^ /ih^j.}./>^ ^A^^' ^ ^,- CImnto pm ^ttiu LECTURES AND ESSAYS NETTLESHIP HENRY FROWDE Oxford University Press Warehouse Amen Corner, E.C. €hxm):ion '§xtBB $txm LECTURES AND ESSAYS ON SUBJECTS CONNECTED WITH LATIN LITERATURE AND SCHOLARSHIP HENRY NETTLESHIP, M.A. CORPUS PROFESSOR OF LATIN LITERATURE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 1885 [All rights reserved] <^/<7 TO THE MEMORY OF THE REV. MARK PATTISON, LATE RECTOR OF LINCOLN COLLEGE. -'*, PREFACE. The papers of which this volume is composed represent for the most part, in a concentrated form, lectures or courses of lectures given in Oxford during the past six years. Several of them have been already published either independently or in \k\t Journal of Philology ^ the American Journal of Philology^ or the Fortnightly Reviav. Some additions, and some altera- tions in form, have been made since their first publication. HENRY NETTLESHIP. Oxford, 1884. b 2 CONTENTS, PAGE Note on Mr. Verrall's Studies in Horace ... . x I. MORITZ Haupt . I II. Early Italian Civilization : considered with espe- cial REFERENCE TO THE EVIDENCE AFFORDED ON THE SUBJECT BY THE LaTIN LANGUAGE . . -23 HI. The Earliest Italian Literature .... 45 IV. The Pro Cluentio of Cicero 67 V. Catullus .......... 84 VI. Suggestions Introductory to a Study of the Aeneid 97 VII. Horace: (i) Life and Poems 143 (2) The De Arte Poetica 168 (3) The Text 188 VIII. Verrius Flaccus : (i) 201 (2) 222 Note on the Glosses of Placidus 244 IX. The Noctes Atticae of Aulus Gellius . . . 248 X. Nonius Marcellus: (I) 277 (2) 295 XL Thilo's Servius 322 XII. Critical Miscellanies 341 Index 379 NOTE ON MR. VERRALL'S STUDIES IN HORACE. Mr. Verrall'S Studies in Horace^ hdiW^ appeared just as the last sheet of this work is going through the press. It would be disrespectful to Mr. Verrall either to pass over his book in silence, or merely to record, without giving my reasons, the fact that I dissent from his general conclusions with respect to the first three books of the Odes. I will therefore endeavour to state, as briefly as possible, the grounds on which, after a careful study of his work, I still adhere to the views expressed in my first essay on Horace. Mr. Verrall thinks that the first three books of the Odes were written between 40 and 19 B.C. (pp. 90, 117). I think that, so far as we have any definite evidence, the natural conclusion is that they were written between 33 and 23. Mr. Verrall supposes that the third Ode of the first book refers to the journey of Vergil to Greece in 19 B.C. The fact in itself is not susceptible either of proof or disproof ; but if on other grounds it is probable that the first three books were not published later than 23 B.C., then the Ode in question must have been written earlier. I may be allowed to quote on this point what I said four years ago in the fourth edition of Conington's Virgil (vol. I. p. xxiv) : — ' The opening of the third Georgic (29 B. C.) would be more easily intelligible could we suppose that the book was written either in Greece or after a visit to that country. There is some- thing to be urged in favour of that hypothesis. In the third Ode of his first book, Horace speaks of a Vergilius, whom he calls animae dimidium meae^ and for whom he prays a safe journey to the coast of Attica .... May Horace be referring to a journey taken by Vergil about the time when the third Georgic was written ?' ^ Studies, Literary and Historical, in the Odes of Horace, by A. W. Verrall, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Macmillan, 1884. NOTE ON MR. VERRALUS xi The theory that the first three books may be dated as late as 19 B.C. lands us, it seems to me, in great difficulties. In the first book of the Epistles Horace speaks of himself as having given • up poetry, and as having no inspiration left : no7i eade7n est aetas, non mens. Now the latest date assignable to any of the epistles of the first book is this very year 19 (i Ep. 12. 26). Had Horace been finishing his Odes then, how could he with any sincerity say that he was too old to write poetry ? But supposing the Odes to have been published in 23, four years before, in Horace's forty-third year, the whole matter becomes intelligible. A man may well feel older at forty-six than at forty-two. Again, the fourth book of the Odes was published in 15 or 14 B.C. ; Suetonius says, referring to the first three books, exlongo intervallo. This expression would be rather exaggerated if the interval was only four or five years, not so if it was eight or nine years. Mr. Verrall makes a great point of the unsuccessful conspiracy and death of Varro Murena, which, following Dio, he places in 22 B.C., and to which he finds a considerable number of allusions in the first three books of the Odes. I think it more probable that the conspiracy took place in 23 than in 22. Velleius (2. 93) says that it occurred about the same time as the death of Marcellus (23, autumn) ; and in c. 91 he says that it was immediately con- nected with the pacification of the East and the restoration of the standards of Crassus. He must mean, not the actual restoration (20 B.C.) but the promised restoration dated 23 B.C. by Dio (53. 32). I know how unsatisfactory Velleius is in matters of chronology ; still we must remember that the Fasti Consulares mention an Aulus Terentius Varro Murena as consul for a short time in 23 B.c.^ And here we come across another difficulty. Dio calls the con- spirator Licinius Murena; but a better authority, Suetonius (Aug. 19, Tib. 8) calls him Varro Murena, and Tacitus (Ann. i. 10) speaks of him as a Varro. By Velleius he is called L. Murena (is L. a mistake for A. ?). His sister, we know, was a Terentia. It seems to me therefore most probable that he was a real, not (as Mr. Verrall thinks) an adopted Terentius Varro, and that Murena was a cognomen which he chose to adopt, just as other Terentii Var- ' Mommsen positively identifies this man with the conspirator, and con- sequently supplies the imperfect inscription with the words inortuus est in magistratu. Mr. Verrall very strangely uses these conjecturally inserted words as an argument that Varro Murena died before the conspiracy. xii STUDIES IN HORACE. rones had called themselves Lucullus^ and Gibba. The cognomen Murena was not confined to the Licinii. It is found in the gens Valeria; Corpus Inscr. Lat. 2. ^t^d^, M. Valerius Silanianus Severus Murenaejilius. The Licinius of Dio I think, then, is a mistake. But does not Horace call Murena Licinius in 2 Od. 10, Rectius vives Licini? Not at all, I think. The Licinius . there mentioned is by the best of the old scholiasts, Porphyrion, called Licinius Valgius (Val- gus ?) ; the Cruquian scholia name him Licinius Crassus, and the inscription Ad Licinimn Murenam is only found in the inferior manuscripts. I fail, then, to find any direct allusion to Varro Murena's con- spiracy in the first three books of the Odes. The Murena of i S. 5, 38 {Murena praebente domum) and of 3 Od. 19, 10 {auguris Mu- renae) may have been the conspirator ; but of his conspiracy and his fall nothing is said, nor can I see any necessity for reading any indirect allusions to those events into any of the poems of the first three books. The chronological terminus a quo of these Odes depends mainly on the year assigned to the second Ode of the first book. I still think that '>>'h or 32 B.C. is a more natural date than any other (see p. 154). ^ Probably the cousin of Lucius Lucullus, as Eutropius says (6. 7). The other authorities call \i\TQ.f rater ; but this is not inconsistent with the consobrinus of Eutropius. MORITZ HAUPT. (PUBLIC LECTURE, MAY 1879.) There have been scholars whose works are monumental, and will be read so long as the historical sciences continue to be seriously studied. There have been others (and their number is far larger), the influence of whose labour has to a great extent been confined to the sphere of their own gene- ration, whose reputation rests rather on their personal power than on the fame of any one work, and who, though strong as writers, were stronger as instructors. Moritz Haupt was one. of these last ; and it is because he was so, and because I am personally much indebted to his teaching, that I am anxious that his name should not be forgotten in Oxford. Wishing to make acquaintance with the German University system, and more especially to learn something of the German method of teaching classical philology, I spent four months from April to August, 1865, at Berlin, matriculating and attend- ing lectures as an ordinary student. On asking advice of a competent informant as to the lectures which then stood highest in general repute for ability and usefulness, I was at once re- commended to attend Professor Haupt's course on the Epistles of Horace. I may say without exaggeration that these lectures introduced me to a method of teaching which was wholly unknown at the time in Oxford, and perhaps in England. We learned in Oxford to read the classics, to translate them on paper, to think and talk about them, to write essays on them ; but of the higher philology, of the principles and methods of textual criticism, in other words, of the way to find out what the 2 MORirZ HAUPT. classical writers really said, we were taught next to nothing. At least I can only say, speaking for myself, that although 1 was then beginning to write a commentary on parts of Vergil for Conington's edition, I had to instruct myself, with Coning- "ton's assistance, as it were piecemeal, and was without any general knowledge as to the kind of problems which might be expected to meet an editor in dealing with a classical author. Nor was I in reality even aware of the paramount importance attaching to the textual question. My first idea was to say something in the way of comment or explanation on each line of the book before me, and I was thus brought face to face with problems of textual criticism only in detail, and, so to speak, in a reverse order, the general bearings of the problem only dawning by degrees and with great difficulty on eyes untrained to comprehend them. The first point on which Haupt laid stress was the ex- position of his theory as to the principles to be followed in constituting the text of Horace. It was from Haupt, and from no English professor or tutor, that I first learned to appreciate the greatness of Bentley. 'The evil that men do lives after them:' apart from the Letters of Phalaris, Bentley was chiefly known to the ordinary English student of scholarship as having proposed a number of untenable emendations in the text of Horace. It was not generally known (I am speaking of the ordinary run of students) that Bentley's insight and mastery of facts were such as to place him in the first rank of scholars, if not (as was Haupt's own opinion) at the head of them all, and that more may often be learned from the facts collected in a note by Bendey, though his conclusion may be erroneous, than from the cautious dissertations of safer commentators. As Bacon reminds us, truth is oftener born of error than of confusion. Haupt then made an exposition of his views on the text the beginning and the basis of his lectures on Horace, thus, as I have said, indicating a method which in Oxford at least was unknown. Of the remaining lectures, in which he gave a MORITZ HAUPT. 3 running commentary on some of the epistles of the first book, I can only say that although at times they would have been thought too diffuse for the habits and feelings of an English audience, they were full not only of information but of wit, and the good sense which always attends wit, full also of literary allusion and genial play of mind. Besides their occasional diffuseiiess, they seemed to me to labour under another fault, I mean a recklessness and want of consideration in speaking of other scholars, especially of Orelli, which was inconsistent with fairness, and even with the due observance of literary courtesy. It may be that in England we are over-sensitive in this respect ; the freedom of speech which we allow ourselves in politics we think unbecoming in literary controversy. Yet after making all due allowance for difference of manners and for the liberty usual in a German lecture-room, I must own to having experi- enced a feeling of weariness and repulsion at witnessing this castigation of the defenceless Orelli carried on for four days in the week during a period of three months. As Haupt died early in 1874, I ought to explain why I have waited so long before speaking of his labours in the field of scholarship and of University education. The complete collec- tion of his Opuscula, edited by the distinguished and original scholar Mr Wilamowitz-Mollendorf, was not published till 1876. I had intended to make these Opuscula the subject of a public lecture in the October term of last year ; but hearing that a work on Haupt as a University Professor, by Mr Christian Belger, was expected to appear this year, I waited for its publi- cation, and was right, I think, in so doing; for the work con- tains a great deal of valuable and interesting information which would have been otherwise inaccessible. For all that I am about to say on Haupt's life I am indebted to the short bio- graphy prefixed to Mr. Belger's volume. Moritz Haupt was born at Zittau in Saxony in the year 1808. His father, Ernst Friedrich Haupt, whose life extended from 1774 to 1843, had in his youth studied law at Leipzig. He was something of a poet, and in character a man of simple tastes B 2 4 MORITZ HAUPT. and serious tone, of pure and lofty ideas, and withal a fiery temper. Something of all this he bequeathed to his son Moritz, and in particular the taste for poetry in preference to prose, which was very marked from the beginning to the end of Haupt's career. Moritz Haupt began his literary life with a strong admiration for the old German poetry. What first inspired him to study classical philology was reading Gottfried Hermann's edition of the Bacchae. This first taught him, as he himself says, what was meant by really understanding an ancient author. In 1826, at the age of eighteen, he left school for the University of Leipzig. Here he became a member of the Soctetas Graeca, or association of students set on foot by Hermann, and working under his di- rection at the study of Greek. In a letter to Hermann, written five years after his entrance at Leipzig, Haupt addresses his revered teacher in the warmest language of youthful enthu- siasm, mentioning at the same time that he is beginning to work upon Catullus, and proposing to send his notes for Hermann's approval. From 1830-37 Haupt was mostly at Zittau, tending the de- clining years of his father. His circumstances, full of anxiety as they must have been, were not favourable to the formation of any definite hopes or resolutions for the future ; yet those seven years were fruitful in literary effort. Besides writing a number of reviews, he made considerable studies in Old German and Old French literature. A collection of old French songs, mostly of the sixteenth century, made by him at this time, was first pub- lished after his death by Hirzel. Besides Old German and Old French, he was also at this time working at Bohemian and the Slavic languages, and preparing editions of the Latin poets Gratius and Catullus. In 1834 Haupt travelled in company with his father to Vienna, where he made the acquaintance of Hoffmann von Fallers- leben. Far more important for his future was a journey made in the same year to Berlin. Here, at the house of Meusebach, he met Lachmann, whose influence, strengthened by a friend- ship of seventeen years, was strong upon him till the end of his MORITZ HAUPT. 5 life. Much of the severity with which Haupt was accustomed to treat real or supposed incompetence in other scholars, may with probability be traced to a feeling implanted or encouraged by Lachmann. Lachmann was a great scholar; but he was withal one of those literary Puritans with whom generosity, the rarest and finest of all virtues, counts for less than rectitude and strenuous effort ; negligence, or indolence, or bad work in general, he regarded as offences to be scourged without mercy. This attitude, which can only be maintained without faUing by scholars of the first order of character and genius, was to a certain extent assumed by Haupt throughout the whole of his literary career. In 1837 Haupt published the Quaes Hones Catullianae as his hahilitaiionschrift, or essay qualifying him for the position of privat-docejil, the first step in academical promotion. Of this excellent work I shall have more to say when I attempt to esti- mate the general value of Haupt's contributions to Latin scholar- ship. As privat-docent he lectured first on Catullus and the Nibelungen ; and it was mainly on Old German and Latin that he continued to lecture till 1858, the year in which Mullenhoff came to Berlin, when he exchanged Old German for Greek. In 1838 he published his edition of the HalieuHcon and of the Cynegeiica of Gratius and Nemesianus. It seems also that he was at this time to a great extent instrumental in starting the idea of the great German dictionary afterwards begun by the Grimms. In the same year he formed a Socieias Latina, on the model of Hermann's Socieias Graeca. A little volume of essays from the hands of its members, dedicated to Hermann, testified, in the following year, to the activity of the new associa- tion. A letter of Hermann's, written in this year, gives evidence of the high esteem in which he, as well as others, held the rising young scholar. ' Professor Haupt is daily more and more appre- ciated, as he deserves to be, and the University to which he belongs may consider itself fortunate. His merits are recognized by his classes, and he thus gains in self-confidence, of which his modesty at first allowed him very scant measure.' This 6 MORITZ HAUPT. was true ; Haupt seems at this time to have been liable to moods of diffidence and melancholy. He complains to Lach- mann of the ' terrible gaps ' in his acquirements, and of the uncertainty of his knowledge. Lachmann replies that the recognition of one's own ignorance is a necessary condition of the scholar's life ; ' Why complain of a deficiency which you yourself acknowledge ?' The two past years had been full of interest for all who had the independence of Hterature at heart. In 1837 the seven Got- tingen professors, among them the brothers Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, had been deprived of their office in consequence of the protest they had lodged against the unconstitutional proceedings of the King of Hanover. The Grimms, and those who acted with them, would hear of no compromise with their own con- science, or with tyranny. Other scholars, it appears, were hardly in favour of supporting them to the whole length of their proceedings, — they are always moderate persons on such occa- sions who stand aloof from extreme action, — and Lachmann himself seems to have thought that Jacob Grimm carried his indignation too far. In 1838 (January) he writes: 'Jacob Grimm is at Cassel, in a restless and discontented mood, far too much so ; Wilhelm is quiet and cheerful, because he does not allow politics to interfere with what is, after all, only a question of conscience.' An unfortunate misunderstanding, which was fostered by injudicious friends of Jacob Grimm, arose between him and Lachmann upon this matter, and lasted on into 1840, when it was finally removed. 'There are two sorts of persons,' said Lachmann, * those who are made for places, and those for whom places ought to be made ; it is to the latter class that the two Grimms belong.' And it was in great measure owing to Lachmann's exertions that the Grimms were called to Berlin in 1841. In 1839 Haupt published an edition of Hartmann's Erec, his first important contribution to Old German scholarship. Two volumes of Altdeutsche Blatter^ consisting of reviews, testify further to his activity in this line between 1836 and 1840. His MORITZ HAUPT. 7 edition of Rudolf's Guie (z^r-^^r^ appeared in 1840. In 1841 he was elected professor e xtraor dinar ius, a post for which he had been ' designated ' three years before. This year was also marked by the publication of the Observaiiones Criticae, a very important essay, in which he continued, with fuller discussion and illustration, the lines of investigation started in the Quaes- iiones Caiullianae. He also set on foot in this year the Zeit- schrift fur Deutsches Alterthum^ of which he long continued the editor. The ties which already united Haupt to Gottfried Hermann were drawn closer in 1842, when Haupt married Hermann's daughter Louise. In the same year he edited the Lieder of Hartmann von Aue. Between 1842 and 1848 there is not much to chronicle, except his election as professor ordinarius in 1843, ^^ ^^^ ^g^ o^ thirty-five. In 1844 he edited Conrad's poem Engelhard ; in 1845 the Winsbeke ; in 1847 came his additions to Lachmann's 'Considerations on the Iliad.' The year 1848 was an eventful one for him, on public as well as on private grounds. Like other patriotic persons among his countrymen, he was power- fully inspired with the idea of German unity ; and though his political ideas were far from democratic, he was enough of a liberal to become an active member of the Deutscher Verein, and in this capacity so eloquent as to draw down upon his head the displeasure of Government. For his speeches in the Verein, Haupt, with Otto Jahn, and Theodor Mommsen, was suspended from his office, and (in spite of a formal acquittal) finally dismissed in 185 1. Notwithstanding these troubles, this was a happy time for the distinguished literary society now gathered in Leipzig. Haupt, Mommsen, and Jahn, with the publishers Reimer, Hirzel, and Wigand, formed a congenial circle of friends, in which the scholars and the men of business continually met each other with mutual pleasure and profit. Jahn speaks feelingly of the great benefit derived by scholars from intercourse with educated men of the world. 'A mere scholar/ he truly says, 'is not 8 MORITZ HAUPT. necessarily an educated man ; he has much to learn from the men of practical life, and the new points of view which their knowledge of the world opens up to him.' The society is pleasantly described by the well-known novelist, Gustav Freytag, who came to Leipzig in this year. ' In the year 1848,' he tells us, * I came to live at Leipzig, as editor and part-proprietor of the Grenzboten; and in the following year I was admitted into the select circle of friends to which Haupt belonged. As I was a pupil of Lachmann, and had a taste for German philology, we had many common interests, and our agreement in politics helped to ensure an understanding between us. Haupt lived a very retired life, especially since he had been under the supervision of the police ; but he was natu- rally glad at such a time of the visits of a sympathetic friend ; and many a pleasant twilight hour we managed to while away, chattering on his old sofa, in the company of his amiable and accomplished wife. We were fond of taking our serious, reserved friend to a quiet restaurant, where, from this time until he left Leipzig, Haupt joined Otto Jahn, Theodor Mommsen, Julian Schmidt, Solomon Hirzel, and myself, in many a merry meeting. When Lachmann came to Leipzig on his last visit, we managed to catch him as well, and brought him in with a triumphant welcome. The result of these meetings between Haupt and myself was a mutual confidence, which ripened into a steady friendship. He was so kind as to form a good opinion of the easy-going Silesian ; while I, on my part, conceived a heart-felt respect for the rugged scholar, with his scrupulous conscience, his wealth of knowledge, and his force of expression. Till the end of his life I always set great store by Haupt's criticism of my poems ; sometimes I preferred it to that of any one else. As we were sitting over our wine one evening, some years before the appearance of 'Debit and Credit,' Haupt suddenly challenged me to write a novel. The suggestion fell in with my own ideas, and I accepted it. To the * Lost Manu- script,' however, he contributed more than a suggestion. There is something of Haupt in the character of Felix Werner ; no MORITZ HAUPT. 9 more, however, than a novelist is allowed to borrow from a real character, without interfering with the freedom of his own creation, or overstepping the bounds of discretion and delicacy.' The year 1848 ended in sorrow. On December 31 Haupt lost his father-in-law, Gottfried Hermann, whose death, it need hardly be said, was felt as a calamity far beyond the immediate circle of his family and connections. ' We can ill afford,' wrote Lachmann, ' to lose the pillars of our time-honoured study and discipline, at a time when both seem to be vanishing before our eyes, and the deluge of pitiable nonsense is rising around us.' Strange that in only three years from this time another pillar was to fall; Lachmann himself died in 1851. Hermann's Bion and Moschus was edited by Haupt in 1849, his Aeschylus not till 1852. From 1848 begins a series of con- tributions, now published in the first volume of Opuscula, to the Transactions of the Saxon Academy of Sciences, of which he was elected a member in that year. In 1849 he published, besides his edition of Hermann's Bion and Moschus, his essay on the Epicedion Drusi, so far as I am able to judge, one of the best of his papers. In 1850, a new and now well-known literary journal, the Litierarisches Cenlralblait, was started, to which he contributed numerous reviews. Like 1848, the year 1851 was an eventful one for Haupt. He was dismissed from his professorship at Leipzig in conse- quence of his share in the agitations of 1848, and, far worse, it was in this year that Lachmann died. The intimacy of the two scholars had lasted without interruption and with unabated warmth for seventeen years, and Haupt was to the last at the bedside of his beloved friend. The influence of Lachmann on the general course of philo- logical study has probably been greater than that of any single man during the present century. Many scholars who never saw him, and to whom he is only known by his books, have been inspired by the extraordinary impulse which he gave to critical method; Greek, Latin, and German philology have alike felt the touch of the magician. That Haupt, whose mind lo MORITZ HAUPT. was for seventeen years in continual contact with this powerful genius, should have been somewhat dominated by its influence, is not to be wondered at. There can be no doubt that he never shook off a certain prejudice in favour of Lachmann's views, and against the work of scholars who differed from him. In spite of the congeniality of temperament which drew the two friends together, there were, however, considerable differ- ences between them. Haupt had a great power of dialectic, of sympathetic exposition, of analysing points of criticism in a way intelligible to a large audience. When I was at Berlin there were from eighty to a hundred regular attendants at his lectures. But Lachmann cared to be understood only by the few imme- diately capable of understanding him. He goes straight to the heart of his subject, and implies that his readers are on the same level of information as himself; the multitude and its requirements do not come within the sphere of his vision. He complained himself of this want of geniality and sympathetic power. Two months before his death he wrote to Haupt, * In less than ten years' (he was then fifty-eight) 'I shall probably feel superannuated ; it is provokingly seldom that I can really inspire a young student either by the subject on which I lecture, or by personal influence. You have the art of speaking well. .... I cannot imitate the play of your dialectic for a single line ; for acquiring your persevering and fruitful learning I have neither the talent nor the power of memory.' Whether Lachmann was right in this modest estimate of his own powers of teaching I have no means of knowing ; that he was right in his appre- ciation of Haupt I can gratefully testify. Belger remarks, that in the philosophical spirit, or what his friend calls the dialectical faculty, Haupt resembled Hermann more than Lachmann did. In 1 85 1 Haupt published his editions of Horace and of Gottfried of Neifen ; in 1853, P^rt of a school edition of the Metamorphoses, for the series of classics with German notes, now so deservedly well known, which was started about this time under the direction of himself and Sauppe. In 1853, at the age of forty-five, Haupt was summoned to MORITZ HAUPT. II Berlin to succeed Lachmann. As from this time onwards, or at least from 1854, his literary work mainly assumed the form of short academical programmes, and miscellaneous papers read before the Academy of Sciences or published in philological journals, it will not be amiss to pause here, and to say a few words on some of his more important contributions to Latin scholarship. The first of these was the Quaestmies Catullianae, published in 1837. Considering that Haupt was at this time only in his thirtieth year, this essay must surely be pronounced one of very remarkable merit. The Quaestiones Catullianae may still be read with much profit. In form, indeed, the work suffers from a defect common in the writings even of the best scholars; I mean their way of leaving the subject in hand, and only return- ing to it after a long digression on some other point only remotely connected with it. Fourteen pages of this essay on Catullus are taken up with notes on the Moretum and the Aetna, which should have been thrown into a separate dissertation. With this exception, there is, however, little but praise to be bestowed on the Quaestiones Catullianae. In several points, indeed, Haupt followed Lachmann on wrong tracks, which subsequent critics, with lights to guide them of which Lachmann knew nothing, have abandoned. But a scholar or man of letters must be judged, not by his mistakes, whether avoidable or unavoidable, but by his positive contributions to knowledge. Now, such is the state of the text of Catullus, that any scholar may be said to deserve great praise if he can produce even two or three, I will not say certain, but really probable emendations in it. Some of his early corrections Haupt himself abandoned in later years ; some, however, have found approval, if not among all, at least among some of the highest authorities who have since spoken on Catullus. In 23. 10 furta impia for facta impia is accepted by both Baehrens and Munro; in 61. 46 anxiis for amatis by Ellis; in 62. 9 sic certest by Baehrens and Ellis ; in 63. 5 devolsit for devolvit by Baehrens and Munro ; and in 64. 28 Nereine for nectine by the same scholars. 12 MORITZ HAUPT. The Ohservaiiones Criiicae, which followed the Quaestiones Catullianae in four years (1841), were drawn forth by Haupt's desire to defend or illustrate some of his previous remarks. To the first chapter of this work we are indebted for his very valu- able note on the ninety-fifth poem, where he explains the men- tion of the river Satrachus as referring to the story of Zmyrna. In the third chapter, in defending three of his emendations, te zbt, quare eitam, ardui ibi^ he writes an excellent dissertation on the hiatus of long vowels as allowed by Lucilius, Lucretius, Vergil, Horace, and Ovid. The correction proposed in the next chapter, in 11. 11, 'horribile aequor ultimosque Britannos ' for horribilesque of the MSS., is accepted by Baehrens, but not either by Ellis or Munro, who have each their own way of heal- ing the passage. Munro, however, by reading horrihilem salum, shows that he agrees with Haupt that Catullus was speaking of the horrors of the British Channel, not of the English shore. The fifth chapter is mostly an elaborate disquisition on the proper position of the copulative conjunctions et and ac in Catullus, followed in the sixth by an examination of the usage of other poets in this matter. The conclusion of this part of the essay is that the transposition of et and aique, so as to stand after the words to which they belong, is unknown to Catullus and Lucretius ; that the similar transposition of et is common in Vergil and in the Dirae^ that of atque and et in Horace ; that of et again, and occasionally of atque in Propertius, Tibullus, and Ovid. Finally, in the eighth chapter, he propounds the theory that this usage was borrowed by the Latin poets from the Greek epigrammatists, and perhaps ultimately from the Alexandrian school. I have mentioned these details, which might seem out of place in an hour's lecture, only to give as striking an instance as I could of Haupt's real powers. A scholar who could, before his thirty-fourth year was past, produce such excellent critical work as is contained in the Quaestiones Catullianae and the Observationes Criticae, was ipso facto marked out for high distinction in the commonwealth of letters. These dissertations, like all other MORITZ HAUPT. 1 3 good productions of their class, must be read through to be properly appreciated ; they cannot, I mean, be estimated at their true value merely by the traces which they have left in the notes of subsequent commentators on Catullus. I have spoken of Haupt's more probable emendations ; there is something to learn even from his errors, and much to learn from the dis- cussions by which his conclusions, whether now rejected as erroneous or not, are arrived at. I must now mention the essay on the Epicedion Drusi, or Consolatio ad Liviam Augustam de morie filii, published at Leipzig in 1849. This poem, which strangely enough was ad- mired by Nicolas Heinsius and Valckenar, and which Joseph Scaliger attributed to Pedo Albinovanus, Haupt contends is a forgery of the fifteenth century. I do not know whether there is any one of his essays which gives a clearer idea of his critical power. The MSS. of the poem in question are none of them earlier than the fifteenth century ; as for internal evidence, Haupt shews, I think very happily, that the piece is badly arranged, that the ideas are often poor, sometimes self-contra- dictory, sometimes repeated in a pointless way ; that many of the verses are taken directly from Propertius, Ovid, and Vergil, and that the Latin is often merely conventional and unreal. I confess that I am not convinced by the elaborate essay which my friend Professor Hiibner has published in the Hermes^, that this poem may fairly be assigned to the age of Nero. Hiibner points out a great number of imitations of the classical poets, in addition to those collected by Haupt and other scholars; but he does not, I think, succeed in shewing that the Latin of the poem can be called classical. For instance, when Haupt objects to the phrase iurha bonorum in the sense of ' a multitude of advantages,' it is not sufficient to reply that turba is used by good writers in the sense of ' multitude,' and bona in the sense of ' advantages ' ; the question is whether any good writer, any writer with the poetical pretension of the author of this poem, would have said turba bonorum in any other sense 1 1878. 14 MORITZ HAUPT. than that of a ' throng of respectable men.' And so the case often stands with this composition. Is it, for instance, credible that any poet of the age of Calpurnius, Persius, and Lucan, to say nothing of Ovid or Vergil, would have constantly used tumulus in the sense oi sepulcrum ; and, worse st\\\,tanua tumuli for * the door of the tomb/ and tumulo por tan's et tgni, for ' thou art carried to the grave and the fire ' ; or fortuna nocendi for ' the power of hurting ' ; or that he would have written so weak a line as (lacrimae) effusae gravidis uberibusque gems, or so bad a one as os oculosque illius ore premam ? These and other like spurious conventionalities might be added to the list made out by Haupt. Still more important, because dealing with more numerous and more difficult questions of criticism, is the essay on Cal- purnius and Nemesianus, published in 1854, the year after he was called to Berlin. The excellent quality of this paper can only be fairly appreciated by those who are able to study it in detail ; I may, however, mention its chief points. The first, argued and illustrated with great learning and acuteness, is that the eleven eclogues which passed currently under the name of Calpurnius are really to be divided between Calpurnius and Nemesianus, the last four being from the hand of Nemesianus, the first seven from that of Calpurnius ; the second is that Calpurnius wrote, not at the same time as Nemesianus, i.e. in the age of Carinus and Numerian, but at the beginning of the age of Nero. The editor of the Opuscula says that Haupt had intended to publish an edition of these eclogues, which he began, but left unfinished. He promises that this edition shall be published with the Cynegetica of Gratius and Nemesianus, in the state in which the author left it. Of the two programmes published by Haupt in 1854 and 1859 on the Aetna it is less necessary to speak in this place, as the questions connected with that poem have been more or less familiar to Englishmen since Mr Munro published his excellent edition, based on a new collation of the Cambridge MS., in 1867. I suppose that this edition can hardly be as generally known in MORITZ HAUPT. 1 5 Germany as it deserves^; otherwise it is difficult to account for the fact that Mr Belger supposes Cantabrigia to mean Canterbury, and nowhere says a word of Mr Munro's book. On the other hand, Mr Munro does not mention the emendations published by Haupt in the middle of his Quaestiones Catullianae^ some of which I infer from his editor's silence that he never retracted. In 1853 Haupt pubHshed a small text of Catullus, Tibullus and Propertius, uniform with his Horace of 1851 ; in 1855 he edited the Germania of Tacitus, and in 1858 Vergil, in the same form. But the main part of his literary work between 1853 and 1874 consisted in academical programmes and ad- dresses, papers published in the Transactions of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, and contributions to the Hermes, the well-known philological journal started in 1866. To read con- tinuously through these papers, ranging as they do over an im- mense variety of subjects and authors, is nearly impossible under the conditions of modern life ; they must be consulted with the aid of their editor's indices, Haupt's academical programmes, published in the second volume of his Opuscula, include notes on the Greek authors Apollonius of Tyre, Callimachus, Epi- charmus, Ion of Chios, Euripides, Sophocles, Theocritus, Aristo- phanes ; and on the Latin authors Propertius, Catullus, Gellius, Plautus, the writer of the Aetna, Ovid, Statins, Lucius Seneca, Fronto, Cicero, Ammianus. Among these papers I will men- tion two which have been of great importance in their bearing on Latin scholarship. One (0pp. ii. p. 67) is on Catullus, and contains, besides notes on that poet, an exposure of the frauds of Bosius in the matter of 'Cicero's letters. The other (p. 371 of the same volume) contains a number of admirable emendations in the very corrupt text of Ammianus. Most of these have been adopted by Gardthausen in his text of 1874; a second paper containing a number of fresh corrections was intended for the summer semester of 1874 and was published after the writer's death. The essay on the criticism of Horace, pub- lished in the Transactions of the Academy for 1858, is well ^ This remark would at the present time (1884) be unjust. 1 6 MORITZ HAUPT. worth reading. Haupt agrees with Bentley as to the import- ance of the oldest Blandinian MS.; the errors in our MSS. of Horace shew, he thinks, that the archetype from which they are derived was written in cursive, not in uncial, letters. In the address which he delivered on his election as a member of the Academy of Sciences in July 1854, Haupt, in speaking of his own studies and previous performances, characterized them as follows : 'Among my productions I have nothing to shew which is likely to be looked back on as a landmark in the advance of knowledge, or as having widened its range, or opened mines of discovery hitherto unknown, or penetrated far into the causes of things. I know, and I candidly admit, that the recognition accorded to me by the Academy is not in any way deserved by my writings; but I accept it as expressing your approval of the line which my efforts have taken, and the general direction in which I have guided them.' His estimate of his own performances may be accepted as in the main perfectly just. He had applied, in Several cases with great success, the critical method which he had learned from Hermann and Lachmann, and his works may be taken from first to last as representing that method. The twenty ensuing years of his life as professor at Berlin he devoted mainly to exemplifying it and inculcating its lessons, not so m.uch by writing as by teaching. For any one casting his eye over the list of Haupt's works will, I think, be struck with the fact that after he went to BerHn his literary efforts seem to have been dissipated in the treatment of small and unconnected subjects. He never concentrated himself on any great work, but effected much by the intangible impression of power and insight which he produced in the literary world. In a letter to Mommsen dated March 22, 1855, he says, *I beg for your kindly acceptance of the programme which I send herewith. I know well how you dislike my devotion to these programmes; however, I cannot help it. I give my best powers to these things, though I know that I waste a great deal of paper over them. The truth is, that I am absolutely without the ambition of making a repu- MORITZ HAUPT, 1 7 tation as a writer, and I feel that I shall identify myself more and more with my professorship.' He seems, indeed, to have projected several important works, but to have been hindered in advancing far with them, partly by a certain fastidiousness of nature, which made him slow at continuous composition, partly I suspect by a nervous disorder which attacked him in the later years of his life, the combined result, according to his biographer, of overwork at Leipzig, of the strain and anxiety of his last years at Zittau, and the excitement of the time that elapsed between 1848 and 1853. About ten years before his death he began to suffer from giddiness and want of sleep; in 1865 I remember that his ill-health was talked of by the students. The regular plan which Haupt followed in his lectures was to I treat of two or more subjects, generally quite unconnected with each other, in each term. In 1853 his list is Catullus, the Ger- mani'a, and Walther von der Vogelweide ; in the summer term of 1854, Propertius and German grammar ; in winter, Tibullus, and the Nibelungen; in 1855, in summer, the Satires of Horace, and the Parzival; in winter, the Germama and Walther von der Vogelweide : in 1856, Propertius, and German Grammar, Tibullus, the History of Roman Literature, and Hartmann ; in 1857, the Iliad and the Nibelungen, the Satires of Horace, and the Parzival, and so on ; only that after Mullenhoff came to Berlin the lectures on Old German were discontinued, and lectures on Greek took their place. It is clear from the lists of Haupt's lectures, even if there were no other evidence of the fact, that the bent of his mind was towards poetry; prose authors received comparatively little illustration at his hands. It is one of the great merits of Mr Belger's biography, that he prints a number of notes taken at these lectures. Of his remarks on Old German poetry I am, unfortunately, unable to judge ; but I have read through much of what he says about Homer, and am struck with its good sense and clearness, and by the writer's evident love of early poetry. As is natural, he illustrates much from Old German and Old French : with Indian literature he does not seem to have had much acquaintance, nor did he c 1 8 MORITZ HAUPT. care for or encourage the study of Sanskrit, and with the theories which would read solar myths into the Iliad and Odyssey he had no sympathy at all. In his main principles, no doubt, he followed Lachmann, yet always with a certain freshness and originality of his own. The Iliad and Odyssey, in his opinion, arose gradually out of isolated poems. His general views about them are summed up by Mr Belger, as follows : ' If I under- stand Lachmann and Haupt aright, there was an epoch in the life of the Greek nation when stories of real events, clad in a fabulous shape, began to attach themselves to the fading myths : the form in which the tradition is preserved is that of epic poetry, through which, and in union with it, the story was developed. But, under the impression of great events, certain cycles of story received a more developed form than others, and in these again prominence was given to the more poetical episodes ; these smaller units form into wholes within the larger circle, and the lays which belong to these smaller circles become the most popular, and so the whole subject gets distributed among different ballads, the representative of this poetry being the inspired singer. This period is followed by another, in which the story, and with it the individual epic lays, receive a definite outline, with a regular beginning and end. It is impossible now to trace the stages of growth which led from the first improvisation to the form finally assumed; yet we may distinguish in the river the colours of the waters that united to form it. For instance, scholars infer from the remnants of Aeolic forms in the Homeric poems, that the Aeolians once had an epic poetry of their own, which is now extinct.' I quote these words merely for the interest which naturally attaches to them, and not as venturing to pass a judgment on a point with which 1 am not competent to deal. Let me now, before concluding, say a few words on some points which characterised Haupt as a teacher, as a writer, and as a man. I am very glad to find that the impression of Haupt's teaching left upon my mind after reading Mr Belger's book is much the same, though, of course, confirmed and supported by MORITZ HAUPT. 19 a mass of detail previously unknown to me, as that which I carried away fourteen years ago after hearing the lectures on Horace. As Mr Belger very rightly observes, Haupt was not the founder of a school in the sense in which that expression might be used of some scholars. He had not the creative gift, the subtie inspiring power, of Ritschl. His aim was rather to inculcate and emphasize, by repeated example and exhortation, the universal principles of critical method, as they have been understood by the greatest scholars. That he attached himself specially to Lachmann may, from this point of view, be regarded as an accident of his own circumstances, and those of classical philology in Lachmann's time. The principles of criticism, which no scholar can desert except at his peril, are, and always have been, the same in all ages and all countries: there is no such thing, except by the accidents of special periods of history, as Italian or French or German or English scholarship ; but particular developments of the general principles may be seized upon and brought into prominence at different times by the circumstances of particular books treated by particular scholars. Haupt's great aim was not so much to teach facts as to teach method, methode zu lehren; in other words, to teach how to learn, and how (if so be) to advance the science of philology. On reading Mr Belger's pages I recall many of his expressions, all tending in this direction. Textual criticism is one great branch of classical philology; the other is interpretation. On interpretation Haupt had three main principles, derived mainly from Hermann's precept and practice in his superintendence of the Societas Graeca at Leipzig, which he set out in the form of paradoxes. The first was, * Do not translate : translation is the death of understanding.' The second was, ' Use no technical terms of grammar.' The third was, ' Understand your author not logically but psychologically.' None of these rules, of course, were to be taken literally. With regard to translation, Haupt meant apparently that although it was a good exercise for enabling a schoolboy to master the construction of sentences, it was no help to the riper student c 2 20 MORITZ HAUPT. towards the real understanding of an ancient author. This must be won by patient study and analysis of the language. * The first stage is to learn to translate ; the second, to see that translation is impossible/ I am not sure that I fully realize from his biographer's words the full extent of Haupt's meaning on this point ; but I suppose that he intended to protest against the idea that a ready translation, without previous analysis of the meaning of the words, is always a sign that a passage is under- stood. At the later stages of a student's progress, translation is more useful for making a writer than for training a scholar. The second rule was a protest against the use of technical terms, such as zeugma, ellipse, pleonasm, and the like, without a sufficient analysis of the individual case to which they are applied; and thus understood its truth is obvious. The third requires a somewhat fuller explanation. ' Under- stand your author not logically but psychologically,' was another way of saying, * explain your author historically,' ' remember his times and circumstances.' In other words, remember that a Greek writer did not think even the same thought precisely as a Roman writer would have done, still less as a modern English- man or German would do; every nation has its nuances of thought as well as of language ; the language is the form or body in which these nuances live and have their being. One cannot dwell long on these points without lapsing into common- place ; but it would not be untrue to say that the need of the his- torical spirit in interpretation has only recently begun to obtain general recognition. I do not know that I ever heard any one apply it better than Conington in his lectures on Latin verse. These were the maxims on which Haupt based his classical teaching, whether in his formal lectures, or in the more informal but no less important, lessons of the philological seminary, in which the student had not only to listen, but himself to translate and discuss. They look trite and meagre on paper, but when enforced with Haupt's power of wit and logic and striking illustration they would, no doubt, sink with great impressiveness into the mind of the student. For he had a great power of oral MORITZ HAUPT, 21 exposition, and knew, as few men do, how to keep his hearers interested and attentive. As a writer he seems to me to have been more successful in Latin than in German. His Latin style is wonderfully good; pure, natural, idiomatic, and at the same time always genial, elegant, and distinguished, I doubt whether it is surpassed by that of any recent or living European scholar. In handling German, though as an Englishman I must speak with great diffidence, it seems to me that he is less at his ease. The beaudful addresses on Jacob Grimm, Meineke, and Bekker, printed in the third volume of the Opuscula, do, it is true, carry the reader along with them : but that is due, I think, more to the nobility and simplicity of the ideas than to the ease of the language. The general reader will, however, see Haupt at his best in these papers. To those who did not know him his character appeared more likely to inspire fear than affection; and no doubt he was hot-tempered, vehement, hasty, not without unreasonable prejudices and dislikes. Yet his faults were those of a strong, manly, and truthful nature. The addresses which I have mentioned shew the scholar and the man on his most attractive side ; they testify to the warmth and depth of his private affections, to his love of truth, and his almost religious devotion to the scholarship which was the work of his life, and in the cultivation of which he would have scorned to admit the smallest motive of mere pleasure or worldly profit. * The scholar,* he said, ' whose whole heart is not in his work, ranks lower than the commonest mechanic' Nor were Haupt's efforts confined to himself. Mr Belger states, and I have heard myself from a good authority, that he was liberal of pecuniary and other assistance to students who required it. It is on the foundations laid by characters like this that the edifice of classical philology has risen. The educational method which his teaching represents is, I need hardly say, familiar enough in Germany, but imperfectly known in the older English universities. The theory of pro- fessorial instruction, as he and many other distinguished men 2 2 MORITZ HAUPT. in Germany have worked it out, supposes that the professor lectures on important subjects, and gives to his classes the best of his work. The strength of the system lies in the power which it exercises over those finer spirits among the students whose aptitudes and inclinations draw them to the pursuit of knowledge and the cultivation of the philosophic spirit. Its weakness is that it fails to touch the ordinary undergraduate. The rich endowments of Oxford enable us to make ample provision for the satisfaction of both requirements. But can it be said that our average social and intellectual tone is seriously favourable to anything but the vigorous performance of tutorial duties, the preparation of candidates for examination, or, at the best, the cultivation of that talent which_, as Emerson says, 'finds its models, methods, and ends, in society, exists for exhibition, and goes to the soul only for power to work*? Perhaps it never will be so. But it must be remembered that a university which, for whatever reason, neglects the ideal aspects of educa- tion, is dead to the noblest traditions of academic life, and to the fulfilment of its highest duties. II. EARLY ITALIAN CIVILIZATION: CONSIDERED WITH ESPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE EVIDENCE AFFORDED ON THE SUBJECT BY THE LATIN LANGUAGE. ^ * The contrast between the Greek and Italian character was due to causes which must have lain dormant in the Graeco- Italian period. This moral and intellectual difference, the effects of which are not exhausted even at the present day, developed itself after the separation of the two races. Either nation, in complete independence of the other, formed its own system of the family and the state, of religion and of art ; so much so that the common foundation on which, here as elsewhere, both systems ^ Mommsen, Romische Geschichte, vol. i. p. 23 (seventh editionV. 