. 20 Archaism in Aulus Gcllius Archaism in Aulus Gcllius 21 M ■i M w[n it ffi ^ ^' "'" ^"'^"^ Auctorum in Helm's edition will be sufficent to prove this interest. Almost ever>- pape of the Flonda reveals the name of some Greek poet or philo,- was'^h. h ''"'"? r °^ "^^ -«-ations against Apuleius and o?r WA ! ^" ""' ^"'">' " -"^^'^^ I'^th of Utin and of Greek (Apol. 5.5)." Fronto, on the other hand, de- spised, or affected to despise, the Greeks: see e.g Ddsler Studies, 140; Brock, 38, 41 «» ^' datskall'd ?"'" V'" V"'^"^'^ "^ '"^'«'y -'th 'he early dassical and the preclass.cal writers, he was by no means ignor- ant of the literature of the first centuty. However, when one remembers the great number of Latin authors mention^L him (I have noted well over seventy), his silence in regard to Proper , us and Tibullus, Livy and Tacitus, Quintilian nd tim?t' 1 "TT "' ^'' "^^^^^ •'^ ^pp™-h- i ::t works"' S 'Ifer™ ,7,,^'"'-''""^ •"^" ^"' *^^'- some knowIedge^XaVof hVCLXlt^ ""^^ of thp ru^i.4.' . . "Lcramre trom the openmg U0.11.5 15.7.3) , L. Annaeus Seneca (12.2.3 ff.) •" C Ate.us (xTx8;:"o' A ^^'-'"V^:i--- (--7.8) • Vai;Hus-pt wit^^n?i!"'"''' "°"*^'"P°'-^"^^ '"any are named ; some of these with others unnamed, share Gellius's love for the earlv I at !,' wmers. Fronto" especially is looked upon as an author^; b .ea te„uitasne,uaqua™. For references to Ge.Hus's visit to Greece I«;2n-- Tfi^T o ^ ;' '^^■^' ^'^^'' 9.4.1; lO.l.i; I2.SI- ic:2r ^■\o^::: ''•'•''■ ''"''■ ''■'■'■' '«-3; i8.:3.,;':p.:.t;; 'Sli fe^Gr'eek woTdT^For/h"' M '"' ^"'""^' ^^^' "°'^' AP"'^'"^ uses -S,r;Sie??r"''"""'^°^'^°"'°- " Teuffel, § 365.5.' too"!hL?;rird"a'"p:rs " "'"'='^;^"" ^^--^ ^-to, "See above, 5; SirSiS :3"-::o. "^ '^"'^'' ^ ^•'- matters linguistic (2.26; 13.29; 19.8.10-13). Apuleius is not mentioned, although it is possible that his student days at Athens'* fell at about the time when Gellius was in that city.^* The standards and aims of Gellius and x\puleius were so different that the former's silence with respect to his more gifted contemporary should cause no surprise (cf. page 20, above). It is interesting now to compare Apuleius and Gellius in respect to their citations from Latin authors. Gellius is par- ticularly interested in the subject-matter of his citations. The ipse dixit of an Ennius, a Cato, or a Varro settles beyond fur- ther argument any point relating to customs or language (see, for example, 16.14 or 18.9). Gellius seems to have mainly two objects in view: first, to display his erudition, and, sec- ondly, to instruct.^^ His quotations have a practical purpose, not an aesthetic.^® Not the beauty of a passage, the imagin- ative, the literary qualities, appeal to our author. He quotes a passage because it has an unusual word or form in it, or an allusion to some old law, to some quite- or half -forgotten cus- tom, or for some other similar reason which appeals to hif prosaic grammarian's taste (see, for example, 1.7.11; 1.11.16; 1.16.1-5; 1. 18.2; 1.21; 1.25. 17; 2.14; 19.8). Apuleius has quite a different purpose in view. He is the popular lecturer, the elegant raconteur, the eloquent and gifted orator, the learned expounder of a mystic philosophy. He is interested in making his point, in entertaining his readers, in dazzling his auditors." His citations are mere literary orna- 73 Apuleius refers to his sojourn at Athens in Met. (Helm's edition: references are to page and line) 4.2; 22.12; Ap. 80.16; Flor. 35.15; 39.6. See Purser, xii-xiii. '*For Gellius's references to his stay at Athens see above, note 66. Purser, xiii, holds that Apuleius remained at Athens "probably . . . till 150 A.D. ; possibly he remained later". Knapp, Stories from Aulus Gellius, 7, showed that Gellius's sojourn in Athens antedated 166 A.D., though by how many years he did not venture to say. " Praefatio, 2, 10, 12-13. ^"See, however, 19.11; i-24. ^If Purser, Ixix-lxxxiv, is right in regarding Apuleius as an "Asianic" in style, his remarks are in point here, especially Ixxvii. f IJ9IIII uiijWLSil 22 \\ Archaism in Aulus Gellius ments, employed for their rhetorical eflfects. Apuleius is no lanrr H °'''r " ^'^ ^^"^'^"^''- °^ ^'''-^-ti e Z urf bv hi. '.' ' '"''■''^ '""'' P^«f«"ndly affected, to be su e, by his predecessors who wrote two and three centuriel before h,s day, but still mingling, with certain I chak nients those qualities of vocabulary and style wh ch we t" doubtless, peculiar to his own native Africa - The larne nchness of vocabulary, the same ornate and iiorid style e found m Tertulhan," and, to a less degree, in Cyprian so a few examples will illustrate what was sLed above page 2^ Tenl" eTr;," '*^ T^"^^ ''^' ^''^^ -^ literi^om?- sisse dicunt, mnocentiam eloquentiam esse, ego uero orofite or ei;rtrFTo'"''"° "^ "^'"'"" ^•™'"'" ^' eloquent :t: cessurum Flor. 3.15-17 prorsus igitur ante Hvaenirn^ nih I ahud plenque callebant quam Verfilianus upiHrsTu b^ ' ' strident, m.serum stipula disperdere carmen /oT ^ ' deligunt diueinae fortitudinis,^iuacis peTnicila f id ZZ lerre ualidum et ire raniHurr, '^ • ^^Ldub, la est et perlabitur uno', m a t Ludlius' Vu.TT' '°""^"^ ^^^^" multiplied almost indefinSr "'"" '°"" ''^ Gemus "hi h"^' °' '"*'°" "*^' "^y AP"'-- -d by ueiiius, while by no means dentical is the «;^m. , number of Latin authors, however cited hv clivh J noted approximately seventy) is m;cr;LL t an" th ^ by Apule,us (approximately twenty). It is not so m^ch t n pare Teu.e,, 3^.6.' Seri:::;;^,^-"^^ ^-^^' '^^ -^^ ^^ Mackail, 252. "Mackail, 255. "Helm's edition (page and line are cited). Archaism in Aulus Gellius 23 They differ again in the frequency of citations. Apuleius cited Ennius four times, Plautus four times, and Cato only three. It is interesting to note that both Gellius and Apuleius have one reference to Cato in common.®^ Varro is cited by Apuleius twice, Vergil ten times. Apuleius rarely praises these authors whom he cites.^^ This is in sharp contrast to Gel- lius's frequent laudations of the old writers.^* It was argued above (pages 9-1 1) that the archaic element in Apuleius is in large part the inevitable outcome of his African birth. It was remarked, however, that this view has not been accepted by all scholars. Some attention will now be given to the more commonly accepted theory. We may do this most conveniently by considering briefly some points discussed in Leky's De Syntaxi Apuleiana (1908). Leky regards it as an established truth that Apuleius is, pri- marily, an intentional archaist®^ and so throughout his disser- tation charges all the archaic elements of Apuleius's syntax to direct and conscious imitation. Desertine^* takes the same ground with reference to both vocabulary and syntax." Kretschmann (pages 34 ff. and 87 ff.) holds the same view. Leky's work consists in comparing certain syntactical usages found in Apuleius with similar uses in the preclassical period, particularly in Plautus. His exam.ples do show striking re- semblances. It is suggestive to note, however, that while Apuleius and Gellius often exhibit similar archaic qualities of syntax, as will be shown farther on, these qualities are more conspicuous in Apuleius ; still, in him, they seem quite natural and unaffected.®^ If we may consider Met. i.i to refer to '"Gellius, 2.2.28; Apul. De Mundo, page 1507- *^But see De Deo Soc. (Thomas's edition), page 18.12, and Apol.^ page 14.17- " See above, note 41 ; below, note 106. »» Leky, 5-6. "•Cf. Desertine, i; Duff, 30; and the authorities cited in I>risler Studies, 135. *' Pages 81 ff. ""Desertine, 81. Reference may be made again to the argument on pages lo-ii above, and to note 41. For the comparatively small amount of archaism in syntax in Gellius see below, page 27. tmm^^fmm'^ 24 Archaism in Aulus Gellius Archaism in Aulus Gellius 25 stSf' ""^If' *' ''''" '^°"'='"^^ '^^' he even exerted him- self to avo.d the very things in which GeUius delighted quamvis etiam aliunde orta esse possit, tamen pro summo tSirrTt-^'"'" '' °^^^"^*^°"^ -" -^ h°- •- 1 pnscorum im.tat.one repetemus". He cites Haupt Op , ,77 sTgl L L; witrreSr to'the"^^ "^"^ '•^^ °" ^^'^^ "Haecexamnb '"/^*"^"« ^o 'he same usage, writes: pS us?„7aHe„a ' ^J^^T^s"/- ^'"^ ''"'^'^ ^<="P'°"^- his claim tLr^ ■ ■ admission materially weakens cients Thev T^? ""'' ""''' ™"^*'°"^ ">' *- an- cients. They are evidently plebeianisms. An adverb modifying a substantive is found in Apuleius The same usage is found in Plautus. Leky notes- that Cicero rarely employs it. Livy, Tacitus and the August in poets employ t more freauentiv v^t t r . ^ugust.in 11^- 'W A 1 frequently. Yet Leky concludes (para II). ex Apuleianis tamen, quae mihi certe videntur id comicorum sermonem addecere, sunt". On page 2 we finH another illustration of Leky's method, or ra her'of h s t abihty to see the implication of his own citations • "Mi ' t vi»^ usus apud Apuleium multo liberior est ouam .n ,/ timae latinitatis scriptores. Atque banc di ndi li^r aTem t Apuleio plerumque ex priscorum sermone sumptam essT ex exemphs sequentibus elucebit". He mentions the indica ive 1, dubitative questions as an example of this imitaTion of ,h ancients, and then directly says" "Quae dic^ ratio vulg, sermoni propria est". He notes (pa JTfi^ T "■' etters of Cicero ad Atticum, in Catulbs,^ n^VeJ On pa;! 37, m regard to certain uses of the subjunctfv e he savf Exemplo certe comicorum Apuleius facit J u ^ iunctivi personam numeri sin^Js^ Jot; "p olm^^r q_^ priscorum usum poetae, ut Catullus, L rTeXnt' 1-eky, 6. ' "•Leky, II. '* See Brock, 195. quemque inter dum invenimus in Cic. epp". The above quo- tations are intended to show that Leky takes it for granted that, when Apuleius's language differs from the classic norm so as to show an archaic quality, it is because he deliberately imitates the ancients.^^ jje gives very Httle weight even to his own citations of works in which the plebeian elements are generally acknowledged, and which, being of a later date than Plautus, tend to show that such usages in the Latin language had maintained themselves side by side with the literary speech, during the classic period, even at Rome. We should expect to find that, in the Latin language as it was spoken and written in Africa,^^ the archaic-plebeian elements would be striking. A more illuminating study of the language and style of Apuleius might be made by comparing him, not only with Plautus and other early writers, but with writers who were of, or near, his own time, especially with others of the African school, such as Tertullian and Cyprian. If these same archaistic qualities should be found in these writers, who could hardly be charged with intentional archaising,^* it would be a fair inference that Apuleius, also, did not borrow so much directly from Plautus as he is generally believed to have bor- rowed. Although he appears to give little importance to it, Leky, by his own investigations, proves that many of the very qualities of Apuleius's syntax which he has ascribed to conscious imi- tation of Plautus are found in the later writers, among whom are many who are not generally regarded as archaisers but whose works are recognized as being tinged with a distinctly plebeian color ;^^ we may name here Auctores Belli Africani "But cf. Flor., page 10.20 ff. ; Piechotta, 3; Kretschmann, 4. "Cooper xviii, xxvii ; Piechotta, i ff. ; above, pages 5-i4- •* Compare Ott, in Neue Jahrbiicher, 109. 762: "Fachschriftsteller wie die arzt Caelius Aurelianus und der theologe Tertullianus, denen es doch wohl nicht urn rhetorische effecthashcerei zu thun ist, zeigen in beiden stuecken die ganz gleichen erscheinungen. Und wie oft gemahnen die alten uebersetzungen der Bibel und des Irenaeus an Plautus und die archaische literatur ueberhaupt". But see Brock, 182-184. "Leky, 15-29. I 4 26 Archaism in Aulus Gellius et Hispaniensis, Vitruvius, Phaedrus, Petronius, and TerttJ- mn On page 21, he attributes to imitation of Plautus Apu- leius s use of the infinitive depending upon a verb of motion to express purpose. Even though parallels of the so-called ar- chaisms of Apuleius are found in Cicero's letters, in Quintil- .an and may be produced from the poets and the writers of plebemn Lat.n, Leky still maintains his thesis that Apuleius borrowed directly from the veteres, and particularly from i^lautus. From page 31 I take the following, which epito- mizes Lekys mental attitude: "facile commovemur, ut a pri.