MA S TER NEGA TIVE NO. 92-80620-16 MICROFILMED 1992 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK as part of the r. • » "Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project Funded by the ,^,^r, 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... Columbia. University Library reserves the right to refuse to accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of the copyright law. A UTHOR : ANDERSON, ANDREW R TITLE: USE OF THE OE-DIPH THONG IN PLAUTUS PLACE: CHICAGO DA TE : 1909 u COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT Master Negative # \t BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARCFT Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record BKS/PRQD Books FUL/BIB NYCa92-h{35915 Record 1 of o - Record added todav I0:HYCG92~B359iS CC:9663 BLTram CP : i 1 u PC ; s i 245 lA 260 300 Restrictions on Use: QD DCF:? INf ;? RIYP:a CSC:? Ur^C:? REP:? DM: 3T:p MOD: B 1 : ? CPl:? RR KRN: SNR: FlC:? FSl:? COL : Acquis] tiorro MS: EL: AlC: CON:??? L:eng PD:l/;uv/ OR: COL: HNt;!cMI!(.: Andei ::oii , f^ndr ew R. rha Use of the Oh-Diphthong in Piau tus} hrmicroPorm ] Chicago,, b! he University of Chicago Pr ess, ^c;J.90V /■9I ~:A)i} p. ORJii 05-2 7-92 ILC:???? LML: NYCG-Pr AD: 05-27-92 UD:05-27-92 11:? UEM: l-»oh : TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA fxlh^T. ^J?^-— ~~^^^^^^^- REDUCTION RATIO: //< IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA UlS IB. IIB DATE FILMED:_f_'/2:.?>:__^^____ INITIALS ^Z/?;^^ HLMEDBY: RESEARCH PUDLICATIONS. INC WOODDRIDGe7ct %. ^. c Association for informatioii and image iWanagement 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1100. Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 301/587-8202 Centimeter 1234 56789 10 11 lliiliiniiiiilmiliiiilniiliiiilii iliiiiliiiiliiiiliiijIiiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliniliMn^ I 1 Inches 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 I I I I I 1.0 1^ III 2.8 |5j0 "'=== 1^ |||£ ■ 63 11 IS, ^ lUbu 1.4 2.5 22 I.I 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.25 12 13 14 15 mm MfiNUFRCTURED TO RUM STONOfiROS BY RPPLIED IMAGE. INC. The Use of the CE-Diphthong in Plautus ANDREW R. ANDERSON I . Reprinted from Classical Philology, Vol. IV, No. 3, July, 1909 PUBUSHED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS, CHICAGO Foreign Agents: London: Lozac & Co.; Leipzig: Orro HARRASsowm THE USE OF THE OE-DIPHTHONG IN PLAUTUS Br Andrew R. Anderson In connection with my Doctor's dissertation, in which the status of the ei-readings in the Plautine MSS was examined, the late Professor Minton Warren had originally suggested that I undertake a similar study of the oe-diphthong. The purpose of this paper is to carry out that suggestion. First let me define the three categories in which the oe-diph- thong may be considered : • I. Words in which the oe-diphthong was never reduced to u If a reduction ever took place, it was not to u but to e, and the change was generally confined to Low Latin or Romance; cf. Ital pena<^pcena; Span, hedo <^foedus, "filthy." In this category are native Latin words containing oe for original L-E. ot-diphthong, amoenus, coenum (but cf. Walde S'i^';,?''"''^*'^"''^' '■ ""■ "''«^«'«"). foetor, foetidus, foedus falthy, foedus "treaty," moenta, proelitim, oiei; words contain- ing an oe-diphthong produced by contraction, Cloelius, coepi, coetus, oboedio; Greek loan-words in which the oe is the tran- scription of 01 or ?), poena, comoedia. II. Words in which it stands for I.-E. oi, and in which in Clas- sical Latin it was reduced to u, as munus, munera, munio, *mmie, muntceps, municipium, communis, inmunis, murus, muto, mutuus, spuma, utor, etc., cunae, cunio, euro, cUra, etc., ludus, ludo, etc ' plures, plurumi; punio, punicus, puniceus, and probably hums, emus,' etc. For convenience and clearness I give uniformly ^ for the earlier oe. Obviously the discussion of this category will be the most important part of my paper. III. Loan-words from the Greek, in which oe is explained as the transcription of v, as Antamoenides, lagoena. For further examples see Schuchardt Vokalismus, II. 278 ff. The first category requires no further treatment in this paper, and the third, in my opinion, can best be understood after a full > I. e., if the deyelopment be hoiius > huius, quoiiu, (pronounced coiius) > euiw,. [Classical Philoloot IV, July, 1909] 291 292 Andrew R. Anderson discussion of the second; consequently I begin by citing those instances in which the MSS of Plautus give or point to the archaic oe for the classical u, Bacch. 