'In der graecoitalischen Periode miissen die Anregungen noch gefehlt haben, welche diesen innerlichen Gegensatz hervortreten machten ; erst zwischen den Hel- lenen und den Italikern hat jene tiefe geistige Verschiedenheit sich offenbart, deren Nachwirkung noch bis auf den heutigen Tag sich fortsetzt. Familie und Staat, Religion und Kunst sind in Italien wie in Griechenland so eigen- thiimlich, so durchaus national entwickelt worden, dass die gemeinschaftliche Grundlage, auf der auch hier beide Volker fussten, dort und hier uberwuchert und unsern Augen fast ganz entzogen ist. Jenes hellenische Wesen, das dem Einzelnen das Ganze, der Gemeinde die Nation, dem EUrger die Ge- meinde aufopferte, dessen Lebensideal das schone und gute Sein und nur zu oft der siisse Miissiggang war, dessen politische Entwickelung in der Vertie- fung des urspriinglichen Particularismus der einzelnen Gaue und spater sogar in der innerlichen Auflosung der Gemeindegewalt bestand, dessen religiose Anschauung erst die Gotter zu Menschen machte und dann die Gotter leug- nete, das die Glieder entfesselte in dem Spiel der nackten Knaben und dem Gedanken in aller seiner Herrlichkeit und in aller seiner Fruchtbarkeit freie Bahn gab ; und jenes romische Wesen, das den Sohn in die Furcht des Vaters, die Burger in die Furcht des Herrschers, sie alle in die Furcht der Gotter bannte, das nichts forderte und nichts ehrte als die niitzliche That, und jeden Burger zwang jeden Augenblick des kurzen Lebens mit rastloser Arbeit aus- zufiillen, das die keusche Verhiillung des Korpers schon dem Buben zur Pflicht machte, in dem wer anders sein wollte als die Genossen ein schlechter Burger hiess, in dem der Staat alles war und die Erweiterung des Staates die einzige nicht verponte hohe Gedanke — wer vermag diese scharfen Gegensatze in Gedanken zuriickfuhren auf die urspriingliche Einheit, die sie beide um- schloss und beide vorbereitete und erzeugte?' 24 EARLY ITALIAN CIVILIZATION. rested, has been, in some cases, overgrown and almost lost to sight. Greek civilization sacrificed the general to the particular interest, the nation to the city-community, the city-community to the citizen. Its ideal of life was an existence of beauty and good- ness, too often indeed an existence of mere leisure and self- indulgence. In politics it intensified the original exclusiveness of the single districts, and proceeded in later times to break up the authority of the city-community. The Greek religion began by making its gods into men, and ended by denying their existence. In the boyish exercises of the gymnasium the Greeks gave free play to the naked limbs. On the free utterance of thought, in all its splendour and fruitfulness, they imposed no restraint. But in Rome the son was brought up in the fear of his father, the citizen in the fear of his ruler, and all in the fear of the gods. The only thing which was exacted, the only thing which was honoured, was a serviceable act. The citizen was expected to occupy every moment of his short life in resdess industry. Personal modesty was scrupulously enjoined from boyhood upwards. To wish to be different from others was to be a bad citizen ; the empire was everything, and the only lofty idea which it was not penal to entertain was that of the extension of the empire.' In these terms Mommsen has summed up the different characteristics of the two ancient European civilizations. The contrast is indeed great, and may perhaps be accounted for by the fact that the Italians were probably long separated from the Hellenes. While the Hellenes migrated into Southern Europe from the East and over the Aegean Sea, many considerations point to the conclusion that the Italians came into the valley of the Padus from the north, and by land, and thus developed independently the main features of their distinctive civilization. The purpose of the following sketch (for no more than a sketch is attempted) is to call attention to some of the more important evidence afforded by the Latin language in regard to this interesting problem. So far as this evidence goes, it seems to point to the conclusion that there never was such a EARLY ITALIAN CIVILIZATION. 25 thing as a Graeco-Italian period, a time when the ItaHans and Hellenes formed a separate nation. Italian history is rooted in an early condition of life which, probably before the Latin language existed in the form in which we know it, had reached the stage of a well-developed agricultural and urban society. What did the primitive Italians know of the sea or of navi- gation.? Putting out of sight the words pontus and pelagus, which are almost certainly borrowed from the Greeks, we are confronted with mare. Of this word Greek knows nothing, though in fiap-aivo) it has perhaps preserved the base from which it is derived, mar- to destroy. But the Celtic and Teutonic languages have mare in the sense sometimes of sea, sometimes of marsh. The Celts had mdr and the Goths maret in the sense of sea; the English mor a moor, marish a marsh, meer a lake. Diefenbach thinks that the meaning of all these words is marsh, and the original idea that of mould or crumbled earth ^ This may or may not be true; but in Latin viare seems to have been used originally for a flood or sheet of water. Isidore ^ says : Omnis congregaiio aquarwn, sive salsae sint sive dukes, abusive maria nuncupantur , a statement which would, so far as the original use of the word goes, be more correct if abusive were omitted. The local name of the Timavus was mare, due probably to its remarkable floods ^ : and Vergil, with his usual tact, has preserved this reminiscence in the line : // viare proruptum et pelago premit arva sonanti. Again, the local goddess of the marshes at the mouth of the Liris was Marica, no doubt from mare, but whether in the sense of a flood or of a marsh is uncertain. The Marsi may have derived their name from the lake near which they lived. Lucretius has no difficulty ^ Vergleichendes Worterbiuh der Gothischen Sprache, 2. p. 44. Max Miiller (^Lectures on the Science of Language, 2. p. 354) explains mare as = ' dead or stagnant water as opposed to the running streams {J'eau vive) or the unfruitful expanse.' 2 Orig. 13. 14. ^ Servius on Aen. i . 246, Varro dicit hunc fiuvium ab incohs mare nominari. 26 EARLY ITALIAN CIVILIZATION. in speaking of aeris mare ^, the wide expanse of air. All things considered, it is perhaps best to look in mare for the sense of waste ; whether it be the wasting or destruction caused by a flood, or the unfruitful character of a lake or marsh. In any case the fact that the idea of sea should have been ex- pressed by the ancient Italians by a word unknown to the Hellenes goes to shew that the Hellenes cannot have come to their settle- ments in Hellas, and the Italians to their settlements in Italy, by the same sea-route. Indeed, several considerations lead to the in- ference that the Italians cannot have come to Italy by sea at all. It is remarkable that the old Latin words for harbour and island meant also (and I am disposed to think originally) a house or home. Verrius Flaccus tells us ^ that porius in the Twelve Tables was by almost universal consent explained as equivalent to domus : Placidus^ says that it was used for a house or a door, and sometimes for a colonnade. Portus, then (from por- to pass through), would mean originally a passage, and so a door, or the house into which the door opened. Let us consider, in this connection, another interesting word — I mean insula. There is, of course, no need to remind the reader that insula could mean not only an island but a lodging-house. May it then be connected with thfe Gothic sal-jan, to go in and live in a place, and salithva, a shelter? If so, insula would mean originally a place of rest, and would be connected with consul and exul, he who lives or stays with, he who lives or stays away *. And the notions of harbour and island may have been transferred to portus and insula after the Italians had become acquainted with the sea. It is extremely doubtful whether the ancient Roman religion knew anything of the sea, for Nepiunus is the god, not of the ' 5- 276. ^ Festus, p. 233 (Muller),/^r/MW in XII pro domo posiium omnes fere consentiunt. ' P. 74 (Deuerling), portum domum vet ianuam : interdum portictim. Donatus on Ter. Adelph. 4, 2. 39 nam domos vel porttis vcl insulas veteres dicebant. * Professor Max Miiller, in a note to the writer, compares the Sanskrit ni-shad, Niederlassung, settlement : from the base sad- = sal. EARL Y ITALIAN CIVILIZA TION. 2 7 sea, but of the threatening or bursting cloud \ of rain-water and storm. Of river and bridge-worship, however, it knew a great deal. Among the oldest ceremonies of the Roman religion were the rites performed by the Salii on the pons suUicius or pile-bridge over the Tiber 2. In spite of the contrary opinion of Marquardt and other scholars, I am inclined to think that the pontifices were originally bridge-makers. Their insignia were a large axe called sacena or scena^, the secespita or knife for sacrificing, and the aspergillum or instrument for sprinkling lustral water. A strong objection to this theory has been based on the fact that pontifices existed, not only in Rome, but in several Italian towns where there were no bridges, as Praeneste, Lanuvium, Alba, and a number of places in southern Italy. May not the word, however, date from the time of the original migration of the Italians.? Supposing that this migration took place by land, a number of rivers must have been passed, the art of bridge-making must have become a very necessary one, and its professors important personages. Thus the word may have become rooted in the Italian language as the name of a high ^ Neptunus is immediately derived from a base neptu-, which is connected with the Sanskrit nabh-, to burst or spring forth. From this are formed the Sanskrit nabhas, Greek vitpos, and Latin nebula, a cloud. On Georgic i . 1 2 Servius says quoniam Neptunus et fluminibus et fontibus et omnibus aquis praeest, ut ipse docet (Georg. 4. 29) • aut praeceps Neptuno immerserit Eurus! Compare Aen. 5. 14 Heu quiana?fi tanti cinxerunt aethera nimbi, Quidve, pater Neptune, paras ? ^ Servius on Aen. 2. 166 quidam, pontifices a ponte sublicio, qui primus Tiberi impositus est, appellatos tradunt, sicut Saliorum carmina loquuntur. Varro, L. L. 5. 83 ego (pojttifices nominatos esse) a ponte arbitror ; nam ab his {pontificibus) sublicius facttis est primum, cum in eo sacra et uls et cis Tiberim non mediocri ritu fiunt. Dionysius 3. 45 rr\v ^vXiv-qv yecpvpav, -^v dvev xaA«ou Kal aidijpov Oifus vrr' avTuiv SiaKpareiaOai tSov ^uAoji' . . . iiv axpt Tov -napovTos Zi.a■ Strikingly illustrated by the seventeenth poem of Stilus, which gains doubly in point if we explain it with reference R>>tb€^ early- Italian bridge- worship : O Colonia, quae cupis ponte ludere longo, Et salire^paraium habes, sed vereris inepia Crura ponticuli assulis stantis in redivtvts, Ne supinus eat cavaque in palude recumbatj Sic iibi bonus ex iua pons libidine fiat. In quo vel Salisubsili sacra suscipianiur, Munus hoc mihi maximi da, Colo7tia, risus. Quendam municipem meum de iuo volo ponte Ire praecipitem in lutum per caputque pedesque Nunc eum volo de tuo ponte mittere pronum. Here we have the bridge, the god^ (or the dancing priests), and the victim. Turning to the words connected with navigation, we find that the Italians have their own expressions, unknown to the Greeks, for raft, boat, mast and sail. Navis is indeed generally taken by etymologists to be an Indo-Germanic word identical with the Greek vav-s, Sanskrit nau-s, and Old Persian ndv-i. But it may, after all, like navita, nauta, and nausea, be borrowed from the Greek. I any case, Schrader {Sprachvergleichung und Ur- geschichte, p. 407) may be right in saying that the word meant originally no more than a boat hollowed out of a tree. The Latin words ratis, linter or lunter, and carina, are quite unknown to Greek. Ratis is probably to be derived from rd-, to join or fix, and means a raft^ The etymology of linter is extremely doubtful; but to connect it, as modern scholars do, with the Greek irkwrrip, a wash-tub, is quite gratuitous. There is no difficulty, however, about the meaning of the word; it is a river-boat hollowed out of a tree I Carina * was originally not * The god, if we read salisubsili with the manuscripts : the dancing priests, if we accept Hand's emendation salisubsilis . ^ Varro, L. L. 7. 23, ralis . . . udi plures mali, aut trabes iuncti aqua dncuntur. Paulus, p. 272, rates vocanttir tigjta colli gata, quae per aquam aguntur: quo vocabulo interdum etiam naves significantur. Isid. 19. i. 9, rates primum et antiquissimum navigii genus e rudibus tignis asseribusque conserttim. Pompeius, p. 205 (Keil), rates proprie dicinnis conexiones trabium per quas descendimus ad fiuvium. ^ Nonius, p, 535, lintres, naves fiuminales : Vergilius Georg. 7(262) 'cavat arbore lintres^ So Servius on the passage quoted. * The Cruquian scholia on Horace Epod. 10. 20 say carina totius navis compago est. This statement is not quite accurate, but is not far from the 30 EARL V ITALIAN CIVILIZA TION. the keel, but the lower part of the hull, and the word is in all probability connected with car-ere, to be empty, cassus, and cartes. Thus its original meaning was probably a shell or husk: who knows indeed whether we have not, in this word, a memory of the time when a nut-shell suggested to some ingenious inventor the shape of a boat ? For mast and sail the Italians had their own words {ma/us, velum) ; nor am I at all convinced that remus is the same word as the Greek eperfios. though this has been commonly assumed. On the other hand, prora, aplustre, anquina, ancora, ankmna^ contusy and some other expressions relative to the details of navigation, are borrowed from the Greek (Schrader, p. 112)^. Such indications, then, as are afforded by language, seem to shew that the rudiments of navigation were mastered by the Italians independently of the Hellenes. How does the matter stand with regard to agriculture and the art of war ? The primitive Indo- Germans were acquainted with the domestic uses of the horse, the dog, the ox, the sheep, and the goat ; perhaps also with that of the swine, which was at any rate known to them in its wild variety. The use of the swine in sacrifice may be noticed as an Italian trait. We may also observe, but without laying too much stress on the fact, that the Italians have preserved some names of the domestic truth . For instance, caj-ina is used metaphorically of a dog's chest by Neme- sianus Cyn. 110, multamque gerat sub pectore lato Costarum sub fine decenter prona carinam, Quae scnsim rursus sicca se colligit alveo. Speaking of the breasts of animals Pliny says (11. 20^]), pectus homini tantum latum, reliquis carinatujn. volucribus magis et inter eas aquaticis maxime. From these pas- sages we should expect carina to be not straight and sharp, like a keel, but wide and rounded ; and so Ennius (Ann. 560 Vahlen) says carbasus alta vocat pandajn ductura carinam ; Verg, Georg. 2. 445 pandas ratibus posuere carinas ^ where Servius explains pandas zs, = incurvas. Caesar, Bell. Civ. 3. 13, carinae aliquanto planiores quam nostrarum navium, quofcuilius vada ac decessum aestus excipere possent, i. e. the bottoms were somewhat flatter than those of our ships. Catullus, 64. 10, pinea coniungens inflexae texta carinae ; Ovid, Met. 14. 534, incurvae fumabant transtra carinae. It is worth mentioning that Osbem in his Panormia (ap. Mai. CI. Auct. vol. 8, p. 107) says carire dividere, unde carina locus in media navi in quo aquae putridae ex diverse conlectae manant, unde et quidam volunt illtid a carie derivare, id est a putredine. * Schrader remarks (p. 407) * Die SchifTfahrt scheint in dem Leben der alten Indogermanen eine sehr untergeordnete Rolle gespielt zu haben.' EARLY ITALIAN CIVILIZATION, 3 1 animals which are unknown in Greek : e. g. vacca,porcus, verres, scrqfa, aries, vervex, hircus. Animals caught and tethered were called by the ancient Indians, Teutons, and Italians pag-u-s, pec-us, faih-u, from an assumed base pag- to capture, to bind \ But the Greeks had either lost, or never possessed, this appellation, for etymologists now refuse, and rightly, to connect irQiv with this family of words. For the land itself it is curious that the Latin words terra and iellus should have no Greek parallels. The case is of course different with ager, which is an Indo-Germanic word. Yet its meaning varies slightly in the different languages. In his lexicon to the Rigveda, Grassmann explains ajrd-s as meaning land over which one may drive, Trift; and thus a grassy and flower-covered plain as contrasted with mountains. In Homer ayp6% is rather the field or country as opposed to the town, and this is of course its use in Latin. But it has also in Latin the special sense, which in Greek I believe it never bears, of the territory belonging to a city or populus. The German use of acker seems, according to Grimm, to correspond very much with the Latin use of ager : it means either field, land in general, or a field, a particular piece of cultivated ground. Some kind of ploughing, or at least of turning up the soil, was known to the European branches of the Indo-Germanic family before their separation. The process was expressed by the base ar-, which appears in apow, apo-rpov, arvus, arare, Gothic arjan, and Old English eri'an. It must however be remembered that dpoa and aporpov may have been formed from the base ar- independently of arare and aratrum. Latin has another formation from the same base, ar-uus, which it would be rash to identify with the Greek upovpa. It may be, then, that nothing here is common to Greek and Latin but what is shared by both with the Teutons. To express sowing the Italians had, in common with the Goths, Slavs, and Celts, a base sa-, from which we find various ^ Pdfa-s, as Professor Max Miiller reminds the writer, is the Vedic word for tether. 32 EARLY ITALIAN CIVILIZATION. formations. Latin has sa-tus and sd-tio, se-ro ( = se-so) and se-get-y se-vi^ se-men, se-mentis, and semo^ besides the names Sei'us and Seta. Gothic presents us with satan and Old English with sawan, to sow. Greek only exhibits this base in the sense of sifting ((Taai, (n)-da>), and whether Sanskrit possesses it at all is doubtful. But perhaps the fact most interesting in this connection is suggested by the varying fortunes of the base col-, to tend, cultivate*. In Greek it is mostly applied to the tending of goats, cattle, or horses (at-7roXos, ^ov-koKo^, tTTTro-TroXos) : in Latin it means to cultivate or to live in. As Curtius remarks '^\ ' It is a significant circumstance that in the East and in Greece it preserves its application to the tending of cattle, while in Italy it is applied mainly to agriculture and religion/ Pursuing this reflection a little further, we observe not only that colo is constantly used in Latin for the cultivation of the land, but that the word col-onus means a person holding the status of a cultivator, as p-^^ro7ius and mairona are persons occupying the status of father and mother. This old word then, with its important derivative colonia, implies the existence in Italian communities, from an early time, of a recognized class devoted to the cultivation of the land. The names of the simplest products of the earth are, on the whole, different in Greek and Latin. We may grant (though the point is very doubtful) that gra-men is connected with gar- ( = guar-)^ to swallow, and the Cyprian ypaw, to eat, cited by Curtius (p. 478) from Hesychius^ Her-ba, again, may be the same word as (f)op-^r) ; but its general meaning and application are quite different. For tree the Italians had a word unknown, * Perhaps, as Benfey and Ascoli think, identical with the Sanskrit c/iar-, to go, to walk over. * Griech. Etymologie, p. 470. ' Vpa, ({yciyf, Kvirpioi. This base^r^-, which is generally connected with gar-, to swallow, occurs in Latin in grd-men and grd-num, perhaps also in grd-tus. Gar- or guar-, however, is generally supposed to be represented in Latin by vor- in vorare, omni-vor-^s : if this connection is established, grd- must be separated from gar-. Grd-num has been supposed to be relatwi to Tvp-is, fine meal, and the Gothic kaum, English corn, &c. (Curtius, p. 114V But gra-num does not mean meal : while its connection with kaum is extremely doubtful, as Diefenbach has seen {Vergl. Worterbuch, 2. p. 442). EARLY ITALIAN CIVILIZATION. 33 not only to the Hellenes, but to the Indo-Germans in general, arbor : their word for flower {^flos) has cognates in Celtic and German, but not in Greek ^. The oldest Italian words for the cereals are mostly derived from two bases, for- (or far- ?) and fru-. From the first we have for-deum (later hordeum) barley, and perhaps far, spelt. Etymologists now incline to connect far with fero, to bear, in the sense of sustaining or supporting. This is no more than hypothesis : but whatever the truth may really be, it seems probable that fordeum and herba should be connected together, and both with the Greek af-os) and to explain it as meaning the god of light, grace, and favour. This idea is so vague and general that it would explain anything or nothing : yet the attributes of Faunus are tolerably distinct, and admit also, I think, of a clearer and more natural explanation. The base (f)af- light and oivos, being in fact the masculine of which aivri is the feminine. But we have now to ask how the attributes of Faunus are better explained, by reference to the notion of light or to that of speech. Faunus is spoken of in an ambiguous way, partly as a divine, partly as a human being. He is native to the soil of ^ Superstes in old Latin meant a witness, one who stands by : super- stitiosus in Plautus means endowed with knowledge, in Ennius prophetic. May not superstitio, then, like the Greek km-arfj-ixij, have meant knowledge in the sense of standing by a thing, witnessing it ? E 2 52 EARLIEST ITALIAN LITERATURE. Italy ; he is king of the Aborigines and father of Latinus ; he is the son, sometimes of Picus, sometimes of Saturnus, and the father of Stercutus; he utters oracles, he keeps off wolves {Lupercus). But there are TCi2iXiy fauni : these appear some- times as inspired utterers of oracles, sometimes as benevolent, sometimes as mischievous or malignant fairies (Pliny, 25. 29, 30. 84). In their oracular capacity they were supposed to speak in Saturnian verse, which is called after them Faunius. Ennius speaks of the versus quos olim Fauni vatesque canebant ; Varro, L. L. 7. 32, firini dei Lah'norum, ita ut faunus et fauna sit ; hos versibus quos dicunt Saturnios in silvestribus locis traditum est solitos fari futura. Festus, p. 3 2 5 , Saturno dies festus celebratur mense Decembri, quod eo aedes sit dedicata ; et is culturae agro- rum praesidere videtur, quo etiam falx est ei insigne. Versus quoque antiquissimi, quibus Faunus fata cecinisse hominibus vide- tur, Saturnii appellantur. Marius Victorinus, p. 138 Keil, {versui Saturnio) tamquam Italo et indigenae Saturnio sive Faunio nomen dedit : and with a different turn Placidus, p. 47, Fauniorum modorum^ antiquissimorum modorum^ quibus Faunum celebrabant. It is this fact in particular that determines me to look for the base of Faunus in fav-, to speak. Once imagine Faunus as a speaker, 7rpo(prjTr)s, and all becomes clear. He is not only the composer and reciter of verses, but generally the seer or wise man, whose superior knowledge entitles him to the admiration and dread of the country folk who consult him. He tells them how to cultivate the soil and how to keep off the wolves. But as his real nature and functions are superseded, his character is misconceived ; he becomes a divinity, the earliest king of Latium, the god of prophecy, the god of agriculture. The fauni, from being the seers of the early rustic communities, become unreal beings, speaking with unearthly voices in the re- cesses of mountain and forest ; and when the tide of Graecizing mythology inundates Italian antiquities, the transformation is completed, and the native _/aa«/ are identified with the Uaves and adrvpoi of Hellas. The reasoning here applied to the Fauni and Carmentes may EARLIEST ITALIAN LITERATURE. 53 perhaps be supported by the history of the word Pilumnus, which seems to have meant both a miller and the god of grind- ing corn. In the mythology he is the inventor of the art of pounding dry corn (Augustine, Civ. D. 6. 9; Servius, Aen. 9. 4, 10. 76): but a note of Varro preserved by Isidore, 4. 11. 5, says, Pilumnum quendam in Italia fuisse qui pinsendis praefuit arvis, unde et pilumni et pistores. We have here the same phenomenon which I think is pre- sented by the Faunus and Carmentis, the name of a person exercising an art or craft transformed into the name of a divinity. The transition was easier in the case of Carmentis and Faunus, words which always retained something of their adjectival origin and association, than in that of vates, which throughout all Latin is a substantive and nothing more. The form of the word is almost without analogy in existing Latin, a fact which suggests either that the word is foreign, or that it is very old. Professor Sellar thinks that it is Celtic ^, but it does not appear that the chief modern authorities share his opinion. Vani9ek would connect it with gd-^ to sing or cry, a base appearing in Sanskrit {gd-tu-s song) and in the Greek yrj-pv-s and yi-ya-ve. The same sense would be yielded by a simpler etymology. Fa- means to cry or to speak : of the word Vaticanus Varro (ap. Gell. 16. 17. 2) said, Vaticanus deus nominatur penes quem essent vocis humanae initia, quoniam pueri simul atque parti sunt' earn primam vocem edunt quae prima in Vaticano syllaba est, idcircoque vagire dicitur, exprimente verbo sonum vocis recentis. There is nothing to prevent our acceptance of this etymology, and what holds good of Vaticanus must surely be applicable also to vates, Va-te-s from va- may perhaps be compared with the Greek verbals in -t?;-s, Kpi-rrj-s, and the like. Vates then, like Faunus, is a speaker, and so either a prophet or a bard. Varro, L. L. 7. 36, antiques poetas vates appellabant : 1 It may be identical with the Irish faith ; but this would only prove that the word was originally common to the Italians and the Celts, not that one nation borrowed it from the other. 54 EARLIEST ITALIAN LITERATURE, Servius, Aen. 8. 337, nam vaiem et poetam possumus intellegere. When Enriius speaks contemptuously of fauni vatesque^ he apparently means the national singers of Italy. More clearly than f annus and carmentis does vates take us back to the time when the poets were the priests or seers. And the history of the word in literature is quite what analogy would lead us to expect : in a bad sense, as when Ennius says super- stitiosi vates impudentesque harioU, or Lucretius religionibus atque minis obsistere vaium, it means a false prophet: in a good sense, as when Vergil says me quoque vatem Dicunt pasiores, at non ego credulus illis^ vates is always the writer of genius, not merely of accomplishment or cultivation. Thus far then our investigation has brought us across words which seem to imply the existence of a prophetic or priestly class, the depositaries of the sacred literature ^ Most of these words are, if not in form, at least in the development of mean- ing which they have attained, peculiar to Latin, though one is common to Latin and Sanskrit, one to Latin, Sanskrit, and the Celtic languages. Turning to Greek, we find that -pos and Ka»- are used in dififerent ways from Faunus and cano, while of carmen, carmentis, and vates Greek has no trace at all. Language knows of no Graeco-Italian period, so far as literature is concerned. Let us go further and see whether other facts point in the same direction. No characteristic of the ancient Italian literature is more marked than its fondness for alliteration, a device which is never laid aside from the earliest and rudest to the latest and most finished monuments. Whether it be simple and obvious as in Naevius, Plautus, and Ennius, or more artistically con- cealed, as in Vergil, it is a principle of Latin prose and poetry, * Several facts seem to shew that there was once a time when the Roman polity was to a great extent under the control of a priestly order. The leges regiae are several times sanctioned by the clause sacer esto. The pontiJUes had in historical times the control of marriage, arrogation, and burial. It was in the house of the pontifex maximus that Xht fasti, fasti consular es, and the annates nuiximi were kept, as well as the leges regiae. EARLIEST ITALIAN LITERATURE. 55 a necessity to the ancient Italian ear. Here surely is a positive proof of the long period of separation which must have occurred between the Italians and the Hellenes of pre-historic times. For alliteration, as a principle of composition, is unknown to the ancient Greeks, while on the other hand the Italians and the Teutons are familiar with it. It is not necessary to do more than point out this fact ; but it is more important to shew in detail that the early Italian metre is far more similar to that of the ancient Teutons and Indians than to that of the Greeks^. Perhaps the most important notice aflfecting the general prin- ciple of the Saturnian metre is that of Servius on Georg. 2. 385, Saturnio metro . . . quod ad rhythmum solum vulgar es componere solehant : that is, the principle of the metre was, as we should say, not quantitative, but accentual. The complete embarrass- ment of the other grammarians as to the real nature of the metre fully bears out the remark of Servius. Caesius Bassus (p. 265 Keil) says, nosiri antiqui, ut vere dtcam quod apparet, usi sunt eo non observata lege nee uno genere custodito, ut inter se con- sentiant versus^ sed pr.aeterquam qtiod durissimos fecerunt^ etiam alios breviores, alios longiores inseruerunt, ut vix invenerim apud Naevium quos pro exemplo ponam. Atilius Fortunatianus, p. 293 Keil : et hie versus obscurus quibusdam videtur quia passim et sine cura eo homines utebantur. The grammarians, who understood no principle of metre but that of quantity, were misled into endeavouring to explain the Saturnian verse by the analogy of Greek measures. This, they admit, they were only able to do to a certain extent, and the instances which they quote are picked out to suit their theory. But taking into consideration not only the smoother speci- mens quoted by the grammarians, as summas opes qui regum regias re/regit, magnum numerum triumpat hostibus devictis^ duello magno dirimendo regibus subigendis,/undat/ugat prosternit maxi- mas legiones, magni lovis Concordes filiae sorores, dabunt malum Metelli Naevio poetae, but the rougher and shorter ones which have survived in literature and inscriptions such as eorum sectam ^ This point has been worked out conclusively by Bartsch and Westphal. 56 EARLIEST ITALIAN LITERATURE, sequontur multi mortales, we are forced to the conclusion that the Saturnian metre is based as much on accent as on quantity. This theory is, I think, now accepted by many scholars, however much they may differ in detail as to the analysis of the verse. The Saturnian line consists of two members, and its first law seems to be that the ictus of the metre corresponds with the accent of the word in the first and the penultimate syllables of the second colon {Naevto poetae^ multi mortdles), and in the penultimate syllable of the first {dabunt malum Metetli). So much is sufficient for our present purpose. Speaking generally, it seems that the Saturnian measure very much resembles the simple accentual verse of which the ancient Teutonic ballad metre affords an example. Admitting however, as it does to a certain extent, the principle of quantity as well as that of accent ^, it stands midway between the German metre in ques- tion and the developed quantitative measure in which the Hel- lenes had learned to express their thoughts before their literature emerges into the light of history. It has been argued with much plausibility by Mr Allen, in a recent volume^ of the Zeitschrift filr Vergleichende Sprach/orschung, that the Homeric hexameter is the development of a verse consisting, like the Saturnian, of two cola or members, each originally consisting of four beats. Without accepting in all its details a view which has perhaps hardly been, as yet, sufficiently discussed to have made good its claims, we may safely assert that the Saturnian verse represents a more ancient stage in the development of metre than the Homeric hexameter. This conclusion is historically of the ut- most importance, for it clearly points to the fact that the Italians had, independently of the Hellenes, developed a metre suitable to the genius of their language, applicable, as we know, to long * By the principle of quantity I mean the arithmetical equality of one long syllable to two shorts. The Saturnian metre is accentual and quanti- tative in the same sense as the old dramatic iambic ; in other words, it allows the shortening of a long syllable when unaccented {d^ictis), and the scansion, under similar circumstances, of an anapaest as an iambus {dirtmendis). ^ 1879. EARLIEST ITALIAN LITER A TURE. 57 as well as short compositions, and presumably, therefore, not deficient either in flexibility or in power. We have the testimony of Ennius that the Saturnian verse was used in the prophecies of the fauni and vates^ and a notice in Charisius (p. 288 Keil) is perhaps best explained on the hypothesis that it was employed also in the service of religious festivals : quod eius temporis imperiti adhuc mortales huiusmodi usi versibus videantur suas senteniias clusisse, vocibusque pro modo temporum modulah's solkmm'bus diebus cectm'sse. Caesius Bassus (p. 265 Keil) and Charisius, 1. c, tell us further that Saturnians were found in the Hntei libri and in the tabulae or Htuli triumphales put up in the Capitol by victorious generals. If indeed we may trust Atilius Fortunatianus (p. 293 Keil), it was in these tituli that the Saturnian was most frequently employed. After saying that it was used passim et sine cura, he proceeds, maxime tamen triumphaturi in Capitolio tabulas huiusmodi versibus incidebant. Had we, indeed, no other evidence bearing on the subject, we might safely have inferred that the Saturnian metre was widely employed in ancient Italy from the fact that it was used by Livius Andronicus in his translation of the Odyssey, and by Naevius in his great national poem on the Punic War. For it must be remembered that both Livius and Naevius were quite able and accustomed to write in Greek metres, and must there- fore have adopted the ItaUan measure by choice, not of necessity. Even supposing that Livius, a semi-graecus^^ wrote his Odyssey in Saturnians as a tour de force ^ the same cannot be said of Naevius, who was notoriously anti-Hellenic in his tastes. It is inconceivable that a long Italian epic poem Hke the Punic War of Naevius should have been written without the foundation of a previously existing literature ; the art of writing epics is not born in a day. But there is happily no need to have resort to conjecture. I have spoken already of the tituli triumphales written in Saturnians ; of these it can hardly be doubted that Naevius must to a great extent have availed himself. Besides ^ Suetonius de Grammaticis, i. 58 EARLIEST ITALIAN LITERATURE. these there were the family memorials, which, whether in prose or poetry, perpetuated, not without much falsification and ex- aggeration, the tradition of the great deeds of the Romans of old. Such memorials, written in prose, existed in the time of Cicero (Brutus, 62 : ei hercule hae quidem extant: ipsae enim familiae sua quasi ornamenta et monumenta servabant^ et ad usum, si quis eiusdem generis occidisset, et ad memoriam laudum domesticarum et ad inlustrandam nobilitaiem suani). But it was also a custom of the ancient Romans to sing at their social gatherings ballads commemorative of the deeds of their ancestors ^ These ballads were performed sometimes by boys, sometimes by adults, with or without an accompaniment on the flute. Cato mentioned the custom as having existed some generations before his time, and in the age of Cicero both the practice and the ballads which it had called into existence had disappeared, perhaps owing to the influx of Greeks, Greek literature, and Greek fashions. There does not however seem to be sufficient reason for supposing that it had wholly died out in the time of Naevius. If it had not, yet another source of inspiration was open to him. The carmina just mentioned must be carefully distinguished from the neniae or dirges sung at funerals. Of these Varro says (ap. Non. p. 145) that they were performed to the accom- paniment of flutes and strings after the praefica had done her part in praising the dead. The custom must have continued until comparatively late times, for Cicero (Legg. 2. § 62) pre- scribes its continuance in his ideal republic, and Quintilian (8. 2. 8) speaks of the nenia as if it were still m use in his day. X * Cic. Brutus, 75, uthtam extarent ilia carmina quae multis saeculis ante suam aetatem in epulis esse cantitaia a singulis convivis de clarorum virorum laudibus in Originibus scriptum reliquit Cato. Varro, ap. Non. p. 76, in conviviis pueri modesti ut cantarent carmina antiqua in quibus laudes erant maiorum, et assa voce et cum tibicine. Cic. Tusc. 4. 3, gravissimus auctor in Originibus dixit Cato, morem apud maiores hunc epularum fuisse, ut deinceps qui accubarent canerent ad tibiam clarorum virorum laudes atque virtutes. Valerius Maximus, 2. i. 10, maiores natu in conviviis ad tibias egregia superiorum opera carmine comprehensa pangebanty quo ad ea imitanda iuventutem alacricrem redderent. EARLIEST ITALIAN LITERATURE, 59 Our investigation, then, has so far led us to recognize a class of wise men or seers {vates^ fauni^ carmentes) the repositories of prophecy and religious song {carmina) ; of hymns to the gods ; of a national Italian metre {Saturnius versus) ; of inscriptions in this metre put up by victorious generals ; of ballads, presumably also in this metre, sung at banquets in commemoration of the ancient worthies ; of family records in prose ; and of nem'ae or dirges sung at funerals. Here surely was ample material for poets to work upon. I cannot doubt that much of what is most characteristic in Latin poetry and oratory had its root in these ancient carmina and laudes funehres. Of ballads and short commemorative pieces in the Saturnian metre there must have been a great number when Naevius, inspired by what were then the greatest events in Roman history, undertook to com- memorate them in a national poem. The Latin writers of the Ciceronian and Augustan ages are probably in great measure responsible for our entire ignorance of what may be called the pre-Hellenic period of Roman literature. Cicero himself indeed speaks with real respect both of Livius and of Naevius ; but, not foreseeing how grateful the nineteenth century would have been to him had he supported his criticisms by quotation, he has not, as he has in the case of Ennius, cited a single passage from either. But others were less generous and appreciative than Cicero ; and so rapid was the change in literary taste from generation to generation among the ancient Italians, that not merely Naevius and Livius, but the old comedians and tragedians dropped out of view in the first century after Christ, and in the last half of it even Cicero and Caesar were passing out of fashion. We are apt to forget how great was the revolution ushered in by Livius and Ennius. Naevius, who was a younger contemporary of Livius, and an eye-witness, as it were, of all his determined efforts in the direction of Hellenizing Italian metre and language, had reason enough for his bitter complaint that the Latins had forgotten their own language. New words, new ideas of accent and prosody, were straining the Latin language into a new mould. 6o EARLIEST ITALIAN LITERATURE. If however Cicero could admire Naevius, if he could praise the purity of his Latin, and compare his helium Punicum, for vigour, as we must suppose, and plenitude of life, to a work of Myron — tamen ems quern in Faunis et vaiibus adnumerai Ennius bellum Punicum tamquam opus aliquod Myronis delectai — the poem must have been one of the greatest monuments of Italian litera- ture. It must not be forgotten that the verdict of Cicero in literary matters has been found, whenever it has been pos- sible to test it, to be in accord with that of the whole civilized world. Even a modem scholar might reasonably infer that the poet who wrote the two lines, Seseque ei perire mavolunt ibidem Quam cum stupro redire ad suos populares, must have been capable of producing many other fine verses; and it is the misfortune, not the fault, of Naevius that the few fragments of his poem which remain are quoted, not for their poetical merit, but simply to illustrate points of grammar or lexicography. Before considering the early Italian drama, it may be well to say a word on the musical instruments used in accompaniment to singing. The genuine Italian instrument was the tibia ; the stringed instrument or fides was probably borrowed from the Greeks. The word tibia is purely Italian and has, so far as I can find, no parallel in the cognate languages. Its etymology however is to my mind uncertain, though modern scholars have no hesitation in connecting it with stare and make it mean the straight, upright bone or instrument. The importance attached from the earliest times to the tibia is shewn by the fact that the tibicines formed a privileged class. Livy, 9. 30. 5, tibicines, quia prohibiti erant in aede lovis vesci, quod traditum antiquitus erat^ aegre passi Tibur uno agmine abierunt, adeo ut nemo esset qui sacrificiis praecineret. Tuba^ the trumpet used in war and at funerals, was equally an Italian, or at least a non-Hellenic instrument. The word has been connected by some with the German du-del^ by others with the Sanskrit base stu-^ to praise ; whatever be the truth about its etymology, the word does not appear in Greek. EARLIEST ITALIAN LITERATURE. 6 1 As the germs of Italian poetry and oratory were contained in the early compositions which have been mentioned, so the versus fescennini^ the satura, and the Aiellana formed the beginnings of a dramatic literature which the prejudices of the Roman nobility did not allow to develop ^ The main charac- teristic of the versus Fescennini was that they were employed originally, as Mr Munro has pointed out, for the purpose of averting the evil eye or the envy of the gods, on great occa- sions of supposed good-fortune, such as marriages or triumphs. They were sung or recited by alternate speakers ; Livy, 7. 2. 6, speaks of the professional hi'striones, qui non sicut ante Fes- cennino versu similem incompositum. ac rudem alternis iaciehant, &c. So Horace, Epist. 2. i. 145, Fescennina per hunc inventa licentia morem Versibus alternis opprobria rustica fudii: and Pliny, 19. 144, speaking of Caesar's soldiers at his triumph, alternis quippe versibus exprobravere lapsana se vixisse apud Dyrrachium. About the origin of the word Fescenninus the ancient Italian scholars were themselves doubtful. Paulus, p. 85 (Miiller), fescennini versus qui canebantur in nuptiis ex urbe Fescennio dicuntur adlati, sive ideo dicti quia fascinum putabantur arcere. The connection ^\\ki fascinum is insisted upon and drawn out by Mr Munro in his admirable remarks on this subject {Criticisms and Elucidations of Catullus, pp. 76 foil.). To trace the links of connection is however not easy. The adjective Fescenninus, if not derived from Fescennium, implies a substantive fescennus or fescennius. This may perhaps be the word glossed by Paulus, p. 86, fescemnoe dicti qui depellere fascinum putabantur. Supposing the word in Paulus to have been fescenni, we should have a substantive fescennus meaning a charmer, or a person ^ Cicero, de Rep. 4. § 11, nunquam comoediae, nisi consuetudo vitae pa- teretur, probare sua theatris Jlagitia potuissent. Et Graeci quidem anti- quiores vitiosae suae opinionis quandam convenientiam servaverunt, apud quos fuit etiam lege concessum ut quod vellet cotnoedia, de quo vellet, nominatim diceret . . . Patiamur, inquit, etsi eiusrnodi cives a censore melius est quam a poeta notari . . . ludiciis enim magistratumn ac disceptationibus legitimis propositam vitam, non poetarum ingeniis, habere debemus. 62 EARLIEST ITALIAN LITERATURE. who had the power to avert the effects of a curse or of the evil eye. In form fescennm would offer an exact analogue to Dos- sennus, the conventional glutton of the/abulae Atellanae. There are traces of similar forms in the proper names Cupiennius and Herennitis, which must be derived from lost forms cupi- ennus and herennus : is the ending -ennus the same as -enus in Alfenus Misenum Capena habena harena avena, &c. ? If there was a substantive /escennus, fescennus and fascinum would be parallel forms, both to be referred ultimately to fas, a saying. Fascinum would mean originally the word, then the thing used as a charm : fescennus, a charmer, or one who has power over the fascinum ; fescennini versus, the verses used by charmers. It is curious that the fescennine verses which have come down to us are not in the Saturnian but in the trochaic metre. De Germanis non de Gallis duo triumphant consules : Urbani, servate uxores, moechum calvum adducimus^, and so on. The cretic was called pes Fescenninus by Diomedes^, which may perhaps shew that the Fescennine verse could also be formed of cretics ( — w— | — w— ||— w— | — v^-||). Supposing the line to have strictly consisted of eight trochees and a half, and that the short syllable of every alternate trochee were omitted, we should have four cretics. And this abbreviation may easily have taken place in a metre based originally on accent, not on quantity. Was the trochaic of the Fescennini borrowed from the Greek through the medium of the stage and then adapted to the Latin accent, or was it a native Italian metre ? I do not know that we have any evidence to decide the question. The versus Fescennini represent the most primitive stage of the old Italian drama. The merry banter of alternate speakers would afford the element from which a dialogue might in course of time be developed. The next stage is represented by the satura^ which is described by Livy as resembling the fescennine verses in its oldest form; but as having been ^ Suetonius, Julius, 51 ; comp. ib. 80. ^ P. 479 Keil. EARLIEST ITALIAN LITERATURE. 63 developed into a more artistic composition with musical accompaniment. The word satura undoubtedly means a medley; at least this is the almost unanimous theory of the ancient Italian scholars. As applied to a law, the term implied that the law consisted of various provisions. Paulus, p. "^i ^, satura .. ..lex mulHs aim legibus confer ta : Diomedes, p. 485 Keil, lege satura quae uno rogatu mulia simul comprehendat : Isidore, 5. 16, satura vero lex quae de plurihus simul rebus eloquitur. And per saturam was a common phrase in Roman political life for anything, as the passing of a law, or the election of an officer, done in confusion with other things when it ought to have been done separately. Festus, p. 314, quotes from the ancient orators T. Annius Luscus and C. Laelius, imperium quod plebes per saturam dederat, id abrogatum est: posiero die quasi per saturam sentcntiis latiSy and other instances will be found in the lexicons. In its literary application two senses of the word satura must, I think, be distinguished. The ancient authorities some- times explain it as meaning a composition which treats of a number of miscellaneous subjects (Festus, p. 314; Isidore, 8.7.8 ; Acron on Horace S. i. i. i) : sometimes as a composition written in various metres (Diomedes, p. 485; Isidore, 5. 16). The word would no doubt, in many cases, be applicable in both senses ; but I think it is plain that the original idea was that of a composition of miscellaneous contents. It could only be after a considerable knowledge of Greek metres had been acquired at Rome that the writers of saturae would be able to compose in several metres; but there is no doubt that the satura had existed long before this time. Again, the transition of meaning is more intelligible on this hypothesis. All the ancient authorities incline to the theory that satura meant originally a dish full of various ingredients, a basket of various fruits, or a forced-meat of various materials ; Festus and Varro quoted by Diomedes, 11. cc. ; Isidore, 20. 2. 8. So Juvenal, with a full sense of the literal and metaphorical applications of the 64 EARLIEST ITALIAN LITERATURE. word, says quicquid agunt homines^ votum timor ira voluptas Gaudia discursus nostri est farrago libelli. And there are one or two other passages in the literature of the classical times which seem to recall this sense of the word satura : Sisenna ^ quoted in the Scholia to Juvenal, 4. 2, says non dignus in quern deheam saiuram calentem . . . ingerere : and when Juvenal in this place says Crispinus . . . est mihi saepe vocandus Ad partes it is possible, as the scholia suggest, that partes means partes convivii. The satura then was originally a rude kind of drama of miscellaneous contents, distinguished from a fahula by having no plot : Livy, I. c, Livius . . . qui primus ab saturis ausus est argumento fabulam serere. As its contents were miscellaneous it may fairly be inferred that it contained personations of various characters, and Livy implies that more than one actor might take a part in it. When the Hellenizing poets introduced the fashion of writing in Greek metres, and the satura, having ceased to be an acted drama, became a literary work with only an imaginary stage, it may of course have easily happened that the variety of metres, or the interchange of prose and verse, which characterized the classical satura in the hands of Ennius and Varro, was adapted to the variety of parts in the dialogue, as to a certain extent is actually the case in Petronius. I have elsewhere '^ endeavoured to shew how the satura, as we know it in literature, still preserves some of the essential features of its primitive form. Passing then over this point, let me say a few words on the original character of the Atellanae, I am not sure that Mommsen is right in denying that these pieces were originally Campanian ; for it must be remembered ^ Sesenus, lib. 11, non dignus &c. li Scsenus stands for Sisenna, we may compare Vita Persii, p. 241 Jahn : satirae proprium est ut vera humiliter dicat, et omnia cum sanna faciat, quam Sisenna protulerat poeta. Did Sisenna, then, write saturae ? In the words of the Vita Persii which follow almost immediately, satira genus est clarni vel lands multis ac variis frugum generibus plena, we should perhaps read cinni for clarni'. see Nonius, p. 59, cinnus est commixtio plurimorum. » The Roman Satura: Oxford, 1878. EARLIEST LATIN LITERATURE, 65 that Campania was the nurse of arts and literature at least as early as Latium. The epitaph which Naevius wrote for himself is characterized by Gellius as plenum superhiae Campanae'^. However this may be, the Atellana was distinguished by the constant exhibition of certain conventional characters, Maccus the fool, Pappus the old father, Dossennus or manducus the glutton, Bucco fatchaps, to which may be added (from the sur- viving titles oi Atellanae) Bubukus, Decuma^ Fullo, and perhaps Mania. The actors were free men in masks : Festus, p. 217, per Aiellanos qui proprie vocantur personalis quia ius est iis in scena non cogi ponere personam, quod celeris personis pali necesse esl : Livy, 7. 2. 12, quod genus ludorum ab Oscis ace .'plum tenuil iuvenltis, nee ab hislrionibus pollui passa est. If we may judge by the titles of the Alellanae of Pomponius and Novius, the conventional characters appeared in various comical situations, like the old German Hans. Thus we have Buceo aucloralus, Bueeo adoplalus, Bubukus, Bubuleus cerdo ; Veeuma, Deeuma fullonis ; Fullones, Fullones feriali ; Macci gemini, Maecus Miles, Maeeus sequester, Maceus virgo, Maecus Copo; Maeeus exul ; Mania mediea ; Pappus agrieola. Pappus praelerilus, Sponsa Pappi ; Verres aegrolus, Verres salvus. Maccus the fool appears, not unnaturally, to have absorbed the lion's share. Another conventional characteristic of the Atellana seems to have been the prevalence in it of riddles or puzzles : Quintilian 6. 3. 47, amphiboila, neque ea obseura quae Alellani ex more eaptant, where I see no occasion for reading obseena with Teuffel. For the reading of the manuscripts, obseura, is supported by the phrase trieae Alellanae, the knots or riddles of an Atellana: Varro in his Gerontodidascalus ap. Non. p. 8, putas eos non citius tricas Atellanas quam id extriealuros ? Arnobius, 5. 28, trieas quemadmodum dieitur eonduplieare Atellanas. Instances of these trieae are preserved or alluded to by Suetonius : Caligula, 27, Alellanae poetam ob ambigui ioeiversieulum media amphithealri ^ I, 24, I : probably from Varro. 