- cis sumptum esse usum suspicemur". To the present writer, Leky's dissertation proves that the syntax o Apuleius has certain qualities which are found not only m Plautus but also in the sermo plebeius of later periods. Cooper" and P.echotta- prove conclusively that, so far as word formation and vocabulary are concerned, the Metamor- phoses of Apuleius, particularly, furnishes a notable example of plebeian Latimty ( see above, pages 10- 1 1 ) . That Apuleius abounds in archaic and rare words no one who has examined the Metamorphoses will be inclined to • ,» r^} A '^"^ "^y ^^ '^'d of TertuUian and of Cyp- r^"\oo ^';^^^"'=^" inscriptions also show a similar vocabu- lary ^ Leky has failed to prove that the archaic tinge to Apuleius s syntax is due to intentional imitation. He has on the contrary, shown that, in a very large number of instances wherein Apuleius's syntax differs from the classic norm, it is plebeian. A more detailed comparison with the syntax of " Leky, 30. "xl ff., and lists. " 25-52. "Cf examples in Piechotta, 28 f., and Cooper xxvii. The latter Afncus which, as seen in Fronto, Apuleius, TertuUian, etc., presents so many striking analogies with the language of Plautus This phenome- non is easily accounted for. when we remember that the first germs^ 1 a"JTu"""'"^ '° ^^"'' ^' the Roman soldiers and colon" who flocked there after the fall of Carthage, in 146 B. C" See also Cooper's footnotes ; above, page 9. '"Cf. Kiibler, Archiv, 8. 201 f. ( Archaism in Aulus Gellius 27 TertuUian and Cyprian would probably have shown that Apul- eius's syntax did not especially differ from the usages of other African writers of about his own time. The archaic element is not so obvious and striking in Gel- lius's syntax as in his vocabulary.^*^^ It is not difficult to find an explanation for this fact. To intersperse one's writings with obsolete and archaic words may indicate profound ad- miration for the writers of the older days and a wide ac- quaintance with their works (an acquaintance which may, however, be after all somewhat superficial), yet does not necessarily involve that instinctive feehng which enters into the very spirit of the ancients, which a successful imitation of their syntax would imply. In general, then, Gellius uses his moods, tenses, cases, and arranges the order of his phrases and sentences, not after the fashion of Cato, but according to the canons of his own time. However, here and there we dis- cover a case construction, a use of a preposition, an em- ployment of a mood, or the turn of a phrase, which smacks of a period three centuries before Gellius's day. As in the case of his vocabulary, so even more in the matter of syntax, one cannot always be sure whether these peculiar usages are the results of conscious imitation, or are uncon- scious reminiscences of the old authors whose works GeUius conned so assiduously, and from which he habitually memor- ized passages, or are merely plebeianisms which had gained currency among the cultivated classes of his day. GelHus comments freely upon the uses of words, some- times defending the archaic as against the popular. In more than one instance he employs words which elsewhere he has declared to be obsolete.^^^ Purist he claims to be, but a purist in language, from his point of view, looked for authority not to the usages of his own day but to an Ennius or a Cato. He 101 From this point on, the argument on pages 5-1 1 above, that in Apuleius we have a large element of 'survival' archaisms, whereas in Gellius we have rather, in the main, conscious 'revival' archaisms (aside from those cases where the plebian and the archaic coincide) should be kept steadily in mind. See again above, note 41. '"'Drisler Studies, 146. 28 Arcluiism in Aldus GcUins seldom comments upon ^y'^'-r'^.S con.trnc.i.nK lot 1- to some sentence an apparent!) obsolete ,,n,, usually .loes so unostentafously, ^^^^^^^.^^^..'.y^^ no comment, and with no cUauon of ""- - ^ „;., 1„ his paper entitled Areha.sn, "> •^; ^ ^^^ ^„ .„- ,;,,. fessor Knapp undertook to '^'^"^^^'^'^^Z fu-- part lius's indebtedness to anteclass.cal ^^" "^ / J ^,^ .„',tes of the paper ( ta6 up ) by n;-. oic^Uo^J^^^^l^ ^^_^,^.^,,.^^ ria::ce furmshed by ^^"^"^ •^^--:::,rr3r'';rtsx to these terms is made evident. F.nalh t ' rise and groNvth of antiquanamsm m Latm L.i.rat.i.c culmination in the second century of our era In the second part tUi-'J^V some archaiMU. o. • -. ■ u noted, and then .ere given alpabetical lists ot "«"-• ;^- ' - verbs, adverbs, prepositions and conjunctions. sUix,. (>e„m. was believed to have derived from older Latin write. - . W hall now proceed to give additional reteren. e^ :uv au- thorities in connection with the words areadv -'- ^ "^ Drislcr Studies. .\ few archaisms of form and .....ilntl.t,) which were not noted there will be a.lded. "" Sec. however, i.r.i.r. iz-iH- „ i , ' ... ni-t- -x) -Contrast his utterances about archa.c wor.K see ■■, . ! . J^- -Printed in Classical Stn.lies in llononr of Henry l>n-:. U> ','■ a! ; Py\RT I I ARCII.MSirs (JF FOUM .\M) V()CAIU'I..\UY ,-/. Forms. To the passages cited on page 128 to .show (jellius's love for the older writers may be added 17.2.1 : Cum librum veteris scriptoris legebamus, conabamur postea memoriae vegetandae gratia indipisci animo ac recenserc, (|tiae in eo libro scripla essent in utrasquc existimationes laudis aul culpae adnotamcn- tis digna, eratque hoc sane quam utile exercitium ad conci- ' liandas nobis, ubi vetiisset usus, verborum sententiarnmque elegantium recordationes. In addition to the statement that he habituallv committed to memorv words and phrases of older wrilors/''*^ wo have iho avowal that in the yrtr^rs .N\M^f>^»t-.c perfection was^''" to bo toiiiul. It i< worili wliilo lo ii.^io iliat. of the expressions which, according to 17.2.2. he had memori- zed from Claudius Quadrigarius, there occur elsewhere in the Noctes Atticae, employed by Gellius without reference to their source, cumprhnls (1.13.7; 1.15.8; 11.3.1; 13.17.2; 13.21.25; 18.4.8; 19.5.3);^'^^ nc . . . qnoqnc (1.2.5; ii-54» 20.1.15); in medium rcUnqno (7.14.9).^^^'* According to Gellius hini^elf, . ciimprimis and ne . . . qnoqnc w-ere obsolete or nearly so (17.2.14,18).^^" It is interesting to note tliat the regular form, ne . . . quidcm, is used by Gellius at least twenty-three times and that three of these occurrences (11. 5.8; 20.1.14; 20.1.33) are removed by only a few parapraphs from the three instances of the archaic ne . . . quoque. In referring to the older writers,^ ^^ Gellius usually char- acterizes them as antiqui, antiqniorcs, or inaiorcs, or states that a word or construction was used antiqnitns. In like man- ner, in 247 out of 278 passages in the two versions of Scrvius's "•Cf. 10.25. 1 ; II-3.I; 20.10.4. "* Cf. 17.2.6; 17.2.10. '^'''Sec below, page z^. In 13.17.2 he is talking of the vctcrcs. "' Sec below, page 55. ii< in Drisler Studies, 170. Cf. Drisler Studies, 128-129. Archaism in ^Udus GcUius I ^. ircJiaism in Aldus Gcllius 31 chaic character of the words used hy\ U,.U a ^. ^^^^_^^ the words aniiqui, vctcrs, maunrs. or sonic ; ''T.*'"'"' ,^0 ,V' of the I^rislcr Stu.lie^. the meaning of On pages i30-'3- '"^ i^ ,liscus-ed. Cunii-are the terms vctcrcs, anUqu., and the hkc .> -c ^^ ,Uh the citation iron. Quint.han .J-.V- .; ^ .^ 7; ,„. him- Cicero and his P.>-^----,;;^^. j;' 'j:: . S: e, ctnnprin.s self: ^3-i7.2Sic,gUureoverboNete sc.^ ,.,^^. ,,^. \r V-irroneni'" MarcunKiue I nlhuni onnies e 1 „,i ^,1,1 Yer^il Horace an u^ notes (I4i-i4"'t "" .,,,,.0,,,,) ire fomid the archaic , 6.4. in lemm. For prorsus and p, nm are Jo ^^^ syncopated forms prosus and /-...». ' - ' ^^^ ~?:;r;:!?"n;;din....nQmn^ adfinesqtie nostros oramus. ut --'"J J^^'^ ^ bristles with dtim, is probably an archaism; this chapter archaisms"" Hosius reads Jcm.r. in praef. .8. ^^here Me rc^ds tcmperc.''' ,,,•,- in^Mciie penitus Aliqui is used as a substantive: cf "'-^-^ '"■ J^^ \ quid effieiant verba hacc, dicatqtie miln, qnae.o. ahqui "^ce Steele. Archaisms in Vergil. AJ-P- iS-i^'^'- »" Compare above, note 64. "' Sec Lewis and Short, s.v. "•' Drislcr Studies. -\Scc Georges, s.v.; Xeiic-W as^encr, 2.74.. ''^See Neue-Wagener, J.747- v2<> note. ...Cf. Knapps paper on Va en s Ennu.s A J.P .--^^^^^ ^_^ I- 1 t an sit ulla huiusce sententiae gravitas aut gratia. According to the references given in Neue-Wagencr, 2.476, the nsagc is rare, beginning with Caesar and Cicero. For the first century and a half of the empire but four citations are given, two from Seneca's Epistles, one from Livy, 4.35.9, one from Quint., Decl. 294. It would seem that the use never gainc(l ground, and was in part obsolete by Gellius's time.^-* (Jellius derived it then, from his reading of the z'ctcrcs.^'^ It may be noted here that Hertz in his editio altera minor (1886) reads quo in 15. 10.2 instead of the qui of his critical edition (1885). Ilosius reads quo. In addition to the com- ments on qui in the Drisler Studies (145), there should be noted the use of both qtii and quo side by side in 1.13.IT. The frequency with which quo occurs elsewhere in Gcllius makes these isolated examples of qui all the more striking. It should be noted that there are some traces in the MSS of Gellius of an archaic form of the dative of the third declension in -e}^* The forms are parte, 2,12.1, and corporc, 3.1. 13. Hosius and Hertz both read parti and corpori, but Hertz holds that the -e forms are not impossible.^-*"' Viderier occurs also in 1 5.2.1 Ex insula Creta quispiam . . . sese philosophum dicebat et viderier gcstibat. Note the two archaisms together here, viderier, and gcstibat. For the latter form, add to the references on page 146 Munro on Lucr. 5.934, 124 123 -^Cf. Knapp's paper on v amc . 7;"';-.;; •;-^,' ^orenz on Plaui^ -"See Georges, s.v.; Neuc-Wagener, 2.649, and Lor ^ Pseud. 375- ^=^Knapp, A.J.P., 32.29. "ote i -Knapp, A.J.P-. 32.29. "o>e .. ^^^^^ ,^,„^,^ formen, s.v. tempore; Bucheler, Rhcin. Mus., 15-444; Ncuc-Wagcncr, 2.649. *"See the note in Hildebrand's edition of Apuleius on Met. 6.29 (Vol. 1.504); Neue-Wagener, 2.476; Thesaurus, s.v. *"I use the term here in Gellius's understanding of it (sec ai>ovc, pages 29-30). Lindsay, The Latin Language, vi. § 28, page 387. See Vind. Gell. Alt., 8; Gorges, 18; Bucheler, Grundriss, §^ 276- 278. J. Gronovius ad loc. declared that a collation of a certain MS which he possessed gave lure dicundo in 13. 12.9; this reading, he ad- ded, "est vere Romanum". But there Hertz had iuri dicundo (so too Hosius, with no comment whatever in his apparatus criticus). In his Vind. Gell. Alt., 8, Hertz declined to put this passage beside 2.12.1, 3. 1. 13, as evidence for a dative in -e, because Gronovius's reading "auf den cod. reginae in Vat. 597 zuriickzugehcn scheint, bei dem cin falschcs in iuri dicundo nachtriiglich in in iure dicundo verbessert ist". i ,2 Archaism in Aiihis Ccllius and Steele on lembat, A. J. P., i5-i88. Fcm/- appears also in 17.8.8. , r 11 To the forms of quco cited on page 146 add the following: nucunt 14.1.30, 16.8.14, 16.13-9; <;«'>'• "^-i; y"^"' 2.6.9, 12.12.1; queant 14.1.26 (bis) in affirmative clause; qmret 14.1.12; quiverit (subj.) 14.I.17 in affirmative clause; qmv^,: 14 2.25. Note also neqitivit 6.3.3 ! >'e(l"irct 2.23.22. An archaic form not noted in the Drisler Studies is pa r- sisset?" 5.14.15. I" 15.31.5. however, Gellius wntes pcpera-.t. Worthy of a place here, perhaps, is dcfw. a by-form of d.c- ficio, which appears twice: 1.14.1 quo^l vidcrent muha a.d splendorem domus atque victus defieri ; 20.8.5 deficiente conti -a (luna) dcfiunt. In the latter passage note d,'ficio and dcf,,o side by side. Dcfio is found in Plaut., Tcr.. Enn., Ace , Lucr.., Verg., and later poets, but in prose apparently only in Livy,'-"' Vitruv., Cell., and later. Gellius shows no knowledge, it may be noted, of either Livy or Vitruvius (.see above, page 20) ., it is likely, therefore, that he derived the forms under discus- sion from his beloved vetcrcs. Archaism in Aulas Gellius 33 B. Vocabulary. We shall proceed now to add such comment:; and reference:; as seem profitable to the words Gellius is believed to have bor- rowed from the older writers. This list of words begins in the Drisler Studies with page I47- Since the words are ar- ranged alphabetically, it will be unnecessar}- to cite the page on which the word is treated in Drisler Studies. acritudo: for the archaic character of the ending -tudo see Cooper, 44, and Schmalz, 604 ( § 2a ) : "Die Neigung zur Abslraktion in den Zeiten des Verfalls zeigt sich . . . in Wiederaufnahme der ... von den Klassikern vernachlassigten, aber bereits von den archaisierenden Schriftstellern der cic. ^ See Georges, s.v. fcrveo; of. Vergil Aen. 4.409. *"See Georges, s.v. parco; Steele, A.J.P.. 15.1S8. '"■"See Weissenborn-Mueller on 9.11.6; Weissenborn on conficrfsi, S-50.7- und der folgenden Zeit gerne aufgegriffenen Bildung mit tiido, \ Iz. B. claritudo". canalicula, 1 7.1 1.2: the statement that this word is found only in Lucilius and Gellius requires correction. It occurs also in Varro."