926: moenitum. Capt. 254: circummoenill. Cist. 540: admoenivi. Pers. 554: moenitum (munitum A, monitum P). 559: moenita muro A, P n. 1. Poen. 990, 991 : Punice .... Poenus Poenior, Poenior Bothe, punier lihri. Pseud. 229: Phoenicium poeniceo. 384: admoenire. 5856 ; admoenire (a quotation of 384). Stick. 695: moenia (=munera). Trin. 24: inmoenest, immunest A, In menest P. True. 102: oenus B, unus CD. Morphologically noenum, Aid. 67, Bacch. xxiii ? (Goetz and Schoell) belongs here, but it was used only as an archaic form, and is therefore in a class by itself; vid. Walde s. v. ''non.'' For some conjectural oe-readings see the Triumvirate edition Mil. 223, 228, Eud. 934, True. 2. Rud. 692 moenia BCD, which Schoell changes to moeniam, is hardly worth considering. The reduction of oe to ii is generally regarded as having taken place in the course of the second century b. c. ; so Sommer Handbuch, p. 88. Lindsay LL., p. 240, puts it as far back as the beginning of the century, and I feel confident that even he did not date the change too early. Probably the earliest epi- graphic evidence for the change is found in utier of CIL I. 33 : Quel apice insigne DiaJis^aminis gesistei. Mors perfecit tua ut essent omnia brevia, Honos fama virtusque gloria atque ingenium, Quibus sei in longa licu/set tibe utier vita, Facile facteis superases gloriam maiorum; 5 Qua re lubens te in gremiu, Scipio, recip/t Terra, Publi, prognatum Publio, Cornell. This P. Cornelius Scipio has not been certainly identified. Mommsen puts the close of his life anywhere from 204 to 154, and on account of such linguistic peculiarities as the lack of -d in the ablative and the reduction of oe to H in utier 4, scholars have The Use of the OE-Diphthong in Plautus 293 been inclined to favor a later rather than an earlier date. How- ever, after the reading of in agro Teurano, postscript to the SC de Bacchanalibus CIL I. 196, of 186 b. c, and the discovery of the decree of Aemilius Paulus, CIL II. 5041, of 189 b. c, the abla- tival -d no longer returns to plague us in Plautus, and inasmuch as in every other respect also the orthography of this Scipio inscription agrees with that of Plautus, e. g., the differentiation of t in insigne 1, vita 4, Fuhli .... Corneli 7, from the ei- diphthong in quei 1, gesistei 1, sei 4, tibe 4, facteis 5, the failure to use double consonants in gesistei 1, licuiset 4, superases 5 (cf. essent 2, terra 7), it will probably be correct to regard the spell- ing utier as part of the evidence for the reduction of oe to u at an earlier date than commonly supposed.^ Even if a later date is insisted on for the inscription, it should be borne in mind that as orthography always lags behind, generally far behind, changes in pronunciation— this being especially true of the Scipio elogia— there is still nothing in this inscription to disprove the view that the oe-diphthong had already been monophthongized to U in the times of Plautus. Indeed, I hope to present some evidence in favor of the view that it had been reduced at least as early as the earliest of his datable plays— the Miles Gloriosus, which was brought out shortly after 206 B. c. But before presenting this additional evidence, let me consider two passages that seem to point to a contrary conclusion — Pseud. 229: Cras Phoenicium poeniceo corio invises pergulam. The date of the Pseudolus is 191. The classical form oipoeni- ceus is pUniceus, and the latter orthography might be expected for Plautus, if the statement of Lindsay above referred to be cor- rect. But in the present passage the diphthong has probably not been reduced, and that poeniceo should be read here is indispu- table. At first sight this passage would seem to prove that the pronunciation as well as the orthography would be poeniceus, 1 On the assumption that both oi and ou in the SC. de Bacch. are archaisms stand- ing for an actual pronunciation u, it would be possible to regard PLOVS (which occurs three times) as a mistaken restoration for *plois *ploes (cf. couro for coero, CIL 1. 