66 EARLIEST LATIN LITERATURE. harena igni cremavit : Nero, 39, Datus Atellanarum histrio in caniico quodam 'Yyiaivc irarep, vylaive fiijTep, ita demons traver at, ut hibentem natantefnque facer et, exitum scilicet Claudi Agrippinaeque significans, et in novissima claiisula, ' Orcus vobis ducit pedes,' senatum gestu notaret. The results of this investigation may be shortly summed up as follows : The Italians appear to have developed the elements of their national literature independently on Italian soil. Their general expression for a literary or religious utterance {carmen) they share, not with the Greeks, but with the ancient Indians. Their general expression for a singer {vates) they share, not with the Greeks, but with the Celts. The words Fauni and Carmentes were perhaps^ originally the names of a class or caste who composed the carmina. The national Italian or Saturnian metre is much more nearly akin to the Teutonic-ballad metre than to the Greek hexameter. The germs of a national epic existed in family memorials, ballads sung at convivial meetings, and funeral dirges, while the elements of an Italian drama are to be found in the satura, the versus fescennini, and the Ateltana. ■ IV. ON THE PRO CLUENTIO OF CICERO. {Journal of Philology, No. i6.) I. The motive of Cicero s professed change of opinion. Cicero himself, according to Quintilian, 2. 17. 21, said that in the defence of Cluentius he had thrown dust in the eyes of the judges ; and as eight years before the delivery of the speech he had appeared as a strong advocate of the attack on the senatorial indicia which followed the indicium lunianum, there can be no doubt that he really believed throughout that the agitation of 74 b. c. was justified by the facts of the case. I do not know whether any attempt has been made to explain his professed change of opinion. In the following remarks I hope to make it probable that political considerations had a great deal to do with the matter. Cicero has been too hastily charged with inconsistency in the earlier part of his career. A careful examination of the facts will shew, I think, that there was a method in his changes. His politics are those of the ordo equester, whose interests he, as himself belonging to it, naturally made his own. The death of Sulla in 78 b. c. gave to this important body the hope of recovering something of the position which they had held from the time of the Gracchan to that of the Sullan constitution; and in 74 b. c. an opening was given them (in the corruption of the senatorial indicia) for an attack on the dominant position of the senate. The scandal of the indicium lunianum was turned to good account by the tribune Publius Quinctius, and although the tumult was laid for a time, only four years elipsed before the indicia changed hands. The F 2 68 ON THE PRO CLUENTIO OF CICERO. attack of Cicero on Verres was in reality the attack of the equites on the senate ; the consulship of Pompeius and Crassus, in the year 70, sealed the triumph of the equites. Their interests were now and for some years afterwards represented by Pom- peius, with whose cause we find accordingly that Cicero for some time identifies himself. But the equites with their champion Pompeius were by no means safe either against the jealousy of the nobility or the attacks of the democratic party. The bad case of Fonteius, defended by Cicero so soon after the attack upon Verres, may merely shew that the orator was willing to defend any Roman official against the complaints of barbarous provincials ; but it must not be forgotten that the accused was a friend of Pom- peius, and that to have deserted him would very probably have been to Cicero a desertion of his own political colours. More- over it would appear that Fonteius was supported by Roman merchants and men of business, who presumably belonged to the equestrian order. Of the interests of these men Cicero is evidently very tender. The attack on Fonteius may perhaps, therefore, be taken as in some sense an attack on the equites. There are signs also that in the years between the first consul- ship of Pompeius and Crassus and the first triumvirate (70-59 B. c.) attempts were made to extend to the equestrian order the action of the leges Corneliae, which as they stood applied only to senators. Much of the motive of Cicero's defence of Cluen- tius in 66 b. c. is, I think, revealed in an instructive passage, §§ 143-160:— ' I will not,' he says, ' argue that the equestrian order is not bound by the provisions of the lex Cornelia in this matter. I should have done so but for the generosity of my client, who would not allow it. If, as Attius says, it is shameful that an eques should be able to offend where a senator may not, I answer that it is a far more serious matter to depart from the letter of the leges. Attius would himself complain if any one were to attempt to bring him, a mere eques^ under the provisions of lex Cornelia repetundarum. Observe that the lex Cornelia de ON THE PRO CLUENTIO OF CICERO, 69 veneficns, in the section relative to poisoning, includes all orders in liability to punishment: while in the section relative to con- spiracy for procuring the condemnation of an innocent person it includes only certain high functionaries. Cluentius is not one of these high functionaries ; yet he refuses to take advantage of the lex. I follow his instructions in the matter, although I do not approve of them. * Attius may think it unfair that all orders are not alike in- cluded under the same lex. But surely the case of a senator is different from that of an eques; the former has greater privileges, and therefore ought to have greater responsibilities. The law under which we are now acting here — ne qm's iudicio circum- vemretur—\v2i?, passed by Gaius Gracchus, and in the interest, not against the interest, of the plebs. When Sulla came into power and took over this lex with its provisions into his own lexj he still did not venture to extend its provisions beyond the class of high functionaries, although his hatred of the equestrian order would have made him willing enough to do so. The fact is that an attempt is being now made to include the equestrian order in the provisions of the lex Cornelia. Only, be it observed, by a few factious individuals, who wish to separate the interests of the equites from those of the senate, and who are using this engine to terrify the equilcs. Seeing how much the verdicts of the equestrian order are respected, they wish to take the sting out of them by making it impossible for an eques to give a fear- less vote. Remember how the equites resisted Livius Drusus when he tried to bring the iudices of their order within the reach of a quaestio of this kind. They argued rightly that, as they had renounced the honours and advantages of public life, so they ought to be relieved from its responsibilities.' From this passage it would appear that the clause of the lex Cornelia de sicariis el veneficiis, under which Cluentius was now accused, did not technically apply to the equestrian order. That clause referred not to murder, but to the procuring, by corrupt means, the condemnation of an innocent man. It is difficult in the absence of an^ thing like full and direct evidence 7© ON THE PRO CLUENTIO OF CICERO. to ascertain the exact state of the law with perfect clearness. Cluentius was being tried under a clause of the lex Cornelia: yet Cicero says, § 154, illi {equites) non hoc recusabant ea ne lege accusareniur qua nunc Habitus accusatur^ quae tunc erat Sem- pronia, nunc est Cornelia: and again, § 151, hanc ipsam lege?n * ne quis iudicio circumveniretur' C. Gracchus tulit. I infer from these passages that the clause against conspiracy in the lex Cornelia was taken over from a lex of Gains Gracchus referring to the same point. Again, if Cicero may be trusted, this lex of C. Gracchus did not apply to the equestrian order. § 154, illi enim non hoc recusabant, ea ne lege accusarentur qua nunc Habitus accusatur, quae tunc erat Sempronia, nunc est Cornelia, intellege- bant enim ea lege equestrem ordinem non teneri. The inference would apparently be that the lex of C. Gracchus was an enact- ment against conspiracy on the part of persons in high office to procure the corrupt condemnation of innocent men. And this supposition would agree with Cicero's language § 151, mw legem pro plebe, non in plebem tulit. I do not think that the Sempronian law in question can be identical with that quoted in the Pro Rabirio Perd. §12: ne de capite civium Romanorum iniussu vestro iudicaretur. The word- ing of the titles is entirely different : iudicio circumvenire must surely mean to set a judicial process in motion in order to compass a person's ruin ; a provision ne de capite civium iniussu populi iudicaretur would be intended to prevent a special quaestio or iudicium being set up without the consent of the people in their comitia. The lex of C. Gracchus not applying to the equestrian iudices whom he created, but only to the nobihty, had therefore nothing to do with his leges iudiciariae: and in consequence it was of no assistance to Livius Drusus when he proposed to transfer the iudicia to his newly constituted senate. The great obstacle in the way of the reforms of this statesman was the determined opposition of the equites: Appian, B.C. i. 35, Tr\v re /SovX^v koI Tovs imrfaSf ot fiaXiara 8fi Tore oXXjjXotf dia ra biKaarfipia diecjitpovro, enl Koiva vofica avvayayuv (irdpaTO^ (ra(f)S)s fiev ov dwdficvos f'y ttjp ON THE PRO CLUENTIO OF CICERO. 7 1 ^ovXtjv iiraviveyKeiv to. biKacrrrjpia, rexvd^cov 8' €s eKarepovs 2)8e. Ta>v ^ovXevTcbv dia ras OTcicreip Tore ovtodv fxoXis dfi({)\ tovs rpiaKOcriovSj €T€pov<: Tocrovcrde avTois dno t5>v 'nnrecov eVT^yeiro dpiarivbrju TrpocrKara- \eyTJvai, Koi e< ravBe navTcov es to fieXXov elvai to. diKaarfjpia. evdvvas T€ eir avrayv yiyvfcrdai 8(opoboKias 7rpo(reypa(p€v, iyKXrifiaTos taa 817 Koi dyvoovfievov 8ta to edos tt]s BtopoboKias dvedrjv eTriTToXa^oixrTjs. DruSUS then added to his /ex iudiciaria a clause, both retrospective and prospective as it would appear, creating a new quaestio to deal with cases of judicial corruption. The measure was vehemently opposed by the corrupt or^o equester, and naturally enough, for as retrospective it threatened the peace of those who had already oifended, evidently a very numerous class; as prospective it would include all those members of the order who under the lex Livia should be from time to time drafted into the senate. O vivos fortes, says Cicero, Cluent. § 153, equites Romano s, qui homini darissimo ac potentissitno M. Druso tribuno plehis restite- rufil, cu?n ilk nihil aliud ageret cum ilia cuncta quae turn erat nobilitate, nisi uii qui rem iudicassent huiuscemodi quaestionibus in iudicium vocarentur . . . Ne nova lege alligarentur, laborabant. Pro Rabir. Post. § 16, potentissimo et nobilissimo tribuno plebis M. Druso, novam in equestrem ordinem quaestionemferenii ^ si quis ob rem iudicandam pecuniam cepisset,' aperte equites Romani resiiterunt. Whether the lex Plotia iudiciaria, brought forward during the Civil War, contained any clause against conspiracy to procure a corrupt verdict is not known : that such a clause, taken from the lex of C. Gracchus ne quis iudicio circumveni- retur, was added by Sulla to his lex de sicariis et veneficiis, we have already seen: but there is no sign that the matter was seriously taken up by the authors of the new revolution in the iudicia brought about by the lex Aurelia of 70 B.C. This lex, which restored to the equites some of their old influence in the law-courts, does not seem to have increased their liabilities. Thus the law with regard to conspiracy for procuring a corrupt verdict was in the year 66 b.c. — the date of our speech — in an anomalous state. Any one, not being one of the high 72 ON THE PRO CLUENTIO OF CICERO, functionaries named in the lex Cornelia^ who should enter into such a conspiracy, was technically safe as against the provisions of that lex. The enemies of the unjust privileges of the equestrian order had no intention of letting matters rest in this position ; they made efforts to bring the equites under those provisions of the leges Corneliae from which they had previously been exempted. The case of Oppius seems, from what little evidence remains on the subject, to have been similar in this respect to that of Cluentius. Cicero's speech in defence of Oppius is generally assigned to a time not earlier than three years, and perhaps not more than two or even one, before the year of the pro Cluentio. According to Quintilian, 5. 13. 21, Cicero made an appeal to the indices on behalf of his order of precisely the same character as that which he made in the pro Clueniio. Pro Oppio monet pluribus ne illud actionis genus in equestrem ordinem admittant. Perhaps Oppius was accused under the lex Cornelia repetundarum, which like the lex lulia on the same subject, afterwards only applied, techni- cally, to high officials: Rab. Post. §11, sed est arreptus (Postumus) unus eques Romanus de pecuniis repetundis reus. I think therefore that Cicero's attitude in the pro Cluentio may be explained by the altered position of the equestrian order. Eight years before, in 74 b.c, they were excluded from the iudicidj and were therefore willing enough to take any oppor- tunity of attacking the exclusive privileges of the senate. The unjust condemnation of Oppianicus gave them such an opportunity. But the same facts wore a different complexion in the eyes of the equites in 66 b.c. To attack the officials who had taken part in the indicium luniannm in 74 was one thing : it was quite another thing to use the case of Cluentius eight years afterwards as a precedent for bringing the equites under the provisions of the conspiracy clause in the lex Cornelia de sicariis. The position taken up by Cicero in the pro Oppio and the pro Cluentio is well illustrated by his action in the case of Rabirius Postumus twelve years later. Rabirius was a simple ON THE PRO CLUENTIO OF CICERO. 73 eques, who was charged with having received part of the money unlawfully taken from Ptolemy by Gabinius as the price of restoration to his kingdom. Cicero contends that the lex lulia de repetundis, like the lex Cornelia and the lex Servilia, applied only to the holders of certain high offices (§§ 13-18). Com- pare Cluent. § 148. Turning to the equites on the bench he adds, scitis me or turn e vobis omnia semper sensisse pro vobis ; fithil horum sine magna cura et summa caritate vestri ordinis loquor. Alius alios homines et or dines, ego vos semper complexus sum. II. Analysis and examination of Cicero s present account of the indicium lunianum and its consequences. §§66-116. §§ 66-76. * Oppianicus,' says Cicero, ' frightened by the condemnation of Scamander, had recourse to Staienus, as a man who had already (76 b.c.) taken six hundred sestertia from a pupillus in the case of Safinius Atella, and then kept it himself. He encourages Oppianicus to give him 640 sestertia; then de- termines to keep the money and let Oppianicus be condemned. His method of proceeding is to promise, but not to give, the money to some of the most worthless of the iudices, thus rendering them hostile to Oppianicus. When Bulbus, one of these iudices, asks him for it, he says that Oppianicus had played him false, and that he accordingly meant to vote guilty. Some suspicion arising in court on the matter, Cannutius, the accuser of Oppianicus, suddenly gets the iudex quaestionis to declare the argument at an end : Staienus, who happened to be absent and engaged in a private case, is brought back into court by Oppi- anicus and Quinctius his advocate. In the open voting which followed, Bulbus, Staienus, and Gutta at once vote guilty. (There were only a few corrupt iudices on the bench, but all of these were incensed against Oppianicus : nummarii pauci sed omnes irati). Some prudent men, namely (see § 107) Octavius 74 ON THE PRO CLUENTIO OF CICERO. Balbus, Q. Considius, M. luventius Pedo, L. Caulius Mergus, M. Basilius, C. Caudinus, L. Cassius, Cn. Heius, P. Saturius (nine in all), say in the prima actio ^ not-proven ; five vote not- guilty, the rest (eighteen in all) vote guilty, some because they were bribed, some because, in spite of the corruption of these others, they thought it their duty to stand by their former verdicts given in the praeiudicia! On this it seems natural to observe that the account of the conduct of Staienus towards Oppianicus, Bulbus and Gutta is exceedingly strained and unnatural, and hardly to be accepted without further warrant than the mere statement of Cicero. But supposing Staienus and the rest to have been also bribed by Cluentius, all becomes plain. As to Cannutius, the accuser of Oppianicus, suddenly declaring the argument at an end, the fact can very well be explained by supposing that he was in league with the iudex quaestionis to procure the condemnation of his adversary. The conduct of Staienus in voting condemno is far more simply accounted for by Cicero himself, Verr. Act. i. § 39, quod inventus est senator qui cum iudex esset, in eodem iudicio et ah reo pecuniam acciperet quam iudicibus divideret, et ab accusatore tit reum condemnaret. It is clear from this passage that in the general opinion at least there had been bribery on both sides. Cicero observes in § 83 that it was Cluentius and Cannutius who allowed Staienus to go out of court, Oppi- anicus and his advocate who wanted him and brought him back again ; and that the vote of Staienus was explained by the fact that he wished to convince Bulbus and the rest that Oppianicus had failed him. This really proves nothing. Supposing it true that Staienus was brought back, not by Cluentius, but by Oppianicus, all that need be supposed is either that Cluentius and his friends thought Staienus's absence immaterial, his money having been promised to a sufficient number of iudices; or that they feared the counter-efforts of Oppianicus, and had begun to distrust Staienus in the matter. Oppianicus on the other hand may either have been ignorant of the bribery practised by Cluentius, or, if he knew of it, he may have thought ON THE PRO CLU EMTIO OF CICERO. 75 that his own counter-efforts had influenced Staienus in his favour. On Cicero's account of the way in which the various indices voted it may be remarked that it is not absolutely consistent with a sentence in the pro Caecina, § 29. There were thirty- two indices: according to Cicero in the pro Cluentio five voted noi-guilty and nine (§ 107) not-proven: eighteen therefore must, according to this statement, have voted guilty. Had Staienus been absent Oppianicus would thus have been condemned by a majority of 17 to 14. But in the pro Caecina we are told that Fidiculanius Falcula was in a hurry to give his vote guilty because it was necessary to make up the majority : cum si una minus damnarent, condemnari reus non posset, non ad cognoscendam causam, sed ad explendam damnationem praesto fuisse. Is Cicero simply forgetful, or is he in the pro Cluentio. purposely exaggerating the numbers of the indices who voted guilty} Certainly, if his earlier account in the pro Caecina be correct, there was motive enough for Oppianicus and his friends to send out of court for Staienus. One vote might have made all the difference. Cicero's argument from § 77-82 proceeds as follows: 'The occasion was at once seized on by the tribune Quinctius as a means of attacking the senatorial tribunals. Staienus met Oppianicus at the house of T. Annius, and promised to restore him the money; some respectable individuals overheard the interview, the money was found in Staienus's possession, and he was forced to disgorge it. The populace had and could have no idea that Staienus had in reality taken the money to vote not-guilty^ and then kept it back; all that they saw was that Staienus had voted guilty, and from their knowledge of his character they supposed that his vote was not given gratis. So with Bulbus, Gutta and others. Nor again did they know the character of Oppianicus. All this, aided by the fiery agitation of Quinctius, raised such a strong popular feeling, that Junius was clamoured out of his expected praetorship, and finally driven into exile. At that time so strons: was the excitement 76 ON THE PRO CLUENTIO OF CICERO. that no one saying what I am now saying would have had a chance of a hearing : at the present time, on the contrary, all is quiet, and men will listen to the voice of reason. What are the real facts ? All agree that there was bribery somewhere. The prosecutor pleads "I had very serious charges to bring; my adversary had already been as good as condemned in two praeiudicia ; had he been acquitted, I had nothing to fear." The defendant replies, " My conscience made me afraid ; I had been as good as condemned twice already ; I had everything to fear from an adverse verdict." If, again, you will examine Cluentius's accounts, you will find that he has kept them carefully; this matter has now been sifted and discussed for a period of eight years. No trace i f any corrupt expenditure can be found in Cluentius's books ; whereas at the house of Staienus there were found 640 sestertia! On this it may be remarked that the interview of Oppiani- cus with Staienus has nothing to do with the question. There was no doubt that Staienus had received money from Oppianicus, and under the circumstances it was very natural that Oppianicus should wish for an 'interview with his treacherous friend. Oppianicus may have gone to the house of Annius to convict Staienus, and the vh-i bom may have been there to detect him in Oppianicus's interest. The remark about the account-books of Cluentius may be dismissed as unworthy of serious considera- tion. The only strong point in Cicero's case seems to be the condemnation of the accessories to the supposed guilt of Oppianicus in two praeiudicia: yet how can we be sure that there was no foul play in these cases ? Cicero had himself defended Scamander : and Quintilian, 11. i. 74, justiy observes, difficilior ei ratio in iudicio Cluefttiano /uii, cum Scamandrum necesse haberei dicere nocente?n, cuius egerai causam. §§ 84-88. ' But, you say, granting that Oppianicus gave the money, it was not to bribe the jury but to effect a compro- mise. I am surprised at so foolish an argument being used at this time of day ; Staienus naturally said this at the time, per- haps on the advice of his advocate Cethegus ; but the plea was ON THE PRO CLU EMTIO OF CICERO. 77 laughed down ; no compromise was possible between two such enemies ; there was no chance on the one hand of Oppianicus escaping by the setting up of a man of straw to accuse him {elabi alio accusatore)^ nor on the other hand could Cluentius abandon the case without incurring the odium of calumnia, ' Again, it may be said that Oppianicus was trying to arrange a praevart'calio, and therefore offered the money to Staienus. In that case, why should he have gone to a tudex as sequester and not rather to some respectable friend ? But in fact this argument requires no answer : for the sum of 640 sesteriia found at the house of Annius speaks for itself : 1 6 iudices^ to receive 40 sesteriia apiece/ There is no antecedent improbability that the money was offered conciliandae gratiae causa, for the sake of effecting a compromise : none again that Oppianicus was trying to arrange a praevaricatio. Cicero here merely trifles with his opponent's statement; and, as to the number of 640 sestertia, how do we know that that was all the money that was offered to Staienus ? §§ 88-96. ' I now come to the many iudicia which were brought to bear upon this case. (i) 'The condemnation of the iudex quaestionis C. lunius. No time was allowed him by the tribune Quinctius ; he was hurried off to trial without mercy. According to the general opinion, the reason for this was that he had corruptly procured the condemnation of an innocent man. In that case I say that he ought to have been accused under the lex Cornelia de sicariis. If this was on technical grounds impossible, Quinctius might have waited a few days : but this he would not do for fear of losing the flood-tide ( f popular feeling. He preferred to take formal grounds ; asked for a multa because lunius had omitted to take his ojth of office, and because there was some irregularity about a subsortitio. Trivial grounds enough, shew- ing that lunius was condemned not on the merits of the case, but owing to*the accident of the time and circumstances {non causa sed tempore). And what has his case to do with that of Cluentius.? lunius, you virtually say, was condemned under 78 ON THE PRO CLU EMTIO OF CICERO. one lex because he had offended against another. How can you call that a iudicium ? It was all due to popular excite- ment, fanned by the employment of that dangerous engine the tribunicia potestas' The answer to this argument would be, I suppose, that it was easier and more convenient to attack Junius on formal grounds, and that in fact this method of attack proved perfecdy effective, for Junius was never able to take part in public life from the time of his condemnation. (2) §§97-103. 'Bulbus,' you say, *was condemned. He was, but it was on a trial for maiestas. You will argue that it was his conduct in the iudicium lunianum which did him most harm in the eyes of his iudices. This, I reply, is merely your inference. (3) 'You urge the condemnation of P. Popillius and Ti. Gutta. But these men were condemned not for tampering with iudices but for ambiius, for their accusers were men who had themselves been condemned on a charge of ambiltis and had subsequently turned king's evidence. These accusers were restored to their civil rights as a reward for their conduct ; but their restoration was, I maintain, due to the fact that they had informed against Popillius and Gutta, not for taking bribes, but for ambitus. Their case then, being a case of ambitus^ has nothing to do with that of Cluentius. (4) * Staienus was found guilty : yes, of maiestas. All that I will say here is that the plea which he then used, that the money was offered him for the purpose of effecting a compro- mise, met at that time with a very different reception from that which is now accorded to it : it was in fact laughed down ; in spite of it Staienus was found guilty, and the Cominii, taking the same ground as I am taking, gained their point. I have shewn that if Oppianicus was guilty of bribery, Cluentius was not, and vice versa. But there is no trace of any corrupt act on the part of Cluentius : it is clear then that the condemnation of Staienus is all in favour of my client. {5) § 103 foil. * Fidiculanius Falcula was accused mainly ON THE PRO CLU EMTIO OF CICEi on the ground that he had sat on the bench as a sii^^sfiftlitjey and had only heard part of the case. First his enemies trro;^^ g^t him fined because he had acted as a index out of his own decurtST and in violation of the lex by which the proceedings of the quaestio were regulated. In the first actio he was easily acquitted : but subsequently he was in due form accused under the lex repelufidarum, and acquitted; the indices holding it sufficient that a index should be acquainted with the praeiudicia bearing on the case. §§ 113, 114. 'You who quote indicia, what do you make of the acquittal of Fidiculanius Falcula ? It is not to the point to collect instances of men who were condemned for ambitus, who ought rather to have been tried by the quaestio repetundarum! From this passage it would appear that several of the qnaestiones were set in motion for the purpose of reaching various persons who had been implicated in the scandal of the indicium Inniannm. Bulbus was prosecuted and found guilty by the quaestio maies talis; P. Popillius and Ti. Gutta by the quaestio ambitus : others by the quaestio peculatus : Verr. Act. i . §39, quod in C. Herennio, quod in C.Popillio, qui ambo peculatus damnati sunt . . . hoc planum factum est, eos pecuniam ob rem iudicandam accepisse. The only two qnaestiones under which their cases could technically have come would seem to have been the quaestio de sicariis and repetundarum. The lex de sicariis contained, as we have seen, a clause against conspiracy to procure a corrupt verdict : the lex repetundarum must, if Cicero's argument here can be trusted (and there seems no reason in this case for distrusting it), have contained clauses against a index receiving a bribe, such as appear later in the lex lulia repetundarum'. Dig. 48. ii. 7, lex lulia de repetundis praecipit ne quis ob indie em arbitrumve dandum mutandum inbendumve ut indicet, neve ob non dandum non mutandum non inbendum ut indicet . . . neve quis ob hominem condemnandum absol- vendumve, neve ob litem aestimandam, iudicinmve capitis pecuniaeve faciendum vel non faciendum aliqnid acceperit. Fidiculanius Falcula seems to have been prosecuted and 8o ON THE PRO CLUENTIO OF CICERO. acquitted under the lex repetundarum. It is not clear how the trials of the others under the quaestiones ambitus, peculatus, and maiestatis were made to bear on the question of judicial cor- ruption. We have Cicero's own admission, or very nearly his own admission, that though Bulbus was accused under the lex viaiestatis^ it was his conduct in the matter of the indicium lunianum that prejudiced his case more than anything else. What is exactly meant by this is not clear; whether for instance it was the statements of witnesses during the course of the trial that brought out these damaging facts. Nor is it indeed plain why, when these men might have been legally tried either by the quaestio de sicariis or by the quaestio repetundarum^ their cases should have been brought before the other quaestiones. It is manifest however that in the Roman usage of this epoch a man might be prosecuted under one lex^ and condemned partly in consequence of the revelations of misdeeds which would properly have brought him under another. Thus Cicero says with regard to the iudicium lunianum^ Verr. Act. i. § 37, quod in C. Herennio, quod in C. Popillio, qui amho peculatus damnati sunt, quod in M. Atilio qui de maiestate damnatus est, hoc planum /actum est, eos pecuniam ob rem iudicandam accepisse. In § 98 Cicero lays stress upon the fact that P. Popillius (not to be confused with the C. Popillius of Verr. 1. c.) and Ti. Gutta were condemned for ambitus, and proceeds to observe that their accusers were men who had themselves been con- demned for atnbitus. The thread of the reasoning in the text of our oration is not very clear : qui causam de ambitu dixerunt^ qui accusaii sunt ab it's, &c. The gist of the argument as given by Quintilian, 5. 10. 108, is as follows : Cicero pro Cluentio P. Popillium et Ti. Guttam dicit non iudicii corrupti sed ambitus esse damnatos. Quid signi? quod accusatores eorum qui erant ipsi ambitus damnati, e lege sint post hatu victoriam restitutio They must have been condemned not for tampering with iudices but for ambitusy because their accusers, who had themselves been condemned for ambitus, were subsequently restored to ON THE PRO CLUENTIO OF CICERO. 8i their civil rights. Cicero does not put the case exactly in this way, but says that these accusers, who had been condemned for ambitus, were in his opinion restored to their civil rights, not because they had revealed a case of judicial corruption, but because they had publicly shewn their disapproval ^ of an offence similar to their own, namely ambitus. Some link is required between the clauses qui causam de ambitu dixerunt and qui accusati sunt, &c. Taking into consideration the passage in Quintilian, I would suggest the possibility that the second clause began with quia, not with qui, and that between the two clauses some words have been lost. Qui causam de ambitu dixerunt \non de iudicio corrupto] quia accu- sati sunt, &c. The argument of these sections is worth very little. The fact that some of these offenders were accused under leges not strictly pertinent to their offence is technically in Cicero's favour : but only technically. Cicero had himself, eight years before (Verr. Act. i, § 37), used the very same argument which he now tries to parry when employed against him. The fallacy of the dilemma (§ 102) 'either Cluentius or Oppianicus must have been guilty of bribery, and if one, not the other,' need not be pointed out. With regard to Fidiculanius Falcula, it is sufficient to refer to the pro Caecina, § 29. § 115. *You say that damages were assessed against P. Septimius Scaevola on the count of his having received money for his judicial vote {litem eo nomine esse aestimatani). I need hardly remind you that a litis aestimatio is not a iudicium. It often happens that after a man is found guilty, his judges think that he is thereby made their enemy, and therefore (lest they should give the impression of acting under the influence of personal feeling ^ ?) refuse to admit an assessment which involves * Reprehendere is apparently used here as in Pro Fonteio, § 3, atqui homines, si qui [fenefztur] hoc genere quaestionis, accusatos et reprehensos videmus primum testibus. ^ Quintilian, 4. 1. 18, est etiam nonnimquam pravis hie ambitus, adversus amicos aut pro iis, quibuscum simuliates gerant, pronuntiandi,faciendique iniuste, nefecisse videantur. 82 ON THE PRO CLUENTIO OF CICERO. his civil status {litem capitis). Or it may happen that they think that having once done their duty, they need not trouble much about the further proceeding of the litis aestimatio. And so it often happens that when a man is found guilty de pecuniis repetundiSf and an assessment involving the offence of maiestas is entered against him, he is acquitted on the charge of maiestas. Again, in cases of repetundae, persons who are mentioned in the litis aestimatio as accessories to the guilt of the principal offenders are often subsequently acquitted on a regular trial by the very indices who tried the first case. Scaevola was found guilty on other charges, but every effort was made to make this litis aestimatio involve his civil status. Had this proceeding really carried with it the moral weight of a regular iudicium, he would have been brought to trial afterwards under the lex Cornelia de sicariis^ It will be observed that in this difficult passage I have followed Classen's two best MSS., not the old vulgate defended by Ramsay. I suppose the case to stand thus. The litis aestimatio was in all cases a proceeding following upon the verdict of guilty (judicium) and quite distinct from it. It was not a mere assessment of damages, but might also contain a statement that the accused was guilty of an offence which should be tried under another quaestio. Thus a man found guilty under the lex repetundarum might in the litis aestimatio be said to have been guilty of offending against the lex maiesiatis or de sicariis. Or again, the litis aestimatio might state that other persons besides the accused were guilty of the same offence for which he had been tried. In either case the result might or might not be a new trial on the new charges. These state- ments, going beyond the subject immediately in question, were not made without previous discussion between the prosecution and defence. And in a case where persons other than the accused were charged (appellati) as accessories in the litis aestimatio it seems to have been considered fair that they should be present and have the chance of defending themselves then and there, or, if they preferred it, of studying the bearings of the ON THE PRO CLUENTIO OF CICERO, 83 case with a view to defending themselves later. The pro- ceeding is clearly described in the Pro Rabirio Posthumo, § 9, Ita coniendo, neminem unquam ' quo ea pecunia pervenisset ' causam dixisse^ qui in aestimandis litibus appellatus non esset. In lilibus autem nemo appellabatur nisi ex tesiium dictis aut tabulis priva- iorum aut rationibus civitatum. Itaque in inferendis litibus adesse solebant qui aliquid de se verebantur, et cum erant appellati^ si videbatur, statim contradicere solebant ; sin eius temporis re- centem invidiam pertimuerant, respondebant postea. Quod cum yecissent, permulti saepe vicerunt, I suppose the case of Septimius Scaevola to have stood as follows : He was accused and condemned under the lex repetun- darum, and was stated in the litis aestimatio to have been guilty of conspiracy to corrupt a jury, which offence would have ren- dered him liable to prosecution under the lex Cornelia de sicariis. Verr. Act. i. 39, quod Septimio senator e damnatOy Q. Hortensio praetor e de pecuniis repetundis, lis aestimata sit eo nomine quod ilk ob rem iudicandam pecuniam accepisset. But Scaevola, it would appear, was not brought to trial again on the strength of this litis aestimatio. Well, says Cicero, it is notorious that a litis aestimatio is not a iudicium; and he was right on the technical point, which had, however^ very little to do with the real bearings of the case. Cicero's whole argument on these points is a mere web of fine legal technicalities skilfully arranged so as to hide the real facts at issue. Even with our imperfect knowledge of the facts it is, as I hope I have in some measure shewn, not impossible to divine where his fallacies lie ; and I am sometimes tempted to think that the iudices were not really so blind as Cicero sup- posed that he had rendered them, and that the acquittal of Cluentius, like Cicero's advocacy of his cause, may, so far as the charge of bribery was concerned, have been due to political calculations. G 2 V. CATULLUS. [Fortnightly Review, May, 1878.] Few periods have been so fertile in good writing of all kinds as the years of Roman history from 146 b. c. to the Christian era. The political tumults of the last century of the Roman republic did not in any way interfere with, indeed in some ways they materially assisted, the movement and development of literature. It was then that the Romans finally perfected a style which was only surpassed by the Greeks in beauty, and was not surpassed even by the Greeks in point and effect. All this time they were industriously labouring at the improvement of their poetry, drama, and oratory ; were studying the grammar and antiquities of their own language, the theory and practice of their law, and the history of their empire. What remains of the productions of this century and a half is a mere fragment. Of the develop- ment of the tragic drama from Accius to Varius, so important in every connection, we have nothing to bear witness but broken lines and isolated passages. Much the same is the case with comedy in its various branches, with the salura, and with the numerous works on Roman history and antiquities, law, and grammar. The orators have been more fortunate, for though we have (except in the case of Cicero) lost all but a few frag- ments of some of their speeches, we have in the Brutus some- thing like a critical history of the earlier oratory of the period, written by a great master in the art. But it is only of the poets who flourished during the seventy years before Christ, and of the progress of poetry in the hands of Lucretius and Catullus, CATULLUS. 85 Vergil and Horace, that we can be said to have any real, any detailed, knowledge. The development of Latin literature, so far as its form is con- cerned, proceeded during these years on a double line. On the one hand the Italians were studying with ever-growing care and conscientiousness the great models of Greek Hterature ; on the other hand they were developing the resources and perfecting the finish of their own language. So that the influence of Greek on Latin literature is twofold. There is much in Latin writing of direct translation and imitation ; there is also much of the indirect, we might almost say the moral, influence which the study of great works always produces. The direct influence of Greek upon Latin letters is the more obvious, the indirect influence on all accounts the more important. It was much to learn how to translate and imitate the Greek authors ; but how much more to learn from Greek literature its lesson of per- fection ; to be taught to speak and write Latin as Greek had been written and spoken by the Greeks, with all the freedom and beauty and music of which the language was capable. This was the lesson which, during the last century of the republic, the literary men in Italy were modestly and indus- triously learning ; and the record of their success is written in the history of Western literature. A marked characteristic of the period which we are con- sidering is the active cultivation of Latin literature in the provincial districts of Italy. Not that those districts had not previously done their duty in contributing illustrious names — witness those of Ennius and Lucilius — to the roll of Italian writers. But the tendency of which I am speaking was develop- ing itself still further at the beginning of the last century before Christ. Cicero and Catullus, born respectively at Arpinum and at Verona, may be taken as typical representatives of it. Cor- nelius Nepos, the friend of both, came from Transpadane Gaul, and so did Tanusius Geminus, Catullus* enemy, the Volusius oi Annates Volusi. Partly, perhaps, from the love of repose natural in their position, partly because they belonged, to a 86 CATULLUS. great extent, not to the order of nobiles, but to the equestrian or middle order of society, the upper bourgeoisie of Rome and Italy, who were much engaged in trade, and to whom security of possession was essential, the men of letters mostly figure on the conservative or anti-democratic side in politics. This is the case with Hortensius, Cicero, Nepos, Lucretius, Catullus, Nigi- dius Figulus, Terentius Varro ; as it was also the case with the literary men and orators of the Scipionic circle in the time of the Gracchi. In the conventional performance of Hamlet on the English stage it is common to represent Polonius as a silly dotard, who, though incapable of seeing into the depths of things, is presum- ing enough to assign for Hamlet's apparent derangement the last reason which ought to be assigned, ' Still on my daughter.' The audience, of course, knows better; and the actor of the part, in consequence, usually forgets that Polonius has not walked on the castle-terrace at midnight. But what can be more natural than that he should attribute the lunes of Hamlet to the first and best reason that occurs to him ? No one but Hamlet and the audience can, by any conceivable power of divination, see any farther. It has sometimes struck me that writers on Roman history who are absorbed in contemplating the event of the great struggles in which the republic fell, treat the men of letters who wrote on the opposition side in somewhat the same way as that in which our ordinary actor treats Polonius. Too much is expected of the literary men. It is supposed that the inevitable tendencies which are now so clear to us as we look back on the past would naturally have been obvious to them also. But the literary men, like Polonius, knew nothing of the movements of the invisible pioneer. They desired above all things repose for their work and fame as the crown of their honourable ambition, there was nothing to show them, Italians as they were, that Italy was more likely to prosper under the rule of the democratic party than under that of the senate. Beyond Italy they did not look, and could hardly be ex^ ected to look. Sulla had, in the CATULLUS. 87 first quarter of the century, proved himself to all appearance stronger than his enemies. The democratic party was com- paratively disorganized. No one, perhaps, not even Caesar himself, realized the full tendency of Caesar's designs. The party of order saw litde more in him than a dangerous, because fearless and unscrupulous, adventurer, cherishing revolutionary ideas, and surrounded by doubtful companions. The men of letters hoped for the maintenance of a Roman republic respect- ably administered by the select spirits according to constitutional forms. And there is little doubt that they were hoping in accordance with their own interests. They did not see that the Roman empire was grown too unwieldy to be governed, even tolerably, by a quarrelling and unscrupulous oligarchy ; but they felt with a sure instinct that a strong government, supported by an army, would be fatal to the free growth of literature. The life of our poet falls into the very years in which it would be most natural for a man of letters to take sides against the revolution ^ Gains Valerius Catullus was born at Verona either in 87 or in 84 b.c. Probably the latter date is the true one ; for while there is no doubt that he was alive in 54 b.c, and no evidence that he was alive after that year, there seems no reason to doubt the statement of Jerome, that is, of Suetonius, that he died at the age of thirty. All indications tend to show that his position was that of an eques, a gentleman whose family was not ennobled either by birth or office. He began to write poetry — love-poetry of course — when a boy of sixteen or seven- teen ^. ' When first the garb of manhood was given me, when my primrose youth was in its pleasant spring, I played enough at rhyming ; and the goddess knows me well who mingles sweet bitterness in her cup of passion.' He was much bound up with a brother — apparently his only brother — whose death he describes as the ruin of his whole house, of all his joy, and all his delight in study ^ The death of his brother, perhaps the * For the facts on which this sketch is based I am indebted to Haupt's Quaestiones Catullianae, Schwabe's Catullus ^X\\%% Commentary on Catullus, and Munro's Criticisms and Elucidations of Catullus. ^ 68. 15. ' 68. 20. 88 CATULLUS. necessity consequent upon it of setting his home affairs in order, took him at one time back to Verona ; and towards the end of his life he may have been at Verona when he dined with JuHus Caesar : but for all the years during which we know him his real home was Rome ; there he had his books, his friends, and his mistress ^ Like many other Italians of the same social position, he had his villas, one at Tibur and the other at Sirmio, to both of which, especially that at Sirmio, he liked to retire for health or refreshment^. He was, if we may trust his own complaints, poor ^ : that is, he was probably not rich enough to support the expenses of a life among the best society at the capital, a life the attractions of which were now drawing into their circle many ambitious youths from the provincial towns. When Catullus came to Rome we do not exactly know : but we know to a certain extent in what society he lived there. He was in good company. He seems to have been introduced to a circle of the highest literary and social distinction, where he met the Metelli and others in high place, Hortensius, L. Manlius Torquatus, the two Ciceros, perhaps also Gains Memmius and his far worthier friend the poet Lucretius. Here, too, he met the lady to whom we virtually owe so many of his best poems. For it is, I think, proved that the Lesbia of Catullus was Clodia, the sister of Cicero's enemy Publius Clodius Pulcher, and the wife of Q. Metellus Celer, consul in b.c. 6o. Now, supposing that Catullus came to Rome in 63 or 62 b.c. (and his arrival there can hardly be put later) he would find him- self in an atmosphere very favourable to the development of his conservative sympathies. In 62 the conspiracy of Catiline had just been crushed ; the equestrian order had not for a long time been in such high feather. It seemed as if the union of the senate with the equites had stifled the democratic party. Cicero was still on good terms with Clodius, and, though his relations with Metellus Nepos were strained, he does not seem to have broken seriously with Metellus Celer, ' 68. 35. « 31. » 26. CATULLUS. 89 with whose wife, Clodia, he was undoubtedly on terms of friendship. It must have been at this time or thereabouts, and in this circle, that Catullus first met Clodia, who would then be somewhat past thirty, and in the full bloom of her ruinous charms. Of Clodia we know little except upon the evidence of her enemies. She cannot, in any case, be held up as a model of domestic virtue ; but there is no sort of reason for accepting as true the charges brought against her by Cicero and Catullus, two masters of burning and magnificent, but wholly wild and unscrupulous, invective. Beautiful, talented, and accomplished, she appears to have liked the society of distinguished and cultivated men. She struck Catullus with a fatal passion, which passed from the stage of blindly devoted love to that of furious hatred. Much of his poetry is merely taken up with this passion in its various phases. We can discern its different periods, a period of pure happiness, of doubt and fitful estrange- ment and reconciliation, of final desolation and despair. At first it is a love which the gods might envy, and more, to sit and gaze on her and listen to her sweet laughter with tingling ears and spell-bound tongue \ Let us listen to the Vivamus, mea Lesbia, atque amemus'^, in Mr Ellis's refined and original hendecasyllables : — ' Living, Lesbia, we should still be loving, Sour severity, tongue of eld maligning, All be to us a penny's estimation. Suns set only to rise again to-morrow; We, when sets in a little hour the brief light, Sleep one infinite age, a night for ever. Thousand kisses, anon to these a hundred, Thousand kisses again, another hundred, Thousand give me again, another hundred ; Then, once heedfully counted all the kisses, We'll uncount them as idly; so we shall not Know, nor traitorous eye shall envy, knowing All those myriad happy, happy kisses.' 90 CATULLUS. And so on through a number of poems, till a change occurs, and all is turned to doubt and consuming pain. There are bickerings, quarrellings, reconciliations — Catullus' soul is torn asunder : ' I hate and I love. Perhaps you ask how that can be ; I cannot say, but that it is so I know, and am sore tor- mented ^' Finally, however, Lesbia must go, and the poet must master his pain as he can. In this connection perhaps the most beautiful and spontaneous poem is the seventy-sixth, Si qua recordantt, of which Mr Ellis rightly observes: 'The intensity of this soliloquy makes it one of the most interesting in the cycle of Lesbia-poems. As an expression of resignation struggling with despair it possesses a force and reality which belong only to the highest genius.' Let Mr Ellis again trans- late it for us in the metre of the original : * If to a man bring joy past service dearly remembered. When to the soul her thought speaks, to be blameless of ill, Faith not rudely profaned, nor in oath nor in charter abused Heaven, a God's mis-sworn sanctity, deadly to man, Then doth a life-long pleasure await thee surely, Catullus, Pleasure of all this life's traitorous injury born. Whatso a man may speak, whom charity leads to another, Whatso enact, by me spoken and acted is all. Waste on a traitorous heart, nor finding kindly requital ; Therefore cease, nor still bleed agonised any more. Make thee as iron a soul, thyself draw back from affliction ; Yea, though a God say nay, be not unhappy for aye : What, is it hard long love so lightly to leave in a moment } Hard: yet abides this one duty, to do it; obey. Here lies safety alone, one victory must not fail thee, One last stake to be lost haply, perhaps to be won. O great Gods immortal, if you can pity, or ever Lighted above dark death's shadow a help to the lost, Ah look, a wretch, on me : if white and blameless in all I Lived, then take this long canker of anguish away, ' 85: Odi et amo : cur id fiat fortasse requiris ; Nescio, sed fieri sentio et excrucior. CATULLUS. 91 If to my inmost veins, like dull death drowsily creeping, Every delight, all heart's pleasure it wholly benumbs. Not any more I pray for a love so faulty returning, Not that a wanton abide chastely, she may not again ; Only for health I ask, a disease so deadly to banish Gods, vouchsafe it, as I ask that am harmless of ill.' 'White and blameless,' 'harmless of ill;' for to this pass has it come, that for poor Catullus, in the glow of his love, the whole guilty relation is transformed into the guise of innocence itself. Indeed nothing is more striking than the clearness and depth of passion which these poems to Lesbia reveal. Seldom has a poet spoken in so excellent a form the language of so transparent, so simple a soul. But darkness fell upon all, and the story of Catullus' love ends in hatred of his mistress and shameful invective. Nothing will now awaken his dead affec- tion, any more than you can call a flower to Hfe again that the passing plough has touched on the border of a meadow^. I hardly know whether it is worth while to observe that there is a rough correspondence in time between the duration of Catullus's connection with Clodia and that of Cicero with the democratic party. In Ihe year 62, when or about when Catullus came to Rome, Cicero was still, as we have seen, on friendly terms with Clodius. This relation was, however, soon changed into one of bitter hostility. Yet until 59, the year of the first triumvirate, Cicero tried to keep on good terms with the great leaders of the revolution. Caesar did his best to save him. The conduct of Pompeius towards the orator, who belonged to the same ordo as himself, and to whom he had owed all the support that Cicero's devotion and eloquence could lend him, deserves to be branded as in the highest degree cold-hearted and treacherous. Now Catullus was, apparently, entirely estranged from Lesbia in 57, and in 59 or 58, some two years before, she had engaged in her intrigue with Caelius Rufus, and had become ^ II. 21: Nee vieum respectet, ut ante, amorem. Qui illius culpa cecidit velut prati Ultimi flos, praetereunte postquam Tactus aratro est. 92 CATULLUS. more or less unfaithful to Catullus. In other words, Clodia began to desert Catullus about the time of the first triumvirate, the very time when the final breach took place between Caesar, Pompeius and Crassus, and the honi or party of order, to which Catullus belonged. Like other cultivated women of her time, Clodia was not without her interest in politics ; and it may be that her conduct towards Catullus was a by-stream influenced by the great tide of public events. In 60 or 59, if one may trust slight indications, the brother of Catullus died in the Troad, an event which, as we have seen, plunged the poet into the deepest affliction. In 57 we find Catullus away from Rome, in Bithynia, in the suite of Gains Memmius, the patron of Lucretius. Pete nobiles amicos /^ The poet, who, like many another young man in his rank of life, had gone out in the train of a Roman propraetor, hoping, perhaps, for some share of provincial loot, was as much dis- appointed as his friends who, in the same year and for the same reason, followed Piso^ into Spain. On his return from Bithynia Catullus visited the tomb of his brother, and wrote the exquisite hundred and first poem Multas per gentes ei multa per aequora vecius. By this time, and indeed before he went to Bithynia, all was over between Catullus and Lesbia, and henceforth all the poems which have any personal interest are his political lampoons. In politics his friends and enemies are on the whole those of Cicero; his friends are Calvus, Sextius, and Hortensius, his enemies Piso, Vatinius, Clodius, and Julius Caesar himself. The scurrilous abuse hurled at the head of Caesar by this Roman Aristophanes has sometimes been thought to fix a stain on the memory of the great dictator ; it has in reality done more harm to Catullus than to him. From the year 59 onwards, and especially after the conference at Luca in 56, the more discerning spirits at Rome began to perceive that Caesar was the rising genius. Cicero and Catullus now appear to realize 1 28. ^ 28. I : Pisonis comites, cohors inanis. CATULLUS. 