^ finis, in 4.1.6 signifies 'meaning' rather than 'termination' (correct, then, Drisler Studies, 150). Postgate, Select Elegies '' Propertius, xci, remarks : "His genders are sometimes haic : e. g. pnliiis and finis are common . . ." Finis is isculine in 1.3.8 and 3.16.1, but feminine again in 3.16.20. lac: lade is read as the nominative of this word in 19.8. 13 ;ur mel et vinum atque id genus cetera numerum multitudinis capiunt, lacte non capiat? With what is said under this word in Drisler Studies concerning the identity often of archaisms and vulgarisms compare Wolfflin, Philologus, 34. 149.^^" partio: add 12.1.20, and Macrob. 5.1 1. 15 (borrowed, as is so much in Macrobius, from Gellius). specus is feminine in 5. 14.18; the word does not occur at all in 5.14.8 (correct Drisler Studies, 153). Add 5.14.24 in eadem specu. The word occurs in still another place, but there the gender is not clear; see 2.28.1 specus hiatusque tcr- rae. arbitrarius:^^'^ correct the reference from 19. 1.5 to 19.1.15. com plus cuius: for the formation, see Edmund Hauler in Archiv, 5. 294, and Cooper, 191-192. The latter holds that the form is plebeian, not archaic. For the prevalence of di- minutives, especially without diminutive force, in the archaising period, see Schmalz, 674 ( § 68 ), and Cooper, 185-186. In I i *^R.R. 3.5.14. For Varro's archaizing tendencies see above, note 64. *'*"So blieb das vulgarlatein vielfach hinter den fortschrittcn der gebildeten zuriick, aber cs bcwahrtc sicli aiich cinen grosseren reichtbinn an formen und wortcn. . . IJarum ist das vulgiire oft mit dtm arcliai- schen identisch, obschon weder alles archaische vulgar ist . . . noch alles vulgare archaisch zu sein braucht". G. Landgraf, Phil. Anz., 15.608, says : **Archaismen aber sind in der regel identisch mit vulgar- ismen". See also Cooper, xxi; above, pages 9-10. "*For the archaic character of adjectives in -ariiis see Cooper, 151- I55r 34 Archaism in Aulus Gellius Archaism in Aulus Gellius 35 this connection, we may note the following combinations: avicula . . . parva, 2.29.3; porculis . . . minusculis, 4.1 1.6; funiculo hrevi, 5.3.4; tenuissimis minutisque ossiculis, 7.1. 10; surculi . . . oblonguli, 17.9.7; herediolum tenue, 19.7. i. A wholly illogical combination is largiores laetioresque in con- viviis invitatiunculas zAni,^^^ 15.2. in lemm. Compare in gen- eral Gellius's handling of f requentatives : see on adiutare, below, page 35. cuius, a, um: this word is characterized as an archaism by Servius on Verg. B. 3.1.^^^ lepidus: the citations given under this word may be greatly supplemented. Add, for the positive, 10.19.2, 12.6.1, 17.14.3, 18. 1. 12; for the superlative, 7.9. in lemm., 13.11.1, 19.4. i, 19.9. in lemm., 19.9.5, i9-ii-i; for lepide add 7.8.3, 9.3.2, 11.11.4, 13.5.10, 13.10.3, 18.2.6. The statement that the comparative lepidior occurs but once in Gellius and once in Plautus is not correct. See Cell. 17.14. in lemm. The forms of this adjective and adverb occur at least twenty-five times in Gellius. It should be noted also that illepidus occurs in 11.7.1, 18.4.10, 19.9.7; and illepide in 11. 16.5, 16.12. in lemm., and 18.13.5. These two words are doubtless to be regarded as archaisms. Both are used by Plautus. The former is cited from no author later than Cicero until we come to Gellius, the latter but once between Cicero and Gellius, and then from the elder Pliny. necessum: as a help toward understanding the composite character of Gellius's style,^^* it might have been noted here that necesse is common in Gellius.^**^ plerique omnes:^^^ add 14.3. i pleraque omnia; 1 5.7.1 pleris- que omnibus; 17.5.4 plerique omnes. Plerique omnes occurs also in Pronto, 183 (Naber), in a short but, from our present point of view, very interesting sentence, since within seven ^ Cooper, 186-187. On double diminutives see e.g. Abbott, Repetition, 80-82. '"•See Steele, A.J. P., 15.183. '"T.A.P.A., 25.6, note i. *"Cf. 5.1.3, 5.8.10, 5.11.7, 5.13.1, 5.18.5, 7.2.5, 16.8.8. I words we have two archaisms : Plerique omnes qui eam cu- raverant frustra fuerunt.^^'^ sterilus, a, um is found again in 17.21.44- I" 6.1.2, how- ever we have matrem eius diu sterilem existimatam tradunt, adiutare: on frequentative verbs in general see Cooper, 210 ff., and Schmalz, 633 (§ 35)- It is remarked m Drisler Studies, 161, that in 1.3.13 Gellius, in paraphrasmg a passage from Cicero, substitutes adiutare for Cicero's adiuvare. So Quadrigarius, a favorite of Gellius, uses the phrase hnguam exertare (19.13.12) in describing Manlius's fight with the Gaul, whereas Livy 7-5.10, in his account of the same duel, writes exserere linguam. Additional light on the complete- ness of Gellius's failure to preserve in practice the true force of frequentatives may be gained from a study of the follow- ing passages: 3.13-I ventitare . . . solitum; 17-19-2 sohtum dictitare; 18.2. in lemm. agitare soliti simus; 6.1.6 sohtaznsse ventitare; 1.26.7 saepe . . . dissertavisse ; 19.5-4 adsidue dictitahat; 20.8.1 agitare erat solitus; 10.8.3 idem factitatum esse credo per consuetudinem. Compare in general Gelhus's handling of diminutives: see above, page 33, on compluscu- lus. ^ commoliri: for verbs compounded with con- see Cooper, 202 ff., especially 265. Gellius borrowed from early writers con- dignus, condigne, commoliri, complacere, consilescere. Com- murmuratio, condecore, confabricari, conflaccescere, congermx- nare, and contemporaneus are found only in Gellius, and there but once. Several compounds with con- {compavescere, con- gelascere, consarcinari, convallare, convelare, convexare, con- vexio) appear for the first time in his pages.^^^ indipisci: add 12.1.24 and Brix-Niemeyer^ and Wagner on Plant. Trin. 224. odi, oddsse: add a reference to Georges, s.v., and Steele, A.J.P., 15-188. ad amussim: see Neue-Wagener, 2.670. adprime: see Wofflin, Lat.u.rom. Comp., 17-18. IM Wolfflin, Lat. u. rom. Comparation, 41. **' See below, page 43- . t, * t? a '" For other unusual prepositional compounds in Gellius, see T.A.F.A., 25.13. ■h \ -«<<»ii!*« 3^ Archaism in Aldus Gellius Archaism in Aulus Gellius 37 ampliter: refer to Brix-Niemeyer^ and Wagner on Plaut. Trin. 1060; Sonnenschein on Plaut. Rud. 265; Cooper, 200. ast: see Schmalz, 500 (§ 252). clam (as prep, with accus.) : see Holtze, 1.213; Lindsay The Syntax of Plautus, 85 ; Wolfflin in Archiv, 7.278 • Steele' AJ.P., 15.187. ' ' ' compluriens: note that this form appears in Gellius 17.2.21, as well as in 6.3.5, the single passage cited in Drisler Studies! Hence correct the statement made here and in A.J.P., 14.218, that 6.3.5 "is the only passage in Latin in which the word has been preserved naturally, so to speak". cumprimis: see Wolfflin, .Vrchiv, 1.97; Lat.u.rom. Comp., 18,25; above, page 29. fortassean: correct reference from 5.14.13 to 5.14.3; and see Neue-Wagener, 2.606, for full list of citations. impendio: add 6.1.5 and 18.12.2. In 19.7.10 it is said of the poet Laevius, item fiere . . . impendio infit, id est 'fieri im- pense incipit'. Compare Wolfflin, Lat.u.rom. Comp., 20. It may be noted, too, that Gellius uses impense three times with an adjective, in the phrase impense doctus: 10.24.10; 13.10.4; I97-I- The only other example of this use seems to be in Plaut. Epid. 566 impense improhus (neither Naudet nor Gray makes any comment on the word). Gellius uses impense with a verb m 9.9.15, 10.3.13, 11. 18.18, and 17.10.7. But this is common, bemg found frequently in the first century of the empire. imhi: the list of references is incomplete. For the phrase atque tnibi, add the lemmata of 13.25, 14.6, 15.7, 15.27, 16.13, 17.16, and 18.2. This phrase does not occur in 14.7.9 or in 13.23.15 (cited on page 169). In the latter we have inibi autem, and m the former deinde inibi. Deinde inibi, however, is practically equivalent to atque inibi}^^ nimis quam: add Pronto 75 (Naber), and see Wolfflin, Lat.u.rom. Comp., 2y. ^ nmnero: see Neue-Wagener, 2.601, where Hertz's reading m 20.1.54 is accepted as genuine. Hosius also reads numero If" 139 See Neue-Wagener, 2.658. against Knapp's conjecture saepenumero}'" In support of the accepted reading may be noted that several undoubted archaisms occur in this chapter: ne . . ■ quoque, 15, quitast, ^2. . pone: it is interesting to compare Gellius's words m i.n.ii qui pone eum loquentem staret, with Cicero's m i.n.iO servum . . , qui staret occulte post ipsum cum contionare- tur ^*2 C. Archaisms of Vocabulary Not Previously Noted. We now proceed to the consideration of some archaisms of vocabulary not included in the lists of the Drisler Studies (147-171). . , . , . . adfinitas meaning 'relationship by marriage is classical. With the figurative meaning, however, it is rare and possibly archaic: see 1.18.5, 4-13.4, 7-^-^3- Georges and Lewis and Short, in addition to the references just given, cite only Varro, R.R. 1.16 and Quintilian, 1.6.24. Add, from the Thesaurus, Phaedrus, 4.14.2. aedntumus, 6.1.6 aeditumosque eius templi. In 12.10.1 Gel- lius himself tells us that in his time the word was obsolete or obsolescent: Aeditumus verbum Latinum est et vetus. . . Sed pro eo a plerisque nunc aedituus dicitur nova et com- menticia usurpations quasi a tuendis aedibus appellatus. Evidently Gellius had seen or heard the Latinity of aeditumus questioned. Varro has the word: R.R. 1.2; 1.6.9. Cicero uses it once, in Topica 8.36. caldor, 17.8. 10 respondi . . . vinum idcirco minus cito con- gelascere, quod semina quaedam caldoris in sese haberet; 19.4.4 caldoremque omnem de summa corporis cute cogat; 19.4.5. The word is cited three times from Varro and once from Arnobius. It may be noted that in 17.8, one of the two chapters in which caldor is found, two archaisms occur to- gether in a single sentence: 17.8.8 Verbero,-"'^ inquit ridens 1*0 To what Professor Knapp wrote on numero here in Drisler Studies, 170, may be added his treatment of this word in his discussion of Plautus, Amphitruo 180, in The Classical Review, 7.21-22. "* See above, page 29. "** Cf. the note on adiutare (ad init.) in Drisler Studies, 161. ^^'See below, page 39. 38 Archaism in Aulus Gellius Archaism in Aulus Gellius 39 Taurus, nonne is curriculo^*^ atque oleum petis? In the same paragraph we have fervit—fervet (see above, page 32). The language of the entire chapter is unusual. Calorificus, frigori- ficus, incongelahilis are found only here and congelascere is of Gellius's own coinage (see on comnwUri, above, page 35). censio, 10.28.2 ex ista censione Servi Tulli; 16.10.13 cum iuventutis inopia esset, in militiam tumultuariam legebantur . . . et non capitis censione, sed . . . a munere officioque prolis edendae appellati sunt. Evidently, here we have to do with an old technical phrase.^^^ For Gellius's legal studies and their relation to his archaizing tendencies see above, page 16. The word occurs twice in Plautus, both times in a jest, but once with force entirely parallel to that seen in Gellius. fretus, as a masculine, fourth declension by-form, is found in 10.26.6 brevitas tam angusti fretus, qui terram Africam Hispaniamque interfluit. In 13.21, Gellius seeks to show (see the lemma) that the better writers paid more regard to euphony than they did to grammatical rules. He cites various' passages to prove his point, and then says in § 15: Sicuti Marco etiam Ciceroni mollius teretiusque visum, in quinta in Verrem frctu scribere quam freto; perangusto, inquit, fretu divisa. Erat enim crassius iam vetustiusque, perangusto freto dicere. Though Gellius makes fretu the later form, and char- acterizes freto as obsolete already in Cicero's day, the lexicons cite only two other examples of fretu from Cicero. They give numerous , others, however, from earlier writers, En- nius, Naevius, Pacuvius, Lucilius, Varro, Lucretius, Porcius Licinius. On the whole, then, fretu in Gellius may be counted an archaism (especially if we remember that to him Cicero too was vetus scriptor: see above, note 64). flagitator, 17.6. 