1419) and so bring it into Une with PLOIRVME, CIL I. 32, and ploeres, Oic De leg. lu. 3. 6. x- » 294 Andbew R. Andebson poenicus, poenio, moenio, commoenis, oenus, etc. It has been brought out by L. Buchhold* that paromoeosis was at its height in Plautus and Ennius and that this practice has given us much evi- dence regarding pronunciation and orthography in our author. Yet in his fondness for punning Plautus sometimes even went so far as to use exceptional or archaic forms; cf. Capt 67: indices iustissumi domi duellique duellatorea optumi. Here duelli and likewise duellatores were archaisms even for the time of Plautus ; duelli isn't even found in a single MS for this passage. Yet Plautus' fondness for like sounds leaves no doubt as to the reading. So Amph, 1058 : corrumpta sum atque apsumpta sum, where I believe Fleckeisen is perfectly correct in reading cor- rumpta against corrupta of the MSS. Mil. 1407 : dispennite hominem divorsum at distennite. Here the reading dispennite reported by Nonius for dispendite carries with it the change of distendite of the MSS to distennite. So in Ennius Epig. ii {CPL, Ennius Sat, 1. 66) we should probably read with Bergk: Nemo me dacrumis decoret nee funera fletu faxit. We must not then close our eyes to the possibility that poeniceo in Pseud. 229 may have been given an archaic pronunciation by Plautus for the sake of closer similarity to Phoenicium. The other passage is Poen. 990, 991 : NuUus me est hodie Poenus Poenior, Poenior is the correction of Bothe; the MSS read punior. Poenior would seem to point to poenio, poenicus, etc., but here, as in the passage from Pseud., the form is shown to be exceptional, being in fact a coinage for the nonce, and standing therefore alto' gether by itself. # '^^"rT"^**^ (a«tttera«u>nw) apud vetoes Ramanorum poetas urn, Lips. 1883 ; cf. E. B. T. Spencer Adnominatio in the Plays of Plautus vnth Special Reference to Questums of Prmiunciation and Orthography, Rome, 1906. Unfortunately Mr. Spen- cer'8 mrestigation leaves much to be desired. 1 The Use op the OE-Diphthong in Plautus 295 Plautus has left us no statement regarding his orthography of oe-a as he has about his use of ei-i. Cf. Eud. 1305, 1306; True. 262-64. The evidence for his pronunciation of oe must be gath- ered principally from instances of assonance, the most important being Mil. 324: 8c. abi, ludis me, Palaestrio. Pa. tum mihi sunt manus inquinatae. Sc. quidum? Pa. quia ludo luto. This is one of a great many instances where Plautus puns a long with a short vowel and I cite the following : Amph. 1: Ut vos in vostris voltis; of. 1006. 318: exossatum osj cf. 342. 498: uxore usuraria. As. 142: pane in pannis. 568: fideli infidus. Bacch. 362: crucisalum me ex Chrysalo (=crusalo); of. 687. 490: malis malim modis. Merc. 83: amens amansque. 161: a portu apporto; cf. Ep. 595; Mil. 316; Rud. 1225. It may be noted that generally (but not always) when Plautus puns a long and a short vowel in arsi, there is a double consonant or its equivalent after the short vowel. In thesi he is freer in his treatment both of sounds and of quantities. This passage from Mil. 324 is not conclusive for the identity of the quality of the sounds compared until confirmed by other evidence, and this is found in Bacch. 129: Non omnia aetas, Lyde, ludo convenit a passage that, as far as the quality of the sounds compared is concerned, is to be grouped with Bacch. 362: Crucisalum me ex Chrysalo, 687: in cruciatum Chrysalum, 1183: Chrysalus .... excruciem. Together they prove that at this period Greek v was represented in Latin by u, so that in 129 the sounds compared are both in arsi and identical in both quality and quantity, and would be repre- I 296 Andrew R. Andebson sented phonetically by Lude, ludo, and etymologically by Lude loedo. In other words, the sound of the oe « oi) in loedo (> ludo) had been reduced to ii. I cannot here agree with Lindsay LL, p. 248, who separates Bacch. 129 from Bacch. 362, 687, II83' and would represent the phonetics of Lyde, ludo by Liide, lUdo I hold therefore that in Mil, 325 the pronunciation is faithfully represented by ludo, luto and in Bacch. 