93 with hatred and fury that they, and such as they, have found their master. During the time immediately following Caesar's invasion of Britain in 55 Catullus relieved his feelings in several virulent lampoons. No term of abuse is spared which popular license could supply and literary convention would allow. Nothing is too bad for Caesar : he is a glutton, a dicer, an infamous profligate ^ But, as Mr. Munro wisely warns us, the kind of charges brought by Catullus against Caesar are in no way to be taken seriously. It cannot be too often repeated that much of the indecency of the classical poets and orators was purely conventional, and carried with it no slur on the character either of the writer who uttered it or of the person whom he attacked. The Greek comedy and the Latin satire and epigram were of the earth, earthy ; they probably sprang from rude performances which, if they smelt of the fields, smelt also of the dunghill. The Fescennine verses easily assumed the character of a simple act or drama, and much of the obscenity which shocks our modern notions of decorum was a mere property taken over from these primitive scenes of half-superstitious revelry. For there was a strong tendency in the ancient literatures to stereotype, in the form of their written compositions, traditions of utterances which had their origin in the real life and beliefs of an earlier age. Thus the literary saiura grew out of the imperfect ancient Italian drama, the literary pastoral out of the genuine idyll, the literary dirae or curses, such as Ovid's Ibis, from the primitive devoiiones. These considerations should be borne in mind before we pass a sweeping moral judgment on the classical writers. So imitative were they, such lovers of literary tradition purely for its own sake, that they were loth to part with any elements, even the coarser ones, which they found existing in the productions of a by-gone age. Caesar succeeded, and the infamous scurrilities of Catullus have lived with his glory. It is forgotten that things as foul were said by Calvus of the grave and respectable Pompeius. What if Pompeius had succeeded as Caesar did ? Perhaps the ^ 29. ic : es impudicus et vorax et aleo. 94 CATULLUS. Pompeius of history might have been identified with the Pom- peius of Calvus' fescennine lampoon ; the statesman of real life (to take the nearest modern analogy) with the statesman of Punch or of the pantomime. But enough of this subject. Of Catullus' death nothing is known or conjectured but the year of it, b.c. 54. If this date is correct, we may, perhaps, guess that he died comparatively suddenly, for it is nearly certain that he wrote poems in this year. Besides some lampoons we must, if Mr Munro be right in arguing from internal evidence, include among the number the elaborate conclusion of the Peleus and Thetis. A sense of disappointment at coming to an end of this broken and passionate life so soon, and with so little real record of its strivings and actions, is the first feeling that comes over us when looking back on what we know of Catullus. Few men of genius thus cut off in their early manhood have given so brilliant a promise. Few poets have ever struck so true a note of feeling. The mainsprings of Catullus' writings are his passion for Clodia, so powerful as to absorb, almost to consume his being, and his love for his brother. For all who can weep with those that weep, his poems are the transparent revelation of a pure impassioned soul, of deep natural sincerity in love and hate, of commanding genius in expression. But his lot was cast on evil days of dissolution, uncertainty, and despair ; on the time of the very death-agony of the struggling republic. Catullus throws himself with all his natural ardour into the fight. He takes his side with the fiercest combatants, not scrupling to mingle with the crowd and throw dirt and stones with the lustiest of them. He has nothing in him of the philosophical spirit. He knows nothing of the austere, the almost religious seclusion in which Lucretius (whose book contains hardly more than a single allusion to any passing event) lived and looked down from far upon the struggles of nobility, genius, and ambition. The ills of mankind as a whole do not touch Catullus, still less has he a panacea for them in the shape of a philosophical creed. Common as the study of Greek philo- CATULLUS. 95 sophy was among his contemporaries, there is hardly a trace of its having taken any hold upon him. He studied Greek, indeed, with ardour, but it was for purely literary purposes. The effects of his reading are to be seen in his more artificial poems, such as the Coma Berenices., the Peleus and Thetis, and others in which he translates or paraphrases Alexandrian or other Greek models. Catullus is not at his best in these elaborate pieces, though /they contain here and there passages of perfect beauty and limpid clearness; His real triumph is in his short occasional lyrics and lampoons, in which he appears as one of the greatest poets of all times and countries. His style in poetry is very analogous to the prose style of Cicero, with whom, though the orator was some twenty years his senior, Catullus was probably on terms of great friendship; a style natural, direct, vivid, powerful, tremulous with life and energy, perfect in form, genuinely Latin, yet penetrated with the Greek feeling for clearness and finish, classical and romantic in one luminous whole. The analogy between Cicero and Catullus is, indeed, not limited to their style. Both writers represent the genuine protest of minds which long for a free development, against the inevitable advance of social and political forces that involve the sacrifice of individual motive and restricted interest. They were too late in discerning the coming wave, and, powerless to avoid it, they vented their fear and anger in utterances of bitter hatred. They were in the wrong; the gods applauded the winning cause. I am not concerned to defend the typical weaknesses of the literary character, its feminine sensibility, its want of self- control, its perverseness in practical life. Cicero and Catullus erred from blindness, and it was in great measure the very force and hopelessness of their error that enabled them to render the great services which they have rendered to the literature of Europe. We think of the deeds of Caesar, but we listen to the voice of Cicero. The historian, while taking chief notice, as in duty bound, of the great forces which in the long run mould society, and of the great men who consciously or unconsciously 96 CATULLUS. obey them, has also his offerings of memory, /r^/^rw^ viultum manantia fletu, for those who have had inner and individual ideals, the current of whose thoughts and aspirations has been absorbed in the advance of the great flood by which old .channels and landmarks are swept away. VI. SUGGESTIONS INTRODUCTORY TO A STUDY OF THE AENEID\ (Originally published at the Clarendon Press in 1875.) The following remarks are offered as a contribution to the interpretation of a poem to which a great deal of recent criti- cism has, I venture to think, been unjust. Much has been said of the artificial and borrowed element in the Aeneid, very little of the original element ; and yet it is clear that a poet who won the ear of his nation so soon as Vergil, and became at once one of the most popular poets and the most classical poet of Rome, could not have gained this position without great original power. Because Vergil chose a vast and multitudinous material to work upon some critics have supposed that he showed no creative power in handling it ; as if he had not created a new kind of epic and a new poetical language ; as if any other Roman poet before him had attempted so vast and so difficult a problem, and as if any epic poet of his nation after him had succeeded in anything like the same way in holding the attention of mankind. Mere rhetorical skill has never made and can never make a work immortal. When therefore Bemhardy'*, whose careful and appre- ciative criticism on the Aeneid I wish to mention with great respect, refuses to allow that Vergil had any creative power ; when Teuffel^, after pronouncing the same verdict, refuses him ' The Aeneid occupied Vergil for the ten last years of his life, 29-19 B.C., and he had intended to spend three more years upon it. He first drafted it in prose, and then wrote the books in no particular order, but just as the fancy took him. This fact fully accounts for the numerous inconsistencies, and other marks of incompleteness, in the narrative as we have it. See Conington's Virgil, vol. i (fourth edition), p. xxv, and vol. ii (fourth edition), pp. Ixvi, Ixvii. - Grundriss der Romischen Litteratur, 2te Abtheilung, pp. 489, 496. ^ Geschichte dcr Romischen Litteratur, vol. ii. p. 442 foil. 98 SUGGESTIONS INTRODUCTORY TO any original gifts but those of tender sympathy and minute psycho- logical insight, asserting that all his characters ' show a mild and humane temper, without asperity and roughness, but at the same time without energy;' when Mr. Gladstone^ says that 'with rare exceptions the reader of Vergil finds himself utterly at a loss to see at any point the soul of the poet reflected in his work,' and charges him with allowing his mind to become so warped by artificial influences that he becomes * reckless alike in major and in minor matters as to all the inner harmonies of his work,' and, in deviating from the Homeric tradition, commits such gross errors as can only be ascribed ' to torpor in the faculties, or defect in the habit of mind by which Homer should be appreciated ; ' — one cannot but feel that, if all this be true, Vergil's position in literature is a phenomenon difficult to explain. It is a great misfortune that Keble, who as a poet had a soul to understand a poet, did not give to the Aeneid the same careful study which he gave to the Georgics. I have always found his lectures on Lucretius and Vergil fuller of poetical insight than any other modem criticisms which I have read on those writers, and though, as the following pages will show, I am not able to agree with his judgment on the Aeneid, which was in the main, with characteristic differences'^ , the same as that of Niebuhr, still, as the Praelectiones Academicae is now, I fear, as far as students are concerned, an almost forgotten book, I am anxious to express my deep gratitude for the many new lights in poetical criticism which it has opened to me. I know of no book where Vergil's love of nature is dealt with with so much real sympathy and insight. As for the Aeneid, Conington has, I think, indicated in his Intro- duction the true line which criticism ought to take, especially in * Studies on Homer and tJie Homeric Age, vol. iii. pp. 510, 512. "^ After passing some not wholly undeserved strictures on Vergil's treat- ment of the character of Aeneas, Keble {Prael. Acad. vol. ii. pp. 722 foil.) says, Verum ut ea mittamus quae propria sunt Aeneae ; neque in illius neque in Tumi persona neque in alio quovis eorum qui in scenam prodeunt Virgilianam illud video quod praecipuum habet Homerus : eventus scilicet ac summam cujusque rei verti penitus in eorum qui agunt motibus et affectu . . . Virgilius . . . ipsorum qui dimicant personis vel minorem impendit curam vel certe non adeo felicem ; unum modo altcrumque excipias. Nie- buhr thought that Vergil's real merit lay in his erudition ; Keble (who goes so far as to "az.^ Jluminum ac sylvarum gratia ponit fata moresque hominum) that his natural bent was towards sympathetic description of natural scenery : both critics, however, agree that he made a mistake in attempting to write an epic. A STUDY OF THE AENEID. 99 regard to the relation between the Aeneid and the Greek drama. Of his views on this matter much of what I have said is only a development, navrbs yap Trpocrdelpai to eWelnov. Recent French criticism has been more sympathetic with Vergil than German. Besides Legris, who has been followed by Merivale in the forty-first chapter of his History of the Romans under the Empire, MM. Sainte-Beuve, Patin, and Gaston Boissier have contributed valuable matter to the criticism of the Augustan poets. The author last mentioned, in his work on the Religion of the Romans from Augustus to the Antonines, has a most ingenious and instructive chapter on the Aeneid, which he maintains to be, in its main intention, a religious poem. Most of the following pages were written before I had seen M. Boissier's work, but I find myself in substantial agreement with his views, supposing the phrase ' religious poem ' to be used in the only sense in which it can be used of any work of classical antiquity. The Aeneid has been so often criticised from different points of view that it may seem presumptuous in any one who pro- fesses merely to study and interpret, to attempt anything fresh in the way of generally elucidating the thoughts of Vergil. It may happen, on the other hand, that a great work of imagination sometimes presents such difficulties to the ordinary under- standing, that, although its power and beauty are instinctively recognised by succeeding generations of men, the main thoughts which have inspired it and which are the real strength of its author are not clearly grasped, and criticism, favourable or un- favourable, lingers over details with praise, blame, explanation, or apology, while it misses the great intention which lies be- neath and is the foundation of the whole. This happens chiefly in the case of those works of art which, are not the products of simple and elementary forces and passions easily comprehended, but which l-epresent a complex and manifold surrounding of speculation and fancy ; an atmosphere filled with a number of ideas which the creative power of the artist finds it difficult to H 2 lOO SUGGESTIONS INTRODUCTORY TO harmonize into a complete whole ; a literary tradition rich with the gathered thoughts and forms of past generations, and claiming attention with such force as to render absolute spon- taneity impossible ; a society whose every form of existence is reflected and artificial, and in which the conflict of new and old elements is realized without approaching any apparent solution. In such a state of things a poet of true force and insight finds it difficult to find expression for great and far-reaching thoughts. The reverence for previously existing forms of poetry and the gathered stores of thought and imagination Ijdng in the works of his predecessors — a reverence of which every true artist has always been full— makes reflection and reminiscence a duty as imperative as fresh creation : and while it deepens and purifies the poet's conception, exalts and widens the range of his vision, and makes him careful to embody every thought in the finest expression, it makes difficult, if not im- possible, for him the clear forward look which is the: privilege of^ a simpler age. The Aeneid, standing as it does at the end of y one great period of history and the beginning of another, [summing up in a poetical form the ideas political, moral, mythological, and religious which had been the creation or the inheritance of republican Rome, is an instance among several of a great work produced under the conditions which I have_ been endeavouring to describe. In dealing with such a work our first business is to interpret, our second to judge. All criticism is shallow and misleading which attempts to pronounce a verdict upon details before the main principles of the work have been fully mastered. I should not approach the subject at all were it not that, as it seems to me, the difficulties pre- sented by the Aeneid have, as a whole, hardly been grappled with by modern criticism. They have been noticed, apologized for, or left on one side ; but the question whether there is any ) main idea underlying the poem, which may to any extent account for them, can hardly be said to have obtained a thbrough con- sideration. It is evident indeed that on a first reading the i Aeneid seems to teem with anomalies. The epic framework is \ A STUDY OF THE AENEID. loi out of harmony with the spirit of Vergil's time, and with the \ comparatively modern cast of the characters and ideas. We have all the detail natural in a primitive poem, but instead of primitive simplicity in presenting it, we find an elaboration of) language which disdains or is unable to say a plain thing in a f plain way. Realities of nature are sometimes disregarded for the sake of literary effect. The character of the hero himself is^ but dimly realized ; and the whole aim and scope of the poem ( seems thwarted, obscured, or lost in masses of detail and cunning workmanship. All these and similar defects are easily noticeable and have been forcibly dwelt upon by those critics who are mostly content with comparing Vergil (as the phrase is) with Homer. It is not so commonly asked whether a poet whose genius could absorb the admiration of Dante, and whose influence probably contributed more than any other towards informing the poetical spirit and the verse of Milton, must not have had some qualities and quickening principles of wider reach than the tenderness, delicacy, purity, exquisite sensibility, elevation of tone, >and dignity of expression, which all allow to have inspired the music of Vergil's numbers. Our consideration will be directed mainly to two points : I First, what is the main conception which the story of the Aeneid was intended to work out ; Second, what were the chief influences, literary, ethical, and religious, which determined Vergil in his cast of the form, and in the treatment of the details, of his story. The two questions, concerning as they do re- spectively the form and the spirit of the poem, represent in reality tsvo sides of the same problem, though for the sake of clearness it may be well to consider them separately. a he main purpose of the Aeneid, as has been seen by several :s, is to celebrate the growth, in accordance with a divine dispensation, of the Roman empire and Roman civilization \ This theme was a great one, yet in one sense of the word hardly poetical, if it be true that poetry in its highest efforts deals with ' ^ Aen. I. 7 Genus unde Latinum, Albanique patres atque altae moenia Romae. 102 SUGGESTIONS INTRODUCTORY TO great characters in great situations. For in a story dealing with such matter the element of personal interest, which plays i so great a part in the Greek epic and tragedy, must to a con- siderable extent be wanting. It was a subject likely rather to impose upon the imagination than to stimulate invention : the / ^ idea as a whole is more impressive than the parts can be made ' attractive in the working out : the grandeur of the outline is vague and stationary, leaving apparently but little room for the movement and proportion of life. Yet it would have been strange had not the imagination of Roman poets been struck by such a theme ^. And Vergil, who'^ before he wrote the Aeneid had fully realized the poetical side of the glories of the Roman empire and their apparent culmination under the first Caesars, would have been but an unworthy successor to Naevius and Ennius had he contented himself with merely producing, according to their example, a series of annals in verse. To\ his mind it evidently appeared that the adequate poetical treat- 1 ment of his great subject required a mythical setting. The present must not be barely exhibited in the forms of its actual existence (this would be a retrogression in poetry), but must be idealized by the foreshadowings of prophecy, regarded as the! ; issue and outcome of a heroic antiquity in which the lineaments) ' of the present are clearly discernible. The centre of the my- thical background was naturally Aeneas ^, as Caesar was the centre of the present magnificence of the Roman empire. The ^ Hor. Cann. 4. 15. 25 (writing, however, after the publication of the Aeneid) Nosque et profestis lucibus et scuris Inter iocosi munera Libert, Cum prole, matronisqiu nostris, Rite deos prius apprecati, Virtute functos more patrum duces, Lydis remixto carmine tibiis, Troiamque et Anchisen et almae Progeniem Veneris canemus. Propertius and Ovid, it need hardly be observed, paid considerable attention to Roman antiquities. * George 2. 167 foil., 3. 16 foil. ' I have endeavoured to trace the fortunes of the myth of Aeneas in an essay now published in the second volume of Conington's Virgil (fourth edition). A STUDY OF THE AENEID, 103 religious aspect of the whole was naturally present to Vergil, as to any Roman. ' We surpass all other nations,' says Cicero, * in holding fast the belief that all things are ordered by a divine Providence^.' The theme of the Aeneid is the building up of the Roman empire under this Providence. Aeneas is the son of a goddess, and his life the working out of the divine decrees. The opposition to these decrees is, as we shall see in detail below, the work of inferior deities and the baser human passions. Aeneas is conceived by Vergil as embodying in his character the qualities of a warrior, a ruler, and a civilizer of men, the legendary impersonation of all that was great in the achieve- ments of Rome. His mission is to carry on a contest in Italy, to crush the resistance of its warlike tribes, to give them customs and build them cities ^. It is instructive to observe the similarity of language in which Aeneas is spoken of in the first and the Roman nation in the sixth book '. In his character of lawgiver and civilizer he is great as Alcides and Theseus* whom he resembles in his mission: like theirs, his must be a life of struggle, of heroic endurance, and of great difficulties overcome. Like Hercules, he encounters and prevails over the anger of the queen of heaven ; like him, and like Ulysses, he is permitted to lift the veil which parts the living from the dead, lest anything should be wanting to the full stature of his cha- ^ Cicero N.D. 2.%% Si conferre volumus nostra cum extemis: ceteris rebus aut pares aut etiam inferiores reperiemur, religione, id est, cultu deorum, multo superiores. De Haruspicum Responsis § 19 Quam volu- mus licet, patres conscripti, ipsi nos amemus : tamen nee numero Hispanos, nee robore Gallos, nee calliditate Poenos, nee artibus Graecos, nee denique hoc ipso huius gentis ac terrae domestico nativoque sensu Italos ipsos ac Latinos, sed pietate et religione, atque hac una sapientia, quod deorum im?nortalium numine omnia regi gubemarique perspeximus, omnes gentes nationesque superavimus. ^ Aen. I. 263 Bellum ingens geret Italia, populosque ferocis Contundet, moresque viris et moenia ponet. ^ lb. 6. 85] * lb. 122 Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento, Hae tibi erunt artes, pacisque imponere morem. Quid Thesea magnum. Quid memorem Alciden ? Et mi genus ab love summo. I04 SUGGESTIONS INTRODUCTORY TO racter as priest, king, and lawgiver. His distinguishing epithet {plus) suggests not one heroic quaHty merely, but the character of the son who loves his father, of the king who loves his sub- jects, of the worshipper who reverences the gods\ It will be worth while to follow the narrative in detail, with the view of seeing how this conception is borne out. The first six books of the poem contain the preparation of the hero for his great achievement, the conquering and civilizing of the rude tribes of Italy. Of these books, three only, the first, the fourth, and the sixth, nearly concern us here, as the second, third, and fifth are episodical. The first and the fourth books form the opening act of the great drama. In these books we are taken at once into a scene which foreshadows, in legendary form, the greatest event of Roman history, the conflict of Rome with Carthage ^ Aeneas, the future lawgiver of Italy', is brought face to face with the great city rising under the sceptre of Dido. Admiration for the queen and her work touches his imagination, love for the woman his heart ^ : as Caesar was half won by Cleopatra, Aeneas is half won by Dido : the king and the queen alike forget their mission, the half-built walls are left unfinished, the works of war and defence are abandoned °. But ^ To have confined his idea of Aeneas to the outlines given of his character in the Iliad, as Mr. Gladstone thinks he ought to have done, would have been impossible to Vergil. Even were we sure that we have all the traditions bearing on the matter, which is far from being the case, we could not deny to Vergil the poet's privilege of conceiving and developing his own characters in his own way. ^ Aen. I. 19 Progeniem sed enim Troiano a sanguine duci Audierat, Tyrias olim quae verteret arces ; nine populum late regent belloque superbum Venturum excidio Libyae : sic volvere Farcas. ''lb. 4. 229 Sed fore, qui gravidam imperiis belloque frementem Italiam regeret. lb. 232 Si nulla accendit tantarum gloria rerum. lb. 267 Regni rerumque oblite tuarum. * lb. I. 437 Ofortunati quorum iam moenia surgutit. lb. 4. 332 Obnixus curam sub corde premebat. lb. 395 Magnoqtu animum labef actus amore. lb. 448 Magno persentit pectore euros. " lb. 86, 194. A STUDY OF THE A-ENEID. 1 05 the commands of Heaven are clear, the founder of Rome must not be united to an Eastern queen : in this as in all things he must represent the idea of a true Roman. He crushes his love, follows the express commands of Jupiter and of his father's spirit ^, and leaves the queen to her fate. The fifth book forms some relief to the strain and intense passion of the fourth, of which we shall have more to say below : perhaps Vergil was not unwilling to dwell on the outward signs of the pietas which in the sequel leads his hero to seek the embraces of his father in the world of spirits. In the sixth book Aeneas, like Odysseus and Heracles, has the mysteries of death revealed to him, and as Heracles was said ^ to have been initiated into the mysteries of Eleusis before his descent into Hades, so the language and imagery of the sixth book more than once suggest ' that Vergil intended to embody in his picture the poetical view of that inner side of ancient religion which the mysteries may be supposed to have presented. As a son Aeneas goes to meet his father's spirit : as a king and a lawgiver he is initiated into all that could be given of the deepest ideas respecting the future life which were at Vergil's command. All the treasures of current mythology and philosophy are turned to account by the poet in ^ Aen. 4. 351 Me patris Anchisae, quotiens umentibus ufnbris Nox operit terras, quotiens astra ignea surgunt, Admonet in somnis et turbida terret imago ; Me puer Ascanius capitisque initiria cari, Quern regno Hesperiae fraudo et fatalibus arvis. Nunc etiam interpres divom, love missus ab ipso — Testor utrumque caput — celeris mandata per auras Detulit ; ipse deum manifesto in lumine vidi Intrantem muros, vocemque his atcribus hausi. ^ Diodorus 4. 24 iiinax^v CB.paKK^s) rwv kv 'EAcuam fivarTjpiwv, Mov- aaiov tov 'Opcpeoos vlov Tore vpoetTTTjKSTos t^s TeKerrjs. See also Apollodorus 2, 5. 12, and Heyne's note. ^ Aen. 6. 258 Frocu/ 0, procul este, profani. Possibly tlie words sit mihi fas audita loqui ib. 266 (they recall Plato's words in the Gorgias c. 80 d I7W aKTjKows ma7(voj aK-qdij ilvai) may have a similar reference. See also the passages quoted from the Ranae of Aristophanes by Conington on Aen, 6. 637 foil., to which may perhaps be added, as a parallel to solem- que suum, sua sidera norunt, v. 423 of the same play, where the x^pos fivffTwv says fiovois ycip ^fuv ^\ios Kal 077^6ts k(p€i\K€TO Tois Oidaois, ot TToAAa/cis l« rov kittov koi rwv ixvariKWV KiKvaiv TTapavadvo/xevoi koi irepieXiT- To/Jt-evoi ToTs Ovpcrois rajv ywaiKoov Kal tois ampdvots h^iitK-qxTov tovs dv8pas. * lb. 7. 406 foil. no SUGGESTIONS INTRODUCTORY TO an insignificant one, in Vergil's sketch of Turnus' character. He receives the supposed priestess not, as might have been expected, with reverence, but with jeers. 'Past bearing the truth, and palsied by dull inaction, thy dotage troubles thee in -vain; leave thy soothsayings and go back to tend the images and temple, thy proper care^.' These are the first words of the man whose violence (and he is the only character to whom Vergil applies the bad word violeniia ^) we shall have occasion to notice many instances hereafter. Turnus is in fact a bar- barian', a soldier, it is true, but still a barbarian, in but few of his words and acts free from boasting and arrogance. His taunt to the supposed priestess is terribly answered; in an agony of terror he shakes off his sleep, and then, changing fear for fury, sends at once to Latinus to break his peace with him, and takes the leadership of the new war into his own hands. He will be a match, he says, for Trojans and Latins alike*. His rude Rutulians follow him, and the wild country folk are, by the agency of the Fury, stirred up to the quarrel. lulus in hunting chances to kill a stag belonging to Tyrrhus, the master of Latinus' flocks and herds. At the voice of their sister Silvia the sons of Tyrrhus and the stubborn rustics ^ Aen. 7. 440 Sed te victa situ veriqtie effeta senectus, mater, curis nequiquam exercet, et arma Regum inter falsa vatem formidine ludit, etc. 2 lb. 10. 151, II. 354, 376, 12. 9, 45. ' Tibullus 2. 5. 39 foil, has some verses which are worth quoting, as showing that a contemporary poet took the same view of the general scope of the story of Aeneas as that which I suppose to have been Vergil's own (if indeed the lines dq not directly refer to the Aeneid) Impiger Aenea, volitantis frater Amoris Troica qui profugis sacra vehis ratibus, lam tibi Laurentes adsignat lupiter agros, lam vocat errantes hospita terra Lares. Illic sanctus eris, cum te veneranda Numici Unda deum caelo miserit Indigetem. Ecce super fessas volitat Victoria puppes : Tandem ad Troianos diva superba venit: Ecce mihi lucent Rutulis incendia castris : lam tibi praedico, barbare Tume, necem. Ante oculos Laurens castrum murusque Lavinist Albaque ab Ascanio condita Longa duce. Compare Servius on Aen. 9. 58 sane cxprimitur Tumi violentia. Nam viam per avia nullus requirit. * Aen. 7. 467 foil. A STUDY OF THE AENEID. in flock together with any rude weapon they can seize ; the Trojan youth are ready to meet them, and the battle becomes general. Only one voice is raised in favour of peace, that of the aged Galaesus, the most righteous in the Ausonian fields, who is slain in the attempt at mediation ^ Then Juno^ brings matters to a head, and the violence of Turnus joins with the Bacchanalian frenzy of Amata and the other matrons to call for the accursed strife which the omens and the oracles of the gods have forbidden. Latinus, unmoved by their clamour as a rock by the tumult of the waves, is never- theless powerless to resist the course of events. Overcome by despair, he retires into the palace and resigns the reins of govern- ment. At this point ^ the poet takes the opportunity of mustering before the eye of the reader the forces which come to the aid of Turnus. The catalogue in the seventh book is not merely a piece of artistic workmanship, intended to exhibit the rhetorical skill of Vergil. It is a tribute to the greatness of Italy in her early days ; to the land which even of old was the mother of armies and of heroic leaders *. Considered from this point of view, this episode is singularly in place, and the fineness and beauty of the details are enhanced (as always) by the appropriate- ness of the setting. The seventh book has introduced us to the rude tribes of Italy and their barbarous chiefs : the eighth book opens with the tumult of war and the wild fierceness of the maddened Italian youth. The opening scene over, we are presented with another ; Aen. 7. 535. 2 lb. 577 foil. Gladstone, /. c, p. 504 says, ' Virgil in his imitation of the Homeric Catalogue . . . with vast and indeed rather painful effort, carries us through his long list at a laboriously sustained elevation.' The catalogue is tedious enough, no doubt, if it be regarded as a mere imitation of Homer : but it is not just to consider it in this light. * Aen. 7. 643 Quibus Italia iam turn Floruerit terra alma viris, quibus arserit armis. Comp. G. 2. 173 Salve, magna parens frugum, Saturnia tellus, Magna virum. In the sixth Aeneid (v. 784) similar language is applied to Rome, which in Vergil's view had absorbed the manhood and strength of Italy. 112. SUGGESTIONS INTRODUCTORY TO picture : that of Aeneas communing with the river-god Tiber^ and, in obedience to the omen pointed out to him, rowing his quiet way up the stream among the boughs of trees, and pre- senting himself before Evander, the king of the Arcadian settle- ment. Evander, when he receives Aeneas, is celebrating a festival in honour of Hercules 2. More will be said below on the fitness of the episode now introduced by Vergil ; it will be sufficient to observe here that its general purport is doubtless twofold : on the one hand to suggest the parallel between the exploits of Alcides and those of the mythical founder of Rome, and on the other, to give a poetical colouring to the actually existing worship of Hercules, the special god of conquerors and of successful men generally, which was a main element in the Roman religion. After the majestic story of Hercules' exploits, happily put by Vergil into the mouth of Evander, is finished, the Arcadian king describes to his guest the former condition of the land which he has come to govern', and guides him over the spots hereafter to become famous in the Rome of history. But this is not enough for Vergil, who wishes not merely to throw an antiquarian interest around the early state of Italy and the places which fable or religion had hallowed in Rome, but to give a foreshadowing of the greater glories of actual Roman history, culminating before his poetic imagination in the newly-founded empire of the Caesars. We are prepared accordingly for the episode of the shield of Aeneas. In trouble for her son's safety, Venus asks Vulcan for divine armour to shield him*; we are introduced for a moment to the forges of the Cyclopes and the moulding of the divine weapons, and then brought back again to the danger of the hero in the new country of his hopes, sur- rounded by enemies, and without an ally except Evander. Aeneas sets out, on the advice of Evander, to ask the aid of the Etruscans of Caere, long in revolt against their savage king Mezentius. Arrived there, he is visited by his goddess mother, bearing the divinely-fashioned armour, and above all the shield* Aen. 8. 31 foil. » lb. 102 foil, lb. 306 foil. ♦ lb. 36;. A STUDY OF THE AENEID. 113 on which the hand of the god has engraved the story of the future destinies and glories of Rome^. It is perhaps hardly necessary to dwell on the ninth book, the absence of Aeneas, the siege of his camp, the episode of Nisus and Euryalus. Vergil's handling of the story in this case is not an instance of his happier manner : the incidents are contrived with too rigid an adherence to the outline given in the Iliad, and, in spite of great beauties of detail, the reader is sensible throughout of a certain awkwardness and pointlessness in the whole. This fact has been dwelt upon by critics, as it is indeed obvious; but I must not leave the ninth book without remark- ing upon the light which it throws upon the character of Turnus as conceived by Vergil. The picture of him, as he comes before the beleaguered walls, is no doubt the picture of a bold warrior^ ; but there are touches of something besides bravery. There is the old wildness^ in his air; like Amata, as described in her frenzy * in the seventh book, he is on fire, like the blazing pine- torch which he carries. When the Trojan ships are saved from his attack, by t!:e interposition of Cybele, he is ready with an application of the omen to the Trojans ; for the oracles which they carry with them he cares nothing ^. Forgetting that Lavinia has never even been betrothed to him, he accuses Aeneas of repeating the offence of Paris. The narrative of his exploits in the ninth book need not detain us longer, but the develop- ment of the story in the later books brings out more clearly than ever the contrast between Aeneas and the rude warrior who is opposed to him. The tenth book brings Aeneas back to his soldiers from the embassy in which he has instructed the Etruscan king of Caere of the resources of Mezentius and the ^ Aen. 8. 731 Attollens umero famamgue et fata nepotum. 2 lb. 9. 47 foil. ^ lb. 57 Hue turbidus atque hue Lustrat equo muros. * lb. 72 Atque manum pinu flagranti fervidus implet. Comp. 7. 397 (of Amata) Ipsa inter medias flagrantem fervida pinum sustinet. 5 lb. 9. 128 foil. I 114 SUGGESTIONS INTRODUCTORY TO violent passions of Turnus ^ The conflicts which ensue lead up to the death of Pallas at the hand of Turnus, and that of Lausus and his father Mezentius at the hand of Aeneas. Let us look for a moment at the way in which the two warriors respectively behave at the moment of their triumph. Turnus approaches Pallas with the savage wish that his father Evander were there to see him fall^ In the combat that follows Pallas is slain; Turnus sends him back, he says, as Evander deserved to see him. < Whatever honour there be in a mound of earth ^, whatever consolation in covering him with the ground, I freely grant.' Unchecked by the thought that a day of vengeance will one day be at hand, Turnus allows free play to his arrogant thoughts : he robs the belt of the fallen youth, and wears it exulting on his own shoulders, triumphing insolently in the slaughter which he has just dealt *. Aeneas, infuriated^ seizes eight youths as an offering to the Manes of Pallas ^, and the battle proceeds with renewed ardour. The book ends with the exploits of Mezentius and his ^ Aen. 10. 151 Violentaque pectora Tumi Edocet. " lb. 442. ' lb, 492 Qualem meruit, Pallanta remitto : Quisquis honos tumuli, quidquid solamen humandi esty Largior. * lb. 513 Te, Tume, superbum Caede nova quaerens. ' I'he Barbara atque immanis consuetude hominum imjnolandorum (Cicero pro Fonteio § 31) had ceased to fonn a part of the regular Roman state- religion. But the practice of getting rid of a political enemy on the pretext of sacrificing him to the Manes of a slain opponent was not unknown to the passions of the last century of the republic. It is thus that Lucan describes the brutal murder of Marius Gratidianus at the hands of Catiline (2. 173) Quid sanguine Manes Placatos Catuli referajn ? cui victima tristes Inferias Marius, forsan 7tolentibus umbris, Pendit, inexpleto non fanda piacula busto. Comp. Cic. in Pisonem § 16 .,4 me quidem etiam poenas expetistis quibus coniuratorum manes mortuorum expiaretis . . . Quorum ego furori nisi ces- sissem, in Catilinae busto vobis ducibus mactatus essem. Suetonius says of Augustus himself (Aug. 15") Scribunt quidam trecentos ex dediticiis electos utriusque ordinis ad aram Divo lulio exstructam Idibus Martiis hostiarum more mactatos. The mere possibility that such an act could be imputed to Augustus is characteristic of the times, and may perhaps partly explain why Vergil attributes to Aeneas an act which seems at first sight so alien to the character of his hero, however suitable it may appear to that of the Homeric Achilles. A STUDY OF THE AENEID. 115 son Lausus, and the death of the latter at the hand of Aeneas. The narrative of Lausus' death must detain us a moment as an instance both of the general pathos of Vergil's manner and of his conception of Aeneas' character, as throughout the foil and contrast to that of Turnus. Lausus, seeing his father Mezentius in danger ^ wards off from him the blow of Aeneas' sword, and turns the whole brunt of the battle against the Trojan hero. Aeneas warns him of his certain fate, but in vain ; Lausus rushes impetuously against his stronger enemy. His end is upon him, he falls ; Aeneas, touched at the example of a son's devotion, takes him by the hand, and in words full of dignity and com- passion refuses to take from him the armour which he loved. It is worth while to attend to the difference between Aeneas' conduct in the case of Lausus and that of Turnus in the case of Pallas, and especially to the language in which each addresses his fallen enemy. * Whatever honour there may be in a mound of earth, whatever consolation in covering him with the ground, I freely grant.' ' What worthy reward can Aeneas give thee now, poor boy ; Aeneas who loved his father, for deeds such as thine, for such nobility of soul } Keep as thine own the arms that have been thy joy, and I send thee back to the spirits and ashes of thy fathers, if they have any care for such things ^.' The book ends with the death of Mezentius, the last quieting of the savage violence of his soul ^. Vergil has been censured for calling Mezentius a disdainer of the gods and a tyrant to his people, and yet attributing to him the love for his son and affec- tion for his horse, which add so much pathos to the closing scenes of the tenth book. I venture to say that had the harsher features of Mezentius' character been dwelt upon at length, all the human interest which now attends his fate would have ' Aen. 10. 796 foil. ^ lb. 825 Quid tibi nunc, miserande puer, pro laudibus istis, Quid pius Aeneas tanta dabit indole dignuni? Arma, quibus lactatus, habe tua ; teque parentum Manibus et cineri, si qua est ea cura, remitto, ^ lb. 897 Ubi nunc Mezentius acer, et ilia Effera vis animi? I 2 Ii6 SUGGESTIONS INTRODUCTORY TO vanished. His cruelty and impiety, now things of the past, were sufi5ciently indicated before, and it is enough for the poet to mark his character in this context»by comparing his furious entrance on the field to the march of the terrible storm-god Orion through the ocean ^. But Mezentius, though a barbarian and a tyrant, has the feelings of a man ; his passionate love of his son is in reality one of the most natural traits in such a character. Who would care to read Herodotus' story of Periander, the son of Cypselus, were his fierceness imredeemed by his love for his son Lycophron ? We ought not to deny to Vergil the praise which he deserves for having refused to stain his pages by the coarse portraiture of a monster. With the death of Pallas on the one hand, and that of Lausus and Mezentius on the other, a break naturally occurs in the story of the war. Aeneas has no tenderness for Mezentius as he had for his son : he strips him of his armour, with which he raises a trophy to the god of war ^. Both sides pause to bury their dead, and at no point in the course of the story, except perhaps at the beginning of the sixth book, does the heroic outline in which Vergil evidently intended to draw the character of Aeneas be- come more apparent. If confirmation of this view be needed, a careful study of the first hundred and fifty lines of the eleventh book will amply supply it. After the burial scenes we are in- troduced to the discords long previously existing, and now more openly showing themselves, in the camp of the Latins^. Drances especially heads a cry that it is on Turnus' head alone that the responsibility of the war ought to fall, that he should meet Aeneas in single combat if he claim for himself the first ^ Aen. lo. 763 Turbidus ingreditur canipo. Quant magnus Orion, etc. Mb. II. :;. foil. ^ lb. 21 7 "foil. Dirum exsecrantur bellum Turnique hymetiaeos ; Ipsuni amiis, ipsumque iubent decemere ferro. Qui regnum Italiae et primes sibi poscat honores. Multa simul contra variis sententia didis Pro Tumo, etc. A STUDY OF THE AENEID. 117 honours of the Italian kingdom. Meanwhile, the ambassadors previously sent to ask aid against the Trojans from Diomede return with the gloomy message that their labour has been in vain ^ Latinus assembles a council, in which he proposes to come to terms with Aeneas and to give the Trojans a tract of land to settle upon, and to take them into perpetual alliance. The proposal is supported by Drances, to whom Turnus replies in a speech of splendid spirit and eloquence, but full also, as Vergil clearly intends to imply, of the infatuate presumption which is to prove his ruin. He will meet Aeneas, he says, even if he come in the guise of the great Achilles, and, like him, clad in divine armour^. The sequel will show how the promise is fulfilled. Meanwhile a panic and confusion arise in the assembly at the reported approach of the Trojan army. Turnus seizes the moment ^ to make further deliberation impos- sible, and without consultation with his peers hurries from the council and makes his dispositions for a battle. As before, his rude followers are eager for war ; as before, Latinus is helpless and compelled to abandon his designs for peace ; as before, the war is undertaken without a thought of anything but the desires and ambition of Turnus. The interest of the battle which ensues centres chiefly in the heroic deeds and the death, of the virgin Camilla, just as Mezentius was made the central figure in the events described at the end of the tenth book. Camilla slain, the last hope of the Rutulians, Turnus excepted, is gone, and the daring Rutulian leader is compelled at last to consent to meet Aeneas alone, to take the burden of the war on his own shoulders, and to grant peace to his people and to the party opposed to ^ Aen. II. 225 foil. ^ lb. 438 Ibo aniniis contra, vel magnum praestet Achilhm Factaque Volcani manibus paria induat arma Ilk licet. Like so many other words of Tumus, these recall the words of Hector : in this instance Vergil is probably adapting II. 20. 371 Tou 8' 670) avTios (1/xi Kal ei irvpl x^tp"? (Oifcev, El TTvpl xftpas eocKe, /xcVos 5' atOojvi aiS-qpo). ' lb. 459. ii8 SUGGESTIONS INTRODUCTORY TO him *. His mien is distracted "^^ his consent is expressed in lan- guage bitter, arrogant, and disdainful. The attempt of Latinus, — who represents that, for love of Turnus and for the tears of Amata, he has broken all bonds of duty, has disobeyed the com- mand of the gods, violated his covenant with Aeneas, and taken up arms for impiety, — to dissuade Turnus from entering on the unequal conflict, are in vain^. The violence of Turnus in- creases *, the disease grows under the attempt to heal it. The queen Amata, terrified at last into submission, follows her husband in the endeavour to persuade Turnus, threatening to die by her own hand ^ if Aeneas (as she too plainly forebodes) prove victorious. But Turnus is on fire with love and rage, and insists, as he cannot but insist, on the agreement being carried out. The arrangements for the treaty are concluded, Aeneas and Latinus ratify it with a solemn oath, and the single combat is about to begin. But again the wild Rutulians^ and the leaders friendly to Turnus show that they will be bound by no treaty. When the solemn covenant is concluded they refuse to abide by it ; even the Latins, lately so eager for peace, change their minds, and with the help of the nymph Juturna, Turnus' sister, the rude multitude is excited to raise a fresh quarrel. The augur To- lumnius, falsely interpreting an omen which is in reality adverse to him, leads the way in a direct attack upon the Trojans'. The battle becomes general, Messapus showing himself con- ^ Aen. 12. I foil. * lb. 9 Hatid secus accenso gliscit violentia Ttimo. Turn sic adfatur regent, atque ita turbidus infit : Nulla mora in Turno ; nihil est, quod dicta retractent Ignavi Aeneadae, nee, quae pepigere, recusent. Congredior. Per sacra, pater, et concipe foedus, etc. ' lb. 29 Victus amore tui, cognato sanguine victus, Coniugis et maestae lacHmis, vincla omnia rupi: Promissam eripui getiero ; arma impia sumpsi. * lb. 45 Haudquaquam dictis violentia Tumi Plectitur ; exsuperat magis, aegrcscitque medendo. Ut primum fari potuit, etc. ' lb. 55 Ardentem generum moritura tenebat. •lb. 2i6foU. 'lb. 258 foil. A STUDY OF THE AENEID. 119 spicuous among the covenant-breakers, and Latinus flies with the gods whose presence has hallowed the treaty. Aeneas acts as becomes him, with bared head and outstretched hand calling to his men to keep the peace ^. At this moment he is wounded by an unseen hand, and then Turnus, seeing him retreating from the ranks, comes forward not as a peacemaker, but to take advantage of the absence of Aeneas in order to lead a more violent attack upon the Trojans. This is the end of his boasting and his promises, to act as Paris acts in the Iliad when Menelaus is wounded ^ The battle rages on, till at length Aeneas threatens to destroy the faithless city of Latinus itself. The instincts of a soldier awake in Turnus' breast; he resolves at least to go down to the spirits of his ancestors a soul unstained by cowardice ^. A messenger comes to him to tell him of the coming doom of the city, and to reproach him for his absence from the scene of danger*. Turnus is confounded by the distracting view brought before him ; shame, madness, love, and conscious manhood shake his bosom with the surging of conflicting passion. At length the shadows break and light returns to his mind; he looks towards the city and sees a tower, which he himself had built, in flames ; his resolve is at length made up, the stain of dishonour is to rest upon him no longer, he goes to meet his doom. II. Having tried so far to trace the main thread of idea and in- tention which runs through the Aeneid, I propose to offer a few ^ Aen. 12. 311 foil. 2 Yet Mr. Gladstone (^Studies, etc., vol. iii. p. 508) speaks of ' the genuine and manly character of Turnus/ in whom ' we do not find a single trait feeble in itself or unworthy of the masculine idea and intention of the portrait.' ^ Aen. 12. 646 Vos mihi Manes Estc boni, quoniam Superis aversa vohintas. Sancta ad vos anima, at que istius inscia culpae Descendam, magnorum hand unquam indignus avorum. * lb. 650 foil. I20 SUGGESTIONS INTRODUCTORY TO remarks upon a far harder question, what influence mainly de- termined Vergil in the treatment of his materials. This part of the subject falls naturally into two heads, the first of which embraces the consideration of the form of the poem, and the second that of the main literary, ethical, and re- ligious conceptions which determined the cast of Vergil's characters and the whole inner side (so to speak) of the story in its development. First, then, what determined the form in which the Aeneid is written ? Vergil is thought of generally as one of the most imitative, perhaps the most imitative, of poets ancient or modern. This is an easy and obvious criticism: it is not, however, so often asked how this fact came about, whether it is due to Vergil's fault or want of original power, or whether it was an inevitable accident of his time and his general literary surroundings, an accident too which has befallen other poets besides him. I have little hesitation in expressing my opinion that of the two alterna- tives the latter is the true one. It was impossible for any ancient poet, as it is for any poet or indeed any artist at all, to start with a clear field, to leave the works of his predecessors out of count altogether. An artist, be he poet, painter, architect, or musician must, if he is to be great, have in him the vital power of creation, the spirit of life ; but he cannot any the more for this, except at his own peril, disengage himself from the antecedents of his art. This would be to disown the continuity of thought, to reject the glorious inheritance left to him, to waste his labour m perish- able and abortive effort. This is especially true, I think, of the two most inward and spiritual of the arts, poetry and music. No one blames Milton for absorbing into his poetry the forms and spirit of classical and Italian writings, or Beet- hoven for absorbing into his music the forms and spirit of Haydn and Mozart. If Vergil was imitative, he shares that quality with other great artists, and the fact, so far as it goes, is not his reproach but his highest praise. What however strikes and often offends a modem reader in Vergil is not so much that he imitates other poets, but that his imitations seem crude. A STUDY OF THE AENEID, 1 21 obvious, and often inappropriate. In numberless instances he gives not merely subtle reminiscences (such as we find in Dante and Milton of Vergil himself) but direct translations from Greek poetry, especially from the Homeric poems, and whole phrases directly transferred from his Roman predecessors, Ennius, Lucretius, and Catullus. Incidents not seldom find a place in Vergil's narrative for no other apparent reason than because they or something like them have occurred in Homer; his similes are often either directly copied with more or less adorn- ment from Homer, or worked up from Homeric material ; his very characters seem suggested by those of the Greek Epic cycle, Aeneas representing Achilles ; Dido, Calypso ; Camilla, Penthesi- leia; Turnus, Hector and Paris together. Two ^ books in the Aeneid are given to Aeneas' narrative of the fall of Troy, because a considerable space is given in the Odyssey to narratives in like manner incidentally inserted ; one book is given to the games held in honour of Anchises, because a book of the Iliad is given to the games held in honour of Patroclus; the descent of Aeneas into Hades recalls the journey of Odysseus to the land of shadows. It is impossible for us now to estimate accurately the amount of Vergil's debt to the lost writers of the Epic cycle ^, but several ^ As far as we can make out from the very scanty materials now existing, Vergil seems to have followed Arctinus more than any other of the cyclic poets. The Aethiopis of that poet contained the arrival of the Amazon Penthesileia, which doubtless suggested to Vergil the introduction of Camilla. See the analysis of Proclus, ap. Welcker, Epischer Cyclus 2. p. 521 'h.