10 eam pecuniam cum viro forte irata repe- tere instituit, adponit ei flagitatorem. For this sense of the word cf. Plaut. Most. 768; Cic. Brut. 5.18. With two pas- sages from Livy, the citations for the word cease. Apparently it was obsolete in Gellius's time. gaulus, 10.25.5, is one of a list'** of names of vessels which 144 14« See below, page 43. *« See Festus (Miill.), 65. See Drisler Studies on lorea, 152. Gellius on a certain occasion remembered as occurring in the veterum lihri. The word seems to be found elsewhere only in Plaut. Rud. 1319. It is defined by Festus, 96. halophanta, 8.10. lemm., is a Greek word. However, Plaut. Cure. 4.1.2 is the only citation given before Gellius. Cf. Non. 120.8 (Lindsay), and Fest. (Miiller), loi. halucinatio, 8.3. lemm. Non. 121.20 states that the word was used by the vetcres. See Sen. Vit. Beat. 26.6 ; Arn. 4.36, 6.8 ; Nettleship, Contributions to Latin Lexicography, 144. hariolatio, 15. 18.3. Lewis and Short do not cite this occur- rence but mark the word as found only in Cic. Div. 1.3 1.66, in a quotation from Enn. (Frag. Trag. 42 Rib.). Georges gives only the two instances here recorded. lihentia, 15.2.7 cui libentiae gratiaeque omnes . . . incogni- tae sint. The word occurs elsewhere only in Plautus.'*^ praefica, 18.7.3 vos philosophi mera estis, ut M. Cato (fr. inc. 19 J.) ait, mortualia; glosaria namque colligitis et lexidia, res taetras et inanes et frivolas tamquam m^ulierum voces prae- ficarum.'*^ sihonis, 10.25.2. Lewis and Short give this as the only oc- currence. But see Ennius Ann. 504 (Vahlen). vasum, as a by- form of va-s, occurs in 3.14-5 P^^^^ Q^^^ dee St ei vasq, though in the same paragraph vas stands as an accusative in a passage quoted from Ennius."® For a full list of examples, see Georges, s.v. vas. vitor, 12.3.4; Plaut. Rud. 4.3.51; Donatus ad Ter. Eun. 4.4.21 ; Arn. 2.38; Dig. 9.2.27 fin. verhero, a term of abuse quoted by Lewis and Short only from Plautus and Terence, is found twice in Gellius, 1.26.8 Quid autem, verbero, nunc ego tibi irasci videor? and 17.8.8 Verbero . . . nonne is curriculo atque oleum petis? For other archaisms in the latter chapter, see on caldor above (page 37). 14T Cf. Stich. 276; Asin. 268 (name of goddess). It is read also by Lorenz in Pseud. 381 (=396 Goetz-Schoell) : see his note. *** Cf . Varro, L.L. 7.70 ; Varro, Lucilius and Plaut. ap. Non. 66 ; Plaut. True. 495. **• Vahlen, Ann. 536. W i 40 Archaism in Aulus Gellius illepidus: see above on lepidus (page 34). medicinns seems to stand twice as an adjective, 17.16.2 Mitridatem ilium Ponti regem medicinae rei . . . sollertem fuisse; 18. 10.8 quantum habui temporis subsicivi, medicinae quoque disciplinae libros attigi. Medicina ars is cited from Varro L.L. 5.93, and the adjective is said to occur also in Hyginus and in Augustinus.^^^ With the combination nvedi- cinae rei cf. res nxoria = matrimonium 1.6.3; 4-3- in lemm. res ethica 1.2.4, and res cibaria 6.1.8. The word early, through ellipsis of ars, officina, or the like, became a noun, and as noun is common and classical. nihili, as an indeclinable adjective, is found in 2.14.2 tam- quam stitisses vanum et nihili verbum esset; 10. 19.2 Homo stulte et nihili; 15.2.2 erat autem nihili homo et nugator. In paragraph one of the latter chapter, we have the double ar- chaism viderier gestibat (see above, pages 31-32). For nihili as a virtual adjective, cf. Plant. Cas. 245 Unde is, nihili?; Mil. 180; Asin. 472, 859; Bacch. 904; Pseud. 1086 (Lorenz: see his note); Rud. 920; Varro L.L. 10.81; Paul, ex Fest. 175. The editors of Plautus (e. g. Gray on As. 472, Brix-Niemeyer» on Mil. 180, Sonnenschein on Rud. 920) do not adequately give the range of the word even in Plautus; they afford no hint of its recurrence in Gellius. In fact no editor, save Lorenz, has given any serious attention to the resemblances between Plautine Latin and the Latin of the archaists (and, one may add, Arnobius). percitus, as an adjective, occurs in 2.12.4 populum percitum et amentem; as participle it appears in 15.31.3 ira percitus. In Its finite form the verb is cited only from Plautus (once), and Lucretius (three times at least), Terence, Sallust, Cicero,' Livy, and then not again until Gellius. Compounds with per- belong especially to the older periods of the language.^'^^ pensus, the participle of pendo, occurs as an adjective,= cams, or the like, apparently only in Gellius, 12.5.7 carius pensiusque, and Plautus Stich. 118 utra sit condicio pensior, virginemne an viduam habere. ^^ See Lewis and Short. "* Cooper, 284. Arcliaism in Aulus Gellius 41 quercerus, 20.1.26 an tu forte morbum appellan hic putas aegrotationem gravem cum febri -P^^% V'tT'dted b; Quercera tussis occurs in a fragment of Plautus, cited by Festus (Priscian gives in the same fragment quercera feb- 2) - Quercera febris is quoted by Festus 256 from Luci- us * In Apuleius, Apologia 35, Hildebrand and Helm read Tuercerun^ as a noun. See Hildebrand's note. Arnobius, 1.28, uses quercera as a noun. ^^^q. adbibo, L2.25 (not in Cic). Cf. Plant. St.ch. .3^ Ter Heaut. 2.1.8. In figurative sense it occurs in Plaut. Mil. ^ ^ 10 • As. 3.3.49 ; Ovid Tr. 3.5-I4 ; Horace Ep. 1.2.67. 'Vla^dere, 'to halt', 'to limp', appears in 1.7.20 At s. e.pha^ diceret, inperfecto et debili numero verborum sonus clauderet, 474 numerus clausurus est; 13.21. 10 sentias suavitatem soni- tus claudere. In no place, it will be noted, can the conjuga- tion be determined.'- The verb occurs also m Caecilms Cicero (who also has claudico), Livy (see Weissenborn on 22.39.3), and Apuleius (see Hildebrand on Flor. iv: Vol. '''^deiurare: compare deiuraret 1.3.20; deiurasset 4.20.9; deiu- rant 11.6.1 (note simple iuraverint in lemm.) ; deiurare, ii.b.5- In 6 18.10 deieraverant occurs. According to references given both in Lewis and Short and in Georges the word is archaic, found only in ante- and post-classical writers But neither Georges nor Lewis and Short treat this word satisfactorily. The former omits some of the passages cited above, and the latter states, quite erroneously, that the form deiuro is now retained only in Gellius 1.3.20; 1 1.6.1. For the forms of peiuro, obiuro and adiuro in Plautus, with -u- as well as a dis- cussion of the etymology, see Minton Warren, T.A.P.A., -22. IIO-II4. . TT i. exanclare, 12.5.10. This is Hosius's conjecture. Hertz ~^ee Goetz-Schoell, Fragmenta, vs. 80. "•Cf Vogel 23: "Verisimile est, Gellium, si quidem e Terentii (bun. vs 164) SaUu;ti. (hist. in. 82. p. 191 ; 98. p. 300 Kr ) ; Fronton.s (p. 122 ea verbi forma usum esse, quae est claudo, de qua v.d. ^"'^""^^.^^ p 5:4. Antiquior nimirum erat et minus pervolgata, quam claudeo. claudico". i ?■ «r«*aBB. Gellius is here giving examples to illustrate the fact that the root vowel of a derivative does not always retain its original quantity. As a verb (i.e. in forms distinct from the participle-adjective met us) the word is cited elsewhere only from the ante-classi- cal period. Cf . Lewis and Short, and Georges, s.v. ; Vahlen, Varia, 25, and the citations there given; Lucr. 2.1 171. admodum quam seems to be used only by Gellius 19.9.10 voce admodum quam suavi versus cecinit, and Plaut. Amph. 541 Ex amore hie a.q. saevos est (see Ussing and Palmer ad loc. Naudet made no comment). The latter passage is not cited by Wolfflin, Lat.u.rom. Comp., 2^. casce, in i.io. in lemm., casce nimis et prisce loquentem, is airat ilprjfievov, but it is worth while to note that its adjective cascus belongs chiefly to early Latin. Cf. Ennius Ann. 24, in Vahlen's edition, with Vahlen's note. An interesting side- light is thrown on Gellius's vocabulary by his use of an archaic stem in the very chapter in which he tells how Favorinus re- bukes a young man for using old-fashioned words. This is an illustration of the difference between Gellius's theory and his- U4 See Knapp in A. J. P., 16.63. practice.^"" In the same chapter, Gellius uses abhinc with the ablative.^'^ commodum appears as an adverb of time in 2.2.2 Taurus sectatoribus commodum dimissis sedebat pro cubiculi sui fori- bus. This usage is almost entirely confined to Plautus, Ter- ence, and Cicero's letters.^" curricula is a mere adverb, = cite, in 17.8.8 Verbero, nonne is curriculo atque oleum petis?^^» Note the other archaism {verhero: see above, page 39) in this short sentence. eadem, sc. opera, is found in 10. 1.3 as an adverb of time = eodem tempore, or even as equivalent to a simple likewise': Is ad me rescripsit petivitque, ut rationem dicerem, cur 'tertium' ac non 'tertio' scripsissem. Id etiam adscripsit, ut ^adem quid super illo quoque mihi videretur facerem se certi- orem. This use seems confined elsewhere to Plautus and Terence: Capt. 293; Merc. 802; Mil. 303; Poen. 617; Pseud. 333; Trin. 581; Heaut. 368; Bacch. 49 eadem biberis, eadem dedero tibi ubi biberis savium. In the same sense eadem opera is found in Bacch. 60; Capt. 450; Most. 1039.^'' Lind- say, in his note on Capt. 459 (editio maior), remarks that Plautus uses eodem and eadem opera of future actions only; to one instance, Pers. 444-445. abi . . . ad forum : eadem istaec facito mulier ad me transeat per hortum, our Gellius passage comes close, in logical implication, if not in form (since the clause preceding that in which eadem occurs contains a virtual imperative). "" Drisler Studies, 146; above, page 27. "^ See Hertz, Vindiciae Gellianae Alterae, 31, for explanation of this usage; below, page 49. ^'^ See Neue-Wagener, 2.580. For commodum, or commodo in Apulei- us, see Hildebrand on De Dogm. Plat. chap, i, vol. 2.174. For the re- semblances between the language of Cicero's letters and that of Plautus see above, note 22. "'See Lorenz on Plaut. Most. 362; Brix-Niemeyer» on Mil. 5^3; Holtze, 1. 172; Neue-Wagener, 2.599. "•The list of references given in Neue-Wagener, 2.634, is not very serviceable in this connection, since no distinction is made between passages in which eadem is to be rendered as above, and those passages in which the meaning is purely physical, and the ellipsis is of via or parte. No reference is made to the passage in Gellius. .^^«*W1f J»«S i 44 Archaism in Aulus Gellius Archaism in Aldus Gellius 45 frustra esse''' is said of persons in 5.1. i 'Cum philosophusV inquit, 'hortatur, . . . turn, qui audiunt, si . . . obvias vulgatas- que laudes effutiunt ... turn scias et qui dicit et qui audiunt frustra esse'. The usage is found several times in Plautus, especially in the phrase ne frustra sis. See Lorenz on Mil.' 1422 and on Most. 567; Ennius Sat. 62 (Vahlen) Qui frus- tratur is frustra est, si non ille est frustra. The phrase oc- curs in this use, be it noted, in Sallust (lug. 85), whose archa- izmg tendencies are well known. Cf. also Apul. De Mag. 19 frustra es, and Pronto 183.9 (Naber) Plerique omnes . . . frustra fuerunt (here two archaisms occur together: see above,, page 34, on plerique omnes). Lorenz on Mil. I.e. wrongly refers to Pronto 189.3. Note, finally, that in 5.1.1 we have another archaism, illi = illic}^^ multum, as a strengthening adverb with an adjective, ap- pears in 13.20.8 ipse quoque iam multum senex. The usage is archaic and plebeian.^^^ nimio, as a strengthening adverb with adjectives, occurs in 1.3.25 cum vero amici utilitas nimio est amplior; 10.26.9 nimio confidentius; 19.5.3 aquam nivalem . . . hominibus potu nimio insalubrem (twice, it may be noted, with a com- parative, once with a positive). As examples of nimio with a positive Wolfflin^«3 cites Plant. Bacch. 396, 770; True. 4.1 6- Stich. 704; Naev. (vs. 13 in Ribbeck's Com. Rom. Prag)' But Ribbeck^ writes nimium, and Langen, Beit. z. Krit. u. Erklar. des Plautus, 333-335, maintains that nimio occurs in Plautus only with a comparative ; with the positive he would read nimium, though to do this he must emend in at least one place. Lorenz, in his note on nimio celerius, Most. y2, does no^discuss this point. In Bacch. 