129 by Lude, ludo Hoffmann, in BB XXVI. 137ff., denies the possibility of ludus, ludo ever having come from the I.-E. stem hid- (cf. v. Grien- berger Wiener Sitzungsher. CXLII. VIII. 151), which he says could have resulted only in leid- > ltd. To make good his conten- tion he finds it necessary to treat the epigraphic evidence for loed (hid) as of no value, and the instances of its occurrence as pseudo- archaisms, interdependent in error. Accordingly he takes lUdo from an I.-E. stem *ghleu-d., cf. x^^v-d^co. If the conclusions of Hoffmann and v. Grienberger are correct, then the puns ludo luto, Lyde ludo have no bearing on the question of the oe-diphthong in Plautus. Had they known of these puns they would probably have treated them as confirmatory of their own conclusions (and to complete their case they would only have been obliged to dis- prove the original oZ-diphthong in Utor, euro, etc., as well). But the conclusions of Hoffmann are to be rejected for the following reasons: a) His objection to the phonetics loid-yiUd- is not valid- cf Walde, s. V. ^nudor Sommer, pp. 88, 91; and I am not aware that Lindsay has changed his view of the etymology of lUdo given m Lat Lang. 248. Furthermore, if the stem neuh- {iXevSepo^) gives *louh- > loib- > leih- > lib-, why should not according to Hoff- mann (since in his argument he ignores the labial as a factor in this development) ^ghleu-d give loud- yioid.yieid-yUd-9 h) To deny the development of lildo from loido, is to exclude all possible connection of these words with Osc. luisarifs: cf. Buck Gram, of Osc. and Urnhr., art. 138 and p. 248, No. 21. If the reduction of oi to U was already an accomplished fact in the time of Plautus in lUdo, it is reasonable to suppose that the reduction had become uniform throughout this whole category; and Amph. 498 uxore usuraria seems to confirm this view, aJ The Use of the OE-Diphthong in Plautus 297 this phrase was probably pronounced Ussorie) Ussuraria.^ Trin 181, 182: Neque adeo hasce emi mihi nee ussurae meae: Illi redemi russum is of doubtful value on account of the distance of ussurae and russum from each other. Here may be quoted Most. 209: Cur obsecro non curem f and Poen. 354: Qur ego id cwrem? nam qui istaec magis meast cwratio? as reasonably sure proof of the reduction of oe to U in ciiro, etc. The value of the two quotations is not impaired by the fact that cur does not contain I.-E. U (yet cf. J. Schmidt KZ XXXII. 405, and Persson IF II. 248), or by the fact that the orthography in the time of Plautus may have been quor. The latter form, how- ever, rests only on the express testimony of Velius Longus GL VII. 77. 9K, and lacks epigraphic confirmation under the Kepub- lic, whereas in OIL 1. 1454. 1 (time of the Gracchi) we have QUR = cUr. Etymologically the quality of the u in cur is the same asin/ilr; cf. Gk. <^/), and Lorenz' note on /tirmwm .... forum, Pseud. 790. Quintilian i. 7. 26 (cf. i. 4. 10, 11) has told us that by the teachers of his boyhood seruus, ceruus, etc., were still spelled seruos, ceruos, in order that the gemination of the u might not cause them to be pronounced serUs cerUs. CUr was probably pronounced in the same way in the time of Plautus as in the time of Augustus, and nothing was to be feared from the simpli- fied spelling of quor y quur y qUr or cur. The spelling quor cited by Velius Longus and used by Varro was etymological, and conservative, and theoretical, and not representative of its pronun- ciation, which was cUr even for the time of PI. Here might be quoted Velius Longus GL VII. 58. 4K, to the effect that words like primitiuus, though spelled -uos until in the eighth century of the city, were pronounced -uus and not -uos. Combining this fact with Bersu Die Gutturalen, p. 53, where, on the basis of such spellings as oquoltod ( = occultod) OIL I. 196, of 186 b. 0. and »For the weakened pronunciation of a? to ss cf. the MSS in Ep. 248; Rud. 729; Stixih. 163, 175, 272; True. 913, 940; Pseud. 1107 luxantur, lustrantur. Nonius 40, 24 M, and the development of x in Romance. 2ii Andrew R. Andebson quom ( = prep. cum) CIL I. 34. 3, end of the sixth century of the city, he proves that in Republican Latin labialized gutturals before u «o) were unknown, we have still further proof that quor was pronounced cur even by Plautus. Cf. Lindsay LL iv 137. 