\x.a^wv IlcvOeaiXeia irapayiveTai Tpual avfinaxv<^ov(Ta, ''Apccus n\v Oxrfarrjp Qpaaaa Se TO yevos .... Mefxvojv Sc 6 'Hovs vlos ex'^^ ^(paicTTOTfvKTOV iravoirKiav vapayiveTai tois Tpojol ^orjO-qaocv. The last lines of the description of the picture seen by Aeneas in the temple at Carthage seem a condensed repre- sentation of the subjects of the Aethiopis : Eoasque acies et nigri Memnonis anna. Ducit Amazonidum lunatis agfnina peltis Penthesilea furens, mediisque in milibus ardet, etc. (Aen. I. 489). Dido's question, Quibus Aurorae venisset Jilius armis? (Aen. i. 75i)> doubtless refers to the ■^(paiaroTevKTos iravoTrXia of Memnon, It may perhaps be worth while to notice that Arctinus in the same poem represented Ajax as slaying himself irfpl rbv opOpov. (Schol. Pind. Isthm. 4. 58, ap. Welcker 1. c. p. 525.) The same is the case with Dido in the fourth Aeneid (v. 585 foil.), a parallel which would not be worth pressing were it not that the acts and words of Vergil's Dido so often recall those of the Ajax of 122 SUGGESTIONS INTRODUCTORY TO indications seem to show that it was considerable. The relation of parts of the Aeneid to the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius has been admirably discussed in Coningtoh's Introduction to the Aeneid. But it is not only these broad features of the narrative which are copied ; the spirit of imitation pervades the minutest details of Vergil's execution. To pursue this subject into all its minutiae is the duty of a commentator: in considering it generally we need only glance at the literary conditions which made such a state of things not only possible but inevitable. The kind of crude and external imitation which we find in Vergil is characteristic of all the serious Roman poetry : Ennius Sophocles, who would probably use the story of Arctinus as material for his tragedy. The 'lAtov iripais of Arctinus, so far as we can judge from the bare analysis of Proclus, must have been followed pretty closely in its main outline by Vergil in the second Aeneid. In his account of the debate about the wooden horse Vergil keeps nearer to Arctinus (if Proclus' analysis is to be trusted) than to the Odyssey. Tofs fxlv Soku KaTaKprjixvioai avTov, rois 5e Kara^Ki- ']ieiv, 01 Se hpbv avrbv dvaTedrjvai. The order in which the proposals are mentioned is the same as that given in the second Aeneid (v. 36), and the proposal, mentioned both by Arctinus. and Vergil, to bum the horse, is an addition to the account given in Homer. The story of Laocoon as we have it in the second Aeneid, that of Sinon, and that of the murder of Priam by Pyrrhus at the altar of Z€i;s"E/)«6tos, were all contained in the 'IKiov trepais of Arctinus : and so was that of the death of Deiphobus at the hand of Menelaus, which would well agree with the account supposed to be given by the shade of Deiphobus to Aeneas (Aen. 6. 525). If Welcker be right {£/>. Cycl. 2. p. 235) in saying that the works of Arctinus appear to have been the most considerable among the poems of the Trojan cycle after the Iliad and Odyssey, Vergil may be supposed to have followed him from poetical preference. From the story of the capture of Troy and the Little Iliad of Lesches, Vergil does not seem to have borrowed much : indeed in details, as far as our evidence goes, he seems to have followed an altogether different tradition from that adopted by Lesches, who represented the murder of Priam as occurring not at the altar of Ztiis^E/Mfetos, but at the door of his palace : who made Aeneas' wife not Creusa but Eurydice, and who gave Aeneas himself as a captive to Neoptolemus. (Welcker /. c. p. 538). Pausanias (10. 25 foil.) describes some pictures of the night-battle in Troy at Delphi by Polygnotus, who, he thinks, followed the account given by Lesches. The details of these pictures cannot be brought into harmony with Vergil's account of the night-battle in the second Aeneid, nor do the names of the fighters, as a rule, occur there. The love of Coroebus for Cassandra is mentioned (10. 27. i), so that Conington is probably wrong (on 2. 341) in attributing this part of the story to a mere imitation of II. 13. 363 foil. Whether Vergil (in the sixth Aeneid) was at all influenced by the account of Hades and its terrors which, according to Pausanias (10. 28. 4), was con- tained in the Minyas and the Noaro*, cannot be ascertained. A STUDY OF THE AENEID. 123 imitates Homer ; Lucretius, Ennius ; few pages of Ovid (to say nothing of later poets) are free from imitations of Vergil. Even the Greek poets, free and spontaneous as they are, draw largely upon Homeric ideas and even upon Homeric phrases ; a Roman poet, who owed to Greece the whole awakening of his spiritual life, would have considered it little short of madness to desert the Greek models. It may be said to be a law which dominates the history of Latin literature, that no sooner had a fine thought, phrase, or even rhythm been struck out by a poet, than it be- came, by common consent, the property of all subsequent writers. To appropriate it was not to commit a plagiarism, but to do honour to its inventor. The only great presentment of heroic times open to Vergil was that of the Homeric poems ; it would have seemed impossible for him to cast his epic in any mould but in that of the Iliad and Odyssey. To reproduce their form in Roman outline, use their details, absorb their spirit, surpass if possible their effect, would be his first and most natural am- bition^. It would not strike a poet of his time as it would a poet of our own that an imitation should be rather suggested than paraded. Complex and (as the phrase is) modern as were the circumstances of Roman society and ideas in Vergil's time, the Roman poets were still simple enough to think that open imi- tation was rather a grace than a defect. There is a nobler way of carrying out the spirit of imitation, which is now the birthright of every true poet, and which consists in inward reminiscences of the spirit rather than open reproduction of the forms of past poetry. This, though by no means unknown to Vergil, as we shall see below in the case of his treatment of Lucretius, had not in his time worked its way to exclusive predominance. If, then, Vergil constructed his Aeneid upon the lines of the Greek epic, he did what no Roman poet who wished to rise above the rank of an annalist could have helped doing. As little could he help using to the full the stores of genuine Roman ^ See the beginning of the third Georgic, especially the lines Primus ego m patriam mecum, niodo vita supersit^ Aonio rediens deducam vertice Musas. 124 SUGGESTIONS INTRODUCTORY TO poetry that lay ready to his hand in the works of Ennius and Lucretius. In all this he was acting in strict accordance with the spirit of his age, and indeed of classical antiquity generally ; nor is it necessary to dwell longer upon this head. I pass therefore to the consideration of the second point, the main moral and religious conceptions which seem to have determined the cast of the characters and the whole inner side of the development of the story. The form of the Aeneid is that of the Greek epic ; not so, however, the cast of the principal thoughts which underlie it. These are partly Greek, partly Roman ; but when Greek represent rather the traditions of the Attic stage and (I think in some cases) of the writings called Orphic than of the Homeric poems. We have seen that the main conception of the Aeneid is that of the conquering and civilizing power of Rome directed by a divine providence : resistance to this divinely-ordered course of events being represented as the work of inferior deities, rude races, and the baser human passions. It may be said that to a great extent Vergil works out this theme in accordance with the ideas which inspired the great masters of the Athenian stage. The deeper and more religious view of the conflict of individual inclination with the divine will which is presented, according to their different manners, by Aeschylus and Sophocles, and though in a less marked manner by Euripides, was impossible to the simplicity of the Homeric times. The reign of my- thology was, in the age of the Attic drama, past, and that of thought had begun, or, in other words, mythology gave the form and thought the matter to the creative power of the poet. This is precisely the case with the mythology of the Aeneid in its relation to the inner ideas of the poem. Imitations and reminiscences of the great Greek tragedians may be noticed by any one who reads Vergil with a good commentary, nor can I do better than refer anyone who wishes for a text, from which to work out this subject, to Conington's note on Aen. 4. 469 S ^ Eumenidum veluti demens videt agmina Pentheus Et solem geminum et duplicis se ostendere Thtbas ; A STUDY OF THE AENEID. 125 where Vergil, with the utmost beauty and delicacy of his man- ner, expresses the sense of his debt to the Athenian drama. I wish, however, to call attention to a broader fact than this ; to the fact, namely, which I think becomes abundantly clear to the student of Vergil, that the spirit of the whole action and play of character in the Aeneid is very like the spirit which animates the action and play of character with which the Greek tragedy has made us familiar. The plot involves the resistance of indi- vidual passion and inclination to the more widely-reaching divine purpose; human passion bent on its own fulfilment in contempt of the gods, and ending, as it can only end, in infatua- tion and ruin. This main idea is in the strict sense of the word tragic, and Vergil has worked it out wdth all the dignity and purity of Sophocles. Aut Agamemnonius scaenis agitatus Orestes Armatam facibus niatrem et serpentibus atris Cum ftigit, ultricesque sedent in limine Dirae. I quote the following remarks from Conington's admirable note on this passage : ' Virgil must be judged by his own standard ; and there is nothing inconsistent with that standard in supposing that the Pentheus of his thoughts was the Pentheus of Euripides, the Orestes of Aeschylus. He doubtless felt that it was to the stage that he owed the glorious vision of their madness, and he was glad to make the acknowledgment. It is this feeling which dictates the presents, videt, ftigit, sedent. The frenzy of the Theban and the Argive is not a thing of the past, embalmed in legend ; it is constantly repeating itself; it is present as often as the Bacchae or the Eumenides are acted, read, or remembered.' Mr. Gladstone {Studies, etc., vol. iii. p 516 foil.) censures Vergil for confusing the Hellenes with the Pelasgi and the Dorians, the Trojans with the Dardanians and Phrygians, the Simois v/ith the Scamander, and other departures from the nomenclature of the Iliad. Most of these confusions, if they are such, find parallels in the works of the Greek tragedians, which, considering how much these poets drew upon the traditions of the Epic cycle, may point to variations of nomenclature earlier than the age of the Attic drama. An instance or two may be quoted. The epithet Aaph stands for Greek in general in Euripides, Troades 233 SouAat 70/) 8^ Aojpidos kfffx^v -xOovbs i]di], comp. Hecuba 450 TleXaayiKov aTpdrevfrn for the Greek army in Euripides, Phoenissae 106 AapSavios for Trojan in the Troades 534, 816,840, comp. Helena 1493 : ^pvyes is applied by Sophocles to the Trojans, Ajax 1054, and in a fragment of the AaKaivai (338 in Nauck's fragments of the Greek tragedians : see also the references given by Nauck on fragm. 336) ; by Euripides, Hecuba 4 and elsewhere, sometimes, as in Vergil, with the implication of effeminacy. As to the Simois and the Scamander, it may be observed that Aeschylus and Sophocles never mention the Simois, but that in Euripides this river is oftener mentioned than the Scamander. Other details of this kind have been dealt with by Conington in his commentary. 126 SUGGESTIONS INTRODUCTORY TO To illustrate these remarks I must dwell for a few moments on the episode of Dido ^. The Carthaginian queen is brought before us in the first book. From the first her character and lineaments have the mark of true royalty'^. Beautiful as Diana she appears passing through the midst of her people, her thoughts bent eagerly on her kingdom that is to be ', and sitting down in the midst of her armed body-guard to give laws and ordinances to her subjects. The ambassadors of Aeneas appear asking for her protection from fire and sword : with queenly generosity she at once acknowledges the greatness of the Trojan leader, and offers his followers either a safe escort to Sicily or a share in her own city and kingdom. Aeneas appears : his mien, his kingly expression of gratitude*, and the greatness of his misfortune move her to the noble avowal, ' I too have been hurried hither and thither by a like Fortune through many struggles, before she willed that I should at length settle on this land : I know what evil is and learn to succour the miserable ^.' An inter- change of magnificent presents follows, after the fashion of the heroic ages ; then, by the agency of Juno and Venus, the queen is devoted to a deeper passion ; woman-like, she is moved by the gifts of Aeneas and the beauty of his supposed son ^, whose form Cupid has assumed. But leaving Cupid and his mythology, Vergil soon returns to nature. It is the exploits of Aeneas and the dangers he has passed which move the queen ''. She asks again and again of Paris and Hector and the heroic story, the divinely-fashioned arms of Memnon, the horses of Diomede, the stature of Achilles ; nor is she content until Aeneas has told her * Vergil's version of the story of Dido was invented by himself, in defiance of the current tradition. See Conington's Virgil, vol. ii (^fourth edition), p. lix. foil. " Aen. 1 . 496 Regina ad templutn, forma pulchet'rima Dido, Incessit. ' lb. 504 Jtistans opcri regnisque futuris. * lb. 597. ' lb. 628 Me quoque per multos stmths fortuna laborcs lactatam hac detnum voluit consistere terra, Non ignara mali miseris succurrere disco. * lb. 714. ' lb. 749. A STUDY OF THE AENEID. 127 at length the story of the fall of Troy and his wanderings that followed. The tale of heroic suffering and achievement does its work, the queen is no longer herself^, the constancy of her mind is shaken. She sees before her eyes the possibility of a falling away from her first love ; the thought is like madness to her, and she invokes the curse of Heaven upon her head if she forget her honour and her truth '^. Her sister dispels her doubts by a plea which Dido, as a queen, cannot resist. She has not yielded, and perhaps would not yield, to mere personal passion; but when Anna represents to her that a union with Aeneas will mean the union of the Tyrian and Trojan empires, and the great increase of the glory of Carthage ^, she gives way, and her fate is sealed from that moment. In the true spirit of tragic irony Vergil represents Dido and her sister as sacrificing to win the favour of Heaven, from which she has just invoked a curse on her faith- lessness ; and to what gods does she sacrifice ? To Ceres, Apollo, and Lyaeus, the deities presiding over the foundation of cities and the giving of laws, when she is forgetting her duty as a queen ; to Juno the goddess of marriage, when she is forgetting her faith to her husband *. The passion works until the queen forgets her people and the defence of her kingdom ; ^ Aen. 4. 8 Male sana. 2 lb. 24 Sed mihi vel tellus optem prius itna dehiscat, Vel Pater omnipotens adigat me fulmine ad umbras, Pallentis umbras Erebi noctemque profundam. Ante, Pudor, quam te violo, aut tua iura resolvo. ' lb. 47 Quam tu urbem^ soror, hanc cemes, quae surgere regna Coniugio tali! Teucrum comitantibus armis Punica se quantis attollet gloria rebus ! * I cannot but regard this as the most natural explanation of the lines (Aen. 4. 57) Mactant lectas de more bidentis Legiferae Cereri Phoeboque patrique Lyaeo. The materials for the interpretation are given in Conington's note, though he has not himself adopted it. As he points out, legiferae is a translation of 6e vepiaOfvei, Cojov 8' 6Tt AetTrerat aia/vos eidojXov to 'ydp iari fiovov €K OiWV. Fragm^. 4 (98) Olai Se ^€p(T€(p6va noivav iraXaiov rrevOeos de^crai, ks rdv virepOev dkiov Kiivuv kvaTO) Irei.' avdihoi xpvxo-s TTaXiv. kfc Tov PaanXrjes dyavol Kal aOivn Kpanrvol aocpia re pieyiaroi dvdpes qv^ovt'* h bk rbv Xonrbv xpovov ^pcues dyvoi rrpds dvdpwnojv KaXevvrat. 138 SUGGESTIONS INTRODUCTORY TO on this subject, unite the two theories without seriously attempting any reconciliation of them\ The inconsistency recurs in an embarrassing shape in VergO's sixth Aeneid ; but to blame the poet for it would be to ignore the whole of his literary ante- cedents. The two lines of thought were ready to his hand, each far-reaching and profound, irreconcilable only as definite pro- positions on such matters are apt to become, because starting each from acknowledged facts they find their meeting beyond the point where our vision can follow them; one based on the unity of existence, the other on the separation of in- dividual beings; each requiring a moral completion which could be supplied by the other ; each sublime and capable' of raising the poetic fancy. That Vergil should have embodied both in his sixth Aeneid is only what we should have expected of him. More than any other poet, Vergil was careful to let no idea escape him which is capable of poetic treatment. Accord- ingly, we find the first part of the sixth Aeneid taken up with the mythological form of the popular beliefs ; the neutral region assigned to those whose life had been cut off, without fault of their own, before its time*^; the region of eternal punishment ^ For instance in the Phaedo and at the end of the Republic. It is worth while to quote here what Zeller says of Empedocles {Philosophic, etc. i. p. 653) ' Anders verhalt es sich mit gewissen religiosen Lehren und Vorschriften, welche theils dem dritten Buche des physikalischen Lehrgedichts, theils und besonders den Katharmen entnommen, mit den wissenschaftlichen Grund- satzen unseres Physikers in keiner sichtbaren Verbindung stehen . . . Liegen aber auch seine religiosen und seine physikalischen Lehren in Einer Richtung, so hat es doch unser Philosoph unterlassen, einen wissenschaftlichen Zusam- menhang zwischen ihnen herzustellen, oder auch nur ihre Vereinbarkeit nachzuweisen.' (p. 657) *Es bleibt mithin nur die Annahme iibrig, er habe die Lehre von der Seelenwanderung, und was damit zusammenhangt, aus der orphisch-pythagoraischen Uberlieferung aufgenommen, ohne diese Glaubens- artikel mit seinen an einem andem Ort und in einem anderen Zusammenhang vorgetragenen philosophischen tj berzeugungen wissenschaftlich zu ver- kniipfen.' ''■ This seems the simplest explanation of the fact that the souls of infants are represented in Vergil as on the threshold of Orcus, succeeded next by those of suicides, of the unjustly condemned, of the victims of unrequited love, and of warriors fallen in battle. (Aen. 6. 425 foil.) There are traces of a notion that a full term of life ended by a natural or honourable death was a necessary condition of a complete admission into the under-world. The ghost in Plautus' Mostellaria (2. 2. 67) says : Nam me Achertintcm A STUDY OF THE AENEID. 139 and the abode of the blessed. Then Anchises is introduced^ expounding the sublime doctrine that one spirit pervades all existence and all forms of life, that individual lives derive from this their separate being, that the body is a prison-house, death the liberation from it, that guilt is purged after death until the flame of heavenly aether is left pure, that after this purgation the emancipated soul returns again to its embodiment on earth. The whole picture is unfinished, bjit it is impossible not to recognise that in its main outlines the conception is that embodied in the myths of Plato. The ordinary popular mythology is put side by side with the doctrine of transmigration, and the reader is left to harmonize them as he can. His logical instincts may not be satisfied, but more than satisfaction is given to his imagination. The introduction of the doctrines of transmigration and purifi- cation suggest at once a relation between the sixth Aeneid and the traditions which went in Greece by the name of Orphic ; a relation which may be shown to exist, I think, by other details. It has been noticed as a strange fact that Vergil makes no mention of Homer either in the sixth Aeneid, where he well might have done so (as Silius in his thirteenth book afterwards did) or elsewhere. The difficulty may, I think, be partly ex- plained by the consideration that Vergil evidently felt himself more indebted to the Orphic than to the Homeric poems. From the Homeric poems indeed he borrowed an infinite mass recipere Orcus noluit. Quia praemature vita careo. Compare Vergil's language about Dido at the end of the fourth book : Nam quia nee fato, merita nee morte peribat, Nondutti illi jiavum Proserpina vertiee crinem Abstulerat, etc. Tertullian de Anima (56) says : Aiunt et immatura morte praeventas co usque vagari istic, donee reliquatio eovipleatur aetatum quas turn pervixissent si nan intej7ipestive obiissent. Vergil seems to have been influenced by some idea of this kind. The lines 6. 431-434 Nee vero hae sine sorte datae, sine iudice, sedes : Quaesitor Minos urnam jnovet ; ille silentum Conciliunique voeat vitasque et erimina diseit, stand in no intelligible relation to the context in which our tradition has placed them. They would be far better in place after v. 627. ^ Aen. 6. 724 foil. Lobeck in the chapter above quoted has noticed the Orphic character of this passage : the word rota for circle of time (v. 748) seems, although Servius says rotani volvere is sermo Ennianus, to recall the use of the Greek kvkKos or rpoxps in the same sense, as Lobeck observes. I40 SUGGESTIONS INTRODUCTORY TO of detail and outward adornment; but for those deeper ideas which gave fuller satisfaction to his contemplative and religious temper he would search them in vain. The two bards whom he mentions by name in the sixth Aeneid are Orpheus and Musaeus^. The story of Orpheus had fascinated his imagination before he wrote the sixth Aeneid^; but the motive, so to speak, of his mentioning them there seems to have been their con- nection with the Orphic and Eleusinian mysteries. Athenian tradition commonly spoke of the two priestly poets together, and though the Orphic mysteries were distinct from those of Eleusis, the later Greek representations of the underworld con- stantly exhibit points of association with both. To these mysteries then the sixth Aeneid may be said to stand in a poetical relation. The story of the initiation of Heracles (see note on p. 105) at Eleusis may well have been present to Vergil's thoughts, as there can be no doubt that in more than one point he represents Aeneas here as Heracles' counterpart^. In general it may be said the sixth Aeneid reflects in a poetry rare, exquisite, ^ Aen. 6. 645, 66"]. In Plato's Apology, 41, Socrates wishes 'Opopas die^ovrts DE AR TE POE TIC A, 1 7 7 (ib. p. 116 a): Cicero Legg. i. § 15 in ripa mambulantes, turn auiem residentes. But surely in all these cases it is not a whole clause which is wanting, but only some such adversative expres- sion as [liv, t6t€ fi€u, or /um quidem. Now the medieval com- mentary published in 1877 from a Vienna manuscript by Dr Joseph Zechmeister paraphrases the passage as follows : prima, scilicet folia, cadunt, nova succrescunt ; ita vetus aetas verborum, id est, verba in vetere aetate inventa intereunt, et modo nata . . . florent. As succresco is a word of the true classical stamp, and not at all likely to have been used suo Marte by a medieval commentator, it has occurred to me that we liave here the very -.words of Horace, and that the line ran originally thus : prima cadunt, nova succrescunt ; vetus inter it aetas; the words ita ver- borum having originally been a gloss on aetas and having after- wards crept into the text. The paraphrase just quoted need not imply that its writer found them in the text before him. On looking at Keller and Holder's apparatus criticus I find that they quote a passage from Jerome which seems to me materially to confirm this view. In the second book of his commentary on Hosea Jerome says {cuni) alia venerit generatio primisque cadentibus foliis virens silva succreverit; as if the text of Horace from which he is quoting had in it the word succresco. I would propose therefore to strike out the words ita verborum, to insert in their place nova succrescunt, and to translate the whole passage, ' As the forests change their leaves as the years hurry on, the first leaves fall, and new ones grow up to take their place: so the old generation perishes, and the new growth flourishes and is vigorous like the young generation of men.' Horace goes on to say that death comes to all men, and the works of men will come to nought, even as the mighty begin- nings of Julius Caesar, the harbour at Ostia, the draining of the Pomptine marshes, and the changing of the river's course have all fallen dead \ In vv. 73 foil. Horace gives a short history of the various ^ This is Preller's convincing interpretation of the passage : see Orelli's [Horace, Excursus iv to the Dc Arte Poetica, 178 HORACE, metres, adding a comment (vv. 87-118) on the necessity of suiting words and metre to the feelings which they are to express. In v. 11 9, passing to tragedy, he begins with another text : * either follow the tradition of the stage, or, if you desert it, let your invention be harmonious and consistent.' The lines 128-152 must, I think, refer to epic poetry. As Porphyrion says, Horace starts by putting forward a Greek text in the form of a question : * You say it is difficult to treat unclaimed ^ subjects in an original way, and that it is better to take the story of Troy and write tragedies upon it, than to be the first to attempt an epic on a new subject ? ' Yes, answers Horace : but such unclaimed matter will become of private right if you do not tarry in the beaten track of the epic cycle, nor in trans- lating from the Greek are over anxious to render word for word, nor in imitating (Homer ?) get yourself into entanglements from which you cannot extricate yourself. Again, do not begin like the cyclic poet, but like Homer ; like him plunge in medias res, blending fact and fiction into a harmonious whole. It is difficult to resist the impression that Horace is here alluding to Vergil's manner of proceeding in the Aeneid, which was now (if the date assumed above be correct) in the course of composition. At any rate he could not have described more ■exactly the plan which Vergil actually followed, and which Apollonius Rhodius (and possibly some Roman writers) had chosen to abandon. 153 foil. The inner treatment of tragedy and epic being dismissed, Horace speaks of the characters of comedy. Each period of life, childhood, youth, middle and old age, is to be painted accurately. Then in vv. 179-202 comes a string of rules affecting the mechanical arrangement of the drama. A distinction must be made between actions which are fit for pro- duction on the stage and those which should be left to messen- gers to narrate ; the deus ex machma must only be brought in on worthy occasions ; the actors must be three and no more ; a * I follow Acron in explaining communia to mean ' unclaimed.* Quamdiu a nullo sunt acta vel dicta, singulis aeque patent : ut domus aut ager sine domino communis est. p: DE ARTE POETICA, 1 79 tragedy should have five acts, no more ; the chorus, singing between the acts, must play a real part, encouraging the good and curbing the bad. A few remarks on the history and proper character of stage-music conclude this part of the subject. Horace now passes to the satyric drama, opening the subject with a short history of it, which I suppose to have come from his Greek original. The comment apparently begins v. 225 verum ita risores. The satyric drama, according to Horace's idea, should occupy a middle place between tragedy and comedy. Its language should not be too lofty, still less should it be too coarse or direct; there is a difference between the god Silenus and Davus the slave. The satyric drama must follow, naturally and easily, from the tragedy which precedes it ; so easily that every one will think he could have composed the whole himself. The fauni must not talk like town-bred boys, running to the extreme either of effeminacy or of coarseness. Scholars are now, I think, agreed that no satyric drama was known to the Roman stage ; but on such a hypothesis it is ex- ceedingly difficult to assign any real meaning to the passage just paraphrased. I do not know whether we ought to accept the statement of Porphyrion on v. 221, satyrica coeperunt scri- here ut Pomponius Atalanten vel Sisypkon vel Ariadnen, and assume that Pomponius, whether the poet of Bononia or his later namesake Pomponius Secundus, wrote satyric dramas. But I can see no possible reason for denying that some of the numerous Augustan poets or poetasters may have taken up the idea of doing so, and possibly of substituting the saiyri for the Atellana or exodium, as a more decent and dignified close for the whole theatrical performance. I would sooner believe this, even in the absence of other evidence, than suppose that Horace was merely beating the air in the practical and careful precepts which he is here enforcing. Every other part of the De Arte Poetica has its practical application, and why not this? But the account of the Latin drama given by Diomedes, p. 490 (Keil), seems distinctly to imply that the Romans had a N 2 i8o HORACE. satyric drama which stood to the Atellana as the comoedia to the togata tabernaria, and the tragoedia to the togata praetextata. Togata praetextata a tragoedia differt quod in tragoedia heroes inducuntur^ ut Pacuvius tragoedias nominihus heroicis inscripsit^ Orestem Chrysen et his similia, item Accius : in praetextata auiem quae inscribitur Brutus vel Decius^ item Marcellus. Togata tabernaria a comoedia differt^ quod in comoediis Graeci ritus inducuntur personaeque Graecae, Laches Sostrata ; in ilia vero Latinae . . . Latina Atellana a Graeca satyr ica differt, quod in satyrica fere Satyr orum personae inducuntur, aut si quae sunt ridiculae similes Satyris, Autolycus Busiris : i7i Atellana Oscae personae, ut Maccus. Vv. 251-257 treat of the metre suitable to tragic dialogue, and the practice of the Roman tragedians. Horace starts, as usual, with a paraphrase of his Greek original. The iambus, a short and a long syllable, was the basis of the trimeter iambeus or iambic of lampoon, consisting mainly of pure iambi: more recently spondees were admitted into the odd places. That this comes directly from the Greek is, I think, shown by the words non ita pridem. I suppose Horace to be distinguishing the pure or comparatively pure iambics written by ^ Archilochus, ^ He may be transcribing, but briefly and carelessly, from the same treatise as that used by Terentianus Maurus 2 181 foil., Marius Victorinus, p. 80 (Keil), and Plotius Sacerdos p. 517. The fullest account of the matter is that of Victorinus : Igitur iambictim metrum ne propter angiistam brevi- tatem sui pedis, videlicet in tria tempora coartati, verba plura excludendo minus apte aut metrum pangeret aut sensum exprimeret, placuit conditori- bus adscito spondeo et quae ex eo per divisionem tempora gigtiuntur per dipodias id scandere . . . Trimetri igitur iambici acatalectici genera sunt quattuor : quorum prius tragicum, dehinc comicum et iambician, post saty- ricum, habebitur. Et tragicum quidem, cuius in versu erunt dextri spondei, sinistri iambi, id est disparibus pares subditi : huius exejnplum Musae lovem latidate concentti bono. Comicum autem quod anapaestum et tribrachyn praedictis admiscet, tit Agite agite quid dubitatis agiles dare choros. lambicum autem quod ex omnibus iambis nullo alio admixto subsistit, quo iambographi maxime gaudent. lb. p. 132 lamborum scriptores quibus celeri versu opus est fere per iambos provolant. Plotius Sacerdos 1. c. Pura iambica trimetra quae Archilochia nuncupatur, quae solos iambos recipit et raros spondeos . . . Exempla Graeca ■ndrfp AvK^fi^a, rroiov iaivea-6ai. This was Cloatius Verus (Gellius 16. 12), the author of a treatise in several books bear- ing the title Verborum a Graecis tractorum. Teuffel conjectures that Cloatius Verus lived in the time of the Antonines (Gesck. der Rom. Lit. § 338, 5). There seems to be no ground for this supposition beyond the fact that he is quoted by Gellius, and I think it is therefore worth while to ask the question whether Cloatius Verus is not the same as the Cloatius quoted several times by Verrius Flaccus on matters relating to sacrifices. One of Cloatius's etymologies, that which connected the words alucinatio and elucus together, and both with the Greek akUiv (Gellius 1. c). 214 VERRIUS FLA ecus. is still to be found in Paulus; p. 24 alucinatio er ratio; p. 75 elucum significat languidum et semisomnum, vel ut alii volunt alucinatorum et nugarum amatorem, sive halonem. But it is no doubt rash to hazard a conjecture on so uncertain a matter. I now come to a point the full consideration of which will, I think, be found to throw a great deal of light on the manner in which the work of Verrius Flaccus, and indeed a large part of similar work in antiquity, was composed. Miiller, in the preface to his edition, has observed four points in the arrangement of the books as we have them in their abridged form, (i) Each book may be divided into two parts, in the first of which regard is paid not only to the first letter of each word, but also to the second, and sometimes to the third. (2) The same word is often interpreted twice over, the writer sometimes giving different explanations in the different places. A word so repeated may occur in the first and the second part of each book, but never occurs twice in the first part. (3) In the second part of every letter we find a series of glosses illus- trated from Cato, some from Plautus, and some remarks on religious law arranged together. (4) At the beginning of some letters we find words of religious signification placed apparently by way of good omen, as Augustus at the beginning of A^ Lucetium lovem at the beginning of Z, magnos ludos, Meltom, and Matrem Matutam at the beginning of M, naenia at the beginning of N. This arrangement is not always observed in our epitome ; a fact which Miiller puts down to the havoc made by Festus with the original work. Miiller also notices that the quotations from the contemporaries of Verrius Flaccus, Veranius, and Antistius Labeo, are to be found at the end of the letters in which they occur, M^ O, P, and R. And he infers from this that these citations, like those from Cato, were inserted by Festus from other works of Verrius Flaccus. The facts elicited by Miiller are undeniable, but they are not all. There is another phenomenon which has apparently escaped his notice, and which goes far, in my opinion, toward justifying us VERRIUS FLA ecus. 215 in raising the question whether he has hit on the true explanation of the arrangement of the articles in Festus. There are some traces even in the epitome of Paulus, and many more in the larger work of Festus, that Verrius arranged his instances under each letter in successive series, each of which contained glosses headed by citations from the same author. Miiller noticed that many of the letters in Festus and Paulus are con- cluded by a series of examples from Plautus and Cato. But I wish to point out that not only in the second part and at the end of the letters, but in the first part and throughout them, there are distinct traces not only of Cato and Plautus, but of many other authors, having been used in the same way. At the risk of being tedious I must go into the details of a phenomenon which has so important a bearing on the problem before us. Taking the letter A, I have observed that on p. 4 Ennius is quoted twice, on p. 11 Livius Andronicus twice, on pp. 27-28 Plautus twice, on p. 29 Naevius twice. Under the letter B, on pp. 35-36 there are six quotations from Plautus. Under C, on p. 45 there are two quotations from Plautus, and on p. 59 two from Ennius and four from Cato, on pp. 60-63 twenty-four from Plautus, and on p. 62 two from Ennius. Under F, on p. 92 there are three quotations from Cato. Under G, on pp. 96-97 there are two from Plautus. Under /, on p. 108 there are two from Pacuvius, pp. 1 09-1 10 two from Plautus, and p. 113 two from Plautus. Under i^/, p. 123 there are two from Ennius, pp. 1 38-1 4 1 two from Aelius Stilo, p. 144 three from Ennius, p. 152 three from Cato, p. 153 two from Ennius, p. 154 six from Cato, p. 157 several from books of augural discipline. Under N, pp. 1 6 1-2 Plautus is quoted four times, Livius Andronicus twice, and Cato thrice, pp. 165-6 Plautus six times and Ennius thrice, on p. 169 Plautus four times and Cato thrice, on p. 170 Plautus twice and Afranius twice, on p. 174 Livius Andronicus twice and Accius twice, on p. 177 Caecilius and Ennius each twice and Cato twice. Under O, on p. 178 Ennius is cited twice, p. 179 Plautus twice, p. 181 Plautus twice, on p. 182 Cato thrice, pp. 198-201 Ennius four times, on p. 201 C. Gracchus twice and 2i6 VERRIUS FLA ecus. Cato thrice. Under/*, p. 205 we have two avowed and probably more unavowed citations from the Carmen Saliare, on pp. 206-209 two from Lucilius, on pp. 210-13 three from Lucilius, pp. 2 1 5-2 1 7 six from Plautus, p. 2 1 7 two from Naevius and as many from Pacuvius, on p. 229 three from Caecilius, three from Plautus and two from Pacuvius, on pp. 233-4 several from books of law and antiquities, on pp. 234-7 seven from Cato, on p. 238 two from Ateius Capito, on pp. 241--2 three fromEnnius, p. 242 thirteen from Cato, p. 245 several from books of augury and law, p. 249 two from Ennius, pp. 249-253 several from Antistius Labeo, p. 253 two from Cato and others from books on augury, and p. 254 is taken up with notes on antiquities. Under Q, p. 257 there are two citations from Ennius, pp. 258-9 three from Ennius and two from Plautus. Under R, pp. 270-273 we have four from Lucilius, p. 273 two from Plautus, pp. 270-274 three from Pacuvius, p. 274 two from Plautus, p. 277 three from Plautus, two from Lucilius and as many from Afranius, pp. 277-8 three from Ennius and several from books of antiquities, pp. 278-81 four from Pacuvius, p. 281 two from Accius, pp. 281-2 five from Cato, p. 282 two from Ennius and two from Plautus, pp. 285-6 four from Ennius, p. 286 five from Cato, pp. 289-90 several from books of religious antiquities. Under S, pp. 291-3 we have several quotations from books of antiquities, on p. 294 Lucilius is quoted twice, pp. 294-8 Plautus four times, p. 298 Ennius four times, pp. 298-301 Lucilius twice, p. 301 Ennius six times, pp. 301-2 Plautus four times, pp. 302-305 Plautus five times and Ennius thrice, p. 306 Plautus four times, p. 309 books of antiquities, on p. 310 Lucilius and Plautus each twice, pp. 313-14 Ennius three times, pp. 314-17 books of antiquities, p. 317 Caecilius twice, pp. 317-18 books of augural discipline, p. 318 Cato twice, pp. 321-2 Naevius and the Twelve Tables each twice, pp. 329-30 Ennius six times, Plautus thrice, and Pacuvius twice, p. 333 Ennius thrice and Plautus twice, p. 334 Afranius twice, pp. 336-9 Ennius thrice, p. 339 Caecilius twice, pp. 343-4 books of antiquities, p. 343 Ennius and Pacuvius each t^vice, p. 344 Cato eight times, pp. 348-51 Antistius Labeo seven times. VERRIUS FLA ecus. 21 Y p. 351 Ateius Capito twice. Under T, p. 351 Varro is cited twice, pp. 351-2 Ennius four times, p. 352 Pacuvius twice, p. 355 Plautus twice, Afranius twice and Caecilius twice, pp. 355-6 Pacuvius three times, p. 356 Ennius three times, pp. 359-63 Ennius four times, p. 366 Plautus twice. Under F, pp. 368-9 we have three quotations from Plautus, p. 369 two from Cato and two from Ennius, p. 372 three from Plautus and two from Pacuvius, pp. 375-6 four from Ennius, pp. 378-9 six from Cato. It should also be observed that the citations from the poets usually come together, and the same is true of those from the orators and the books of historical or religious anti- quities. Miiller has shown that in several cases where a quotation from Plautus or Cato does not appear in the epitome of Plautus or Festus, the word annotated occurs in the works of those writers, and that we may therefore reasonably infer that if it occurs in a series of words which are undoubtedly from Plautus or Cato, it was probably illustrated, in the original work of Verrius Flaccus, from the works of one or of the other. Thus Miiller has added the name of Plautus to three glosses now unnamed, in Plautus pp. 35-36, and nine to the list of fifteen pp. 60-63. A similar process should be applied, so far as possible, to the citations from other authors, before this part of our subject can be pronounced exhausted. Arguing on the facts before him, Miiller concluded that Verrius jotted down his notes and extracts on separate sheets, in no definite order, and thus gave them to his scribes to arrange and copy. The inference seems to me rather to be this : that Verrius took one author at a time, or commentaries on him, and arranged the notes which he made or extracted in alpha- betical order, and that the whole of each letter is an aggregate of such separate series of authors. No doubt Varro pursued the same method in the seventh book of the De Lingua Latina, only on a much smaller scale. For in this book, which is devoted exclusively to the consideration of words used by the poets, we find a decided tendency to place together quotations 2i8 VERRIUS FLA ecus. from the same author. In §§6, 7, 8, 9 there are two from Ennius, and so in §§ 1 2-1 3 ; in §§ 1 4-1 5 there are two from Accius, in §§ 19, 20, 21 three from Ennius, in §§ 22, 23 two from Pacu- vius, in §§32-33 two from Ennius, in §§ 35, 36, 37 three from Ennius, in §§ 41-46 four from Ennius, in §§ 48-49 two from the same author, in §§ 54-58 five from Plautus, in §§61-64 four from Plautus, in §§ 66-70 five from Plautus, in §§ 77-79 three from Plautus, in §§ 87-88 two from Pacuvius, in §§ 95-96 two from Matius, in §§ 98-99 two from Plautus, in §§ loo-ioi two from Ennius, in §§ 103-106 four from Plautus and two from Ennius, and in §108 twelve from Naevius. It has been said before that each letter in the work of Verrius was originally divided into several librt or books. I hardly know whether it is possible to trace any sign of this division in the fragmentary work which we now possess. It is, however, worth noticing that in several letters there is more than one series of quotations from the same author ; thus under N we have a first Plautine series pp. 161-2, and a second p. 165, and on p. 162 a first Catonian series, and a second p. 169. So under O there are two series from Ennius, the first p. 178, the second p. 198, and the same phenomenon recurs elsewhere. May we infer that in these cases Verrius was making extracts from different glossaries, in each of which he found series of quotations from the same authors .? And is there any connection between these different series and the separate Itbri into which the letters were divided? There are numerous instances in Paulus and Festus of a word being commented on twice. This phenomenon is easily explained by the facts to which I have already endeavoured to call attention. The double glosses owe their existence to the accident that Verrius found a word first in one and then in another author ; thus patulus bos is mentioned in a Plautine series p. 221, and in another p. 229. The method of arrangement according to authors meets us again in the works of the philological writers of the second, third, and fourth centuries a. d., Aulus Gellius, Julius Romanus, and Nonius : and I hope also to be able to show that there are VERRIUS FLA ecus. 219 traces of it in some of the Vergilian criticisms of Macrobius. This fact must be taken into consideration in investigating the authorities used by these writers, and may sometimes be found of importance in determining their relation to Verrius Flaccus. But before attempting to trace the fortunes of Verrius's work in the first five centuries a. d., it will be well to say a word or two on its position in Roman literature, and on its value for the purposes of Latin scholarship in our own day. In the De Verborum Significatu the first systematic attempt was made in the history of Roman literature to form an alphabetical encyclopaedia of interpretation, grammar, and antiquities. Previous scholars had amassed an enormous amount of information upon separate subjects, but in a form that was neither attractive nor always easily accessible to the literary world. Varro, the greatest of Roman scholars and antiquarians, wrote in a style and adopted an arrangement which made reference to his works exceedingly difiicult. The advantages of an alphabetical arrangement in the case of a work of general reference, such as that of Verrius Flaccus was intended to be, need not be pointed out. But, as we have seen, Verrius did not stricdy observe an alphabetical order beyond the first letters of the words. His book still bore traces of its origin from separate commentaries, treatises, and monographs. Under every letter there are the clearest indications, where the hand of the epitomator has left anything but the barest skeleton, that the same authors were cited in single series. It would appear further that each letter included more than one series from the same author, and was divided, in some manner which we cannot now ascertain, into separate libri or sections. Thus the De Verborum Significatu, though in its general character an encyclopaedia, did not alto- gether lose the interest attaching to a literary production. When we examine the relation of Verrius's work to that of the scholars into the fruits of whose labour he entered, we find that he is by no means to be set down as a mere compiler. 2 20 VERRIUS FLA ecus. There can hardly be a doubt that the notes upon Cato were the result of his own studies, and this was probably the case also with his notes on Vergil, and perhaps with those on Cicero, Lucretius, and Catullus. That he had views of his own on points of grammar and etymology is proved by the statements of later writers, who mention his name with respect as that of an independent authority. And it would thus be unjust, taking all things into consideration, to deny him a place among the best writers of the great literary epoch to which he belonged. And, as far as we know, his work was never superseded or displaced except by abridgments of itself. This fact is due partly to its real merits and its wide compass, partly to the course of literary history. The. work ofVerrius belongs to a time when the science and art of grammar were as yet not quite definitely separated from the cognate branches of literature. There must have been many notes of Verrius Flaccus, if we may trust his epitomators, which in a later age would have been relegated from a dictionary to a grammar. In the hands of the scholars of the first century, such as Remmius Palaemon, grammar was developed into a separate art, and no subsequent attempt was made, on a scale worthy of the enterprise, to re-embody the results of grammatical study in a comprehensive lexicon. In its relation to modern philology, the work of Verrius may be considered from two points of view, as a quarry of infor- mation for the student of Latin, and as offering several unsolved problems for constructive criticism. As a quarry of information it cannot be said even yet to be exhausted. The difi5culties of Latin etymology are immensely increased by the fact that many important Latin words seem to have attained to their ordinary usage quite independently of their possible cognates in the kindred Indo-germanic languages. For most of the important occasions of life the Italians developed a vocabulary of their own long after their separation from their brethren of India, Greece, and the North and West of Europe. It is therefore often merely a barren toil to set Latin words side by side with VERRIUS FLA ecus. 221 their supposed cognates, unless we also take care strictly to interrogate the Latin language itself as to the sense in which the Italians generally accepted and employed them. Yet how little do we really know of this general acceptance and usage ! How can we estimate adequately the loss which Latin letters have sustained in the destruction (to take a single instance) of most of the works of Varro ! All the more need in an age like ours, in which the spirit of research is happily alive, to cling to such relics as we still possess of Italian antiquity. For the student of this subject Verrius Flaccus is still a great authority, and the words even of Paulus must often be conned and conned again before the mind of the etymologist or antiquarian can be made up. This being so, it is clear how important a problem it is for the critic to constitute what remains of the text of Verrius Flaccus on a sound basis. Something remains to be done even with the epitomes of Paulus and Festus. But there is a more difficult and dehcate problem, the partial solution of which is not, I think, beyond the reach of modern scholar- ship. This is to determine to what extent the glosses in Paulus and Festus can be supplemented by the remains of the original work of Verrius which may be found in later writers, who drew, not upon the abridgment of Festus, but upon other excerpts or abridgments, or upon the De Verborum Significatu itself. In the following paper I hope to be able to point out generally the line which such an investigation should follow, and in particular to notice some of the quotations from Verrius which are to be found in Quintilian, Pliny, Suetonius, Gellius, Nonius, Macrobius, and Placidus. VERRIUS FLACCUS (2). (PUBLIC LECTURE, Lent Term, 1881.) {American Journal of Philology, Vol. I. No. 4.) In this essay I wish to consider some points connected with the fortunes of the De Verhorum Significatu in the first five centuries of the Christian era. The main question which I would raise is whether the philological writers of those centuries have preserved fragments of Verrius other than those which have survived in the epitomes of Festus and Paulus. I observed in my preceding essay that the work of Verrius was the first great encyclopaedia, alphabetically arranged, that was known in Roman literature. That it should be largely consulted by the scholars and antiquarians of the first and second centuries is only what we should expect, and there is evidence enough that this was the fact. Let us first take two celebrated scholars of the first century, Quintilian and Pliny the Elder. Quintilian was not a professed philologist, but he sometimes has occasion to touch lightly on questions of ety- mology and antique expression. In his first book (4, § 13) he alludes to such archaisms as Valesii, Fusit, for Valerii and Furii, mertare for mersare, faedos for haedos, duellum for helium, stlocus for locus. Now it can hardly be an accident that every one of these words is to be found in Festus and Paulus \ Valesius and Fusi'us are discussed in Paulus, p. 33 ; mertare^ pp. 81 and 12^, faedos, p. 84 ; duellum, p. 66 ; stlocus, P« 3i3- * It is, however, possible that Quintilian had before him not the De Verborum Significatu, but the De Orthographia of Verrius. Quintilian and Terentius Scaurus in his De Orthographia seem to have followed the same authority. Of course Verrius may have embodied much of his De Ortho- graphia, if not all of it, in the De Verborum Significatu. VERRIUS FLA ecus. 223 A little further on, in § 25, Quintilian touches on the origin of some of the most familiar among the Roman cognomina, such as Ru/us, Sulla, Burrus, Galba. Without wearying my readers by quoting the list in full, I may mention that out of eighteen names, seven, Ru/us, Burrus, Plautus, Opiter, Cordus, Postumus, Marcipor, are to be found explained in the epitomes of Paulus and Festus, while two others, Agrippa and Vopiscus, are men- tioned in Pliny (H. N. 7. 