770 Lindsay still 'reads 16U See Wolfflin, Archiv, 2.1; Nagelsbach, Lateinische Stilistik« K77 ^"'Drisler Studies, 169. '"^See Lindsay (editio maior) on Capt. 272 non multum fuit molesta servitus; Schmalz, 613 (§ 9, Anm. i) ; Wolfflin, Lat. u. rom; Comp., 8-9 ; Neue-Wagener, 2.581. According to Wolfflin, this usage is found at least ten times in Plautus, never in Terence, four times in Horace's Satires and Epistles, and then chiefly in " archaisirende oder vulgare Auctoren". ^ Lat. u. rom. Comp., 24. Nimio illaec res et magnae (MSS mane) dividiae mihi though Langen would emend nimio to nimis and mane to sane (Leo reads nimium). So in True. 704 Lindsay reads tum illuc nimio magnae mellinae mihi; Langen emends to nimiom (nimium), and Leo accepts this reading. In Bacch. 396 nimio impendiosum praestat te quam ingratum dicier (which equals, in sense, nimio melius est, etc., or nimio satius est, etc.), and Stich. 699-700 (not cited by Wolfflin) Utrum Pontine an Libero imperium te inhibere mavis? SA. Nimio liquido Li- bero, a comparative is clearly present in sense. On the basis, then, of Lindsay's^^* excellent text of Plautus we have to say that Plautus used nimio with both positives and comparatives, though more frequently with the latter; Gellius's use of the word, then, is in exact agreement with Plautus's. Por nimio with a comparative, see Most. y2, 442; Bacch. 151. nimio plus, found e.g. Bacch. 122, Most. 1103, is not uncommon: see Lucr. 5.988; Horace C. 1. 18.15; 1.33.1; Epp. 1. 10.30; Livy (see Weissenborn on 1.2.3). Hor. Epp. 2.1. 198 has nimio plura. Cf. also Antonius ap. Cic. ad Att. 10.8A.1. See Schmalz, Lat. Synt., § 97. Gellius also uses nimium in this way. See 17.21.47 non nimium longe; 19.7. 13 nimium poetica; 20.1.27 morbus . . . non febriculosus neque nimium gravis. This is especially characteristic of Plautus.^^^ oppido'^^' is forcibly characterized by Quint. 8.3.25 as obso- lete, yet it occurs in Gellius 13.5.9 oppido bonum (sc. vinum). oppido quam is found in 2.23.3 oppido quam iacere atque sordere incipiunt; 1 5.30.1 oppido quam . . . inepti et f rivoH ; 16.7.1 oppido quam verba finxit praelicenter ; 17.12. i oppido quam libens. prorsus retains its original physical meaning in 2.30.4 venti a septentrionibus ex altiore caeli parte in mare incidentes ie4 Lindsay, Syntax of Plautus, 80 (§3), discusses nimio very inade- quately; he remarks merely "normally with Comparative, but cf. Bacch. 770, True. 704, Naevius com. 13". ""* Langen, 1. c, gives over thirty examples. See Gildersleeve- Lodge, 439, N.3. ^"'See Schmalz, 613 (§ 9, Anm. i), page 665 (§ 57, ad fin. : the section is labelled "Archaismen") ; Neue-Wagener, 2.602. Schmalz notes that oppido occurs in Apuleius, but makes no reference to Gellius. ■ i ..tt i m i i4iiini ii mn 46 Archaism in Aulus Gellius deorsum in aquarum profunda quasi praecipites deferuntur undasque faciunt non prorsus impulsas, sed imitus commo- tas. The meaning is fixed by § 5 Austri vero . . . inferiores et humiles per suprema aequoris euntes protrudunt magis fluctus quam eruunt. Cf. 16.19.17 Turn Arionem prorsus ex eo loco Corinthum petivisse. See Hertz, Vindiciae Gellianae Alterae, 60. In 9.4.6 Hertz reads, though doubtfully, vestigia pedum habentes retro porrecta, non ut ceterorum hominum, prosum spectantia ; so Hosius. Both Hertz and Hosius follow the conjecture of H. Hagen, in Bursian's Jahresber., 1873, 1415 ; the MSS are corrupt. For other examples, see Cato ap. Fest. 234; and Neue-Wagener, 2.746. In Plant. Pseud. 955 the Palatine text gives non prorsus verum ex transverso cedit. The Ambrosian palimpsest, according to Studemund's Apo- graphon, clearly shows NONPROSUSUE. But editors (e.g. Lindsay, Morris, Lor^nz, Leo) give the verse as it is cited in Varro L.L. 7.81 Ut transvorsus, non provorsus cedit, quasi cancer solet.^^^ provorsus, if read, is, of course, the original form of prorsus, prosus, prorsum, prosum. rarenter,^^^ 316.1; 17.8.9. In 10.15.4 the word is probably to be ascribed to Fabius Pictor. tractim,^^^ 4.6.6 littera scilicet tractim pronuntiata; 6.10.1; 6.20.3 vocalis . . . tractim sonat. Without doubt Professor Knapp is correct in his statement^^® that Gellius's favorite authors were Plautus, Ennius, and Cato. We should, then, expect Gellius to borrow many words from his favorites. Even a casual examination of the word lists in the Drisler Studies and in this paper will prove that such is the case. The following words or uses of words seem to be taken from Plautus r^^^ ambulacrum, fictura, fidicina, ingratis, porcu- UT One wonders why the editors forget that the ancients do not always cite accurately ; see e. g. Jebb on Sophocles, Antigone, 223, 909 ff. ^"See Neue-Wagener, 2.735. '•• See Neue-Wagener, 2.567, where it is cited from Plautus, Ennius, Lucretius, Vergil, Sempronius Asellio. ""Drisler Studies, 132-134. See T. A. P. A., 28 (1897). vi. 171 Archaism in Aulus Gellius 47 lus, saviatio, scitamenta, symbola, amasius, condignus, crucia- bilis, cuias, exoticus, lepidus, manifestarius, ridicularius, sum- mas, inceptare, esitare, indipisci, percupio, protolli, perservire, discussed in the Drisler Studies. From the present paper may be added curriculo, flagitator, libentia, verbero, nihili, pensus, quercerus, commodum, eadem, multum, nimio. Citations from Ennius, Cato, and Varro are extremely frequent in the notes in both papers. Thus we find Gellius's love of the older writers and his deliberate imitation of them proven from two independent lines of research: first, a col- lection of the passages in which he refers to them, always in the highest terms of commendation; and, secondly, a careful study of his vocabulary. PART II Archaisms of Syntax Turning now to archaisms of syntax, we shall dwell first on some points in Gellius's use of the cases. In 16.19.10 parco is constructed with the accusative: Tum- ilium . . . vitam modo sibi ut parcerent oravisse. Cf. Plant. Most. 104 (a corrupt line); Cure. 381; Cato, R.R. 155. See Sonnenschein^ and Fay on Most. 104 and Lorenz's critical note on that verse (pages 206-207); Nettleship on Aen. 10.532; Schmalz, 372 (§ 84). In Apul. Met. 1.2, 1.8, we find in the editions parco in and acc./^^ ^^^ manuscripts, however (R, f ) show parco with the accusative. See Hildebrand ad loc. Servius on Aen. 10.532 says parco with accusative was used by Plautus, Lucilius and Ennius; see Conington ad loc, Steele, A. J. P. 15.179. euro takes the dative in 1 7.9.1 Libri sunt epistularum C. Caesaris ad C. Oppium et Balbum Cornelium, qui rebus eius absentis curabant. Gronovius ad loc. remarks on the reading that it is "doctius quam ut potuerit ab librario venire". Cf. Plant. Rud. 182 si tu de illarum cenaturus vesperi's, illis curandum censeo, Sceparnio; Rud. 146 Amori haec curat, tritico curat Ceres (here Professor Sonnenschein remarks' "euro with dat. 'care for' is ante- and post-classical") ; Trin. 1057 Sed ego sum insipientior qui rebus curem publicis (see Brix-Niemeyer« ad loc); True. 137; Att. 143 Ribbeck. In later Latin the dative is to be found also in Apuleius : Hilde- brand, 2. 1 1 7, on De Deo Socr. 2, cites De Deo Socr. again, cap. 16; De Mag. 36; De Mundo, 30. Cf. also Macrob! 1. 14.6 sacerdotes, qui curabant mensibus ac diebus; Tert. Apol 46; Pronto 228. 19 (Naber) Tum lovem ferunt cum suo corde agitasse de suis germanis fratribus unum praeficere, qui nocti atque otio hominum curaret. See Schmalz, 372 (§84), and, more particularly, C. F.W. Miiller, Syntax des Nominativs und Akkusativs in Lateinischen (Sup- '" The construction here is akin to that seen in Lucr. 6.399 cur ipse sinit neque parcit in hostis. See Professor W. A. Merrill, ad loc. Archaism in Aulus Gellius 49 plement to Stolz, Historische Grammatik), 123-124. Miiller notes that procurare also is construed with the dative, e.g. in Plautus, Apuleius, and the law writers (so in a senatus ^consultum ap. Gell. 4.6.2). We may, then, refer here again to Gellius's legal studies as a factor in the development of his style: see above, page 38, on censio; below, note 175. capitis is used with perd^re in 1.3.4 Ita lex fuit, uti eum hominem condemnari necessum esset. Aut amicus igitur capitis perdendus aut adhibenda fraus legi fuit. For the phrase, which is evidently modelled on capitis damnare, cf. Plant. Asin: 132 capitis te perdam ego et filiam; Bacch. 489 Egone ut illam mulierem capitis non perdam? Mil. 371 quem pol ego capitis perdam. In the Brix-Niemeyer* edition of the Miles Gloriosus (1901), there is no hint that the phrase recurs after Plautus. Gray, too, on As. 132 is silent on this point. inter ficere is used with ace. and abl. in 12.7.2 Eadem mulier virum et filium . . . venenis clam datis vita interfecerat. Cf. Plant. True. 518 Salve, qui me inter fecisti paene vita et lumine. Naudet (see his note on True. 2.6.37) was aware that the con- struction under discussion occurred in Gellius. abhinc is twice coupled with the ablative, instead of with the accusative; see 1.10.2 sermone abhinc multis annis iam desito uteris, and 14. 1.20 centesimo usque abhinc saeculo. Hertz, Vind. Gell. Alt., 31, defends this construction against Madvig's criticism (expressed in his Adversaria Critica, 2). Part of Hertz's answer deserves to be quoted here. Madvig had said that there was no reason to suppose that Gellius had departed in 1.10.2 from the ''perpetua lex" according to which abhinc was coupled with the ace. Hertz rejoins, inter alia, thus: *'Aber G. kehrt sich eben nicht an solche perpetua lex, d.h. an den Sprachgebrauch der sogenannten mustergiiltigen Classiker Kar Hoxv^, wenn er bei den von ihm bevorzugten archaischen Schriftstellern einen abweichenden seltenen Ge- brauch findet . . . Und so schloss G. sich auch hier an Plau- tus .. . ". Hertz has in mind Most. 494; see Lorenz's note. 50 Archaism in Aulus Gellius For an archaism of vocabulary in this chapter see above, page 42, on casce. penetrare is used with a reflexive pronoun in 5. 14. 18 specum . . . nanctus remotam latebrosamque, in earn me penetro et recondo, and 13.10.1 Labeo Antistius ... in grammaticam sese atque dialecticam Htterasque antiquiores ahioresque pene- traverat. The construction seems to be found elsewhere only in Plautus. Brix-Niemeyer^ on Trin. 146 cite penetrare se from Amph. 250, True. 44, and Trin. 276; penetrare me from Trin. 291, 314; penetrare pedem from Men. 400, 816. They state also that in Bacch. 66 the verb is intransitive, but Goetz- Schoell read there penetrem me (after Bothe). Lindsay, with extraordinarily bad punctuation, reads: Quid ego metuam, rogitas, adulescens homo? penetrare [me] huius modi in palaestram, ubi damnis desudascitur ? The question-mark after homo should be changed to a comma. Professor Ben- nett's treatment of this construction in his Syntax of Early Latin, Vol. I — The Verb (page 5, under § 3) is inadequate. Gellius several times has the genitive of a noun in depend- ence on the genitive of a gerund :^^^ cf. 3.16.1 Multa opinio est . . . gigni hominem septimo rarenter, numquam octavo, saepe nono, saepius numero decimo mense, eumque esse homi- num gignendi summum finem; 4.1 5.1 Elegantia orationis Sal- lustii verborumque fingendi et novandi studium cum multa prorsus invidia fuit; 5.10.5 Euathlus . . . eloquentiae discen- dae causarumque orandi cupiens fuit; 16.8.3 fecisse videtur eum librum Aelius sui magis admonendi quam aliorum docendi gratia; 7.14.4 non sane dignum esse imponendi poenae studio visum est.