3, p. 300. The instances in Plautus in which an original li-sound is punned with an original oi-diphthong are unfortunately not more numerous than those already cited, unless we include here the very attractive interpretation of Aul 562 f. by Prescott in C. P. II, 335 f., which is possible only on the hypothesis that coera had already been reduced to ciira. Above has been presented the evidence for believing that the oe {oi) which we find monophthongized to u in Classical Latin had already under Plautus been thus reduced in pronunciation. Admittedly the evidence is inconclusive, but the hypothesis has the virtue of explaining the phenomena met with in a more satis- factory way than the opposite view put forth, e. g., by Brugmann KVG I, p. 84, where he says, "oe gait zur Zeit des Plautus." Here he means pronunciation as well as spelling. Whether the Romans were swift enough innovators in spelling reform to have made the change in orthography also is doubtful, but I should be inclined to use the orthography punio, munio, communis, plures, euro, utor except where there seem to be special reasons for doing the contrary. The instances cited on pp. 2 ff. may be considered individually. Whenever any of them are rejected, it is only their diphthongal pronunciation that is denied. Noenum, Aul 67, Bacch. xxiii; Poenus Poenior, Poen, 991 ; Phoenicium poeniceo, Pseud. 229, may be accepted for reasons previously stated. In addition to these there is much to be said for Fleckeisen's moenit (before moenia) Mil. 228, both because of the assonance and because of the dignified nature of the passage. There is less to be said for his moeni 223, as there is no assonance there. In the remaining passages, where the MSS give oe for m, they should not be fol- lowed except for special or additional reasons, and it must be admitted that these special or additional reasons are likely to be more or less subjective: e. g., moenitum, Bacch, 926, stands in a The Use of the OE-Diphthong in Plautus 299 passage that has a heroic tone and might gain in impressiveness by the diphthongal pronunciation. The same reasons could be adduced for Cist 540; Pers. 554, 559; Pseud. 384, 585 a (=384). However, it seems unreasonable that we should read moenitum in Pers. 554, and moenita 559, unless we extend the oe also to muro 559, and emend munitum muro to moenitum moero 553, and murus to moerus 560. The Triumvirate editors have admitted commoe- nibo against the M8S in Bud. 934. Their reading of moeris for vosMs, True. 2, is not felicitous. No special reason seems to exist for circummocniti, Capt. 254, moenia { = munera) , Stick. 695, inmoene, Trin. 24, oeniis, True. 102. I now come to the consideration of the readings of category III, namely, those in which oe is said to be the transcription of Greek v: lagoenam, Cure. 78;^ Antamoenides, Poen. cast of characters. The Greek originals of these words are respectively \dyvvo<; and 'AvTa/jLvvtSrj^;; cf. K. Schmidt in Hermes XXXVII. 356. The precarious position of oe as a transcription for v may be gathered from Schuchardt's discussion of it, Vokalismus II. 278-87. The case for such transcription is not supported by inscriptional evidence, but rests on a few MS readings, and on the very doubtful readings in a single passage in a single gram- marian — Maximus Victorinus GL VI. 196. 3K: *'Quae sunt litterae peregrinae ? y et z. Quare peregrinae ? Siquidem a nobis propter Graeca nomina adsumptae sunt, ut puta Hylas, zephyrus. Quae si adsumpta non essent. Hulas et sdepherus {sdephurusf) diceremus." Here hoelas [sic) is given only by one MS, Goth, and by c, while sdephoerus is the conjecture of Ribbeck BM XII. 431. Scliuchardt loc. cit., argues in favor of these two readings. Ritschl Bonner Sommerkat. 1856 had denied that oe could be used as transcription for u, but had admitted that it was the regular transcription for v. The ques- tion of chronology, however, must be considered, and I have no hesitation in rejecting the grammarian's statement (reading 1 It may be that Fleckeisen is right in reading lagaenam (from \dyrjvos ; cf . scaena < «^x /. ' •%- >p^> .-^^ ^^^ ^#. ^■•Vi -4- vsss