47), and in the last book of Nonius, whose work De Compendiosa Dodrina was, in its more strictly lexicographical portions, largely drawn, directly or indirectly, from Verrius Flaccus, as I shall hope to show further on ^. But we have not yet done with Quintilian. In the sixth chapter of his first book he protests against the use of certain archaisms, to wit, topper, antigerw, exanclare, and prosapia. These words are all to be found in Festus, and so again are some others mentioned by Quintilian in the same chapter, pacunt, lupus /emi'na, and the names Italia, Beneventum, and Quirinalis. In the fifth chapter (§§ 8, 13) Quintilian mentions a word ploxenum, which he says Catullus picked up somewhere in the neighbourhood of the Po. Now Festus, p. 230, has a gloss on this word which he illustrates by a line of Catullus, gingivas vero ploxeni habet veteris. The inference readily suggests itself, when the other passages to which I have alluded are considered, that Quintilian took his remark from Verrius Flaccus, or possibly from some book of extracts from him. I pass on now to a passage in the eighth book of Quintilian (3- § 25) where the same phenomenon recurs. Quintilian is here noticing some antiquarian expressions used by Vergil, olli, quianam, and porricere (if this be the true reading). On these words again we find notes in Festus and Paulus ; ' ollic, illic,' p. 196; quianam, p. 257; porricere, p. 218. Besides these Quintilian has something to say of some other words, quaeso, oppido, and autumo. Notes on quaeso and oppido will be found ^ Lists of cognomina may have been taken from the book of Cornelius Epicadus De Cognominibus -, Charisius p. 110 Keil. 224 VERRIUS FLA ecus. in Festus (pp. 259 and 184); upon auiumo I must be allowed to pause for a moment. Autumo, sa}^s Quintilian, tragicum est. It so happens that in Festus and Paulus there is no note on this word. But Nonius, p. 237, has one in which he illustrates it by a quotation from Lucilius, another from Plautus, and three from Pacuvius. Now Pacuvius was the writer who was above all others the representative of the old Roman tragedy. I think it therefore highly probable that Quintilian had before him some handbook in which autumo was illus- trated from Pacuvius, as it isnn Nonius; and if I succeed in rendering it probable that Nonius borrowed largely from Verrius Flaccus, it may perhaps be allowable to conjecture that Verrius had some note of the kind. In the same chapter, § 31, Quintilian remarks on the word expectoro, which is quoted by Paulus p. 80. Let us now turn to the elder Pliny, who in his Natural History several times quotes Verrius Flaccus as an authority upon remarkable phenomena of nature. Pliny is here probably using, not the De Verborum Significatu, but the work of Verrius entitled Rerum Memoria dignarum. But Pliny also wrote a grammatical treatise De dubio Sermone, of which portions are quoted by Julius Romanus, a scholar who (if we may trust the evidence collected by Keil in his preface to Charisius and Diomedes) seems to have flourished about the beginning of the second century a. d. Verrius Flaccus did not write a^ special treatise upon grammar ; but I have endeavoured to show in the preceding essay that there was a great deal of grammatical matter in the De Verborum Significatu. That Pliny actually consulted this work can be shown by express quotations, pre- served by Julius Romanus \ and there are other indications of the same fact. The note, for instance, in Charisius, p. 120 (Keil) on aeribus from aes, is illustrated by a passage from Cato, ^ Charis. p. 126 Verrius Flaccus ; inquit Plinius, eorum nominutn quae -ns finiuntur casu nominativo ablativus in e derigendtis est. P. 141 panium Caesar de analogia libra ii did debere ait, Sed Verrius contra. This note, like the one preceding it and following it probably comes from Plinv. VERRIUS FLA ecus. 225 and it is remarkable that on the twenty-seventh page of Festus there is also a note on the same word illustrated from Cato. There is a striking correspondence between the notes on supellex in Charisius, pp. 143, 144, and that in Festus, p. 294. We may notice also the following parallel notes : on fures^ gen. furum^ Charisius, p. 137, and Paulus, p. 92 ; femur dmdi/emen, Charisius, p. 130, and Paulus, p. 92; im, Charisius, p. 133, and Paulus, pp. 103, 261 ; nemmis, Charisius, p. 138, and Paulus, p. 162 ; siremps, Charisius, p. 143, and Paulus, p. 344. Some of these notes of Romanus avowedly come from Pliny, and it may be taken as almost certain that Pliny drew largely upon Verrius. There is another point on which I wish to remark in con- nection with the quotations from Julius Romanus which Charisius has preserved. It is that in some cases they are arranged on the principle which we have already observed as underlying the order of words in Verrius Flaccus. Words from the same authors are quoted in separate series. This is notably the case with the alphabetical list of adverbs cited from Julius Romanus by Charisius, pp. 194-224; a fact which suggests the inference that it was taken from some work of a lexicographical character already arranged upon this plan. So it is with the catalogue of interjections, likewise from Julius Romanus, given by Charisius, p. 239, only that this is not alphabetical. It may further be observed that the range of authors quoted corresponds in the main with that of the De Verborum Sigmficatu. Verrius Flaccus is again often quoted by Velius Longus, another scholar of the age of Trajan. But it may be that Velius Longus, writing as he did on orthography merely, is quoting, not the De Verborum Sigmficatu, but the De Ortho- graphia^ of Verrius. An encyclopaedic work containing a collection of miscellaneous information partly on natural philosophy, partly on the history, antiquities, and public and private life of the Romans, was compiled by Suetonius. Of Suetonius's Pratum (for thus it was entitled by its author) there is good reason for supposing Q 2 26 VERRIUS FLA ecus. that much has been preserved by Isidore. The scope of the work was different from that of the De Verborum Significatu of Verrius, though there were many points where the two would coincide ; and it would be rash to assert that Suetonius made any very extensive use of the work of Verrius, when he might have easily taken his materials directly from Varro. But later in the second century, if I am not mistaken, Aulus Gellius studied Verrius Flaccus a great deal ; indeed he has, as I remarked in my previous paper, preserved parts of the De Verborum Significatu which have disappeared from our epitomes. If it be true that Festus lived in the age of the Antonines, this fact alone would show that a great deal of attention was paid to Verrius Flaccus at that epoch. The need for an abridgment of the De Verborum Significatu would not otherwise have arisen. The revived interest in old Latin, which reached its highest pitch in the age of the Antonines, would make the study of Verrius indispensable to literary men. And so, although the name of Verrius is not by any means always mentioned, we find a great many traces of his learning in Gellius. I have at present noticed the following, and there may be many more. Gellius, I. 1 6. I, has a note on the phrase mille hominum^ which he illustrates from Claudius Quadrigarius, Lucilius, Varro, Cato, and Cicero. Festus, p. 153, preserves the words mille singulariter dicebant ; comp. also p. 158. Gellius, 2. 6. 5, says, taxare pressius crebriusque est quam tangere. There is a note on taxare in Festus, p. 356. In the same chapter of Gellius (§ 21) we may compare the remarks on squalere with those in Festus, p. 328. Gellius, 2. 10, has a long note on the word favisae, which I suspect is drawn from one abridged on the 88th page of Paulus. In Gellius, 2. 21. 6, there are some observations on the word triones which remind us of the note in Festus, p. 339. Gellius, 3. 18. i, pedarii senatores = Festus^ p. 210. Gellius, 4. 3. 3, agnus Jemina = Festus, p. 286. In Gellius, 5. 6, there is a discussion of the different kinds of crowns awarded by the Romans, which contains a great deal of VERRIUS FLA ecus. 227 matter taken from Verrius Flaccus: see Festus, pp. 367, 191, 42, 195, 144. So it is with the note on Veiovis^ vesculus, and their cognates in Gellius, 5. 12. i : compare Festus, p. 379. The note on dies atri and nefasti in GelHus, 5. 17, is avowedly- taken from the fourth book of Verrius's work, although it has not survived in our epitomes; and the case is precisely the same with the observations on historia and annales in the next chapter. In chapter 21 of the same book we iind the word compluriens defended by the authority of Cato; and it is illustrated from Cato in Paulus, p. 59. In Gellius, 10. 15, the interpretation of classis procincta reminds us of the similar words in Paulus, p. 56, and the quotation from Varro at the end of the chapter recalls the note on alhus galerus in Paulus, p. 10. The note on ovis masculine in Gellius, 11. i. 4 = Festus, p. 286; on hovinator, Gellius, 11. 7. 7= Paulus, p. 30; on per lancem liciumque, Gellius, 11. 18. 9= Festus, p. 117; on lidor, Gellius, 12. 3 = Festus, p. ii5^j on inira^ citra, and ultra^ Gellius, 12. 13. 7 = Paulus, pp. 42, 379 ; on suculae, Gellius, 13. 9 = Festus, p. 301 ; on bellana, Gellius, 13. 11. 7, may perhaps correspond with Paulus, p. 35; on frons masculine, Gellius, 15. 9 = Festus, p. 286. The definition of atrium given by Gellius, 16. 5. 2, is the same as that in Paulus, p. 13, and the note on vescus in the same chapter is illustrated by the same passage from Lucretius in Paulus, p. 368. Traces of the note given by Gellius, 16. 6, on bidens, are to be found in Paulus, pp. 33 and 35. Three of the words explained in the next chapter, botulus^ arillator^ and cutis J are explained also in Paulus, pp. 35, 20, and 51. The notes on adsiduus, sanates, vas, talio^ proletarius, given in Gellius, 16. 10, are in Paulus, pp. 9, 321, 348, 377, 363, 226, 117. Those on alucinari ^xid /enerator in Gellius, 16. 12 = Paulus, pp. 24, 100, 75, 86, 94. Gellius's comment on municipes (16. 13. 6) is part of a fuller one preserved by Festus, p. 127. The next note, on festinare^ is avowedly from Verrius Flaccus, and part of it still remains in Festus, p. 234. Gellius, 16. 17, on ^ Gellius professes to quote Valgius Rufus : but he was also one of Verrius's authorities ; see Festus, p. 297. Q 2 2 28 VERRIUS FLA ecus. Vaticanus = Paulus, p. 379 ; 17. 6, on servus recepticius = Festus, p. 282, the source being here acknowledged. The remarks on inseco in Gellius, 18. 9. 2, stand in close relation to those in Festus, pp. 11 1 and 337 ; Gellius, 19. 13, on nanus = Festus, p. 176; and the list might doubtless be lengthened by other instances. It may be, of course, that Gellius in these instances is only quoting independently from the same sources as Verrius Flaccus. But I cannot help suspecting that, at least in the majority of instances, he borrowed a great deal at second hand either from Verrius himself or from writers who had made extracts from him, as Probus in his Silva Observationum Sermoms antiqui and Caesellius Vindex in his Lediones antiquae must undoubtedly have done. One must be careful, in dealing with a writer like Gellius, not to take too seriously his professions of independent research. His statements must be tested by the evidence of other facts ; and there are, I think, in this case other facts which point to the conclusion that his debt, direct or indirect, to Verrius Flaccus is, to say the least, much more considerable than he himself acknowledges. Some indications of the nature of his proceedings will, I hope, be afforded by an examination of the relation of Nonius to Verrius Flaccus. I shall endeavour to show that the numerous coincidences between Gellius and Nonius are due to the fact of both writers having independently used the same authorities ; that Nonius in the lexicographical parts of his work constantly copies Verrius ; and that the points of agreement between Nonius and Gellius may often be explained by supposing that Gellius copies him likewise. Carlyle has said that there must be somewhere, if only we could discover him, a greatest fool in the world. In the world of scholars Nonius has generally been regarded as playing this entertaining part. Let us deal kindly with one who was willing to make so great a sacrifice. It is not necessary to go again over the long catalogue of Nonius's transgressions against the rules of sense and sound learning. Nor am I sure that a fair judgment would pronounce his work to fall much below VERRIUS FLA ecus. 229 the standard which an African of the fourth century a.d. might be expected to attain. Even Julius Romanus, in the second century, was, if we may judge by his Hsts of conjunctions and interjections preserved by Charisius, fully as ignorant and careless as Nonius ^. The productions of such writers are valuable only for what they preserve of the work of older authors. It is a matter of the utmost importance to ascertain, if possible, what were the sources from which Nonius drew the materials for his lucubrations. The theory which finds most favour among recent scholars (Hertz, Schmidt, Schottmiiller, and Riese) is that Nonius copied largely from Gellius, and that the remaining or non-Gellian part of his book is patchwork made up out of commentaries on the writers whom he quotes. The arguments for this position are mainly two ; first, that there are many remarkable, nay, almost verbal, coincidences between Gellius and Nonius, and even that the order of those passages in Nonius follows the order of the books in Gellius ; secondly, that Nonius throughout all his work observes the method of quotation by series of authors, as we have seen was the case with Verrius Flaccus. This fact, it is contended, points obviously to the conclusion that where Nonius is not borrowing from Gellius, he must have made extracts from single commentaries in succession. I would observe, first, that whether Nonius studied commen- taries independently or not, there can be little doubt that in those parts of his work which can be classed as lexicographical or antiquarian, his debt, direct or indirect, to Verrius Flaccus^ is considerable. The lexicographical parts of the De Compen- diosa Doctrma are Books i {De Verborum Proprietate), 2 {De Honesiis et nove Veterum Dictis), 4 {De Varia Significaiione Sermonum). 5 {De Differentia Similium Significationum\ 6 {De ^ He supposes the adverb conpecto may be an impersonal verb (Charisius, p. 197) ; he illustrates inaurate (the adverb) by inatiratae mulieris (ib. p. 200); he thinks that nullus in nullus dixeris is an adverb (p. 2o7)._ =^ That the works of Verrius Flaccus were known in some form in Africa at the end of the third century a. d. is shown by Amobius i . 50, quamvis Caesellios, Epicados {?), Verrios teneatis omnes et Nisos. 2 30 VERRIUS FLA ecus, Improprus), and much of 12 {De Dodorum Indagine). In the first book I have ascertained that about a third of the glosses are identical, or nearly so, with glosses in Paulus or Festus. In the second book the proportion is much smaller, but in this some 140 notes may in like manner be traced to Verrius Flaccus. In the fourth, fifth, and sixth books the number of coincidences with Paulus or Festus dwindles very much ; in the twelfth book the proportion is larger. By the antiquarian portions of Nonius I mean Books 13 (De genere Navigiorum), 14 (De genere Vestimentorum), 15 {De genere Vasorum vel Poculoru7n), 16, now lost, (De genere Calctamentorum), 17 (De colore Vesh'mentorum), 18 (De genere Ciborum et Potuum\ 19 (De genere Arniorum), 20 (De Propinquitate). In the eighteenth book a third, in the nineteenth half of the glosses may be traced to Verrius Flaccus. In the rest of these books and in the grammatical portions of the work (Books 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and part of 12) the proportion of these coincidences is much smaller ; but I think I am justified in saying that about one- seventh of all the noies in Nonius stands in close relation to glosses in Paulus or Festus. I am not sure that this fact has been noticed as it deserves by the scholars who have recently discussed the question. Passing over for the moment any inferences which it suggests as to the sources of Nonius's work, I may observe that it is of immense importance as enabling us, in many cases, to recon- struct, at least in part, the mutilated glosses of Verrius Flaccus. Let me offer a few instances in illustration of my meaning. Paulus, p. 18, has the following note: ^ atroces appellantur ex Graeco, quia till arpaxra vocant quae cruda sunt! Nonius, p. 76, says atrox crudum : Naevius Belli Punici lib. 3, ' siniul atrocia porricerent exta ministralores! Here it would appear that we have two fragments of the same gloss, one giving an etymology of alrox from arpcaKTos, the other illustrating the word from Naevius. Paulus, p. 118, latrones eos a?iiiqui dicebant qui conducli mililabant, anb t^s Xarptlas. Nonius, p. 134, latrocinari, militare mercede. He illustrates from Plautus and Ennius, the VERRIUS FLA ecus. 231 words of the latter being fortunasque suas coepere latrones Inter se memorare. Again we have two fragments of one gloss, which originally included instances both of latrones and of latrocinari. Paulus, p. 369, velitatio dicta est ultro citroque probrorum obiectatio^ ab exemplo velitaris pugnae. Plautus ; ' Nescio quid velitati estis inter vos.' Nonius, p. 3, velitatio dicitur levis contention dicta ex congressione velitum. Nonius illustrates by two passages from Plautus, one of which is the same as that quoted in Paulus, as well as from Turpilius, Afra- nius, and Caecilius. Festus, p. 364, temetum vinum. Plautus in Aulularia: * Cererine, Strobile, has [sunt] faciuri nuptias P Qui? Quia temeti nil adlatum intellegoJ Temetum and temulentus are then illustrated from Novius and Afranius. Nonius, p. 5, temulenta est ebriosa, dicta a tcmcto, quod est vinum, quod attentet. He illustrates the word by the same passage from the Aulularia, another from the Truculentus, and more from Cicero and Varro. My contention is that in these instances, and numbers of others which I could quote did space permit, a comparison between Nonius and Paulus enables us to recover large parts of the original glosses of Verrius Flaccus. But besides coinci- dences in detail, there are two general points of resemblance between the works of Nonius and of Verrius Flaccus which should not be overlooked. One is (and this is very important) that the range of authors quoted by these two writers is in the main the same, though Nonius lived some two hundred and fifty years after Verrius. Verrius naturally stops at the Augustan age, and so, with a very few exceptions, does Nonius. The exceptions too are such as almost to prove the rule. One of them is a citation from Apuleius, and the others are from Septimius Serenus, both Africans, and both almost pedantic students of antiquity. None of the other citations in Nonius are from authors later than the Augustan age. Whatever, therefore, may have been the sources of his work, the writers whom he quotes are in the main the same as those from whom Verrius draws his illustrations. 2 32 V ERR I US FLA ecus. Another point of correspondence between Nonius and Verrius is their method of quotation by series of authors. On this I have perhaps said enough already ; but I would observe here that the fact may be used quite as easily to show that Nonius drew upon Verrius, or upon extracts from his book, as that he used isolated commentaries. And what if it can be shown that the very series in Nonius and Verrius sometimes coincide? Paulus, p. 6 1, has a note in a Plautine series on capulum, and so Nonius, p. 4. In Paulus, p. 96, gesti'o is apparently quoted in a series of words from Terence ; it is illustrated from Terence in Nonius, p. 32. Nonius, pp. 85 and 86, comments on the words coquitare and agnus curio, heading both his lists of instances with a quotation from Plautus; now these words occur also in a Plautine series in Paulus, pp. 60 and 61. So with the very first word on which Nonius has a note, senium, which is illus- trated from Caecilius both by Nonius and by Festus, p. 339, a page on which there are distinct traces of a series of words illustrated from Caecilius. Supposing Nonius, then, to have been making extracts from series of authors, he might as easily, indeed more easily, have taken them from Verrius or from some abridgment of Verrius, in which he would find them manufactured ready to his hand, as from individual commentators. But indeed the more one studies Nonius, the more clearly will it, I think, appear that his work De Compendwsa Doctrina is a series of extracts not from commentaries, but from works of reference. Much of the lexicographical part comes, as we have seen, from Verrius Flaccus ; much of the grammatical part can, by a comparison of parallel passages in Charisius, Diomedes, and Priscian, be shown to be derived from Pliny and Probus ; and I suspect that much of the antiquarian part is from the same sources as the corresponding portions of Isidore, the Pratum of Suetonius being, not improbably, one of the most important of them. But, it will be said, * It may be conceded that Nonius took large parts of his work not from original commentaries, but VERRIUS FLA ecus, 233 from abridgments of lexicons and books on grammar ; are you, however, prepared to deny that he borrowed largely from Aulus Gellius?' That he did so has been argued at length in an elaborate treatise by Martin Hertz {Jahrbb. 85, pp. 706-726; 779-797), whose theory, so far as I know, has been accepted by recent scholars as one of the bases of all further investiga- tion. And yet I hope to make it probable that Nonius did not borrow from Gellius at all ; nay, that there is nothing to show that he had ever read Gellius. (i) I have made a list, partly with the valuable aid of Hertz's dissertation, of passages common to Nonius and Gellius. Now it cannot be denied that the coincidences of all kinds are very striking; and that very often appearances are in favour of supposing that Nonius is, in a blundering way, abridging Gellius. But it not seldom happens that Nonius gives illus- trations which are not to be found in Gellius. This is the case with the notes on putus Gellius, 7. 5, Nonius, p. 27 ; privus Gellius, 10. 20. 4, Nonius, p. 35 ; fur Gellius, i. 18. 4, Nonius, p. 50 ; w;?/?' Gellius, 2. 22, Nonius, p. 50 ; laevus Gellius, 5. 12. 13, Nonius, p. 51 ; vestibulum Gellius, 16. 5, Nonius, p. 53 ; recepticius servus Gellius, 17. 6, Nonius, p. 54; arcera Gellius, 20. I. 29, Nonius, p. 55 ; proletarii Gellius, 16. 10, Nonius, p. 67; copiari Gellius, 17. 2. 9, Nonius, p. 87; compluriens Gellius, 5. 21. 17, Nonius, p. 87; cis Gellius, 12. 13. 7, Nonius, p. 92; duodevicesimo Gellius, 5. 4. 4, Nonius, p. \qo\ fruniscor Gellius^ 17. 2. 5, Nonius, p. 113; priores Gellius, 10. 20. 4, Nonius, p. 159 ; profligo Gellius, 15. 5, Nonius, p. 160; acritas Nonius, p. 493, Gellius, 13. 3. 2 ; and I could quote others. This fact alone constitutes a very strong argument in favour of the independence of the two writers, for what likelihood is there that a book-maker of the stamp of Nonius would add anything from his own resources ? (2) But there is a negative argument of almost equal weight. While, on the one hand. Nonius often adds instances to those in Gellius, or gives different ones, he often, on the other hand, shows a neglect or ignorance of Gellius, which is quite extra- 234 VERRIUS FLACCUS. ordinary, supposing him to have paid any serious attention to the Nodes Atticae. In many cases, where the two writers are treating of the same words, Nonius totally disregards what Gellius has said, though nothing would have been more natural than that he should have abridged it, had the work of Gellius been before him. Sometimes again he omits words which must certainly have suggested themselves to him, had he been consulting Gellius to ariy considerable extent \ (3) As Hertz himself observes. Nonius only appears to have used Gellius to any great extent in his first two books. Now supposing him really to have borrowed directly from Gellius, this fact is very remarkable ; for there is no reason, in the nature of the case, why he should not have borrowed from him in his later books as well as in the first two. There are, it is true, nineteen, if not twenty, books of Nonius, each with a different title ; but the contents of many of them are so similar that the whole work might as well have been divided into half the number. The phenomenon noticed by Hertz is, however, completely explained when we remember two facts : first, that it is in the first two books of Nonius that we find most of the coincidences between him and Verrius Flaccus ; secondly, that a number of glosses common to Nonius and Gellius are also common to both writers and to Verrius Flaccus. We should be justified, from the combined similarity and dissimilarity between the Nonian and Gellian glosses, in inferring that the two writers drew upon common sources. But we can go further, and point out in a great number of cases what the common source was. (4) There is another argument adduced in favour of the dependence of Nonius upon Gellius which I must notice before Reaving this part of the subject. It is urged that the order * On p. 493, Nonius has the following note : Intemperia pro intern- perantia, aptid veterem atictoritatis obscurae: has eius intcmperias in maritum. Gellius, i. 17. 2 says has eius intemperies in maritttm Alcibiades demiratus. Can it be believed that Nonius would call Gellius vetus aucto- ritatis obscurae ? Is it not far more likely that both authors are quoting from the same book ? VERRIUS FLA ecus. 235 of the notes which Nonius borrowed from Gellius follows, in Nonius, the order of the books of Gellius. This is undoubtedly true in the main, but not without exceptions. Sometimes we have a reverse order; in the second book, for instance, under the letter /*, Nonius goes back from the sixteenth to the fifteenth book of Gellius, under the letter S from the ninth to the fourth, from the fourth to the third, and from the eighteenth to the ninth. And even though Nonius does on the whole follow the order of the books of GelHus, he leaves such large gaps in doing so that not much can fairly be made of the fact; in his first book, for example, he goes from Gellius 2 to 4, 5 to II, 10 to 12, 13 to 16, 17 to 20 ; in his second from 11 to 16, 6 to 12 and 17, 5 to 17, 17 to 19, 10 to 15, 15 to 18 ; 2 to 9, 9 to 17 ; 6 to 9, 9 to 17, 17 to 19 ; 9 to 18 ; 6 to 9, 9 to 16 ; 3 to 9, 9 to 18; 10 to 12, 12 to 16. It may be added, that six books of Gellius, the first, seventh, eighth, eleventh, thirteenth, and twentieth, are not quoted at all in the first two books of Nonius. I have now, I hope, succeeded in making it probable that there is no relation of dependence between Nonius and Gellius, and that a community of source or sources is at the bottom of their coincidences. But before leaving Nonius a word or two must be said on the relation between his work and parts of the grammatical treatise of Julius Romanus preserved by Charisius. It should be observed that the list of adverbs quoted from Romanus by Charisius, p. 195 foil, stands in the same relation to Nonius as that in which we have seen that Gellius does. The note on ampliter occurs in Nonius, p. 511, in a much fuller form. With that on confidenter compare Nonius, p. 262 s. V. confidenh'a; on duriter Nonius, p. 512, is much fuller than Julius Romanus, whose instances he gives with others : on efflidim Nonius, p. 104, is again fuller, and gives different in- stances; firmiter is mentioned without examples by Julius Romanus, but by Nonius, p. 512, illustrated from Lucilius, Afranius, and Cicero. With the notes on inimiciter compare Nonius, p. 514, where the word is illustrated from Accius; 236 VERRIUS FLA ecus. with that on impendio Nonius, p. 128; on longe Nonius, p. 339 ; on /«a' Nonius, p. 210; on longum Nonius, p. 338 ; on longiter Nonius, p. 515, where the same passage from Lucretius is cited ; on mordicus Nonius, p. 139; on modice Nonius, p. 342; on protinus Nonius, p. 376, where the note is given in a much fuller form, and is illustrated by the same passage from Vergil ; on perplexim Nonius, p. 515, where the same line of Plautus is quoted; on puhlicitus Nonius, p. 513 ; on pedetemph'm Nonius, p. 29 ; on poster tus Nonius, p. 375; on primo pedatu Nonius, p. 64; on rar enter Nonius, pp. 164, 515; on statim Nonius, p. 393; on tuatim Nonius, p. 179; on tradim Nonius, p. 178 ; on testatim Nonius, p. 178; on vesper a Nonius, p. 231 ; on viritim Nonius, p. 43. I cannot but think that these coincidences are due to the fact that Nonius and Julius Romanus were drawing upon the same source or sources. And there is an obvious general similarity between the two writers. Each quotes both in alphabetical order and also by series of authors ; each has repetitions of the same word merely because it is illustrated from different wTiters ; each makes his extracts in a shambling and helpless manner. Finally, there are indications that, like Nonius, Julius Romanus is in several instances indebted, directly or indirectly, to Verrius Flaccus. This is the case with his notes on edius fidt'us, exam- ussirtiy /abre, in mundo, iltco, ibidem, nauci, noctu, nudius tertius, neutiquam, oppido, subinde, secus, sarte, viritim ; and some of these are common also to Nonius and Festus. I have therefore little doubt that there was much of Verrius's work embedded in the writings from which Romanus and Nonius made their extracts. Let us now proceed to consider for a moment the collection of glosses which bears the name of Luctatius Placidus, a writer whose floruit is generally assigned to the fifth century a. d. The character of this compilation bears a marked resemblance to that of Nonius ; Placidus is Nonius in miniature. His work is an extremely meagre compendium of grammar, lexicography, and antiquities, intended to cover much the same ground as the VERRIUS FLA ecus. 237 De Compendiosa Dodrina. The glosses of Placidus are usually spoken of as intended only for Plautus, and their title confirms this idea. The fact, however, is far otherwise, it being clear that, though there are many notes in Placidus which refer exclu- sively to Plautine words, there are many which are meant for other authors. It has been supposed that Placidus, like Nonius, took his notes from commentaries. This theory is, I venture to think, as erroneous in the one case as in the other. If the glosses of Placidus be compared with corresponding notes in Festus, Gellius, Nonius, Servius, Macrobius, and Isidore, a large mass of material is brought to light common to all these writers, which it is nearly impossible to suppose they can have derived from commentaries, and not rather from handbooks of lexi- cography and grammar. Confining ourselves on the present occasion to a comparison between Placidus and Festus or Paulus, we find that a large proportion of the glosses in Placidus must have come, directly or indirectly, from Verrius Flaccus. Some of these have escaped the eye of Deuerling, the most recent editor of Placidus. If I am not wrong in my reckoning, more than a third of the glosses in Placidus correspond closely with notes in Paulus or Festus. The general resemblance between the glosses of Placidus and those in Paulus is, indeed, so great, that Miiller imagined that Placidus borrowed from a version of Festus fuller than the abridgment by Paulus. In rejecting this hypothesis, as they are probably right in doing, Deuerling and Loewe seem to me to go too far when they refuse to admit an organic connection of some kind between Placidus and Verrius Flaccus. There may be no relation of dependence traceable between Placidus and Festus, but this does not prove that a great number of the lexicographical notes in Placidus may not have been derived from a handbook or handbooks compiled from the De Verborum Significatu. Of the glosses in Placidus which cannot be paralleled in Paulus or Festus, there are many to be found in Nonius, Macrobius, Servius, and Isidore, but in such a form as to preclude the idea of any 238 VERRIUS FLACCUS. one of these writers having copied from any other, Macrobius or Servius from Nonius, or Isidore from either; a fact which surely shows that the sources from which all these writers drew were ultimately the same as the authorities followed by Nonius, in all probability that is, the scholars of the first and the first half of the second centuries a. d. The value of the glosses of Placidus is not in any way diminished because their origin may in many cases be conjec- tured. On the contrary, it is clear that being quite independent of Festus, they often preserve remains of notes, and sometimes even of passages from ancient authors, which have disappeared from the existing epitomes of Verrius. I now come to the question which originally led me to under- take this tedious investigation. It may, I think, be shown, by a minute comparison of parallel passages, that several of the notes on Vergil in Macrobius are ultimately derived from Verrius Flaccus. If I am right, an interesting fact will have been clearly elicited which has hitherto been only imperfectly recog- nised, that Verrius, by embodying Vergilian instances in his articles, was one of the earliest scholars who contributed any- thing to the interpretation of Vergil. Readers of Macrobius do not need to be reminded that he shows, or at least professes, an acquaintance both with Verrius Flaccus and his epitomator Festus, and that there is therefore no antecedent improbability that he may have been indebted to Verrius even where he does not name him. To come, however, to details. Let us examine some of the passages in the third book of Macrobius, where he is dealing with Vergil's use of words relating to religious ceremonies. The first that I will take is porriciam (3. 2). In illustration of this word Macrobius quotes the antiquarian Fabius Pictor. Verrius Flaccus com- mented on this word and illustrated it from Plautus (Festus, pp. 318 and 319). In support of his remarks on the word religi'osus Macrobius distinctly appeals to Festus. Passing on to his note on delubrum we are met by a curious circumstance. Macrobius (3. 4. 3) has one note, Paulus, p. 73, has another, VERRIUS FLA ecus. 239 on this word. But the substance of both notes is combined by . Servius on Aen. 2. 225. Paulus says deluhrum dicebant fusteni delibratum, hoc est decorticatuin, quern venerahantur pro deo. Servius not only gives this explanation, but also those quoted in Macrobius from Varro's Rerum Divmarum ; and much the same comment recurs, with an addition, in Servius on Aen. 4. 56. The impression left is that both Macrobius and Servius were copying from an article in Verrius Flaccus, of which only a short extract has survived in the epitome of Paulus. In the fourth chapter of Macrobius's sixth book are discussed some instances in which Vergil revived an antique use of Latin words. The first note which I propose to consider is that on daedala Circe, § 20. Macrobius says that Vergil, in using the expression daedala Circe, was copying the expression of Lucretius, daedala tellus. Compare now a note in Paulus, p. 68, daedalam a varietate rerum artificiorumque dictam esse apud Lucretium terravi, apud Ennium Minervam, apud Vergilium Circen, facile est intellegere. Here it is clear that the original note of Verrius Flaccus included the instances of the word given by Macrobius, as well as another or others taken from Ennius. The word reboare is noticed by Macrobius (§ 21) as a Greek word, and Vergil is again justified by the example of Lucretius. Let us endeavour to trace backwards the history of this note, taking first what Servius says on Georgic 3. 323, ' reboant silvaeque et longus Ofympus! Est autem Graecum verbum. Nam apud Latinos nullum verbum est quod ante finalem habeat excepto inchoo ; quod tamen maiores aliter scribebant, as- piratum interponentes duabus vocalibus, et dicebant incoho. Both these notes can be traced back to Verrius Flaccus. On boare Paulus, p. 30, says boare, id est clamare, a Graeco descendit ; under incoho only a fragment of the original note is left. Verrius (Paulus, p. 107) is now made to say that inchoare is a Greek word derived from chaos, the beginning of things; but we know from another source this was not Verrius's real opinion. For Diomedes, p. 365 (Keil), assures us that Verrius derived the word from the Latin word cohum = mundus, and 240 VERRIUS FLA ecus, that it was Julius Modestus (the contemporary of Verrius) who defended the Graecizing etymology. In this case the original note of Verrius, or at least the gist of it, seems to be preserved by Servius. In § 23 Macrobius has another gloss, the fortunes of which we are happily able to follow. He remarks that the word camurus, which Vergil uses in the third Georgic {camuris hirtae sub cornibus aures) is a foreign word, and goes on to say that perhaps the word camera is derived from it. The substance of this note is to be found in Servius's comment on the passage in Nonius, p. 30, who quotes the same line of Vergil, and finally in Paulus, p. 43, camera et camuri boves, a curvatione^ ex Graeco KafiTTTj descendit. One more instance, and I have done. Macrobius comments on Vergil's phrase auritos lepores, which he illustrates by a quo- tation from Afranius, aurito parente = asino. Paulus, p. 8, says that auritus is derived a magnis auribuSy ut sunt asinorum aut leporum. One is tempted to infer that Verrius had a note in which he quoted both the passage from Afranius about a donkey, and that from Vergil about hares. There are other facts to be noticed with regard to these notes in Macrobius. There are traces in them of alphabetical series : thus, additus agmen crepito horret tremulus umbraculum ; defluo discludo deductus proiectus tempestivus : aethra daedalus reboant ; camurus Mulciber petulcus : auritus turicremus velivolus vitisator ; arcitenens silvicola ; noctivagus nubigenus. Again, there are traces in them of arrangement according to authors. The series agmen crepito horret tremulum is illustrated from Ennius ; lychnus and aethra from the same author ; daedalus and reboant, petulcus and liquidus from Lucretius ; arcitenens and silvicola from Naevius. Again it should be observed that the authors quoted by Macrobius in illustration or defence of Vergil are all favourites with Verrius Flaccus. So that, all things considered, it appears to me not improbable that Macrobius is here copying, if not from Verrius Flaccus himself, at least from some writer of good VERRIUS FLA ecus. 241 authority whose writing embodied matter taken from Verrius Flaccus. The investigation, the main lines of which I have endeavoured to indicate m these two essays, will not be complete until it is extended to Servius, Aelius Donatus, Charisius, Diomedes, Priscian, and Isidore. I have been anxious, however, to point out the method on which, in my opinion, such an inquiry ought to be based, and (to make my meaning perfectly clear) have subjoined a specimen of an attempted reconstruction of parts of the first two letters of the De Verhorum Significatu from notes in writers later than Verrius. To sum up briefly what I have attempted to convey, I would say that it appears to me to be a mistake to try the plan of examining such writers as Gellius, Nonius, Macrobius, and Placidus by themselves, or in pairs. At least, as far as I have yet been able to observe, this proceeding only brings us to an explanation of part of the facts which have to be explained, and leaves the rest in the chaos in which they first presented themselves. The excellent work of Schmidt, De Nonii audorihus grammaticis, is, in my opinion, spoilt by his adoption of the theory that the De Compendiosa Doctrina is based mainly upon Gellius and upon isolated commentaries. To suppose that a writer of the evident ignorance and general incapacity which characterize Nonius should have gone upon the plan of making independent selections from ancient commentaries seems to me to be exceedingly unnatural. The titles of his chapters suggest rather that each was taken from a separate work of reference, or a separate section in such work. The mere trouble involved in selecting from commentaries and arranging the selections under such heads as those under which Nonius has arranged his work would be very great, and must surely, if it had been really taken, have led to results very different from those which we have in Nonius. The hypothesis which I would propose, as most likely to explain the perplexing phenomena before us, is this : that during the first and fifth centuries a. d. a number of ex- R 242 VERRIUS FLA ecus, tracts and compendia^ of which the book of Festus is one, were made from works of reference compiled in the Augustan age and the first century a. d., such as those of Verrius Fiaccus, Hyginus, Fenestella, and Julius Modestus; that the same pro- cess was applied to the great grammarians, as Remmius Pa- laemon, Pliny, and Probus, and to the Lectiones antiquae of Caesellius Vindex ; that much lexicographical matter was taken from Verrius Fiaccus, but was quoted as if the excer- ptor were consulting the authorities used by Verrius Fiaccus; that handbooks of general information on points of grammar and lexicography were composed from these sources, speci- mens of which have survived in the work of Nonius written in the fourth century, and that of Placidus written in the fifth. A higher species of the same genus is represented by the Nodes Atticae of Aulus Gellius (second century) and the Satur- nalia of Macrobius (fourth century), which make the pretence of combining profound learning with elegance and literary form. And I would venture to suggest that the first step to be taken in the process of unearthing the ancient roots of this degenerate growth is to examine the notes which can be shown to be common to Verrius Fiaccus, Suetonius, Gellius, Julius Romanus, Nonius, Servius, Donatus, Macrobius, Placidus, and Isidore; and when this is done and the notes of Verrius are eliminated, then to compare the other authors and discover, if possible, under what groups their notes can be arranged, and finally to attempt to find, if possible, the common sources of these groups. At least I know of no other method which seems likely to lead to any fruitful issue. I subjoin a specimen of the application of this method to Paulus. Paulus, p. 2, armillum^ vas vinarium in sacris dictum^ quod armo, id est umero, deportatur. Nonius, p. 74, armillum. Lucilius, lib. 28, ^ hinc ad me, hinc ilicet anus Rursum ad armillum! p. 547, armillum urceoli genus vinarii. Varro De Vita P. R. lib. i^^ etiamnunc pocula quae VERRWS FLA ecus, 243 vocant. cupulas et capides, quod est poculi genus ; item armillum, quod est urceoli genus vinariil Placidus, p. 7, Deuerl. armillum, vas vinarium, Ufide ' anus ad armillumJ I would suggest that the gloss of Verrius Flaccus may be partially reconstructed from those in Nonius, the gloss of Placidus showing that the definition given by Paulus and the instance of anus ad armillum originally formed part of the same note. Paulus, p. 2, apricum locum, a sole apertum, a Graeco vocabulo (\)piKr^ appellamus, quasi dcfipiKrjs, id est sine korrore, videlicet frigoris, unde etiam putatur et Africa appellari. So Servius Aen. 5. 128, Isidore 14. 9. 34. Paulus, p. 2, amoena dicta sunt loca quae ad se amanda adli- ciant, id est trahant. Isidore 14. 9. 33, amoena loca dicta Varro ait eo quod solum amorem praestent, et ad \se^ amd^nda adliciant. Verrius Flaccus quod sine muner^ sint^ nee quicquam in his {iis ?) Ojficii, quasi amunia : id est, sine fructu : inde etiam nihil prae- stantes immunes dicuntur. Serv. Aen. 5. 734, amoena sunt loca solius voluptatis plena, quasi amunia, unde nullus fructus exsol- vitur ; unde etiam nihil praestantes ifnmunes dicuntur, 6. 638, quasi amunia, hoc est sine fructu, ut Varro et Carminius docent. Here we have distinct evidence that the original note of Verrius included (and indeed defended) an etymology of which Paulus has made no mention. Paulus, p. 4, armentum id genus pecoris appellatur quod est idoneum ad opus armorum. Invenies tamen feminine armentas apud Ennium }ositum. Nonius, p. 190, armenta genere neutro plerique. Feminino Ennius, ' ad armentas ipsius easdem! Pacuvius, * Tu cornifrontes pascere armentas soles! Paulus, p. 9, antruare . , . truant, moventur. Truam quoque vocant quo per movent coquentes exta. Nonius, p. 18, truam ve teres a terendo, quam nos deminutive trullam dicimus, appellari voluerunt. Pomponius Pannuceatis ; ' mulier uhi aspexit tam magnifice tutulatam truam ;^ Titinius Setina, . . , ^ cocus magnum ahenum, quando fervit, paula confutat trua.' Here I should R 2 244 VERRIUS FLA ecus, suppose that the words of Paulus's explanation were suggested by the passage in Titinius, which Festus had preserved. Paulus, p. 19, Aventinus mons intra urbem dictus est, quod ibi rex Albanorum Aventinus bello fuerit extinctus atque sepultus. Servius Aen. 7. 657, Aventinus mons urbis Romae est, quem constat ab avibus esse nominatum, quae de Tiberi ascendentes illic sedebantj ut in octavo legimus ^ Dirarum nidis domus opportuna volucrumJ Quidam etiam rex Aboriginum Aventinus nomine illic occisus et sepultus est, sicut etiam Albanorum rex Aventinus^ cui successit Procas. Varro tamen dicit in Gente Populi Romani Sabinos a Romulo susceptos istum accepisse montem quem ab Avente fluvio provinciae suae appellaverunt Aventinum. There is a note on this word in Varro L. L. 5. 43, of which the comment in Servius is quite independent. I infer from this fact, and from the similarity of language between Servius and Paulus, that Sertius has preserved a note of Verrius Flaccus. I quote these instances as specimens of a line of investigation which I hope may be worked out by scholars who have more leisure for the task than I have. About a third of the whole number of glosses given under the first and second letters in Paulus may, I think, be thus supplemented, or at least paral- leled, from later writers ; a fact sufficient to prove to what a large extent the work of Verrius, in its original form or in excerpts and abridgments, was consulted in antiquity. NOTE ON THE GLOSSES OF PLACIDUS. The title of this work is Glossae Luctatii Placidi in Plauti Comoedias. The latest editor, Deuerling, thinks that Placidus is undoubtedly a late writer, living perhaps in the fifth century a.d. There is no doubt, from several of his notes, that he was a Christian, who regarded the Pagan religion and mythology en- tirely ab extra, and that his book as a whole has the character- istics of a late fifth century compilation. VERRIUS FLA ecus. 245 The title is misleading. The glosses are not by any means confined to Plautus, some being demonstrably on Livius Andro- nicus, some on Lucilius, some on Sallust (e.g. alii on p. 2), some on Vergil (e.g. adorea on p. 7). But the book is not merely a glossary, but a badly compiled handbook of general instruction, containing, besides the glosses, notes on antiquities, mythology, rhetoric, grammar, and matters of general information. The grammar is of a late date, as may be inferred from the following remarks : p. 2, ^ alii'' scribimus singulariter dativo casu, ut de Catilina Sallustius dicit^ et<:. ; p. i, ^ aeditintus^ aedis custos . . . editissima vero loca montosaj p. 46, *■ f actus ilia res ' dicitur et ^factus illafn rernj^ p. 62, liberavit de praeterito per u, liberabit de futuro per b scribiturj p. 6, ' ante fugit ' dicimus^ non ' ab antej ' p. 48, gestio sic declinatur quomodo audio j est enim gestio neu- trale verbum. The notes on antiquities, mythology, etc., are, on the whole, of an elementary character. They often coincide with notes in Servius and Isidore, but Isidore does not borrow from Placidus. For instance, where Placidus (p. 13) merely says ^ bova^ vehemens rubor : interdu7ti genus serpetitis^ Isid. 12. 14. 28 has a very much fuller note : ' boas ' anguis Italiae i7nmensa mole : persequitur greges armentorum et bubulcos^ et pluritno lacte riguis se uberibus in7iectit et sugens interimit, atque inde a bourn depopulatione boas 7tomen accepit. lb. 22, hydros . . . cuius quida7n 7norbu7n boaTu dictmt, eo quodfi77io bovis re7nedieticr. And I might quote other examples of the same phenomenon. Probably, therefore, Placidus and Isi- dore used the same handbooks ; and it is almost certain that these handbooks were not older than the second century A. D. There are numerous coincidences, again, between Placidus and Servius and Aelius Donatus, which it is natural to account for in the same way. The question remains. What is the relation between the glosses, the lexicographical part, of Placidus, and the great work of Verrius Flaccus ? A large number of the glosses in Placidus are upon the same words as those in Festus or Paulus. Under the letter iV, where we have Festus as well as Paulus to consult, I find that, after de- ducting three grammatical notes on neglegens, nudus, and nudius tertiusj there remain in Placidus twenty-seven notes of a glossarial character. Of these fifteen correspond strikingly with notes in 246 VERRIUS FLA ecus. Festus ; though on the word nepa Placidus adds some nonsensical remarks of which Festus could not have been guilty. The fifteen are these : Nautea^ see Festus, p. 165 ; numero, p. 170 ; noegeum, p. 174 ; narria, p. 166; ftefrendem, p. 162 ; nujnellaf as, "^.172 ; nassiterna, p. 169; naeniam, p. 161 ; nepos,^^. 164-5 > ^^^ dccu?n, Paulus, p. 42 ; nuptiae, Festus, p. 170 ; nothus, p. 174 ; nepa, p. 164 ; naviter, pp. 166, 175 ; nandi, p. 166. Under the letter O, deducting the grammatical notes on odorifer, obter, obtundens, occidio, opera, we have thirty-eight glosses. Of these sixteen correspond with glosses in Festus or Paulus, namely : Obstrudere, obstrudulenta, see Festus, p. 193. Opipare, see Paulus, p. 188 ; osor, p. 196 ; oenum, p. 195. Oburvas, see Festus, P- 375 ; oppido, p. 184; opiter, p. 184; oriae, p. 183 ; onimentat, p. 190; oculato, p. 178; obnuberat, p. 184; obstinatus, p. 193; obsiipeculus, p. 193. Offuciarum, see Paulus, p. 192 ; obdet, p. 191. Under the letter A we can only compare Placidus with Paulus. Deducting the grammatical notes on aethra, alii, auctrix, ante, ampiexus, anethum, and the dittographies abuti, actuhan, adorea, altrinsecus, auspicium, autumant, alteruter, apiuda, ad incitas, 143 glosses remain. Of these the following correspond with glosses in Paulus, namely, adscivit, aeditimus, avus, arvina, acti, auspicium, ausiin, adolevit, adorea, alliciendos, averruncassint, anquirens, aerarium, abrogant, ales, agedum, ad manticulandum, angrae, antica, antiquare, armillum, antigerio, adulterina, ap- ludatn, axitionum, antiis, actum, aginam, aginator, ad exodium, assiduos, ambulacris, arse verse, adnictare, anate, artitiis, arcent, apua, aeruscans, adorans, acerata offula, acu pedutn, ausculatus, ambactij forty-four in all. It is, however, to be observed (i) that the interpretations given by Paulus and Placidus do not always correspond ; (2) that Placidus often quotes his nouns in oblique cases, and his verbs in participles or other special forms, thus giving the impression that he is citing from passages of authors, not from a lexicon. Paulus, on the other hand, often quotes his words in their general form. Thus Placidus quotes aeruscans where Paulus has aeruscare, antiis where Paulus has antiae, and so on (see Loewe, Glossae Nominum, etc., p. 96 foil.). In consequence of these differences between Placidus and the VERRIUS FLA ecus. 247 epitomators of Verrius, Deuerling and Loewe think (after Ritschl) that Placidus may have consulted the same authorities as Verrius Flaccus. Loewe says, ' Die von Ritschl aufgestellte Ansicht, dass Placidus und Festus oder Verrius Flaccus unabhangig von ein- ander aus verwandten Quellen geschopft haben, ist jetzt wohl allgemein anerkannt ;' and again, ' Wir haben hier' (in Placidus) ' Originalscholien der alten Glossographen zu archaischen Autoren vor uns.' With this view I find it impossible to agree. It is highly improbable that any scholar of the fifth century A.D would consult the authori- ties of Verrius Flaccus for purely lexicographical purposes. Again, the whole character of Placidus's book militates against the hypo- thesis. Is it likely that a writer so ignorant of classical Latin as he shows himself to be should have been in the habit of consulting Varro or Nigidius or the glossographers of the last century B.C.? Had he done so, surely his notes would have borne a very different stamp. I do not argue that Placidus consulted Festus, But I hope I have made it clear that Festus is not a convertible term with Verrius Flaccus. I suppose, taking everything into consideration, that the lexicographical notes in Placidus were copied from hand- books compiled for school purposes, and that these handbooks contained a large number of notes which came ultimately, perhaps through several hands, from Verrius, independently of Festus. This hypothesis would explain both the agreement of Placidus with Festus, and his disagreement ; and it also seems to me to be more probable on general grounds, when the whole course of the history of Latin literature is considered, than that advanced by Ritschl. IX. THE NOCTES ATTICAE OF AULUS GELLIUS. (PUBLIC LECTURE, Summer Term, 1883.) {American Journal of Philology , Vol. IV. No. 4.) It is perhaps not generally realized that a large proportion of the surviving Greek and Latin literature consists of extracts and epitomes. This is the case with almost all the remains of ancient philology, criticism, and lexicography, and with a great part of the remains of ancient history and science ; and thus it has come to pass that in Roman literature, for Nepos and Hyginus we have Valerius Maximus; for Verrius Flaccus, Festus and Paulus ; for Probus and Pliny, Nonius, Charisius, Servius, and Priscian ; for Suetonius, Jerome and Isidore. The passion for making epitomes, selections, florilegta, and fniscellanies of all kinds, arose among the Romans in the first century after Christ, and continued in activity for a long subse- quent period. The Nodes Atticae of Aulus Gellius is only one specimen of the results which it produced. Gellius himself tells us (Praef. 