^^* The construction is found in Plautus, Terence, Varro, and Cicero: see Brix-Niemeyer^ on Plant. Capt. 852; Draeger 2.831, 832; Gildersleeve-Lodge, § 428, N. i; Holtze 2.54; Roby, 2.1xviii. One example is cited from Pronto, 188 "^For another view of the construction, see below, pages 51-52. However the construction is to be explained, we have to do here with a usage obsolete by Gellius's time. "* Hertz defends his readings in the passages cited above in Vind. Gell. Alt., 58,59 in a full discussion. Hosius, be it noted, reproduced all these readings. Archaism in Aulus Gellius 51 (Naber) : Neque enim cum alio ullo . . . mihi . . . est . . . tantus usus studiorum bonarumque artium communicandi. Three things may be noted in this connection. (i) In 5.10.5 eloquentiae discendae causarumque orandi cupiens fuit, the normal and the abnormal construction appear together. On such inconsistencies compare the remarks made above, page 27, and Hertz, Vindiciae Gellianae Alterae, 59: *'wenn aber G. diese Construction sonst ofter in normaler Weise anwendet, so ist es bei ihm nicht nur ohne Anstoss, sondern recht im Charakter, wenn er auch einmal eine anomale und seltene Form gebraucht, sei es nach dem Vorbilde des Ennius und des Cicero, sei es nach dem des Ennius allein oder schliesslich .... ohne einen, wenigstens ohne einen uns be- kannten Vorganger". (2) In 7.14.4 the dependent genitive is in the singular. (3) If we accept the theory that in the examples quoted above the genitive of the noun depends on the gerund, we may find a simple explanation of such a familiar idiom as that seen e.g. in Cicero in Cat. 1.7 multi principes civitatis Roma non tam sui conservandi quam tuorum consiliorum reprimen- dorum causa profugerunt. Sui may here well be a pronoun, depending upon the gerund as objective genitive. This view has occasionally been upheld, e.g. by Allen and Greenough in their note on this passage, and in their Latin Grammar (504, c). But other Latin Grammars in common use — e.g. Bennett, 339.5, Gildersleeve-Lodge, 428 R.i. — see a gerundival construc- tion. Sui is in that case, of course, neuter, not masculine, meaning 'their own being' or the like. Yet another view of the construction is held by competent scholars. According to Schmalz, 444, in all the expressions cited above, the two genitives are equally dependent on the one governing noun ; so Bennett, Syntax of Early Latin, Vol. I. — The Verb, 449 (under 4). So, too, in effect Roby, in his Latin Grammar (1874), 2.1xviii. This view appears need- lessly complex, and seems to disregard the plain implications of language, in order to find a way of escape from the ad- mission of a nonclassical construction into Plautus. Surely, in this instance, one need not resort to extreme measures in the 52 Archaism in Aldus Gcllius attempt to bring this construction into harmony with classic usage, for, to remain entirely within the limits of the present paper, we should still have to explain euro and parco with the accusative, penetro with a reflexive pronoun, etc. (see above, pages 48-50). The editors of Plautus, however, have not infrequently accepted the explanation adopted in the present paper: see e. g. Elmer and Hallidie on Capt. 852. Professor Morris, however, in his note on the passage harks back to Roby's view (so, too, Brix-Niemeyer«) ; Lindsay ad loc. (editio maior) quotes with approval part of Professor Mor- ris's note, but not enough to show to one who did not have Professor Morris's whole note before him what view he took of the construction as a whole. See also Kiihner^, 2.744-745. Gellius, at times, joins an accusative to a neuter gerundive coupled with est in an impersonal construction: 4.9.9 templa quidem ac delubra . . . quae non volgo ac temere, sed cum castitate caerimoniaque adeundum . . .; 5.16.5 Sed hie ea quae non diutius muginandum (so Hertz. Hosius, however, after Petschenig, reads: Sed hie aeque non diutius muginandum). Hertz discusses the readings in Vind. Cell. Alt., 50-51. See also Kiihner^, 2.734 ; Draeger, 2.821 ; Schmalz, 441. According to Schmalz, the construction occurs once in Plautus (Trin. 869), '^ofters bei Lucr Varro und Catul bei Verg. und seinen Nachahmern, nirgends bei Caes., Sail., Liv., ^^^ Spater lesen wir bei Juristen,^^^ . . bei Tert., Pall. 4 . . . " Gellius, it will be noted, is not mentioned. Kiihner, too, fails to note that the construction occurs in Gellius. The construction was briefly discussed long ago (1874) by Roby, Latin Grammar, 2.1xxii if. He gives a list of examples meant to be exhaustive (except for Varro), but cites no in- stance from Gellius. See also various editors, e.g. Brix-Nie- meyer^ on Plant. Trin. 869; Munro and Merrill on Lucr. I.I 1 1 (especially the authorities referred to by Merrill) ; Ellis on Catullus, 39.9. A most interesting passage in this connection is Cicero, Cato Maior 6 quam (viam) nobis quoque ingrediundum sit.' See 5eid_ad loc. (page 75 ; also pages 27-28) ; Reisig-Haase, Vorle- ITU /^ Arehaism in Aulus Gellius 53 ! sungen, ^.776. Reisig-Haase see here a deliberate archaism; Professor Reid, however, holds that Cicero is not imitating Cato Censor, since in the extant writings of Cato the con- struction does not occur. Schmalz, 441, after citing Cicero, CM. 6, and Scaur. 13, as giving examples of the accusative in dependence on the gerundive, says: "(Cicero) mag. sich ge- scheut haben, vom Deponens, dessen transitive Bedeutung sich nicht fest ins Bewusstsein eingelebt hatte, die personliche Konstruktion zu verwenden". According to Schmalz, 465, the supine in -um is very com- mon in Plautus, Terence, and old Latin generally, less com- mon in Cicero and Caesar, more frequent again in Sallust, Varro, in the Bell. Afr. and Livy. 'Tn der nachliv. Prosa", he continues, "gehort das Supin fast nur den Archaisten und den von Sail. u. Liv. abhangigen Schriftstellern an".^^® While the accusative of the supine is common in Gellius, it is much more frequent with an object than without. For the supine without an object see 6.14.8 quos . . . legaverant impetratum; 12. 13.3 issem . . . sciscitatum. The following are examples of the supine with an accusative: 2.29.6 Dum . . . iret cibum pullis quaesitum; 3.13.2 cognoscit currere eos auditum Callis- tratum; 6.3.7 socios . . . defensum eonservatumque pergit; 6.3.44 servatum ire socios niteretur; 9.15.3 It auditum (sc. eum) lulianus; 10.6.2 Utinam . . . frater . . . istam multi- tudinem perditum eat; 10. 19.3 qui . . . peccatum suum . . . exemptum purgatumque ibat; 12.1.2 Eamus et puerum visum et patri gratulatum; 12. 1.9 Quod sit . . . odio dignum . . . hominem . . . interfectum ire; 14.6. i adiutum ornatumqwe volo ire Noctes tuas; 14.6.5 Nam meae Noctes, quas instructum ornatumque isti; 16. 1 1.6 Psyllos . . . decretumque fecisse uti . . . iure belli res petitum proficisceretur ; 18.5.3 Eamus . . . auditum. . Astum Ennianistam; 16.5.9 qui dominum. . .salu- 1T8 1T5 See above on censio, page 38; page 48, s.v. euro, ad fin. See the statistics in Draeger, 2.857-865, especially § 608; American Journal of Philology, 32.29, note i, in a review of Vahlen's Ennius ; Grandgent, § 103; Bennett, Syntax of Early Latin, i. § 453 ff. ; Lindsay, Syntax of Plautus, pages 76 ff. ; Gildersleeve-Lodge, 434, note 3 ; Frobenius, Die Syntax des Ennius § 137 (=page 67). While the ac- cusative of the supine is frequent in Apuleius, it is significant that no instance of the supine with an accusative is cited. (11 54 Archaism in Aulus Gellius tatum venerant. It is to be noted that the construction occurs chiefly in dependence on forms of ire: see again Schmalz, 465; Draeger § 609. Twice Gellius uses opus est with the ablative of a perfect passive participle: 14.2.16 Atque illud amphus ambigi ac dabi- tari scio, debeatne iudex inter cognoscendum ea, quae dicto quaesitoque opus est, dicere et quaerere; 15.22.8 ait in quiete cervam . . . quod opus esset facto, praedicere. The presence of quae and quod in these examples makes them but the more noteworthy. See Lorenz on Plant. Most. 48 ; Dziatsko-Hauler^ on Ten Phorm. 584; Holtze, 1.139-141 ; Kuhner\ 2. § 128; Draeger 2.780 ; Reisig-Haase, Vorlesungen, 392 ; Bennett, Syn- tax of Early Latin, 1.439-440. I have made an entirely independent examination of the pre- positions in Gellius. On comparing my results with what had already been done in this field, I found that (with possibly three exceptions which are discussed below) my own investigations failed to reveal any clear examples of archaistic usage that had not already been considered by Professor Knapp.^^^ It will be sufficient, then, in the case of the prepositions which have already been considered (consult note 177, below), merely j to give a list of the phrases in which they occur and refer to the page on which they are discussed. It is not intended that the citations under each example shall be exhaustive. a: 16.6.8 a te rogavi; 17.10.7 oravitque a suis amicissimis; 13.31. 10 cum valebo ab oculis (l.c.14). absque: ^^^2.26.20 absque te . . . uno forsitan lingua profecto Graeca longe anteisset ; 2.2.y absque praeiudicio. ad: 6.17.11 revises ad me; 18.8.2 quod ad se . . . non viseret; 13.31. 10 revise ad me; 19.10.1 ad Frontonem ... ire et visere (l.c.6). clam:^''^ 2.23.16 ea res clam patrem fuit (l.c.6). cum (a use of cum not included in Notes on Prepositions) : 18. 10.7 cum dis bene volentibus opera tua sistas hunc nobis sanum atque validum quam citissime. Schmalz, § 139, says "'Notes on Prepositions in Gellius, T. A. P. A., 25 (1894). i-33. "' See Drisler Studies, 167. "* See Drisler Studies, 168 ; above, page 36. Archaism in Aulus Gellius 55 that this phrase occurs only in Ennius, Cato, and Gellius. The passages are Ann. 201 (Vahlen) ; R. R. 141- in: 3.1.4 in eo ipse quaerendo fui; 3. 7. 12 in exspectando sunt; 1 1.5.3 i^ quaerendo semper considerandoque sunt; 11. 16.6 in cogitando fuissem; 13.31-9 in legendo; 18. 10.7 in medendo quam in dicendo (l.c.14). in medium relinquere (a use of in not included in Notes on Prepositions) : 7.14.9 anne autem quasi omnino parvam et con- temptu dignam praeterierit poenae sumendae causam propter tuendam laesi hominis auctoritatem, an magis quasi ei, quam dicebat, rei non necessariam praetermiserit ... in medmm relinquo. In 17.2. 11 Gellius quotes from Quadrigarius the words nos in medium relinquemus, with the following com- ment : Vulgus in medio dicit ; nam vitium esse istuc putat. In the same chapter Gellius calls w^ . . . quoque and cumprimis obsolete, but he uses them both (see above, pages 29 and 36) .^«« />ra^ .-5. 1 3.3 Unum hoc . . . quod prae manibus est, ponemus (local sense) ; 19.8.6 si . . . liber prae manibus est (I.e. 29). subter: 10. 15. 15 subter arborem felicem (l.c.31). Passing now to the conjunctions, we note quando in temporal meaning.^'^' Some fourteen passages occur in Gellius in which 180 Similar is the phrase in potestatem esse, which an unnamed friend of GelHus defends in i. 7. i/ (cf. § 4), quoting Cicero, De Imp. Cn. Pompeii 33 ; he argues that this is no solecism, but that the Greeks use this idiom, et Plautus verborum Latinorum elegantissimus in Amphitru- one dixit: num vero mihi in mentem fuit, non, ut dici sohtum est, in mente. In § 18 he adds : multam .... apud veteres scriptores locutionum talium copiam offendimus atque his vulgo adnotamentis in- spersimus (a very significant passage, lighting up what was said above, page 27, note loi, about Gellius's 'revival' archaisms). He explains the use of the accusative in the phrase on the score of euphony (§ 19). For the idiom in mentem est see Amph. 710; Bacch. 160; Ter. Ad. 528 (with Ashmore's note ad loc). Palmer (Amph. 710) says: ''Sallust has several instances of this idiom". Clearly these phrases were ob- solete in Gellius's day; hence his discussion of them throws some light on in medium relinquo. *'"See Draeger, 2.582: "Als relativische Temporalpartikel kommt es besonders im ar'chaischen Latein vor und wird von da ab weniger gebraucht. Es bezeichnet sehr selten eine einmalige, in der Kegel und 56 Archaism in Aulus Gellius quando seems clearly to have temporal force ComDare for • examp^s involving the indicative, usually with iteradve f^rce 1^20.3 Sohdum est, quando non longitudines modo et latLdTnes' £ ve^aTorbr^T ''"'""*' "' ^^'^"^ • • • ^"titudinesT^ have a solid body, whenever', etc.) ; 6.17.4 remotiora si ex r !*;:'r^^''-;'>'.^-ndo usus mihi ve'nerit, tumquaeram ex te, 7.14.4 Quando igitur spes . . . magna est (note iust above m same paragraph, Tertia ratio vindicandi e t um poemtK, . . necessaria est. Iterative clauses with '^m' and he ,nd,cat.ve are common in Gellius. Here the longia,"' clause .s resumed by quicquid ita delictum est) ■ 99 i^oZdo ex poemat,s Graecis vertendae . . . sunt insignei entmSe not semper a,u„t en.tendum; 11.1.4 Quando igitur nunc quoqi multa d.atur vel minima vel suprema, observari solet, ixV i' Quando . . . otium est . . . aut spatiamur aut vectamur q;aere;e nonnumquam aput memet ipsum soleo; 17.6.6 quando mule dotem manto dabat, tum, quae ex suis bonis retinebat neque ad Ta'd ;";":'"' ^^ ''"'^'^ ''^^'^'--' ^77.6 q«andr(sc suum 17.9.9 Quando usus venerat . . . conplicabant • iq 8 i quando erat a magistris ... otium, ad Frontonem . . perge ^amsermon.busque eius . . . fruebar; Z9.8.15 quando forfe erit otium, quaente (not necessarily iterative) ora^^n!"'*""''' '""'"''^'"^ '^^ subjunctive see Praef. i iucundi- ora ^I^ repenn queunt, ad hoc ut liberis quoque meis partae PraefTZnt V*' '"'"'° '""""^ " ' " '"^"'^-^ P^^uisset; fenuisset "trK ' " ' "* ^"'"^" "^"^ ^^"'^^^^ ^"^ . . . oblivio tance tL .t^ (- the latter in- stance, the subjunctive ,s clearly accounted for by oratio obi qua ; ,n the former, the subjunctive is due to attraction ; 7-I3-5 Quaes.tum est, quando moriens moreretur . . et auando surgens surgeret . . et qui artem disceret, quando artifexTet ' In the case just cited there is, of course, no iterative force and th^question IS dependent (we have oratio obliqua, then once ArcJmism in Aulus Gellius S7 more). Gellius is not fond of the iterative subjunctive. He uses it but once with ubi (i 7.2.1 ubi venisset usus), and seldom with dum or cum. The causal quando is not common. Gellius prefers quia, quod, and especially quoniam. Schmalz, 566 (§326), recognizes no example of quoniam with temporal force outside of Plautus and Terence.^®^ But it certainly seems to have temporal force in Gellius 6.5.4^^^ Polus unice amatum filium morte amisit. Eum luctum quoniam satis visus est eluxisse, rediit ad quaestum artis.^^* Quoniam seems to be temporal, with iterative force, in 15.27.5 Propterea cen- turiata in campo Martio haberi exercitumque imperari praesidii <:ausa solitum, quoniam populus esset in suffragiis ferendis oc- <:upatus.^®^ With reference to causal cum,^^^ in Draeger 2.680 we find the following: "Seit der klassischen Zeit ist der Konjunktiv der allein gebrauchliche Modus." Similarly Schmalz, page 565 : " Das kausale, adversative und konzessive quoni wird seit der klassichen Zeit ausschliesslich mit dem Konjunktiv konstru- iert". The causal force, however, seems clear in certain passages from Gellius, although the nuance may be such that in some of the instances the temporal force might be admitted. See 2.29.1 Aesopus ille e Phrygia fabulator haut inmerito sapiens existi- matus est, cum, quae utilia monitu suasuque erant non severe neque imperiose praecepit et censuit, ut philosophis mos est, sed festivos delectabilesque apologos commentus, res salubriter ac 182 Compare Sonnenschein on Rud. 67; Gray on Asin. 350; Lorenz and Brix-Niemeyer^ on Mil. 129; Brix-Niemeyer'^ on Trin. 14. ^But see Apul. Ap. § 17: ipse .... scriptum reliquit, .... tris servos solos ex urbe duxisse, quoniam ad villam publicam venerat. "*Cf. Gildersleeve-Lodge, 580, N. 3. In earlier editions Schmalz too saw temporal force here. "° Compare Weiss's translation : "Deshalb pflegten die Centuriat- Comitien auf Marsfelde abgehalten und das (waffenfahige) Volk zur Besitzung des Wahlplatzes aufgefordert zu werden des Schutzes und der Sicherheit halber, so lange als das Volk beim Stimm abgeben be- schaftigt war." ^See Lindsay, Syntax of Plautus, 120; Bennett, Syntax of Early Latin, i. 133; Holtze, 2.125. 58 Archaism in Aulus Gellius prospicienter animadversas in mentes animosque hominum cum audiendi quadam inlecebra induit; 5. 10.12 Sed maius mihi in ista victoria prolubium est, cum te non in causa tantum, sed in argumento quoque isto vinco; 6.3.25 non culpa tantum vacat, sed dignus quoque laude admirationeque est, cum et ingenue ac religiose dicere visus est contra Rodienses, quod sentiebat et . . .; 6.2.7 ecquale putat cor habere me et quam stultum esse me credit, cum id mihi persuadere vultf 1 1.8.4 Ea cum legisset M. Cato ''Ne tu" inquit ''Aule, nimium nugator es, cum maluisti culpam deprecari quam culpa vacare"; 12. 12.4 * *dKoivovoVot" inquit "homines estis cum ignoratis prudentis et cauti patrisfamilias esse, quod emere velit, empturum sese negare propter competitores emptionis. In all these cases, save 2.29.1, the tense used by Gellius in the main clause makes it very difficult to explain the cwm-clauses as other than causal. In Gellius there are several instances of the indicative in de- pendent questions. The indicative in such questions preceded the subjunctive.^^^ In general, the principle of para- taxis^^^ accounts for the use of the indicative mood in such questions, especially in conjunction with the imperative. In Plautus the indicative in this type of question is as common as the subjunctive.^®^ Already in Gellius's time the subjunctive was fast losing ground, so that when the Latin language finally broke up into the Romance tongues the use of the subjunctive was greatly restricted.^^*^ We see this tendency in Apule- ius :^^^ compare e. g. Ap. Met. 2.22 nee satis quisquam definire poterit quantas latebras . . . comminiscuntur ; Tertullian, Ux. 187 188 189 190 See e. g. Bennett, Syntax of Early Latin, 1.120. See e. g. Knapp's Vergil, Index, under Moods 1.4, with notes on the passages there cited; Frobenius, § 186; Draeger, 2.460 ff.; Gilder- sleeve-Lodge, 467, N. i ; Schmalz, 516. See Lindsay, Syntax of Plautus, 66. See Grandgent, Vulgar Latin, § 117 (p. 53): "In conditions not contrary to fact, in indirect discourse and indirect questions, in de- pendent clauses that are not adversative nor dubitative, the indicative was often substituted for the subjunctive" (see the references given by Grandgent) ; Schmalz, 517. Here again the plebeian and the archaic are at one : see above, pages 9-10. "^ Hoppe, ^2. fl Archaism in Aulus Gellius 59 1.8 vide, quam ex aequo habetur qui . . . benefecerit; Car. Chr.3 quid tanti fuit edoce.^®^ Coming now to Gellius himself, let us compare 19.8.6 prop- terea peto ut, si Gai Caesaris liber prae manibus est, promi iubeas, ut quam confidenter hoc indicat aestimari a te possit ; 2.21.4 Quin . . . vos opici dicitis mihi, quare, quod afmiav Graeci vocant, nos septentriones vocamus;''^^ 9.2.5 Quaeso autem te . . . quibus nos uti posse argumentis existimas ;^^* 18.7.2 Quaeso te, magister, dicas mihi, num erravi, quod, cum vellem Brjfirjyopias Latine dicere, contiones dixi ? Here, appar- ently, Gellius regards num erravi as independent, but in 20.1.8 we have Die enim, quaeso, die. . .an. . .existumes. In 19.8.6 quae ratio est quamobrem C. Caesar vel dictam esse a veteribus vel dicendam a nobis non putat, it may be said that quamobrem is treated as a relative. Since the indicative in indirect questions is common in late Latin, it would not be safe to attribute its use by Gellius to intentional archaism. We have seen that it is frequent in Plautus and the early writers in general. We have also seen that it grows more and more frequent from Gellius's time to the beginnings of the Romance languages.^^" In any case, however, we have either a reversion to type or a persistence of type, so that the matter properly finds place in this paper. A matter more or less akin to that just discussed, though not involving the use of moods, may be noted here, utrum , . . ne . . . an, found in 2.2.7 and 7.8.3, is clearly an archa- ism.^®® The passages run as follows: "Absque praeiudicio" i»a It may be noted that the indicative in these two instances from Tertullian occurs in connection with the imperative ; it is precisely in connection with the imperative that the question could most easily remain more or less independent (paratactic) ; precisely in connec- tion with the imperative, too, occur most of the examples of the (apparent) dependent question in the indicative in early Latin. See Knapp, A. J. P., 32.33, in a review of Bennett's Syntax of Early Latin, Volume i; Gildersleeve-Lodge, 467, N. 3. "' Since the main clauses are logically imperative in force, see above, note 192. *** See above, note 192. "'On the subject in general see Schmalz, 516-517. ^••See Lindsay, Syntax of Plautus, 119; Bennett, Syntax of Early l^ 6o Archaism in Aulus Gellius inquit Taurus, ''tu interea sede, dum inspicimus quaerimusque^ utrum conveniat tene potius sedere, qui pater es, an filium, qui magistratus est; Lepide igitur agitari potest, utrum videri continentiorem par sit Publiumne Africanum Superiorem ... an regem Alexandrum . . ." In the former passage we have another archaism in absque: see Drisler Studies, 167. Cf. Plautus Most. 681; Stich. 703; Bacch. 5CX)-5oi, Trin. 306; Pseud. 709; Mil. 345 ; Rud. 104; Terence Eun. 721 ; Adel. 382. So far as I have noticed. Professor Bennett does not, in his Syntax of Early Latin: Volume i, discuss the occur- rences of the indicative in subordinate clauses in the oratio obliqua in early Latin.^^^ As will be seen from the references given in note 197 below, the usage does occur in early Latin, and is characteristic of late and plebeian Latin. In the examples cited below, one would expect the subjunctive. But even in the Latin of the best period instances of the indicative occur^®* which are almost as difficult to account for. Whether the sub- junctive or the indicative shall be used seems to depend upon some subtle feeling which the writer may have at the moment, which in his own mind seems to separate the clause from the oratio obliqua, by way of parenthetical remark, or for special emphasis. As in the case of dependent questions, the occur- rences of the indicative in Gellius may be due either to the (less exact) usage of his times or to intentional archaism.^^^ Latin, 1.333 (§§ 9, n; Bennett's citations are not exhaustive) ; Madvig^ Latin Grammar, § 452.1; Brix-Niemeyer', Hallidie, and Lindsay on Capt. 268; Wagner on Aul. 427; Lorenz on Pseud. 688. The matter discussed above must not be confused with quite different expressions in Cicero, in which after a clause beginning with utrum (the neuter pronoun) there is a pause, and a fresh start is made with -ne . ... an clauses: see Reid on Cic. Acad. 2.71. '"For this use see Holtze, 2. 116-117 (§ 4d) ; Draeger, 2.444; Lind- say, Syntax of Plautus, pages 65 f.; Elmer on Terence Phormio, 9,17; Grandgent, § 117; Gorges, 43-45- ""Draeger, 2.442-443. '■^Apuleius has similar constructions: for example, see Met. 2.21 ignoras Thessaliae te consistere, ubi sagae muHeres .... demorsitant; Met. 3. 6 non tantum impunem me, verum etiam laudabilem publice credebam fore qui ... . apud meos semper innocentiam commodis cunctis antetuleram. Archaism in Aulus Gellius 6r A few examples from Gellius will suffice by way of illustration. Compare 1.12.10-11 De more autem rituque capiundae virginis litterae quidem antiquiores non extant, nisi quae capta prima est a Numa rege esse captam. Sed Papiam legem invenimus, qua cavetur, ut pontificis maximi arbitratu virgines e populo viginti legantur sortitioque in contione ex eo numero fiat et, cuius virginis ducta erit, ut earn pontifex maximus capiat . . .] 5.18.6 historias quidem esse aiunt rerum gestarum vel exposi- tionem . . . annales vero esse, cum res gestae . . . componuntur; 6.1.2-4 Nam et C. Oppius et lulius Hyginus aliique. . .tradunt ...neque multis diebus, postquam ille anguis in lecto visus est, mulierem coepisse . . . ; 6.3.19 Quippe recte et utiliter . . . praecipitur indices de capite alieno deque causa ad sese non pertinenti cognituros, ex qua praeter officium . . . nihil redundaturum est, conciliandos esse . . . existimationi saluti- que eius, qui apud eos accusatus est (possibly the indicative here and in the following example is an echo from Cato : the whole chapter deals with a speech of Cato) ; 6.3.22 Sed quod ait confessum Catonem noluisse Rodiensis ita depugnari ut depugnatum est; 5.1 i.i Existimant quidam etiam illud Biantis, . . . responsum consimile esse atque est Protagorion illud ^ 6.17.3 Quis adeo tam linguae Latinae ignarus est, quin sciat eum dici obnoxium, cui quid ab eo, cui esse obnoxius dicitur, mcommodari . . . ; 10.2.2 Sed et divo Augusto imperante, qui temporum eius historiam scripserunt, ancillam . . . in agro Laurente peperisse . . . dicunt . . . matrem ... non multo, postquam peperit, mortuam...; 14. 1.2 eaque fuerunt ad hanc f erme sententiam : disciplinam istam Chaldaeorum tantae vetustatis non esse, quantae videri volunt, neque eos principes eius auctoresque esse, quos ipsi ferant (note the shift in moods, volunt . . . ferant) ; 14. 1.20 declarari . . . oportere dicebat . . . quales . . . homines gignerentur . . . quinam olim futuri essent . . . ut . . . stellae istae praemonstrare • debuerint, qualis qualique fato futurus sit, quisquis hodie natus est. Gellius is fond of repeating atque, a trick of style apparently borrowed from Cato.^^^ For examples see 1.23. i cum multa "^See Draeger, 2.54; Schmalz, 496 (§ 242); Minton Warren, P. A. 62 Archaism in Aldus Gellius Archaism in Aulus Gellius 63 » quidem venustate atque luce atque munditia verborum ; 2.2.9 i^ publicis locis atque muneribus atque actionibus ; 2.8.1 inperfecte atque praepostere atque inscite; 6.3.52 distincte nimis atque compte atque modulate; 6.19.1 Pulcrum atque liberale atque magnanimum factum; 10. 