6 foil.) of the numerous works of this kind, with their equally numerous titles, that existed in his own day. Nain quia variam et miscellam et quasi confusaneam dodrinam con- quisierant, eo titulos quoque ad earn senteniiam exquisitissimos indiderunt. Namque alii * Musarum ' inscripserunt, alii ' Sil- varum y' ilk nenXov, hie ^Afxdkdeias Kepas, alius Kijpia, partim X«- fio)j/a?, quidam ^ Lectionis suae' alius ^Antiquarum Lectionum' atque alius dv6r]pS>p, et item alius tvpr}iidTfiaT€U, sunt adeo qui itav- bcKTas et 'EXiKava et irpo^Xfjfxara et tyxfipi^ia et irapa^i(l>idas, £st THE NOCTES ATTIC AE OF AULUS GELLIUS. 249 qui * Memoriales ' tttulum/ecerit, est qui Trpayfiartm et rrdpepya et didaa-KaKiKd, est item qui ' Historiae Naturalist est praeterea qui * Pratum' et it idem qui ndyKapirov, est qui TOTrav scripsit. Sunt item multi qui ' Coniectanea,' neque item non sunt qui indices lihris suisfecerint aut ^Epistularum Moralium' aut '■ Epistulicarum quae- stionum ' aut ' Confusarum,' et quaedam alia inscripta nimis lepida multasque prorsus concinnitates redolentia. The authors of some of these works are known. The ^hiioKBdas Kepas or Cornu Copiae was by Sotion, the Antiquae Lectiones by Caesellius Vindex, the His tor ia Naturalis by Pliny, the Pratum by Suetonius, the TLavhUrai by Tullius Tiro. The reference to a Silvae may pos- sibly be explained as an allusion to the Silva Observationum Sermonis antiqui by Valerius Probus : possibly 'Avdrjpd may be the Florida of Apuleius. Epistulicae Quaestiones was the title of a work by Varro, thrice quoted by Gellius [Nodes Atticae^ 14. 8. 2); Quaestiones Confusae was the name given to his miscel- laneous collections by Julius Modestus ; a book of Coniectanea was written by Ateius Capito. The gentile name of Aulus Gellius shows that he belonged to a very old Italian family. All that is known of his life and career may be briefly put together from his Nodes Atticae. He nowhere mentions his birthplace, but he was at Rome when he assumed the toga virilis in his sixteenth or seventeenth year (18. 4. i). The date of his birth is only a matter of ap- proximate inference. His residence as a student at Athens fell after the consulship of Herodes Atticus (143 a. d.), for Atticus is spoken of as consularis vir at the time {Nodes Atticae^ ip* 12 ; I. 2. i). Gellius calls Mim^^i iuvenis while at Athens (15, 2. 3, and elsewhere) : a term which it is surely unnecessary, with Teuffel, to press so far as to make it imply that Gellius was a man of thirty or so in these student years. Supposing him to have resided at Athens from the age of nineteen to that of twenty-three, he must have been born a. d. 123 or thereabouts. The ordinary educational course in his day began with grammar, and passed through rhetoric to philosophy (10. 19. i, adulescentem a rhetor ibus et afacundiae studio ad disciplinas philo- 250 THE NOCTES ATTIC A E OF AULUS GELLIUS. sophi'ae transgressum). In grammar he attended, among other lectures, those of the learned Carthaginian scholar Sulpicius Apollinaris, also the master of the emperor Pertinax^. In rhetoric one of his favourite teachers was Antonius Julianus, described (19. 9. 2) as docendis publice iuvenibus magister, in whose company he seems to have spent many pleasant hours (9. 15). Another was Titus Castricius, a mzn gravi atque firmo iudicio (11. 13. i), the chief professor of rhetoric in Rome^ Gellius also heard Fronto in Rome during his early youth '. In philosophy his tutors were mainly Favorinus and Calvisius Taurus — Calvisius Taurus he heard at Athens, whither he went from Rome after finishing his course of rhetoric *, and appears, though to what extent is uncertain, to have studied Aristotle and Plato with him ^ Gellius also saw a great deal at Athens of the enigmatical philosopher Peregrinus, surnamed or nicknamed Proteus, of whom he gives a very different account from that of Lucian ^ Had the eighth book of the Nodes Atticae survived, we might have heard more of this interesting personage, who figured in the dialogue of the third chapter. During the same time he saw and heard the celebrated rhetorician Tiberius Claudius Atticus Herodes"^. There are several pleasant allusions, scattered up and down * 7. 6. 12, queni in primis\sectabar ; comp. 30. 6. i, cum eum Romae aduUscentulus sectarer. * 13. 22. I, rhetoricae disciplinae doctor, qui habuit Romae locum princi- pem declamandi ac docendi, surnma vir auctoritate gravitateque €t a divo Hadriano in mores atque litteras spectatus. ' 19. 8. I, adulescentulus Romcu, priusquam Athenas concederem. * 17. 8. 1, Philosophus Taurus cucipiebat nos Athenis. 7. 13. i,factiia- tum observatumque hoc Athenis est ab his qui erant philosopho Tauro iunctiores. 19. 6. 2, hoc ego Athenis cum Tauro nostro legissem. ^ 7. 10. I, Taurus, vir memoria nostra in disciplina Platonica celebratus. 17. 20. I, Symposium Platonis apud philosophum Taurum legebatur. 19. 6. 2, problemata Aristotelis. * 12. II. I, Philosophum nomine Peregrinum, cut postea cognomentum Proteus factum est, virum gravem atque constantem, vidimus, cum apud Athena^ essemus, deversantem in quodam tugurio extra urbem. Cumque ad eum frequenter ventitaremus, multa herclt diccrc eum utiliter et honeste audivimus. THE NOCTES ATTICA E OF AULUS GELLIUS. 251 the Nodes Ath'cae, to Gellius's student life at Athens ; to his boating-trips to Aegina and back (2. 21. i); his excursion to 'Delphi (12. 5. i); the monthly gatherings of students (15. 2. 3, in conviviis iuvenum^ quae agitare A them's hebdomadibus lunae sollemne nobis fuit). It was after his return from Athens to Rome that Gellius became intimate with Favorinus ^, and thus fell under a philo- sophical influence which extended at least beyond the time at which he entered upon professional life ^. If we may trust the impression left by the Nodes Atticae, Favorinus was not merely a technical metaphysician, but also an acute and learned scholar. As is well known, he was the author of works entitled aTTOfjLinjfxovevfiaTa and TravTobanf} ItrTopia, the latter of which most probably suggested the form, if indeed it did not supply much of the contents, of the Nodes Aiticae, Once returned to Rome, Gellius seems to have entered upon active life, of what kind he does not tell us explicitly ; but he was, homo adulescens as he says (14. 2. i), chosen as a judge for the decision of private causes. He can hardly have been older than twenty-five at this time^. In one other passage (12. 13. i) he alludes to his undertaking judicial functions ; but in other places his accounts of his life are somewhat vague, though they refer generally to a legal career *. There is no mention of ele- * 14. 1. I, Audivimtis quondam Favorintim philosophum Romae Graece disserentem egregia atque inlustri oratione. i. 21. 4, cum Favorino Hygini commentarium egissem. 10. 12. 9, Favorinus philosophtis, memoriarum veterum exequentissimtis. 16. 3. i, cum Favorino dies plerumque totos eramtis, tenebatque animos nostros homo ille fandi dulcissimus, atque eum, quoquo iret, quasi lingua eius prorsus capti prosequebamur. ^ 14. 2. I. II, quo primum tempore a praetoribus lectus in indices essem . . . a subselliis per go ad Favorinum philosophum, quem in eo tempore Romae pluri7num sectabar. Comp. 2. 22, i ; 17. 10. i; 18. i. i. ^ Digest 42. I. 571, Quidatn consulebat, an valeret sententia a minor e viginti qui7ique annis iudice data. 50. 4. 8, ad rem publicam admini- strandam ante vicensimum quintum annum, vel ad munera quae non patri- fnonii sunt vel honores, admitti minores non oportet. * 12. 13. I, cum Romae a consulibus iudex extra ordinem datus . . . pro- nuntiare iussus sum. 13. 13. i, cum ex angulis secretisque librorum ac magisti'orum in medium iam hominum et in hicem fori prodissem. 11. 3. I, quando ab arbitris negotiisque otium est. 16. 10. i, otium erat quodam die Romae in foro a negotiis. Praef. 12, per omnia semper negotiorum intervalla. 252 THE NOCTES ATTICAE OF AULUS GELLIUS. vation to any high office ; perhaps the mediocrity which stamps his hterary work may have been also obvious in the discharge of his judicial functions. I now come to the most important and difficult part of my task, which is to give some account, and attempt some analysis, of the Nodes AUicae. It appears from the author's preface that before he published this work in its final shape he had laid the foundation for it in a number of excerpts. Praef. 2, usi autem sumus or dine rerum/ortutto, quem antea in excerpendo feceramus. Nam proinde ut librum quemque in manus ceperam seu Graecum seu Lalinum, vel quid memoratu dignum audieram, ita^ quae libitum erat, cuiuscunque generis erant, indisiinde atque promisee adnotabam, eaque mihi ad subsidium memoriae quasi quoddam litter arum penus recondebam, etc. The title Nodes Atticae was given to the book simply as a record of the fact that Gellius began to make his collections during the long winter evenings of his student years at Athens. It is professedly a handbook of miscellaneous information, but aims, as its author expressly says, at being comparatively popular, and regards quality more than quantity in the facts presented. For the presence of some few specimens of recon- dite learning the author thinks it necessary to apologize ^. Gellius does not tell us, what is sufficiently obvious to a reader of his book, that he has taken great pains to enliven his lessons by the form in which his scraps of information are presented. Often indeed an extract is simply copied from an older author, and given in its naked simplicity without introduction or cita- tion of authority ; but quite as often an attempt is made to set it in the frame of an imaginary dialogue, a description, or an anecdote. The uniformity of the devices employed is amusing. Certain individuals, as Favorinus, Fronto, Castricius, Calvisius Taurus, Sulpicius Apollinaris, figure as the interlocutors in the dialogue ; but it is hardly to be supposed that the scenes into which they are introduced are other than fictitious. They may, of course, be taken as giving a general idea of the life of * Praef. 11. la. 13. THE NOCTES ATTIC AE OF AULUS GELLIUS. 253 Gellius, his pursuits, and the sphere in which he moved; but they are, in all probability, no more historical than the introduc- tory scenes of Plato's or Cicero's dialogues. As a foil to the instructed scholar or philosopher there often appears a conceited or affected or generally unseasonable individual^ whose delusions are exposed by the light of superior wisdom. Sometimes the devil's advocate appears in another shape, as in 19. i. 7, where a rich Asiatic Greek is disagreeable enough, on a sea-voyage, to ask a Stoic philosopher who has shown signs of alarm at a tempest, to explain to him how it is that he has been pale and trembling all the while, while the speaker has given no indication of fear. Were these loquacious or ignorant or conceited individuals to be taken seriously, we should have reason to hold up our hands in horror at the social condition of the second century A. D. ; but they are in all probability mere men of straw. In any case they are tedious enough; nor is their constant intro- duction the only instance of want of skill shown in the com- position of the Nodes Aiiicae. Sometimes, as Mercklin and Kretzschmer^ have pointed out, the form of the dialogue is not consistently maintained through a whole chapter; thus in i. 7 Gellius starts by quoting a passage from Cicero's fifth speech against Verres ; no indication of time or place is given, yet in § 3 the writer proceeds videbatur com- plurihus in extremo verbo menda esse, and in § 4 ader at forte ^ I. 2. 3, adulescens philosophiae sectator . . . sect loquacior impendio et promptior. 1. 10. I, adulescenti veterum verborum cupidissimo. 4. i. i, ostentabat quispiam grammaticae rei ditior scholica quaedam nugalia. 5. 21. 4, reprehensor audaculus verborum. 6. 17. i. 6, gramma^zcum primae . . . celebritatis, . . . insolentis hominis inscitiam. 7. 16. i, eiustnodi quis- piatn, qui tumultuariis et inconditis linguae exercitationibus adfamam sese facundiae promiserat. 8. 10, grammaticus quidani praestigiosus . ib. 14, intenipestivus quidam de ambiguitate verborum disserens. 9. 15. i, introit adulescens et praefatur arrogantius et elatizis. 11. 7. 3, vetus celebratusque homo in causis, sed repentina et quasi tumultuaria doctrina praeditus. 18. 4. I, iactator quispiam et venditator Sallustianae lectionis. 20. 10. 2, ille me despiciens. ^ When Mercklin and Kretzschmer are quoted, the reference is to the essay of Mercklin, in \h.ejahrbiicherficr Classische Philologie, Suppl. 3 (i860), and to that of Kretzschmer, De Auli Gelliifontibus, Greifswald, i860. 2 54 THE NOCTES ATTIC AE OF AULUS GELLIUS, amicus noster. In 2. 22 an elaborate account of the winds is put into the mouth of Favorinus ; the dialogue is continued to the end of § 26, yet in § 30 Gellius quotes something which he has already attributed to Favorinus as if he had said it him- self. There is a similar awkwardness at the end of 5. 21, where an opinion of Sinnius Capito, having been originally introduced in the course of a supposed dialogue, is treated as if it had been cited by Gellius. In 13. 21. 9 it is quite clear that the passage discussed by Gellius had really been treated by Probus in the work from which the first part of the chapter is quoted, and this fact is enough to raise a suspicion that the anecdote about Probus is mere padding. A similar remark applies to the end of 19. 8, where there is no real distinction between the observations offered by Gellius himself and those previously put into the mouth of Fronto. There are other marks of carelessness in composition. Gellius is apt, for instance, to introduce one of his interlocutors twice over, thus Herodes Atticus is described (i. 2) as vtr et Graecafacundia et consulari honor e praeditus, and so 9. 2, Hero- dem Atticum^ consular em virum ingenioque amoeno et Graeca facundia celebrem. Antonius Julianus (i. 4. i) rhetor perquam fuit honesti atque amoeni ingenii; doctrina quoque ista utiliore {suhtiliore^ Madvig) ac delectabili veterumque elegantiarum cura et memoria multafuit; ad hoc scripta omnia tam curiose spectabat, etc. 19. 9. 1, Antonius Julianus rhetor ^ docendis publice iuvenibus ma- gister, Hispano ore florentisque homo facundiae et rerum litter a- rumque veterum peritus. Titus Castricius 11. 13. i, disciplinae rhetor icae doctor^ gravi atque fir mo iudicio vir. 13. 22, rhetor icae disciplinae doctor^ qui habuit Romae locum principem declamandi ac docendi, summa vir auctoritate gravitateque. Apion 5. 14, qui nXeKTTovfiKTjs appellatus est, litteris homo multis praeditus rerumque Graecarum plurima atque varia scientia fuit. 7. 8. i, Graecus homo qui UXeiaTovfUris appellatus est, facili atque alacri facundia fuit. Tullius Tiro 6. 3. 8, M. Ciceronis liber tus^ sane quidemfuit ingenio homo eleganti et haudquaquam rerum litterarumque veterum indoctus, eoque ab ineunte aetate liberaliter institute adminiculatore THE NOCTES ATTIC AE OF AULUS GELLIUS. 255 et quasi adminisiro in studiis litter arum Cicero usus est. 13. 9. I, Tullius Tiro, M. Ciceronis alumnus et liber tus adiutorque in litter is studiorum eius fuit. An extract is sometimes so carelessly torn from its context that marks of the rent are still visible. Thus the epitome of 3. 17 begins id quoque esse a gravissimis viris memoriae man- datum, where there is nothing in the previous chapter to lead up to the quoque. Exactly in the same way 10. 8. i, /uit haec quoque antiquitus militaris animadversio. 12. 12. i, haec quoque disciplina rhetor ica (? disciplinae rhetoricaeT) est. 18. 12. i, id quoque habitum est in oratione facienda elegantiae genus. Sometimes Gellius alludes or seems to allude to things which he has nowhere said, or proposes discussions which are nowhere started: thus 2. 22. 31, consider andum igitur est quid sit secundo sole, 2l question which is not treated anywhere else ; and so it is with 12. 14. 7, censuimus igitur amplius quaerendum. 13. 7. 6, in quibus, quod super ipsa re scriptum invenerimus, cum ipsius Aristotelis verbis in his commentariis scribemus. 14. 7. 13, de hac ojuni re alio in loco plenius accuratiusque nos memini scribere (a discussion on the forms of the senatus consultum, which occurs nowhere else, not even in the epitomes of the eighth book). 18. 4. II, quos notavi et intulisse iam me aliquo in loco commentatio- nibus istis existimo. It should further be observed that the same point is sometimes treated twice in much the same words: compare 2. 26. 9; 3. 9. 9, palmae termes ex arbor e cum fructu evulsus ^ spadix' dicitur : a-ndbiKa doypia-rl vocant avulsum e palma termitem cum fructu. 3. 16, §§ 18-19 j 15* 5- 5> adfecta . . . ea proprie dicebantur quae non ad finem ipsum sed proxime finem progressa deductave erant. Hoc verbum ad hanc sententia77i Cicero in hac fecit quam dixit de provinciis consularibus. The same quotation, with others, is given 15- 5- 5. We may now approach the central question, From what authors, and from what works, does Gellius mainly derive his information ? Like many other ancient writers, Gellius does not think it his duty in all cases to mention his authorities by name. 256 THE NOCTES ATTIC A E OF AULUS GELLIUS. While a large number of his chapters are anonymous, in an equally large number of instances he professes to have taken his information from one of his own contemporaries, Favorinus, Fronto, Castricius, Antonius Julianus, Calvisius Taurus, and so on. But the reader soon becomes convinced that these names are mere personae introduced to give an attractive setting to the extracts quoted under them. Deducting, then, this element of illusion, we have to ask what means we have for ascertaining the actual authorities consulted by Gellius ? When he quotes Varro, for instance, can we be sure that he has read Varro, or is some intermediate work the source of his information ? Mercklin has called attention to a remarkable fact affecting Gellius's manner of quotation. We find that an ancient work is, in one place, cited under its proper title, while in another it is mentioned as if that title were unknown to the writer. Thus in 14. 3. 4 Plato's Laws IS spoken of as quidam liber, while in 15. 2. §§ 3 and 4, Gellius seems to be aware that there was a work by Plato, De Legibus, and so again in 20. i. 4. It sometimes, too, happens that the same work is quoted under slightly different titles; a fact, perhaps, of less importance. But the case of Plato's voyioi makes it almost certain that Gellius did not know that work at first hand ; and one instance is enough to make us justly suspicious in many more. Let us, for example, take 2. 21. 8, where Gellius gives the impression of citing, at first hand, Varro's opinion on the word septemtriones. A com- parison of this passage with the similar one in Festus, p. 339 (Miiller), leads almost irresistibly to the conclusion that Gellius's immediate authority was not Varro, but Verrius Flaccus quoting Varro. Mercklin accuses our author, in one case, of something very like downright inveracity. In 9. 4, Gellius professes to quote from Aristeas, Isogonus, Ctesias, Onesicritus, Philostephanus, and Hegesias, certain wonderful stories, adding that he found in isdem libris scriptum quod posiea in libro quoque septimo Plinii Secundi Naturalis Historiae legi. Now the first part of the chapter of THE NOCTES ATTIC AE OF AULUS GELLIUS. 257 Gellius (or rather much of the substance of it) is also to be found in Pliny, 7, § n foil., and Mercklin therefore infers that Gellius is indebted to Pliny for this part as well. In this instance, I am inclined to think, he is too hard upon Gellius. The difference of language between Gellius and Pliny is so considerable that it seems to me most probable that the two writers are here using the same authorities. In 17. 15, Gellius borrows his whole account of the two kinds of hellebore from Pliny, 25. 47 foil. But Pliny's name is not mentioned until the sixth section, and then only in such a way as to put the reader off the scent. The two following chapters, however, which contain stories of Mithridates and his knowledge of medicine and of languages, although they may be found in Pliny (25. 6 ; 29. 24) in a shorter form, contain some information which is absent from his text, and must therefore be taken from some common authority ; perhaps the memoirs of Pompeius Lenaeus. The instance of 17. 15 will serve as a specimen of what we must look for throughout the whole of the Nodes Atli'cae, Gellius often alludes to his authority, but gives the false im- pression that only a part of the chapter in which it is mentioned is borrowed from him. It sometimes, to all appearance, happens that Gellius makes extracts from more than one work in the same chapter. At the end of 3. 9, for instance, after speaking of some proverbial ex- pressions, he goes out of his way to inform us that spadix and poeniceus mean one and the same thing ; at the end of 9. i there is a remark of a lexicographical character on the word defendo ; so at the end of lo. 3 on Bruttiam, of 13. 11 on bellaria, of 13. 22 on crepidarius, of 20. 5 on cognobilis. Mercklin thinks the same was the case in other places. Perhaps the best way of getting an approximate idea of the character of the works consulted by Gellius will be to analyse his whole book according to the subjects of which it treats. In this way we shall obtain a conspectus of its general scope, and shall also be able to establish a visible connection, not only s 258 THE NOCTES ATTICAE OF AULUS GELLIUS. between some neighbouring chapters, but between distant parts of the Nodes Atticae, This connection is sometimes so close as to lead irresistibly to the conclusion that the kindred sections belong to the same original work. The Nodes Atticae is a work of such miscellaneous contents that it is impossible to make an entirely satisfactory table of them. A margin of unclassified matter must remain, whatever principle of arrangement be adopted. A rough distribution of the main bulk into certain great divisions is, however, possible. We may take as the first branch that of philosophy, under- standing that term to include metaphysics, psychology, logic, and morals. The true as distinguished from the false study of philosophy is touched upon briefly in i. 2 and 10. 22 ; but there is nothing in these chapters which should lead us to connect them. 5. 1 5, corpusne sit vox an daafiarov, varias esse philosophorum senienitas, is evidently from the same source as the following chapter, de VI oculorum deque videndi raiionibus. The authority is at least as late as the Ciceronian age, and almost certainly Latin, as Lucretius and Ennius are quoted. The first and second chap- ters of the seventh book, in which the opinions of Chrysippus on Providence and on Fate are discussed, are no less obviously akin, and probably from the same source; which, if we may press the fact that Cicero is quoted at the end of the second chapter, was presumably a late one. The first chapter of the fourteenth book, Dissertatio Favorini philosophi adversus eos qui Chaldaei appellantur d ex coetu motibusque siderum et siellarum fata hominum dicturos pollicentur^ deals with a cognate subject. Turning to ethics, we find a discussion as to the nature of the summum bonum between a Stoic and Peripatetic in the first chapter of the eighteenth book ; the doctrine of Chrysippus TTfpt KoKov KQt 17801/^s, as applied to the character of justice, is expounded in 14. 4. Connected in subject with the latter is 9. 5, in which various philosophical views of pleasure, con- cluding with that of the Stoic Hierocles, are presented. Three chapters on the relation of reason to passion (i. 26; 12. 5; THE NOCTES ATTIC AE OF AULUS GELLIUS. 259 19. i) are closely connected, and may come from the same manual (a very late one), or set of lectures. The first, on anger, purports to be from Taurus and Plutarch ; the second, which is also professedly from Taurus, deals with the Stoic theory of bearing pain ; the third gives the opinion of Epictetus on the subject of fear. We may mention in this connection the discourse of Herodes Atticus against aTrdBeia (19. 12). The following chapters touch on various points of logic: II. 12 (Chrysippus on ambiguous t^rms) ; 15. 26 (a proposed Latin translation of Aristotle's definition of a syllogism); 16. 8 (Latin equivalents for several Greek technical terms) ; 5. 10. 11 (the argument called avriarpi^ov, again treated in 9. 16); 18. 13 (a story of a fallacy tried unsuccessfully upon Diogenes). Of these, 16. 8 deserves the most attention. I am tempted to think that it comes from Varro, whether from the twenty-fourth book of the De Lingua Latina^ quoted in the fourth section, or from the Disciplinae. The eighth and ninth chapters of the second book are from Plutarch ; the second, fourth, fifth, and sixth of the nineteenth book from the Prohlemata of Aristotle, though in the fifth chapter the debt is not quite directly acknowledged. The ninth chapter of the first book, the eleventh of the fourth, and the fifth of the eleventh, touch on points connected with the history of philosophy : the first two treating of the Pythagorean discipline ; the last, of the diff"erence between Pyrrhonists and Academics. We may now pass on to another head, that of ethical prin- ciples appHed. Here some sort of classification is possible, though there are hardly any data for inference as to authorities. Four chapters (9. 2 ; 12. 11 ; 13. 8 ; 13. 24) treat of the relation of philosophy to conduct; of these, one (12. 11) contains a dictum of Peregrinus, virum sapientem non peccaturum esse^ etiamsi peccasse eum di atque homines ignoraturi forent ; the other three are protests, lodged in various forms, against dilettantism and hypocrisy in the profession of philosophy. Two of these (13. 8 ; 13. 24) have a distinctly Roman tinge. s 2 26o THE NOCTES ATTICA E OF AULUS GELLIUS. Four chapters are devoted to questions of casuistry. In i. 3 Favorinus, quoting Theophrastus and Cicero, starts the problem an pro uHlitate amicorum delinquendum aliquando sit? The second and third (i. 13 and 2. 7) open in very much the same way, in officiis capiendiSj censendis, iudicafidisque, quae KadrjKovTa philosophi appellant^ quaeri solet, etc. Quaeri solitum est in philosophorum disceptationibus^ an semper, etc. Does this fact point to identity of source .? The first discusses the question whether the letter or the spirit of an order is to be taken as the more important ; the second, how far a parent's commands are to be taken as binding. Both questions are approached from a Roman point of view. The remaining casuistical chapter is 14. 2, where Gellius consults Favorinus De Officio ludicis. A number of exhortations to particular virtues and warnings against particular vices should be mentioned here. 1. 17 (from Varro), de tollendis vitiis uxor is. 2. 12, Solon's law enforcing the duty of taking a part in political dissensions, and Favorinus!s view about a similar duty in private life. 12. i, Favorinus suadet nobili /eminae uti liber os quos peperisset non nutricum aliarum sed suo sibi lade aleret. 13. 28, Panaetius De cavendis Iniuriis. 17. 19, Epictetus (quoted by Favorinus), av^x'^v Kai cm^xov. 1. 15, Favorinus against the vice of loquacity. 6. 16; 15. 19, Varro {^Tiip\ tdea-fmrav) against luxury. 9. 8 (Favorinus), qui multa habet, mult is eget. 15. 8, an ancient orator De cenarum atque luxuriae opprobratione. 7. 11 (Metellus Numidicus), cum inquinatissimis hominibus non esse convicio decertandum, 8. 6 (Taurus, from Theophrastus and Cicero), cum post offensiunculas in gratiam redeatur, expostulationes fieri mutuas minime utile esse. 10. 19 (Taurus), non purgari neque levari peccatum cum praetenditur peccaiorum, quae alii quoque peccaverunt, similitudo. A transition is natural from the last head to the exempla or remarkable instances of praiseworthy conduct cited in the Nodes Atticae. Among these two only are from Greek history, the story of the habits of Socrates put into the mouth of Favorinus (2. i), and that told by Taurus (7. 10) about the youth of Euclides. The rest are Roman, and are as follows : i. 14, the THE NOCTES ATTIC AE OF AULUS GklllUS. 261 Story of Fabricius and the Samnites; 2. 2, the tw^^F^bii, fathej... -^ .,j ,, and son ; 4. 8, Fabricius Luscinus and the avaricioS^ JB-ufinusx^^s-^ 6. 18, the sanctity of oaths among the ancient Romans ; 6. 19, Ti. Gracchus and Scipio Asiaticus; 7. 8, Scipio's continence; 7. 9, Cn. Flavins the scriba\ 12, 4, Ennius's character as sketched by himself; 12. 8, the reconciliation of P. Scipio and Ti. Gracchus : 15. 12, C. Gracchus on his own quaestorship. Of the authorities for some of these stories something certain may be said, at least on the negative side. GelHus has not borrowed anything from Valerius Maximus, natural as it would seem that he should have done so. In 12. 7. § 8, after relating the story of Cn. Dolabella and the woman who was brought before him at Smyrna on the charge of poisoning her son and husband, he says scripta haec his tor ia est in libro Valeri Maximi fadorum et dictorum meviorahilium octavo. Yet any careful reader of Geliius's narrative must see that although he has read Valerius Maximus (8. i. 2 damn), he has not copied him, for he adds two details about which Valerius is silent : venenis clam datis, of the one murder ; exceptum insidiis, of the other. Again, let us compare Gellius i. 14 with Valerius Maximus 4. 3. 6. The story (of C. Fabricius and the Samnite envoys) is told by Gellius in a far fuller and more characteristic manner than by Valerius. Gellius professes to take it from Hyginus, De Vita Rebusque in- lustrium Virorum, which was probably the common authority for both writers. Both writers again have a story about Fabricius Luscinus and Cornelius Rufinus (Gellius, 4. 8, Valerius Maxi- mus, 2. 9. 4) which occurs in a different context in Gellius from that in which it is set by Maximus. The style of Geliius's narrative in this case tempts me to suppose that it is from the hand of a classical writer, such as Hyginus or Nepos. The work of Nepos called exempla is quoted explicitly by Gellius when, in the eighteenth chapter of his sixth book, he is narrating the history of the ten captives who returned to Rome after Cannae; indeed it is not impossible that the whole of the chapter comes from this work. The same may be the case with the story in the following chapter about Ti. Gracchus and 262 THE NOCTES ATTICA E OF AULUS GELLIUS. Scipio Asiaticus, which is given in an abridged form by Valerius Maximus (4. i. 8). For Gellius begins by saying pulchrum atque liberate atque magnanimum factum Ti. Sempronu Gracchi in ex- emplis repositum est. The story of Scipio's continence (7. 8) is apparently drawn from an older source than the version given by Valerius Maximus {4. 3. i). The relation between the two writers is, I think, the same with regard to the two narratives given by Gellius 12. 8 and Valerius Maximus 4. 2. 3; 4. 2. i^. Thus in six instances it is highly probable that Gellius follows an authority older than Valerius Maximus. In one of them he expressly cites Hyginus, in another Nepos ; and it is therefore not rash to infer that he is indebted to these two writers for a considerable part of his information under the head which we have been discussing. Five chapters of the Noctes Atticae are devoted to natural philosophy; these are, 2. 22, on the winds; 2. 26, on the names of colours; 2. 30, on the effect of different winds on the motion of the waves; 9. i, on the direction of blows as influencing their strength. Of these, chapters 2. 22 and 2. 30 must be derived from the same sources as the corresponding passages in Pliny (2. 126 foil.). There are also four chapters on points of human pathology ; 3. 16 {temporis varietas in puerperis mulierum), partly from Varro. 4. 19, again from Varro, de moderando viciu puerorum inpubiufn. 17. II, from Plutarch, de habitu atque natura stomachi. 18. 10, err are istos, qui in exploranda febri venarum pulsus pertemptari putant, non arteriarum. The department of rhetoric is not very fully represented in the Noctes Atticae. The notes which fall under this head con- sist mainly of criticisms on passages in the ancient orators from Cato to Cicero, and exhibit a considerable similarity ; but it is hardly possible to infer anything as to their source. Indeed it * Mercklin thinks that the story of Aemilius Lepidus and Fulvius Flaccus comes directly from Valerius Maximus. There seems, however, to be nothing in the language to necessitate such a conclusion, while of the pre- ceding story about the older Africanus and Ti. Gracchus, Gellius gives a fuller, and therefore probably an older, version. THE NOCTES ATTIC AE OF AULUS GELLIUS. 263 is not impossible that they come, as they profess to do, from the contemporaries of Gellius himself. We may notice as kin- dred in spirit the remarks of Castricius upon Metellus Numi- dicus (1.6), and the defence of Cato against the strictures of Tullius Tiro (6. 3). In both chapters the point insisted on is the difference between the manner suitable to an advocate and that suitable to a statesman. Perhaps we may also connect 12. 12 and 16. 2, which deal with the art of reply. Cicero is defended against captious criticism in i. 4 and 17. 5. The remaining chapters do not admit of any classification ; they are 9. 15 (a case of anopov or inexplicabile) \ 17. 12 {matertae infames); 17. 20 (a translation of a passage in Plato's Sym- posium). If the contributions of Gellius to the art of rhetoric are scanty, the same cannot be said of the passages of ancient literary criticism which he has preserved. Twenty-eight chapters are devoted to this subject, some of which may be easily arranged together as containing similar matter. Nine are given to the question of translation or adaptation from Greek into Latin. These are 2. 23, where Caecilius is compared, much to his disadvantage, with Menander ; 11. 4, a criticism of a translation from Euripides by Ennius; 2. 27, where Castricius is repre- sented as contrasting Sallust's description of Sertorius with that of Philip by Demosthenes ; 8. 8 and 17. 20, which touch upon Gellius's own efforts at rendering Plato; 9. 9; 13. 27 ; 17. 10, comparisons with their originals of Vergil's renderings or adapta- tions from Theocritus, Homer, Parthenius, and Pindar; 19. 11, a translation by a friend of Gellius of some erotic verses by Plato. It is natural to suppose that some of these criticisms are taken from a manual in which the whole question of trans- lation was discussed. Such a work, in all probability, was the (HioiOTryre^ of Octavius Avitus, mentioned by Suetonius in his life of Vergil. I. 10 and II. 7 contain protests against the affectation of antiquarianism in writing. General remarks on style will be found in 2. 5 (a short comparison between Plato and Lysias) ; 264 THE NOCTES ATTIC AE OF AULUS GELLIUS, 10. 3, where the styles of Gracchus and Cicero are contrasted ; 16. I (the expression of the same thought by Cato and Muso- nius). n. 13 and 14, which contain the praises of C.Gracchus and the historian L. Piso, seem to be intimately connected. Other chapters falling under this head are 15. 24 (the metrical criticism of Roman comedians by Volcatius Sedigitus) ; 6. 14, where Varro's distinction between the three styles (^her, gracilis^ mediocris) is quoted; 18. 8 (Lucilius on o/AoioTtXei^ra) ; and 12. 2 (Seneca- upon Ennius and Cicero). Three chapters (3. i ; 4- 15 ; 10. 26) are devoted to criticism, mainly defensive, of Sallust, whose abrupt and antiquarian style appears to have attracted a great deal of attention on the part of scholars and literary men. Three again (5. 8; 9. 10; 10. 16) contain pleadings in defence of Vergil against strictures of Hyginus and Cornutus, taken possibly from the work of Asco- nius Contra obtredaiores Vergilii. In 15. 6 attention is drawn to a mistake of Cicero's. Finally, 3. 3 deals (after Varro) with the question of the genuine and spurious plays of Plautus. History and biography absorb thirty-six chapters. Among these we may fairly distinguish the following groups : (i) I. 23; 9. II. 13, on Roman cognomina (Praetextatus, Corvinus, and Torquatus). These notices are so similar in tone and composition as to suggest the inference that they come from the same source, which may have been perhaps the work of Cornelius Epicadus, Sulla's freedman, on cognomina. It should be observed that the twenty-third chapter of the first book is verbally identical with a passage in the first book of Macrobius's Saturnalia (i. 6. 18 foil.). It has been of course assumed that Macrobius borrowed from Gellius; but against this hypothesis it may be urged that Macrobius goes on to supplement the story about Praetextatus by further information respecting other cognomina unknown to Gellius, and this in such a natural and easy way as to lead us to suppose that the whole passage is taken from some book which dealt in a com- prehensive way with the whole subject. We should probably have known more of this work and its contents had the last THE NOCTES ATTICAE OF AULUS GELLIUS. 265 book of Nonius been preserved. (2) Six chapters (i. 24 ; 3. 3 ; 8. 15 ; 12. 4 ; 13. 2 ; 17. 14) are devoted to interesting passages in the lives of Latin poets. In one of these cases the relation between Gellius and Macrobius is precisely the same as that which has just been considered. I allude to the notice of Publilius Syrus, which is fuller in Macrobius 2. 7, than in Gellius 17.14. Is Varro the authority for these fragments of biography ? he is expressly quoted in i. 24 and 3. 3. (3) Fragments of biographies of Greek poets are preserved 3. 11; 15; 20 ; 17. 4. The last of these comes ostensibly from the Chronicon of Apollodorus, but may well have been taken from Varro's adap- tations from that work; for Varro is actually cited in 3. ir. (4) Another group of chapters (5. 3 ; 13. 5 ; 14. 3 ; 20. 5) deals with lives of Greek philosophers; while (5) a large number contains notes of remarkable facts from Roman history (i, 13 end; 2. 11; 3. 7. 8; 4. 14. 18; 7. 3. 4; 10. 27. 28; 15.4-11; 18. 22). We are here brought back to the question of the relation between Gellius and Valerius Maximus, and are led to the same conclusion as before. Gellius generally transcribes, not from Maximus, but from writers much older. Both authors give a catalogue of the exploits of L. Sicinius Dentatus (Maximus 3. 2. 24, Gellius 2. 11). The facts narrated are the same, but the style of Gellius is simpler and more antique, and Valerius Maximus expressly mentions Varro among his authorities. It is therefore possible that Gellius has preserved the account given by Varro. The story of Pyrrhus and the consuls Fabricius and Aemilius is given by Gellius (3. 8) directly from Claudius Quadrigarius ; Valerius Maximus's version (6. 5. i) is much shorter. So again the history of Scipio Africanus and his accusers is told more fully and accurately by Gellius (4. 18) than by Valerius (3. 7. i). A similar remark applies to the accounts of the death of Regulus (Maximus 9. 2, Ext. i, Gellius 7. 4). For the rest, ro. 27 {historia de populo Romano deque populo Poenico, quod pari propemodum vigore fuerint aemuli) bears the name of Varro; 10. 28 (the classes of Servius TuUius) that of Tubero. 15. 4 {histon'a de Ventidio Basso) must be from 266 THE NOCTES ATTICAE OF AULUS GELLIUS. Suetonius, whose name appears at the end of the chapter ; and so perhaps 15. 11 {de exigendis urhe Roma philosophis\ the authority of which is later than the accession of Domitian. To arithmetic and geometry a few sections only are given : 1. 1 (from V\vit2i.xch) de comprehendenda corporis proceritaie qua fuit Hercules, i. 20, containing Latin equivalents for Greek geo- metrical terms. 3. 10, septenarii numeri vis et facultas. 16. 18, lepida quaedam et memoratu et cognitu de parte geometriae quae oirTiKrj appetlatur, etc. 18.14, quid sit Humerus hemiolios, quid epitriios ; et quod vocabula ista non facile nostri ausi sunt converter e in linguam Latinam. 18. 15, quod M. Varro in herois versibus observaverit rem nimis anxiae et curiosae observationis. Of these, four, i. 20; 3. 10; 16. 18; 18. 15, bear the name of Varro, 1 8. 15 quoting expressly from his work entitled Disciplinae. It is highly probable that i. 20 ; i6. 18 ; 18. 14 come from the same treatise. The name of Gellius is perhaps most familiarly connected in the minds of modern students with the subject of Roman antiquities, social, political, and religious. To this upwards of thirty chapters, and those on the whole very important, are set apart. The following groups may be distinguished : (i) notes on religious antiquities, i. 12, perhaps from Antistius Labeo, virgo Vestae quid ae talis et ex quali familia et quo ritu quibusque caerimoniis et religionibus, ac quo nomine a pontijice maximo capiatur^ et quo statim iure esse incipiat simul atque capta est ; quodque, ut Labeo dicit^ nee intestato cuiquam nee eius intestatae quisquam iure her es est. 10. 15, de flaminis Dialis deque flaminicae caerimoniis ; verbaque ex edicto praetoris apposita quibus dicit non coacturum se ad iurandum neque virgines Vestae neque Diakm. This chapter bears the names of Varro and Masurius Sabinus. 2. 285 apparently from Varro, non esse compertum cui deo rem divinam fieri oporteat, cum terra movtt. {2) On social customs. 2. 15, quod antiquitus aetati senectae potissimum habiti sunt ampli honoreSj et cur postea ad maritos et ad patres idem isti honores delati sint ; the authority is uncertain, but not older than the leges luliae. 5. 1 3, , petorritum. Compare Paulus, p. 207. 16. 5, vestihulum. The remarks on vescus closely resemble the note on this word in Paulus, p. 368. 16. 6, bidens. This note is either from Hyginus, as it pro- fesses to be, or from Verrius Flaccus; compare Paulus, p. 35. 16. 9, susque deque. The note on this phrase in Festus, p. 290, has nothing in common with this chapter. 16. \Oy proletarii^ adsidui. Compare Paulus, pp. 9, 226. 16. 13, municipium and colonia. 16. 1 /[, /estinare 2XiA proper are. From Verrius Flaccus. 16. 16, Agrippa. 16. 17, Vaticanus collis. This and the preceding note are from Varro's Rerum Divinarum. 17. 6, servus recepHcius. Suggested by a passage in the De obscuris Catonis of Verrius Flaccus. 17. 13, various meanings oi quin. 18. 2, § 12 foil., verare. 18. 7, conh'o. Avowedly from Verrius Flaccus. 1 8. 9, inseco. Ultimately, perhaps, from Verrius ; compare Paulus, p. Ill, s. V. I'nsece, 19. 10, praeter propter. 19. 13, nanus. Compare Festus, p. 176. 20. 2, siticines. Professedly from Ateius Capito and Caesellius Vindex. 20. 3, sicinnista. 20. 5, § 13, cognobilis. THE NOCTES ATTICA E OF AULUS GELLIUS. 271 20. \o, ex litre manu consertum. 20. II, sculna. From Lavinius, De Verbis sordidis. A considerable number of these notes, it will have been observed, coincides to a greater or less extent with articles in Festus or Paulus, and may therefore with much probability be referred to Verrius Flaccus. The second group of lexicographical notices contains remarks on the usages of particular authors : 12. 15, adverbs used by Sisenna. 17. 2, words found in the Annales of Claudius Quadrigarius. 19. 7, words used by Laevius. 17. I, Cicero's use oi paenitere. 10. 26, peculiar usages of Sallust. 15. 25 ; 20. 9, words invented by Matius. 16. 7, bold expressions of Laberius. 18. II, expressions of Furius Antias, objected to by Caesellius Vindex. 2.6; 7.6; 8. 5, peculiarities in the diction of Vergil ; de- fended against the attacks of Hyginus or Cornutus. The Vergilian notes, as they are all defensive, may perhaps come from Asconius Contra obtredatores Vergilii. Some of the others may possibly be referred to Caesellius Vindex, who is mentioned in 18. ii. The third group consists of remarks on words which had changed their meaning since the classical period: 1. 22, super esse. 2. 20, vivaria. 6. II, levitas and nequitia. 8. 14, words used in unusual senses by Naevius and Cn. Gellius. 10. 21, novissimus and novissi'me. 13* 6, barbarismus. 15- ^.profligare. The similarity of these articles tempts one to refer them to a separate work. Fourthly, there are a few articles treating of differences of meaning between words apparently synonymous. These are— 2 72 THE NOCTES ATTIC A E OF AULUS GELLIUS. 3. 12, bibax and bibosus. From the Comvientarii grammatici of Nigidius Figulus. 3. 14, dimidium and dimidiatum. 4. 2, morbus and vitium. The latest authority quoted is Caelius Sabinus. 13. 3, necessitudo and necessitas. 18. 4, z/iz^wj' and stolidus. Ultimately, perhaps, from Nigidius. 18. 6, matrona and mater familias. Aelius Melissus cor- rected by a reference, in all probability, to Verrius Flaccus ; compare Paulus, p. 125, s. v. matrona and mater familias. Fifthly, three chapters deal with words of double meaning : 8. 14; 9. 12, for midolosus, in/estus, nescius, etc., and adjectives used in both an active and a passive sense. Part of this note is from Nigidius. 12. 9, periculum, venerium, contagium^ honor, all of which, it is observed, are used both in a good and a bad sense. Etymology is represented by ten chapters : 1. 18, a discussion, started by a passage in Varro, on the derivation oi fur\ 3. 19, on parvus^ from Gavius Bassus De Origine verborum et vocabu- lorum-j 5. 7, from the same work, on persona; 7. 12, in which it is shown that sacellum is not a compound word; 10. 5, in which the same is shown (as against Nigidius) of avarus; 12. 3, on lictor, from Valgius and Tullius Tiro; 13. '9, on hyades, from Tiro and a later scholar; 13. 4, on soror and /rater, the first from Antistius Labeo, probably quoting Nigidius ; 15. 3, on aufugio, suggested by a passage in Cicero; 16. 12, suggested by Cloatius Verus, on some words supposed to be taken from the Greek. Discussions on difficult points of Latin Grammar take up upwards of thirty chapters. 2. 3; 10. 4 ; 19. 14 treat of the pronunciation of particular letters, h, v, and some others. 10. 4 and 19. 14 are from the Commentarii of Nigidius. Five deal with points of prosody; 2. 17 (the quantity of in and con in composition) ; 4. 7, from Probus, on the quantity of the oblique cases of Hannibal and Hasdrubal ; 4. 1 7 [ob and con before compounds of iacio)\ 7. 15 (the second syllable of guiesco); THE NOCTES ATTIC AE OF AULUS GELLIUS. 273 9. 6 (the first syllable of actito). Three touch on questions of accentuation: 6. 7; 13. 26; 17. 3, § 5. Two on unexpected uses of the singular and plural: 2. 13; 19. 8. Seven on case- forms : 4. 16, on the genitive in -uis and dative in -u of the fourth declension ; 9. 14, on the genitive singular of the fifth declension. In the latter chapter Caesellius Vindex is mentioned ; the former may be from Pliny, who is quoted as the authority for the similar though much shorter statement of Charisius, p. 143 (Keil) 8. i and 10. 24, onnociu hesterna and die crasttni, form part of the same statement, as may easily be seen by a comparison of Macrobius, I. 4. 16, foil., who has the same instances differently arranged. Compare also Charisius, p. 207, and Nonius, p. 98. 10. i discusses the question whether tertium or tertio is the right form of the adverb, and bears the names of Varro and Tullius Tiro ; 20. 6 asks whether cur am vestri or vestrum is right. There are two chapters on points of gender : 6. 2, on the gender of cor, from Terentius Scaurus, and 15. 9, on that oi frons. With the last note we may compare Festus, p. 286, where recto f route is likewise quoted from Cato. Four are on verb-inflexion : 6. 9, on the forms memordi, spepondt, and cecurri, which bears the name of Probus, from whom it very probably comes; 15. 13 and 18. 12, on verbs used 'both in the active and passive form, probably either from Probus or Pliny ^; 15. 15, on the perfect participle passive of panda. A syntactical question {exigor portorium) is touched upon in 15. 14. A curious and interesting, though not a very large, section of the Nodes Atticae is that which deals with points of textual criticism. Two notices under this head are expressly said to be taken from Probus: i. 15, § 18, on loquentia and eloguentia, and 13. 21, on urbes and urbis in Vergil. Others are so similar to these in manner and treatment that it is natural to refer them to the same scholar. An appeal is constantly made to good manuscripts against bad; for instance, in 1.7 to the Tironian ^ Priscian (i. p. 393 K.) expressly mentions these scholars as having dealt with this subject. For a full discussion of the point I may refer to Coning- ton's Virgil, vol. i (fourth edition), pp. Ixxi foil. 274 THE NOCTES ATTICAE OF AULUS GELLIUS. recension of Cicero; in i. 1 6, § 15, and 9. 14, to good copies of Cicero; in i. 21 and 9. 14 to an autograph copy of Vergil, or copies known to have been in his house ; in 2. 14 and 10. 13 to good manuscripts of Cato ; similarly to good copies in 5. 4 of Fabius Pictor, in 6. 20 of Catullus, in 9. 14 and 20. 6 of Sallust, in 1 8. 5 of Ennius. Probus, as we know from his short memoir by Suetonius, gave an immense amount of attention to the collection of good manuscripts of classical authors. The notes just mentioned are very much what he might be supposed to have written, and are, moreover, marked, on the whole, by the same trenchant and positive style. The remaining sections of the Nodes Atticae hardly admit of any logical arrangement. One set of chapters ^ may perhaps be noted as chronicling mirabilia, or remarkable natural phenomena ; another ^ consists of notes on remarkable events. A third group may, for want of a better expression, be said to contain res memoria di'gnas ^. A fourth consists of anecdotes ^. Sometimes the true authority is certainly given ; in one case it is Sotion's Kepas 'Ap-oKBeias, in another the Li'der Rerum Memoria Dignarum of Verrius Flaccus; and these or similar works, such as the TravTodaTTTj laTopia of Favorinus, may have been the sources of the whole. The foregoing rough analysis is offered as an aid towards ascertaining the principles which underlie the apparent chaos of the Nodes Atticae^ and the probable character and periods of the authorities from whom GelHus mostly derived his knowledge. The element of purely miscellaneous information, of information which defies rational arrangement, has turned out to be com- paratively small, and to include not much more than an eighth ' 3. 6 ; 8. 4 ; 9. 4 ; 10. 2 ; 10. 12 ; 16. 15. '^ 3- 15; 4- 5; 7-17; 15- 10; 15- 16 (3. 15 and 15. 16 seem to come from some book on remarkable deaths; see Pliny 7. 180, where Verrius Flaccus is mentioned as having chronicled a good many). 3 I. II ; 4. 13; 5.9; 5. 14; 6.6; 6. 8; 9. 7 ; 10. 17; 12. 7; 13. 7; 15. 7; 16. 3; 16. n ; 16. 19; 17. 15; 17. 16; 17. 17; 20. 7; 20. 8. * 1.5; 1.8; 3. 4; 3. 5; 3. 13; 3. 17; 5. 2; 5. 5; 6. I ; 6. 5; 8. 9 J 8. 11: 9.3; 10. 6; 10. 18; 11.8; II. 9-10; 12. 6; 13. 4; 15- a J ^S- ^7; 15- 3^- THE NOCTES ATTIC A E OF AULUS GELLIUS. 