3.13 impense atque acriter atque in- flammanter; 12. 1.9 filium proprii atque consueti atque cogniti sanguinis alimonia privare; 17.1.1 parum integre atque in- proprie atque inconsiderate locutum.^^^ sed enim occurs e. g. in Praef. 18; 1.7.18 sed enim praeter Plautum . . . multam . . . copiam offendimus . . . ; 2.6.10; 17. 1.3 (see Apul. Met. 1.24). This may be an archaism. Draeger 333.2c, says: "Zuerst Cato Orat. p. Rhod. Dann Cic. p. Gael. 24,60 . . . Mehr wird aus Cicero nicht angefiihrt, nichts aus Caesar, Sallust und Livius ; mehr schon aus den Augusteischen Dichtern . . . Im silbernen Zeitalter scheint es zu fehlen, sicher bei Tacitus, dann kommt es wieder zum Vorschein". P. Langen (Beitrage zur Kritik und Erklarung des Plautus, page 263): "ob Plautus auch sed enim gesagt habe, ist zweifelhaft, iiber- liefert ist kein Beispiel der Art". Lindsay (Syntax of Plautus, page 97) writes: "but sed enim seems not to occur (in Bacch. 1080 the MSS offer et enim ...)". Leo, it should be noted, reads there sed enim, Goetz-Schoell at enim. Schmalz, 508, declares that sed enim "schon vor Cato ... gerne ... von den aug. Dichtern und den Archaisten, z. B. Pronto, Gellius ge- braucht wird". Twice after a temporal clause Gellius introduces what is logically the main clause with a copulative conjunction {atque, et).^^' According to Schmalz this illogical form of parataxis is P. A., 25. xliv (1894). Elmer, in his dissertation on Que, et, atque in the Inscriptions of the Republic, in Terence and in Cato (see A. J. P., 8), did not notice Cato's fondness for repeated atque. *** Compare Pronto 36 (Naber) : Uni M. Porcio me dedicavi atque despondi atque delegavi. Hoc etiam ipsum atque unde putas? ex ipso furore. Lodge, Lexicon Plautinum, s. v. Atque, 17, gives examples of varying combinations into which atque enters twice, such as atque . . . atque; atque . . . atque . . . -que; atque . . . -que et . . . atque; et . . . atque , . . . atque. "' For this use in Plautus see Lodge, Lexicon Plautinum, s. v. Atque, 16 (page 179). confined to two authors only, Plautus and Gellius; see 497 (§ 244). Compare 2.29.8 Haec ubi ille dixit et discessit; 17.20.4 Haec verba ubi lecta sunt atque ibi Taurus mihi . . . inquit. It should be noted that 2.29 is a perfect mine of ar- chaisms, such as cum causal with indicative, fervit, crastini, luci, etc., etc.2^^ The Plautine examples of the special phenomenon under discussion are Epid. 217 (Schmalz wrongly cites as 209) Quom ad portam venio atque ego illam illi video praestolarier ; Bacch. 278 forte ut adsedi in stega, dum circumspecto, atque ego lembum conspicor ; Most. 1050 Quoniam convocavi, atque illi me ex senatu segregant; Poen. 649 Nescimus nos quidem istum qui siet; Nisi dudum mane ut ad portum processimus, Atque istum e navi exeuntem oneraria Videmus; Merc. 256 Postquam id quod volui transegi, atque ego conspicor Navem ex Rhodo quast heri advectus filius. Finally, in 2.29, we have convincing evidence of Gellius's conscious imitation of the ancients, whom he so profoundly reverenced. In his rendering of Aesop's fable, we have numer- ous examples of archaisms of form and of syntax,^^* which, without doubt, are taken from the Latin version which Gellius was following. But unmistakable evidence that Gellius's work is, in part, a loose paraphrase of one of the Satires of Ennius,^*^^ and, in part, a more or less faithful rendering of parts of verses, or even of whole verses, of his Latin original, is found in the bits of trochaic lines which characterize this fable^^® as given us by Gellius. Trochaic rhythm is natural enough to Latin, but here we have no accidental measures due to the nature of the language. By way of contrast it is suggestive to compare the story of the lark, 2.29, with the story of Arion, 16.19. So far as I have been able to discover, the striking archaic and metrical ele- ments which are so remarkable in the former are lacking in the *■ See Knapp, Drisler Studies, 143-144 (for archaisms of form), and, for archaisms of syntax, above, page 57. The next paragraph of this page may also be compared here. *** See above, note 203. *»Cf. § 20. **See Vahlen's Ennius* (1903), ccxxii-ccxxiii, and Knapp, A. J. P., 32.28. 64 Archaism in Aulus Gellius latter. Apparently, Gellius is here translating from Herodotus, and so is himself responsible for the Latin. There was no in- termediary archaic Latin version from which to borrow. There seem to be no reminiscences of Ovid's rendering (Fasti, 2.79-1 18). Ovid, it may be noted, is never mentioned in the Noctes Atticae (compare above, page 20). To the trochaic rhythms which have already been noted by Vahlen'*'^ and by Knapp,'^® in 2.29, the following, not in all cases, to be sure, very musical, should be added : appetat messis pullis iam iam plumantibus; flavescentibus pullis; ipsa iret cibum pullis; postea segetum illarum; amici isti magnam par- tem inquit; temperi ad metendum; afferes primo luci. I \\\ ** Ennius, ccxxii. *"A. J. P., 32.30-31. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INDEX* Abbott, F. F. The Use of Repetition in Latin to Secure Emphasis, Intensity, and Distinctness of Impression, Studies in Classical Phil- ology, 3.67-87 (1900, Chicago). A. J. P. American Journal of Philology. Archiv. Archiv fiir lateinische Lexicographie und Grammatik. Bennett, Charles E. Syntax of Early Latin, Vol. I. The Verb (Bos- ton, 1910). Bernhardy, Gottfried von. Romische Litteratur (Halle, 1872). Brock, M. Dorothy. Studies in Fronto and His Age (Cambridge, 191 1 ) . Biicheler, Franz. Grundriss der lateinischen Deklination (Bonn, 1879). Cooper, Frederic Taber. Word Formation in the Roman Sermo Plebeius (New York, 1895). Desertine, A. H. J. V. M. De Apulei Studiis Plautinis (Neomagi, 1898). Draeger, A. Historische Syntax der lateinischen Sprache. (2 vols. Leipzig, 1878-1881). Duff, J. W. A Literary History of Rome (London and Leipzig, 1909)- Ellis, Robinson. Commentary on Catullus* (Oxford, 1906). Frobenius, Rudolf. Die Syntax des Ennius (Nordlingen, 1910). Georges, K. E. Lateinisch-Deutsches Hand-Worterbuch' (Leipzig, 1899). Gildersleeve, Basil, and Lodge, Gonzales. Latin Grammar (New York, 1900). (k)rges, O. De Quibusdam Sermonis Gelliani Proprietatibus Observa- tiones (Halle, 1882). Grandgent, C. H. An Introduction to Vulgar Latin (Boston, 1907). <}ronovius, J. Aulus Gellius (Lyons, 1706). Haupt, Moritz. Opuscula (Leipzig, 1875-1876). Helm, Rudolphus. Apulei Opera quae supersunt (Leipzig, 1907)- Hertz, M. (Vind. Gell. Alt.). Vindiciae Gellianae Alterae (Leipzig, 1873). A. Gellii Noctes Atticae (2 vols. Berlm, 1885). Opuscula Gelliana (Berlin, 1886). Hildebrandt, G. F. Apulei Metamorphoses (Leipzig, 1862). Holtze, F. Guilelmus. Syntaxis Priscorum Scriptorum Latinorum (Leipzig, 1861). Hoppe, H. Syntax und Stil des Tertullian (Leipzig, 1903). Hosius, Carolus. A. Gellii Noctes Atticae (Leipzig, 1903). Knapp, Charles. Archaism in Aulus Gellius (in Classical Studies in Honour of Henry Drisler, New York, 1894). Corrections and Additions to Lewis and Short in Connection with Aulus Gellius, A. J. P. 14- 216-225. 1 See note 3. 66 Selected Bibliographical Index Notes on the Prepositions in Gellius, T. A. P. A. 25 (1894). 1-33. Stories from Aulus Gellius (New York, 1895). The Originality of Latin Literature, The Classical Journal, 3. 251-260, 299-307. Vahlen's Ennius, A. J. P. 32. 1-35. Kretschmann, Henricus. De Latinitate L. Apulei Madaurensis (Konigsberg, 1865). Kretschmer, J. De A. Gellii Fontibus (Posen, i860). Kubler, Bernhard. Die lateinische Sprache auf africane Inschriften (in Archiv 8 [1893]). Kuhner, Raphael. Ausfiihrliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache (Hanover, 1877-1879) ; second edition (2 vols. Hanover, 1912). Landgraf. See Stolz, Landgraf. Langen, P. Beitrage zur Kritik und Erklarung des Plautus (Leipzig, 1880). Leky, Maximilian. De Syntaxi Apuleiana (Bonn, 1908). Lindsay, W. M. The Latin Language (Oxford, 1894). Syntax of Plautus (Oxford, 1907). Lodge, Gonzalez. Lexicon Plautinum (Leipzig, 1901-1911). Lodge, Henry Cabot. Shakespeare's Americanisms (Harpers Monthly, January, 1885). Mackail, J. W. Latin Literature (New York, 1907). Madvig, J. N. Latin Grammar, revised by Thomas A. Thacher (Bos- ton, 1888). Mohl, F. G. Introduction a la Chronologie du Latin Vulgaire (Paris), 1899). Monceaux, Paul. Histoire litteraire de TAfrique chretienne (Paris, 1901-1905). Naber, S. A, M. Cornelii Frontonis et M. Aurelii Imperatoris Episto- lae (Leipzig, 1867). Nagelsbach, K. F. Lateinische Stilistik fiir Deutsche' (Niirnberg, 1888). Naudet, Joseph. M. Accii Plauti Comoediae, Lemaire edition (Paris, 1830). See Bibliotheca Classica Latina, Vols. 68-71. Nettleship, Henry. Lectures and Essays (First Series, Oxford, 1889). Lectures and Essays (Second Series, Oxford, 1895). Contributions to Latin Lexicography (Oxford, 1889). Neue-Wagener = Neue, C. F., and Wagener, C. von. Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache' (2 vols. Berlin, 1892-1902). Norden, E. Die antike Kunstprosa (Leipzig, 1898). Olcott, George. Studies in the Word Formation of the Latin Inscrip- tions (Rome, 1898). Piechotta, James. Curae Apuleianae (Breslau, 1872). Priebe, C. De Frontone imitationem prisci sermonis latini adfectante (Settin, 1885). Selected Bibliographical Index 67 Purser, Louis C. The Story of Cupid and Psyche as Related by Apu- leius (London, 1910). Reisig-Haase = Reisig, Christian Karl, and Haase, Frederich. Vorlesun- gen iiber lateinische Sprachwissenschaft. Revised by Hagen, Heer- degen, Schmalz and Landgraf (2 vols. Beriin, 1881-1890). Ribbeck, Otto. Tragicorum Romanorum Fragmenta' (Leipzig, 1897- 1898). Riese, F. A. Varro, M. Terentius, Saturarum Menippearum Reliquiae (Leipzig, 1865). Roby, Henry J. Grammar of the Latin Language from Plautus to Suetonius (London, Volume i, 1887, Volume 2, 1874). Schmalz. See Stolz, Schmalz. Sellar, W. Y. The Roman Poets of the Augustan Age (Oxford, 1892). Steele', R. B. Archaisms Noted by Servius in the Commentary on Vergil, American Journal of Philology, 15 (1894). 164-193. Stolz. See Stolz, Schmalz. Stolz, Landgraf = Stolz, Friedrich, and Landgraf, Gustav. Historische Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache (vols, i and 3- Leipzig, 1894, 1903). Stolz, Friedrich, Schmalz, J. H. Lateinische Grammatik und Stilistik*, in Iwan v. Miiller's Handbuch der klassischen Alterumswissen- schaft, Volume 2 (Munich, 1910). Teuffel-Schwabe-Warr. A History of Roman Literature, 2 vols. (Lon- don, 1900). Thesaurus. Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (Leipzig, 1900-). Thomas, P. Apuleius, De Philosophia Libri (Leipzig, 1908). T. A. P. A. Transactions of the American Philological Association. Vahlen, Johannes. Ennianae Poesis Reliquiae^ (Leipzig, 1903). Vogel, Theodor. De A. Gellii vita, studiis, scriptis narratio et indicium (Zittau, i860). Weiss, Fritz. Die Attischen Nachte des Aulus Gellius (2 vols. Leipzig, 1875). Wolfflin, Eduard. Lateinische und romanische Comparation (Erlan- gen, 1879). Bemerkungen uber des Vulgariatein. Philologus, 34.149- VITA. •/ I, Walter Eugene Foster, was bom in Westmoreland, New Hampshire, May 13, 1870. I prepared for college at Gushing Academy, Ashbumham, Mass., from which I was graduated in 1891. After four years of teaching, I entered Williams College, from which I received the degree of B.A. in 1899. My graduate work has been done at Columbia and Cornell Universities. I have held the following educational positions: principal of the Pratt High School, Essex, Conn. ; teacher in, and later principal of, the Williamstown High School, Williamstown, Mass.; teacher of Latin in the Morris High School, New York City. At the present time I am head of the department of Latin in the Stuyvesant High School, New York City. To Professors James C. Egbert and Nelson G. McCrea I wish to express my thanks for their unfailing kindness and consideration. Especially do I wish to thank Professor Charles Knapp, to whose suggestion this dissertation is due, and to whose kindly interest and wide scholarship I have never ap- pealed in vain. ^ --is' * ■7 -T^ . '«i'^' i;^':^iDC> .-t^l ^i^: *- ^ ■^<^ .^ VVv iiC*' ,, -, .. .-■ '0^i^r^ .tC: 'J* rLi« '^ 1^1 ? V in K.' 00 ^'s; 00 « 4- fM ^t 'i* d % -■*f^ 00 iu'd • f- ^ rsj 00 ♦l^ r^ u. 00 LU u. 1 ?^* '^ 'stI hi ■*> ; #j ' •- ^i k-^m ks^. :* I"' .^..-i '? vT