275 part of the whole work. A large part of the Nodes Atticae is given to philosophy, including under that term logic, ethics, speculative and practical, and natural science ; a fraction to rhetoric, something to literary criticism, a respectable quota to history and Roman antiquities ; more than a quarter of the whole to lexicography and etymology, and something con- siderable to grammar and textual criticism. Thus the bulk of the work is taken up with the subjects which formed the main elements of a liberal education in the second century: philo- sophy, rhetoric, history, literature, and philology. Whether any of Gellius's authorities are older than Varro is very doubtful. We cannot fail to be struck with the fact that large as is the amount of discussion and information bearing upon philoso- phical questions, that devoted to lexicography, grammar, and criticism of text and style, by far outweighs it both in quantity and in value. The phenomenon is typical of the state of Italian taste and feeling. More than ever before, the attention of the Roman litterati is turned to questions of mere form. The genius of classical Italy is dead, and, if Renan may be believed, the distinctive character of the ancient world is passing away. Philosophy is fashionable at court and in the higher ranks of society, but its creative impulse has long been spent, and it has become mainly, if not entirely, a means of enforcing ethical principles in the relations of public and private life. A know- ledge of Greek and Roman history is indeed expected, but it is to be employed partly as an instrument for the moral training of the young, partly as an accomplishment for the superficial uses of riper years. Of writing history in the great manner there seems to be no idea. Turning to rhetoric and literary criticism, we find that its masters have become pedants, with little further claim to distinction than that conferred by the hold which they have gained over their wealthy or aristocratic pupils, to whom they repeat the dicta of earlier masters. The Hellenic and Italian elements of literature are inextricably blended, not as in the classical period, when the study of Greek seemed only to intensify the natural characteristics of Italian genius, but in a T 2 276 THE NOCTES ATTIC A E OF AULUS GELLIUS. colourless, insipid, featureless unity. Favorinus, Herodes Atticus, Marcus Aurelius prefer Greek to Latin as a channel of expres- sion. The effort to form a new Latin style, which, beginning in the first century a.d., culminated in the prose of Seneca and Tacitus, has exhausted itself, and only the antiquarian impulse retains any life. There is as httle notion of forming a genuine literary style, as there is in the nineteenth century of inventing a new form of architecture. The question is not how to say a thing in the best way, but what Cato or Gracchus or Cicero said. To read Fronto or Gellius, one would suppose that no one had written since Horace. The age has no vigour of its own, but builds the sepulchres of the prophets, and waits for inspiration to rise from their dust. Grammar is merely a study of ancient forms, and even advocates in the courts are repre- sented as anxious to air their antiquarian knowledge by puzzling the presiding praetor with obsolete expressions met with in the pages of forgotten authors. Such is the impression of the age in which he lived, presented by a man of cool head, sober judgment, and moral heart, but devoid of imaginative power. Had Gellius been a man of genius, he would, it may easily be supposed, have painted a more vivid and interesting, but not so sober and realistic, a picture. X. NONIUS MARCELLUS (i). (PUBLIC LECTURE, October Term, 1882.) {Atnericdn Journal of Philology, Vol. III. No. 9.) The name of Nonius Marcellus is associated, in the minds of most persons who have thought it worthy of remem- brance at all, with dulness and ignorance. At the same time his work De Compendiosa Dodrina is, in its way, of such im- portance, if only on account of the numerous quotations from ancient Latin authors which it contains, that no student of Latin can afford to ignore it. More than this, it is incontestable that many among the notes of Nonius are of great value in them- selves, and many again deserve notice, if not from their intrinsic merit, at least as illustrating a particular phase of philological criticism among the ancients. But it is not only in detail that the De Compendiosa Dodrina deserves attention and requires a correct appreciation. Nonius occupies an important position, not only in the history of Latin grammar and criticism, but in that of Latin literature, so far at least as his work can be shown to stand in organic connection with the literary tendencies of the age in which he lived. It is mainly in this light that I propose, in the following remarks, to consider the work which bears his name. The flourishing province of Africa, an account of which and of its organization is given by Mommsen at the beginning of the eighth volume of the Corpus Inscriptionum, contributed, 278 NONIUS MARCELLUS. from the end of the first century a.d. and onwards, many names of mark to the history of Roman literature. Juvenal calls it in his time^ nutricula causidicorum ; had he lived two centuries later he might have called it the nurse of professors. It is true that Africa cannot rival Spain in the lustre of her literary renown; she can show no Seneca, or Martial, or Lucan, or Quintilian. To have accomplished as much as this would have been impossible to writers so far removed, in point of time, from the age of the republic and the early empire. But, to say nothing of the Christian authors, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius, and Augustine, Africa produced several men eminent, as eminence went in that age, in science and the higher philo- logical criticism. Caelius Aurelianus, the writer on medicine, was, like Arnobius, a native of Sicca ; Fronto, the tutor of Marcus Aurelius, came from Cirta, the scholar and poet Sulpicius Apollinaris from Carthage, Apuleius, the able sophist and devoted student, from Madaura, and Nonius Marcellus from Thubursicum in Numidia. Thus the study of the ancient Roman literature was early domesticated in the province of Africa. Of Nonius himself we know no more than what is told us by the title of his book and by an inscription found at Thubursicum. The title of the book is Nonii Marcelli Peripatetici Thuhursicen- sis De Compendiosa Dodrina ad Filium. The work then is educational, and intended by its author for the benefit of his son, like the metrical treatise of Terentianus Maurus, and the commentary of Tiberius Claudius Donatus on the Aeneid. From the addition Peripatetici it would appear that Nonius was a pronounced Peripatetic, just as Apuleius of Madaura in the second century was a pronounced Platonist. The word Thuhursicensis brings us to the inscription found at Thubur- sicum, and published first by Renier, and recently by Wilmanns and Mommsen in the eighth volume of the Corpus Inscripiionum Latinarum (No. 4878): Beatissimo sa\eculo d. n.'] Cons/an tint Ma[ximi] semper Aug. et \Crispi\ et Consianttn\i nobb. Caess^ ' 7. 149. NONIUS MARCELLUS. 279 plateain veierem \omni\ lapide spoliatam Nonius Marcellus Hercu- lius so\lide\ co7tstravit \et ther\mas et ce\tera rui\na dilap\sa aedificia\. The stone belongs then to the year 323 a.d., and Mommsen very naturally identifies Nonius Marcellus Herculius with Nonius the scholar. If we may rest content with a fair probability, we may infer that Nonius, besides being a scholar and the professed adherent of a philosophical school, was a man of some wealth and social standing in his own city. His as- sumption of the title Peripateticus justifies us in concluding further that he was not a Christian; the contents of his book prove that he was an eager student of ancient and classical Latin. He may fairly therefore be classed, for literary purposes, among the non- Christian scholars and antiquarians of the fourth and fifth centuries; with Servius the commentator on Vergil, Macrobius, and the elder Symmachus. As I have already^ observed, the work of Nonius contains only a very few quotations from any author later than the Augustan age. It is worth while to trace, so far as is possible, the course of this curious reaction in favour of the past, which is a notable pheno- menon in the history of the later Latin literature. Suetonius tells us ^ that the memory of the ancient writers had perished at Rome by the middle of the first century a.d., though it still survived in the provinces. This fact may have been in great measure due to the success of the Augustan writers, Vergil, Horace, Livy, and Ovid, in the field of literature, and still more in that of educa- tion, where Vergil and Horace soon drove out the older poets from the curriculum of study. But a reaction set in during the latter half of the first century, which was favoured partly by the tendencies of literary taste, and partly also by the growth of the science of grammar and criticism. Of the literary tendency we have a suggestive record in the Dialogus de Oratoribus of Tacitus, which shows that a large party among the litterati of Italy preferred the ancients, meaning by them Cicero, Caesar, Lucretius, and their contemporaries, to the Augustan authors. The way in which Tacitus speaks of the orators of the Cice- ^ See p. 231. ^ De Illustribus Grammaticis, 24. 2 8o NONIUS MARCELLUS. ronian age confirms the already quoted statement of Suetonius : Nescio an venerint in manus vestras haec Vetera^ quae in antiqua- riorum bybliothecis adhuc manent, ac cum maxime a Muciano colliguntur^ ac iam undecim, ut opinor, Aciorum libris et iribus Epistularum composita et edita sunt ^ It is clearly implied that the works of the ancient orators had, until quite recently, lain comparatively neglected in the libraries of the antiquarii or lovers of antiquity. Among these apparently we must reckon Mucianus, the able and accomplished, but profligate friend of Vespasian. These speeches were now, however, being edited in an accessible form ; a fact which seems to in- dicate the existence of a revived interest in them in literary circles. The style of the Dialogus of Tacitus, written about 80 a. d., shows that he at that time belonged to the antiquarian party ; and the same literary tradition was continued by Quintilian. Meanwhile the critical study of ancient texts was started and considerably furthered by an elder contemporary of Tacitus, M. Valerius Probus of Berytus in Syria, who, if Jerome may be trusted, had won a reputation in Rome as a scholar at about the time when Tacitus was born ^. The main results of his work were revised texts of ancient writers, notably of Terence, Lucretius, Vergil, and Horace ^ with commentaries on some of them, and a Silva Observationum Sermonis Antiqui, or collection of observations on ancient usage, a work which, from its title, we may infer to have been of a miscellaneous cha By the end of the first century a. d. the critical study of the ancient authors had fairly begun. Grammar and orthography were treated by Flavins Caper and Velius Longus in the age of Trajan, and it must have been during the same period that Caesellius Vindex composed his great work entitled Stromateus or Lectiones Antiquae. This work, of which I shall have more to say below, must, if we may trust its title, have dealt mainly, if * Dialogus, 37. * Jerome to A. d. 56. * Suetonius, De Viris Illustribus, p. 138 (Reifferscheid). NONIUS MARCELLUS. 281 not entirely, with questions affecting the language of the antiqui, or Latin writers from Naevius to Vergil. Caesellius was suc- ceeded and criticized by Terentius Scaurus, of whose treatise on orthography some considerable fragments are preserved. The coincidences between the contents of these fragments and the early chapters of the Institutio Oratoria, in which Quintilian touches upon questions of grammar, are so striking that it is impossible to resist the conclusion that both writers are borrowing from the same work or works, which must of course have been at least as old as the first century. It is probably to Probus, Caeselhus Vindex, Terentius Scau- rus, Nisus, and Sulpicius Apollinaris, to whom we should per- haps add Varro and Nigidius Figulus, and certainly Verrius Flaccus, that Aulus Gellius is mainly indebted for the fragments of Latin criticism and erudition around which, in the Nodes Atticaey he has endeavoured to throw the attraction of popular and literary form. The Nodes Atticae of Aulus Gellius present us with the first existing example of a new form of literature. Like Fronto, the tutor of Marcus Aurelius, Gellius is devoted to the study of the antiqui. But the kind of study which he gives to them is very different from the rational interest and industry displayed by Probus on the one hand, and Tacitus on the other, in the age of Vespasian. The taste of Gellius is the taste of the antiquarian, whose eye rests exclusively on works of a certain period. There is not a single quotation in Gellius from Lucan, Martial, Statins, Tacitus, or Juvenal. He cites indeed some of his own contemporaries, but with this exception, I think that Vergil and Horace are the latest authors whom he quotes. His own style too is marked by an aff"ectation of archaism in lan- guage, an intentional employment of words many of which perhaps he had only learned to understand from the works of commentators and grammarians. A similar tendency may be perceived in the writings of a far abler and probably more genuinely learned man than Gellius, Lucius Apuleius of Madaura in Numidia. Apuleius, a contemporary of Gellius, is in every 282 NONIUS MARCELLUS. point of view a very striking representative of his age. It is the province of the historian to draw the moral from the vivid pic- tures of Hfe and manners presented in the Metamorphoses and the De Magia. But these works also hold a peculiar position in the field of literature. The style of Apuleius, as well as his numerous historical allusions, would, even if we had not his own express testimony in the same direction, betray the fact that he had spent much time and labour, aerumnabilis labor '^ as he says himself, on mastering Roman antiquities and literature. It is not too much to say that no one can gain a thorough com- mand of the material necessary for the study of ancient Latin without an intimate acquaintance with Apuleius, whose lan- guage has preserved in a living connection many words of whose existence and meaning we should otherwise perhaps have been advertised mainly through the writings of lexicographers and grammarians. His style is a curious monument of great originality and force struggling with a language which has lost half its life and significance. It is probably a mistake to speak of the manner of Apuleius as peculiarly African. His studies of Latin were, as he himself tells us, carried on mainly at Rome and without a master ; what therefore is strained, artificial, and archaic in his style is probably due simply to the intimacy which he acquired with the early writers of Italy. Not that these considerations will explain the whole phenomenon. While much of the language of Apuleius is based on antiquarian study, there is no doubt also a consider- able part which represents the living popular Latin current in Africa in his time. It is interesting in this connection to compare his style with that of Tertullian, who was about a generation younger. Tertullian uses many words which are unknown to the classical Latin of Italy; but with all his rhetorical training and bias, and his love of point and an- tithesis, his style, compared with that of Apuleius, may almost be called popular. The difference between the laboured antiquarianism of the one writer and the comparative directness * Met. 1. 1. NONIUS MARCELLUS, 283 and simplicity of the other, is the measure of the difference between the Pagan scholar and philosopher, and the Christian advocate. For we are now arrived at a point where the presentiment of a great social and religious revolution is beginning to make itself felt in the reading and cultivated society of the Roman empire. The middle and the latter half of the second century is the time at which the controversy between the old and the new religions first begins openly to divide the world of letters, as well as the lower orders of the people. On the one side appear the works of Justin and Minucius Felix, on the other, those of Lucian and Apuleius. The illustrious scholar Jacob Bernays, whose death is an irreparable loss to letters, has in various works, each of which is in its way a monument not only of learning but of art and historical imagination, helped us by clear, massive, and sympathetic drawing to form vivid pictures of several scenes in the great historical drama. The social and moral conflict, parts of which he has described with the hand of a master, extended into the world of antiquarianism and of study. The same passion for a dying past, which in the fourth century led Julian to throw himself, in defence of a hopeless religion, into violent opposition to the pronounced tendencies of the age, helped to inspire the scholars of the second, third, and fourth centuries to study the history, antiquities, and early litera- ture of the great empire to which they owed all the material advantages of their existence. The abler and educated advo- cates of Christianity, however, some of whom were converts, and had been familiar with the inside of the Pagan position, knew how to draw their advantage from their knowledge of antiquity. While the Pagan litterati continued, as if by way of passive protest, simply to collect and con over the relics of the flourishing age of Roman literature, politics, and religion, the Christians, who cared comparatively little for literature and politics, destroyed the Pagan religion with the weapons offered them by the Pagan philosophy. The study of Cicero, Varro, and Verrius Flaccus was a double-edged sword, which could be 284 NONIUS MARCELLUS. turned at pleasure to the advantage or disadvantage of the poly- theistic system. Readers of Minucius Felix, TertuUian, and Amobius will need no confirmation of this statement. But it is necessary for our present purpose to dwell for a moment on the work of Amobius Adversus Nationes. Its author, whose Christianity is tempered by a curious mixture of toleration for the religion which he has abandoned, seems, like Apuleius, to have given special attention to the classical literature of Italy. His language, abounding in words taken from the ancient comedy, satire, and poetry, must, like that of Apuleius, have been influenced by conscious ar- chaism. It is no mere product of popular Latin preserved in the colonies of Africa. Amobius has learned to know and to treat with curious and misplaced contempt many of the chief writers of the better ages of Rome, whose works are now lost. And here it is that we come at length into contact with Nonius, who, if we may trust the inscription already quoted, must have been a contemporary, as we know him to have been a country- man, of Amobius. We have seen that the treatise of Nonius De Compendiosa Dodrina was probably intended for educational purposes, consisting as it does of notes on various points of grammar, lexicography, and antiquities. Like the Nodes Atticae of Gellius, from which much of it has (erroneously as I think) been supposed to be borrowed, it is stamped with the character of pedantic antiquarianism. The range of its quotations would lead us to suppose that Nonius thought no writer worth study who lived later than the Augustan age. In this point he out- Herods some even of the scholars of the second century, who do not object to quote Lucan, Persius, and Juvenal. Taken together with the fact that Christianity is persistently ignored throughout the book, and that Nonius styles himself a Peripatetic, I think that this phenomenon justifies us in classing the work of Nonius as a product of the conservative, or I should rather say, reactionary, Roman feeling which meets^ us again in Macrobius. The curious contrast between the judgment shown by Nonius NONIUS MARCELLUS. 285 in his choice of authors, and his want of judgment in dealing with them, has made him the butt of scholars, who have not, so far as I know, been at the pains to examine fully the circum- stances under which his book was in all probability written. It must be remembered, in the first place, that the text of the De Compendwsa Doctrina has come down to us in a very mutilated condition. This is a fact that he who runs may read. It is not merely that many glosses are lost, but that many others have been confused, mutilated, and interpolated, in a way which, unless fortune should make us a present of a better manuscript recension than any now existing, will probably make a true understanding of the whole work impossible. Making all allowances, however, for this external drawback, it cannot be denied that the book contains statements which are inconceivably repugnant to common sense. Here, however, we are brought into contact with a curious phenomenon in the history of ancient Latin scholarship. Whether from want of a true method, or from some other cause or causes, the old Italian learning seems to lose every element of progress after the first or early second centuries after Christ. The grammarians and scholars of the second century seem to have added nothing at once new and true to the mass of knowledge accumulated in the period extending from the Augustan age to the reign of Hadrian. The material of the older Latin language was all before them, but, in common with all the writers of Graeco-Roman antiquity, they were ignorant of those principles of investigation which give life to the past by showing its organic connection with the present. The Latin language was changing, the old literature was passing out of the field of living interest, but, as far as scientific investigation was concerned, they did not know how to take advantage of the fact. There was no alternative; as science could not gain, it lost. Its representatives did nothing but repeat, over and over again, in difi'erent forms and ap- plications, the registers made by older scholars, registers which the changes going on in their own time only prevented them from reading aright. Hence even in the scholarship of 286 NONIUS MARCELLUS. the age of the Antonines, as represented by Julius Romanus, Fronto, and Aulus Gellius, we are conscious of shallowness and want of insight, just as in the style of the two last-named authors we are struck by affectation, want of purpose, want of character. Both faults arise from a false attitude with regard to the past. Of Nonius then, attempting as he did, at the end of the third or beginning of the fourth century, to take up a position which could not be naturally maintained even at the end of the second, what could be expected but the appearance of incapacity ? No improvement had been effected in scientific method, but time had gone on and continued its changes, so that Nonius was at a greater distance from the object of his study than Gellius. It can hardly be surprising then that when he ventures to add a remark of his own to the notes which he is transcribing from older scholars, he should reveal the inherent weakness of his position. Scholars who have been allowed a better reputation in the world of letters, respectable commentators such as Aelius Donatus and Servius, were guilty in like manner, and for the same reason, of blunders which would otherwise be incredible. Having said so much with regard to the position of the work of Nonius in the literary history of its time, let us proceed to describe it, and to discuss the question of the authorities whom he consulted or from whom he transcribed. As the De Compendiosa Dodrina has come down to us, it is arranged in twenty books, of one of which the title alone remains. Of the last or twentieth book only a few notes have survived in our existing manuscripts, and these should again be divided into two separate sets or sections, one of which should be entitled De Propinquitate. and the other De Cognominibus. Taking the work as we have it, we may classify its various books according to their subjects as follows : (i) The lexicographical books, including i {De proprietate sermonum), 2 {De honesHs et nove veieriim di'ctis), 4 {De varia significatione sermonum), 5 {De differentia similium significa" NONIUS MARCELLUS. 287 h'onufn), 6 (De z'mproprm), and much of 12 {^De doctorum indagine). (2) The grammatical books : 3 {De indiscretis generibus), 7 (De contrarus generibus verborum\ 8 {De mutata declinatione)^ 9 {De numeris et casibus), 10 {De mutatis comugatiombus), II {De indiscretis adverbiis), and some of 12 {De doctorum indagine). (3) The antiquarian books, namely, 13-20 {De genere navi- giorum, vestimentorum, vasorum, vel poculorum, calciamentorum, De colore vestimentorum, De genere ciboi'um et potuum, De genere armorum, De propinquitate). The method on which we must chiefly rely for discovering the authorities followed by Nonius in the various sections of his work is that of comparing, so far as is possible, his notes with those of commentators and other lexicographers and gram- marians. Nonius himself gives us no hint whatever to guide us in the investigation ; but a great number of his observations are found in the works of other writers before and after him, sometimes with the names of the scholars to whom they are ultimately to be referred. Thus, by a comparison of the grammatical books of Nonius with the corresponding sections of Charisius and Priscian, it may be shown, almost with cer- tainty, that he is largely, if not entirely, indebted to Probus, Caper, and Pliny, or at least to works directly dependent upon the writings of these scholars. This part of the subject I have already discussed in the essays prefixed to the first volume of Conington's Virgil (4th edition), and may therefore pass on to the subject of the lexicographical and antiquarian books. The first book, De Proprietate Sermonum, or on the meaning of words, is strictly lexicographical. Its arrangement, as we now have it, defies any consistent theory, and nothing is left for us therefore but to state the facts. The first point which has been noticed by all scholars who have recently dealt with the question, is that this book consists of words arranged on the whole in series, each of which is distinguished by having a quotation or quotations from some one author placed at the head of the rest. 288 NONIUS MARCELLUS. Thus in the series extending from hostimentum (p. 4) to examussim (p. 9) every note begins with a citation from Plautus. Besides this it is also to be noticed that in each series, as a rule, the works of the author whose name stands at the head of each note are quoted in some intelHgible order. In a Plautine series, for instance, the plays of Plautus are quoted in alphabetical order, in a Lucilian series the books of Lucilius are quoted in numerical order. I have shown, in my first essay on Verrius Flaccus, that this method of arrangement is not peculiar to* Nonius, but is found also in Varro De Lingua Latina, in Verrius Flaccus, in Julius Romanus, and in Macrobius. But there are also signs of a rough alphabetical arrangement in many of the sets of words treated in this book. These alphabetical series sometimes coincide exactly with the series according to authors, sometimes they are included in them, sometimes they cross them. Instances of the two series exactly coinciding are to be found p. 20, clepo corpora circus viedicina (Accius) ; p. 30, antes camera dirus exordium mops (Vergil) ; of one series included in the other p. 6, calvitur frigere {de)floccare {de)pexum sartor sentina tricae, which are included in a Plautine series; p. 18, centuriatim rumen rudus rutrum tenebrio trua (e)vannare va/rum, which are included in a series from Pom- ponius ; of one series being crossed by another p. 38, combibo capital clandestino idiotes expirare eliminare mcoxare, where the end of a Lucilian series is continued by one from Pomponius. On p. 39 in an alphabetical series, ordior pilar e popular e rabere supersedere tintinnire verminari, the arrangement according to authors is given up altogether. The second book, De Honestis et Nove Veterum Dictis^ or on words used by the ancients either in a good sense or in an unusual manner, differs both in form and substance from the first. It observes the method of arrangement according to authors, but this is made also to fit in with a strictly alpha- betical order. And its purport is not merely to explain the meaning of words, but to point out peculiarities in ancient usage NONIUS MARCELLUS. 289 and differences between ancient and modern form. While for instance on p, 74 we have a purely explanatory note on the word averruncare^ we have notes on the same page explaining that apisci was used by Lucilius for adipisci and accepso by Pacuvius for accepero. It should further be remarked that the number of quotations given under each word is, as a general rule, much smaller than in the fitst book, though some words are very fully illustrated. The fourth book, De Varia Significatione Sermonum, or on the different meanings which may be attached to the same words, differs again from both the first and the third. In its alphabetical arrangement it resembles the latter, but it differs from both in the immense number of quotations from Vergil which it contains. A verse of Vergil's is constantly found at the head of each article, and, if not at the head, is almost certain to occur somewhere in it. In the first book, on the contrary, the quotations from Vergil are comparatively rare in proportion to the rest, and in the second very rare indeed. Further, the object of the fourth book is to set out in detail the various meanings which the same word may have. As this is generally done with great fullness and a great number of instances, it follows that the number of words treated in each section is comparatively small. Even so, however, the fourth book contains nearly two hundred pages, or not much less than a third part of the existing remains of the whole treatise. The fifth book, De Differentia Similium Significationum^ or on synonymes, form the natural complement to the fourth. It is not arranged alphabetically, but (on the whole) according to authors. As in the fourth book, Vergil is largely quoted. Precisely the same remarks apply to the sixth book, De Ii?i^ propriis, or on metaphorical expressions. The twelfth hook, DeDodorumIndagine{2, selection from the re- searches of scholars), is a mere miscellany of remarks on grammar and lexicography, in which it is difficult to discover any principle, even that of arrangement according to authors not being strictly adhered to, though there are in several instances traces of it^ u 29© NONIUS MARCELLUS. What data are there to help us in trying to discover the authorities followed by Nonius in this part of his work ? I need not recapitulate the arguments by which in my second essay on Verrius Flaccus I endeavoured to show that Nonius did not borrow from Aulus Gellius. But it is necessary to say a word on the hypothesis which finds favour with most scholars who have recently treated the subject, that Nonius had before him commentaries on the authors whom he quotes, and that his work is a series of extracts from these commentaries thrown together by him into loose order. The main support of this theory is the arrangement according to authors which meets us so often in Nonius. I have tried in speaking of Verrius Flaccus to show that Nonius might easily have found this arrangement existing in the works on grammar and lexico- graphy which he would be likely to consult, and therefore that taken by itself the fact in question proves little or nothing. But again, if Nonius was merely making excerpts from com- mentaries, we should have expected one of two results. Either the whole lexicographical part of his work would have been a mere miscellany, in which there would have been no sign of cohesion beyond the fact that the same authors were quoted on the same series of pages, or some other and uniform method of arrangement would have been adopted. But what as a fact do we find.f* That we have five books of a lexicographic character, three of which (4, 5, and 6) seem to stand in a logical relation to one another, while the other tw^o are written for purposes quite distinct indeed and differing from those of the three first mentioned, yet not so distinct but that the same note may be repeated in each set in a slightly varying form, and (which is surely important) without any hint of the fact. Such an entire want of homogeneousness is surely most easily ex- plained by the supposition that the first and second books are wholly or partially derived from separate manuals or compendia^ and that a separate work was the source of the fourth, fifth, and sixth. This hypothesis agrees very well with what we know of other ancient works more or less similar to the De Compendiosa NONIUS MARCELLUS. 291 Dodrina of Nonius, as, for instance, of much in the grammatical treatises both of Charisius and of Priscian. Again, had Nonius really consulted the ancient commentaries, it is difficult to suppose that he could have been guilty of the numerous absurdities which have made his name proverbial among scholars. Another difficulty has occurred to me, on which, however,! do not lay so much stress. In the first and second books several of the series headed by quotations from ancient writers, such as Plautus and Lucilius, are terminated by quotations from Vergil ^ This fact surely tells against the theory that in these cases at least Nonius was consult- ing any of the older commentators on the ancient poets. None, for instance, of the known commentators on Plautus, with the ex- ception of Terentius Scaurus, lived late enough to have quoted Vergil ; and in the case of Lucilius we know of no regular com- mentary later than that of Curtius Nicia in the Ciceronian age. The most natural supposition with regard to Nonius is in my opinion that his authorities are mainly the works of the scholars and antiquarians of the period which extends from the reigns of Nero and Vespasian to those of Trajan and Hadrian. All internal evidence points this way, and there is also some external evidence which, without being decisive, is worth putting together. We know to a certain extent that writers on Roman antiqui- ties and philology were read or consulted in Africa in the third and fourth centuries. Tertullian {De Spedacults, 5) expressly mentions Suetonius as one of his authorities on the subject of games. On civil and religious antiquities it is abundantly clear that Varro must have furnished a great deal of information to Arnobius. But Arnobius shows also that he had paid attention to grammar and philology, and does not leave us altogether in the dark as to the authors whose works were read in his age and country. Taunting^ his Pagan adversaries with their un- certainty on matters of grammar, ' You do not know,' he cries, * whether it is right to say haec utria or hos utres, caelus or * E. g. p. 6, exercitum, Plautus, Lucretius, Afranius, Vergilius. P. 14, extorris, Accius, Turpilius, Sallustius, Vergilius; and more might be quoted, ^ i. 59. U 2 292 NONIUS MARCELLUS. caelum^ pilleus or ptlleum, crocus or crocum, fretus or freium, pane or pants, sanguis or sanguen, candelaber and iugulus or candelabrum and lugulum, and from this uncertainty in such and similar matters you are not free, although you know by heart all the Epicadi, Caesellii, Verrii, Scauri, and Nisi/ Here then is dis- tinct evidence that the works, or some of them, of Epicadus, Cae- sellius, Verrius, Scaurus, and Nisus were current among students of Latin philology at the beginning of the fourth century a.d. Let us see how this fact bears upon the question of the authorities consulted by Nonius. There are some traces of the fact that he and Arnobius were familiar with the same or at least with similar manuals; thus these very words which Arnobius quotes as of doubtful gender are all found (with the exception of iugulus) in the third book of Nonius De Indiscretis Generibus ; and again in the twenty-third chapter of his second book Arnobius, in his rhetorical manner, recites long lists of articles of dress and furniture which remind the reader of the fourteenth and fifteenth books of Nonius. That Arnobius was familiar with the De Verborum Significatu of Verrius Flaccus, or at least that he occasionally consulted it, is rendered almost certain by his remarks in 7. 24 on off a penita, polimina, caro strebula, and ruma'^, which correspond almost verbally with notes preserved by Festus. Much of the first and of the later books of Nonius is undoubtedly to be referred ultimately to Verrius. Epicadus, a scholar of the Sullan era, is known to have written a work De Cognominibus, but there is no certain evidence of this book having been known either to Nonius or Arnobius. Nor can we say whether Nonius was at all indebted to Nisus or Terentius Scaurus, for of Nisus very Httle remains, and of Scaurus nothing which brings him into relation with Nonius. Of Caesellius Vindex there is, fortunately, more to be said. He was a scholar of the age of Trajan, and the author of a work called Leciiones Antiquae or Siromateus. From Charisius (p. 195 Keil) we know that this treatise contained at least fifty libri, which, as Julius Romanus informs us (ap. Charis. p. 1 1 7), 1 See Festus, pp. 234, 242, 271, 313. NONIUS MARCELLUS. 293 were arranged alphabetically, some letters including more than one liber. Caesellius Vindex is quoted by Gellius, 2. 16. 5, on the meaning of the words postumus and longaevus in Aeneid 6 ; 3. 16. II, on Morta in Livius Andronicus; 11. 15. 2, on the termination -bundus in errabundus, ludibundus and the like ; 20. 2. 2, on the word siticines. Some remarks of Caesellius on points of grammar are preserved by Priscian, i. pp. 210, 230, and by Julius Romanus (Charisius, pp. 117 and 239). If these scanty indications warrant us in inferring anything, they would seem to show that the Lediones Antiquae of Cae- sellius, if not a lexicographical work, included much lexico- graphical information together with notes on points of grammar, illustrated, as its title would lead us to expect, from ancient authors. There is no direct evidence that Nonius consulted the work of Caesellius. The first book of Nonius must indeed, I think, be quite independent of it ; for the note on siticines on p. 54 corresponds exactly with that in Gellius, 20. 2, and comes appa- rently from Ateius Capito. There is, however, a point which brings the second and the eighth books of Nonius into relation with Caesellius. Gellius, 11. 15, mentions that Caesellius erroneously supposed adjectives in -bundus^ such as errabundus^ ludibundus, and the like, to be equivalent to present participles. This doctrine, which is also repudiated by Diomedes (p. 402 K.) or his authority, is afiirmed five times by Nonius, three times in the second book (pp. 103, 122, 186), and twice in the eighth (pp. 491, 509). Besides the Lediones Antiquae of Caesellius Vindex, the only great work likely to have contained lexicographical matter that we know of, as having been compiled subsequently to the De Verborum Significatu of Verrius Flaccus, was the Pratum of Suetonius. This work we know to have been long used as a work of reference on points of antiquities, and there are fair grounds for supposing that much of the information contained in the latter or antiquarian books of Nonius came either from it or from Verrius Flaccus \ Another very important work, which un- ^ Nonius, lib. 1 3, De Genere Navigiorum, has seventeen notes, which cor- respond on the one hand with the list in Gellius, 10. 25, on the other with remarks in Isidore, 19. i. A few {corbita, myoparo, codicariae, aimba, 294 NONIUS MARCELLUS. doubtedly contained much information on points of grammar and usage, was the Silva Observationum Sermoms Antiqui of Valerius Probus. Whether this work contained lexicographical matter as well it is impossible to say; but I suspect that Gellius owed a great deal to it, and it is not impossible that the fourth, fifth, and sixth books of Nonius, which evidently are based on the work of a great student of Vergil, are to be traced directly or indirectly to Probus. But however the case may stand with regard to this or that particular work of reference, I have little doubt that the authorities of Nonius are in the main the same as those of Gellius, and therefore, at least, include handbooks based upon the works of Verrius Flaccus, Caesellius Vindex, Probus, and Suetonius. That a 'number of such handbooks existed in the second century we know from the express testimony of Gellius himself, quoted on p. 248. It is due to the scholars whose opinions I endeavoured to controvert in my two essays on Verrius Flaccus that I should exhibit in all possible detail the evidence on which I have based my own conclusions. I have therefore written out all the passages in the first book of Nonius to which parallels can be adduced either from Verrius Flaccus or from later commentators and grammarians, hoping to deal on a future occasion with the other lexicographical and antiquarian books in a similar manner. The facts, so far as I have been able to collect them, will thus be in possession of the reader, who will draw his own inferences from them. prosumia) correspond with notes in Paulus and Festus, Book 14 is De Genere Vestimentorum. It has much in common with Isidore (19. 22 foil.). Most of the words glossed by Nonius are to be found in Isidore, though the latter is sometimes quite independent of Nonius ; and several of Nonius's words again are to be foimd in Paulus and Festus. Of Book 15 (^Dc Genere Vasorum vel Poculortuti) it may be said that most of its words are in Isidore (20. 6 foil.) and several in Paulus. The seventeenth book {De Colore Vestimentorwn) does not correspond so nearly with the corres- ponding sections in Isidore (19. 3 foil.). The glosses in the nineteenth book may be to a great extent paralleled by notes in the eighteenth book of Isidore and in Paulus and Festus. It is on many grounds probable that the source of this part of Isidore's Origines was the Pratum of Suetonius, and it is therefore not unreasonable to assume that the same was the case with the corresponding parts of Nonius. NONIUS MARCELLUS (2). {American Journal of Philology, Vol. III. No. 10.) Book I. [All notes with the initials J. H. 0>^ as well as all notes of readings from the Harleian manuscript, I owe to my friend Mr. J. H. Onions of Christ Church. In the references to Paulus or Festus and Placidus, the numbers indicate the pages in Miiller's and Deuerling's editions respectively. — H. N.] P. I. With this note on senium, the illustrations of which commence with a quotation from Caecilius, comp. Festus, 339, senium a senili acerbitate ac vitiis dictuni posuit Caecilius in Hymnidey ' sine suam seneciutem ducat usque ad senium Sorbib! P. 3. Velitatio stands at the head of a series of words illus- trated from Plautus. Advelitatio in Paulus, 28, occurs also in a Plautine series, and velitatio is illustrated by Paulus, 369, by the same passage from the Menaechmi 2.?, that cited by Nonius. Phrygionis. With the note of Nonius compare Isidore, 19. 22. 22, acupicta vestis . . . eadem et Phrygia : huius enim artis periti Phrygii omnes dicuntur, sive quia inventa est in Phrygia. Unde et artifices qui id faciunt Phrygiones dicuntur. Vergilius, ' Phrygiam chlamydemJ Serv. A. 3. 484, Phrygiam chlamydem aut acu pictam, huius enim artis peritos Phrygiones dicimus secundum Plautum^ in Phrygia enim inventa est haec ars, aut^ etc. So Servius, A. 9. 614. I wish to emphasize the words secundum Plautum, as the note of Nonius is illustrated by a quotation from Plautus among others, a fact which may point to a community of sources for the notes of Nonius, Servius, and Isidore. Hostimentum est aequamentum^ unde et hostes dicti sunt, qui ex aequa causa pugnam ineunt. Plautus . . . Compare Festus, 102, hostimentum beneficii pensatio, Placidus, 12, hostiae autem aequae, 296 NONIUS MARCELLUS, ah hostimento, i.e. aequamento ; Servius, A. 2. 156 i^zxv^ hostia vero vidima . , , unde hostimmtum aequationem. One of the passages from Plautus quoted by Nonius is also cited by Servius, A. 4. 124, on the word hostis. With these passages should also be compared the fuller note of Festus, 270, redhosttre, re/erre gratiam ; Novius in Lupo, Accius . . . nam et hostire pro aequare posuerunt, Ennius in Cresphonte, * audij atque auditis hostimentum adiungito,' etc. P. 4. The note on capulum should be compared with Paulus, 6t, and Servius, A. 6. 222, who quotes the same passage from the Miles of Plautus. P. 5. Temulenta est ebriosa, dicta a temeto, quod est vinum, quod attemptet. 'Phutus Aulularia . . . Festus, 364, on temetum quotes the same line from the Aulularia. Compare further Gellius, la. 23. I, Donatus Andr. 1.4. 2, Placidus, 83, Isid. 10. 271. P. 6. Exercitum dicitur fatigatum. Plautus, Sallust, etc. Paulus, 81, exercitus et militum copia dicitur^ et homo multis ne- gotiis exercitus. Pellices a Graeco vocahulo . . . quasi 7raXXa|, etc. Compare Gellius, 4. 3. 3, who quotes a lex Numae in illustration. The note may come from Verrius Flaccus, for Paulus, 222, has the same quotation. Calvitur dictum est frustratur, etc. The word is quoted from the Twelve Tables by Festus, 313. Eutyches (p. 485 Keil) quotes the same passage from Sallust as Nonius, but more fully. P. 8. Nautea. The gloss in Nonius is illustrated by quotations from Plautus, and so is that of Paulus, 165, on the same word. Compare also Placidus, 68, nautea^ aqua coriis foetida^ in qua corium maceratur. Caper rare est rugis /ronte?n contrahere et asperare, tr actum a caprorum frontihus crispis. Plautus Epidico . . . Varro Eumeni- dibus, ' quin mihi caperratam tuam frontem^ Strobile, omittis! The last quotation may have been given by Verrius, and sug- gested the form of the gloss in Paulus, 48, caper ratum^ rugosum^ a cornuum caprinorum similitudine dicitur. Comp. Placidus, 29. P. 9. Examussim dicitur examinate adregulam vel coagmentum : NONIUS MARCELLUS, 297 ed enim amussis regula /abrorum, quam architedi^ cum opus probant, rubrica inlinunt. Plautus — Varro . . . The substance of this gloss is the same as that of the note of Sisenna quoted by Charisius, p. 198; but it may have come to Nonius through Verrius Flaccus. Paulus, 80, examussim, regulariter ; amussis enim regula fabrorum est, vel ut alii volunt f err amentum quo in poliendo utuniur. The same note recurs in Placidus, 12 and 37. Mutus onomatopoea estincertae vocis, quasi mugitus. Isidore, 10. 169, mutus eo quod ei vox non est nee sermo nisi mugitus. Focula dicta sunt mutrimenta : unde et foculare dicitur, ut fovere. Plautus Persa . . . Paulus, ^^, focus /omenta /ocillationes foculi a fovendo, id est calefaciendo^ dicta sunt. Comp. Servius (Dan.). A. II. 211, Servius, A. 12. 118 = Isidore, 20. 10. i. P. 10. Bardum est vi propria ingenio tardum. Nam Graeci ftpadels tardos dicebant. Homerus . . . Plautus . . . Paulus, 34, bardus, stultus, a tar dilate ingenii appellatur. Caecilius ' audacem nimisque bardum barbarum! Trahitur autem a Graeco, quod illi ^apbvs dicunt. Compare Placidus, 14. Inlex et exlex est qui sine lege vivit. Plautus . . . Lucilius . . . Varro . . . Caecilius . . . Sisenna. Paulus, 113, inlex producta sequenti syllaba significat qui legi non paret. Inlex correpta sequenti syllaba significat inductor ^ ab inliciendo. Plautus ' Esca est meretrix, pectus inlex! Nonius, 447, makes this distinction between inlex and i7ilix, illustrating from Plautus. Lur cones disti sunt a lurcando ; lurcare est cum aviditate cibum sumere. Lucilius . . . Pomponius . . . Plautus . . . Varro. Paulus, 120, lur a OS cullei vel etiam utris^ unde lur cones capacis gulae homines et bonorum suorum consumptores. P. II. Cqncenturiare est colligere, dictum a centuriis quae ad suffragia conveniebant. Plautus . . . Terentius . . . Placidus, 27, concenturiat, instruit, ordinal ; dictum a centurionibus qui milites ordinant. P. 12. Exsules dicuntur extra solum. Vergilius ... So Terentius Scaurus, p. 28 (Keil), Servius, A. 3. 11, Placidus, 39, Isidore, 5. 27. 28. P. 13. Haustra proprie dicuntur rotarum cadi, ab hauriendo ; 298 NONIUS MARCELLUS. sicuti Graece avrXia. Lucretius, lid, 5, ' «/ fluvios versare rotas atque haustra videmusJ Isidore, 20. 15. i, s. v. rota, seems to have followed the same authority as Nonius ; after quoting the same line of Lucretius, he says haustra autem, t. e. rota, ab hau- rienda aqua dicta. Veterina animalia dicuniur omnia quae vehcre quid possunt. Lucretius . . . Paulus, 369, veterinam bestiam Caio appellavit a vehendo, etc. Crepera res propria dicitur dubia, unde et crepusculuni dicitur lux dubia, et senes decrepiti dicti, in dubio vitae constituti. Cre- perum bellum, anceps et dubium, Lucretius . . . Accius . . . Lucilius . . . Pacuvius . . . Plautus . . . Varro . . . The same explanation, and the same reference to crepusculum and decrepitus, may be found in Paulus, 52. 71. Compare Varro, L. L. 6. 5 ; 7. 77, Servius, A. 2. 268, Placidus, 24, Isidore, 5. 31. 7; 10. 74. P. 14. Vitulantes veteres gaudentes dixerunt, dictum a bonae vitae commodo ; sicuti nunc qui est in summa laetitia, vivere eum dicimus. Naevius Lycurgo, * ut in venatu vitulantes ex suis,' etc. The derivation given by Paulus, 369 (it does not follow that he has preserved the real opinion of Verrius), is from vituluSy though in the line which he quotes from Ennius, is habet coronam vitulans victoria, the first syllable is long. Varro, L. L. 7. 107, who also quotes Naevius, derives from vitula. P. 15. Grumus dicitur agger, a co?tgerie dictus. Accius Oeno- mao. Pauhis, 96, grmnus terrae collectio, minor tumulo. Torrus. Quoted by Servius, A. 12. 298, as used by Ennius and Pacuvius. P. 1 6. Expectorare est extra pectus eicere. Accius . . . Ennius. Paulus, 80, expectorat, ex pectore eicit. Quintilian, 8. 3. 31, veteres ne expectorat quidem timuerunt, et sane eiusdem notae est exanimat, Quintilian, and perhaps Verrius, may have been referring to the line of Ennius quoted by Nonius, turn pavor sapientiam. omnem mi exanimato expectorat. Lactare est inducere vel mulcere, velle decipere, Accius . . . Pacuvius . , . Caecilius . . . Varro . . . Cicero. Paulus, 117, lacit, infraudem inducit. Inde est allicere et lacessere, inde lactat illectat NONIUS MARCELLUS. , 299 deleciat ohlectai. Donatus Andr, 4. i. 24, lac f asses pro duxisses, oblectasses, induxisses . . . unde et obledare dicitur, Placidus, 59, lactaius, mductus, captus. P. 1 7. The notes on sirena and adulatio may be compared, but only generally, with those in Festus, 313, Paulus, 21. ManducoTieSj qui et manduci sunt ei mandones, edaces. Pom- ponius . . . Lucilius . . . Varro. Paulus, 128, manduci effigies in pompa antiquorum inter ceteras ridiculas formidolosasque ire solebat magnis malis ac late dehiscens, et ingentem dentibus sonitumfaciens, de quo Plautus ait * quid si ad ludos me pro manduco locem^ etc. So Placidus, 68. Exdorsuare, dor so nudare. Plautus Aulularia, * Tu^ Machaerio, CongruMj murenam ex dor sua, quantum potes! Paulus, 79, exdor- sua^ dorsum con/ringe : alii nudare. Placidus, p. 41, has a note, now corrupt, on exdorsuandum. P. 18. Delirare. Comparelsidore, 10. 78, s. v. fl^jf/z'rwj". Rumen dicitur locus in ventre quo cibus sumitur, et unde redditur ; unde et ruminare dicitur, Pomponius Prostibulo , . . Paulus, 270, rumen est pars colli qua esca devoratur, unde rumare dicitur quod nunc ruminare. Comp. Donatus, Ad. 5. 8. 27, Servius, A. 1. 1 78; 8. 90, Isidore, 11. i. 59. Rutrum dicitur a radendo. (Is not Mercier right in conjectur- ing ruendo ?). Pomponius . . . Lucilius . . . Varro. Paulus, 263, rutrum dictum quod eo harena eruitur. Nebulones et tenebriones dicti sunt qui mendaciis et astutiis suis nebulam quandam ac tenebras obiciant; aut quibus adfugam etfurta haec erant accommodata et uiilia. Pomponius . . . Lucilius .... Afranius . . . Varro. Festus, 165, nebulo dictus est, utait Aelius Stilo, qui non pluris est quam nebula, aut quia nan facile perspici possit qualis sit. Donatus Eun. 2. 2. 38, nebulonem, vel furem, quia nebulas obiciat, vel mollem ut nebulam, vel inanem et vanum, ut nebula est. Comp. Acron on Horace, Epist. i. 2. 28. P. 19. Truam veteres a terendo, quam nos deminutive trullam dicimuSf appellari voluerunt. Pomponius Pannuceatis . . . Titi- nius Setina ... * cocus magnum ahenum, quando fervit, paula confutat trua^ It is difficult to resist the impression that the 300 JVONIUS MARCELLVS. note of Paulus, 9 (truam quoque vacant quo permoveni coquentes exia), was based on the line of Titinius. P. 20. Corporare est interficere, et quasi corpus solum sine anima relinquere. Ennius . . . Accius . . . Placidus, 29, cor- porato, vulnerato. P. 21. Cernuus dicitur proprie inclinatus, quasi quod terram ternat. Lucilius . . . Vergilius . . . Varro de Vita, P. R. lib. i . . . . Servius, A. 10. 894, cernuus dicitur equus qui c adit in/aciem, quasi in earn partem qua cernimus. Unde et pueri quos in ludis videmus ea parte qua cernunt stantes cernuli vocantur, ut etiam Varro in Ludis Theatralibus docet. Stricturae dicuntur proprie scintillae quae de ferro ferventi etmt, aut quod stride emitluntur, id est celeriter, aut quod oculos sui fulgore praestringant. Vergilius . . . Lucilius . . . The latter derivation is given by Pliny, 34. 143, who is copied by Isidore, 16. 21. 3. [In 19. 10. i, Isidore gives a different etymology. J. H. O.] Quiritare est clamare, tractum ab iis qui Quirites invocant. Lucilius . . . Nigidius . . . Donatus Ad. 2. i. i, veteres quiri- tari di^ebant Quirites conclamare. Caries est vetustas vel putrilago ; unde cariceum veteres dixe- runt. Lucilius . . . Turpilius . . . Afranius. Placidus, 21, s. v. cariosus. Isidore, 17. 6. 28, caries putredo lignorum, etc. P. 22. Capronae dicuntur comae quae ante frontem sunt,^ quasi a capite pronae, Lucilius. Paulus, 48, capronae equarum iubae in frontem devexae, dictae quasi a capite pronae. Placidus, 26, capronas, iubas equorum. Gliscitj vel crescit, vel ignescit^. Turpilius . . . Accius . . . Pacuvius . . . Sallustius . . . Vergilius . . . Cicero. Paulus, 98, gliscere crescere est : comp. Festus, 278, s. v. r^^/^jr//. Servius, A. 12. 9, gliscit crescit . . . \yeteres gliscit incremento ignis ponebant, etc.] P. 23. Sagae mulieres dicuntur feminarum ad libidinem viro- * The MSS. give gliscit est congelascit et colligitur, vel crescit, etc. Prob- ably two glosses are confused, gelescit congelascit vel colligitur. Gliscit crescit, etc. NONIUS MARCELLUS. 301 rum indagairices, unde et sagaces canes dicunlur ferarum vel anwialtum quaesitores. Lucilius . . . Turpilius. Festus, 321, sagaces appellantur multi ac sollertis acuminis, Afranius in Brundisina . . . Lucretius lib. 2 . . . Sagacem etiam canem dixit ^ ' invictus canis atque sagax et viribus fretus! Saga quoque dicitur mulier perita sacrorum, et sagus sapiens, producta prima syllaba, forsitan propter ambiguitatem evitandam. Lapit significat obdurefacit, et lapidem facit. Pacuvius Periboea, ^ lapit cor cur a, aeru?nna corpus conficit.^ Paulus, 118, lapit, dolore adficit. Munes apud veteres dicebantur . . . consentientes ad ea quae amici velint. Pacuvius Duloreste . . . Sallustius . . . Lucilius. Paulus, 143, munem significare certum est ojficiosum, unde e con- trario immunis dicitur qui nulla /ungitur officio : comp. Serv. A. 12. 559, Nonius, 137, s. V. munia, Plautus Mercatore, ^ dico eius pro meritis gratum me ac munem fore.* Petulantia dicta est a petendo. M. Tullius de Republica lib. 4. Festus, 206, petulantes et petulci etiam appellantur qui protervo impetu et crebro petunt laedendi alterius gratia. Ver- gilius . . . Lucretius . . . Afranius. Comp. Servius, G. 4. 10 ( = Isidore 10. 231), and Isidore, 10. 213. Procacitas a procando vel poscendo : unde et proei dicti sunt matrimoniorum petitores . , . Cicero . . . Terentius . . . Livius Andronicus. Paulus, 224, procare poscere, unde procaces mere- trices ab adsidue procando, et proci uxorem poscentes in matrimo- nium. So again 225, 249. Comp. Donatus, Hec. i. 2. 84, Servius, A. i. 536, Placidus, 76, Isidore, 10. 214. Kalendarum vocabulum proprium Varro complexus est. De Vita P. R.lib. i, ^ Itaque kalendis kalabantur, id est vocabantur, et ab eo kalendae appellatae, quod est tractum a Graecis, qui KoKeiv vocare dixerunt. Paulus, 225, procalare provocare, ex Graeco Kokelv, i. e. voco : unde kalendae calumnia et caculae et calatores. Compare Servius, A. 8. 6'54, on curia Calabra. P. 24. Ignominia est nominis nota. M. Tullius de Republica lib. 4 . . . Lucilius. Isidore, 5. 27. 25, ignominia eo quod desinat habere honestatis nomen is qui in aliquo crimine deprehen- 302 NOmUS MARCELLUS, ditur. Dicta autem est ignominia quasi sine nomine^ sicut ignarus sine scientia, sicut ignohilis sine nobilitate. Fidei proprietatem exemplo manifestavit M. Tullius de Repub- lica lib. 4, ^ fides enini nomen ipsum mihi videtur habere cum fit quod dicitur' Isidore, 5. 24. 17, nam fides dicta eo quod fiat. 10. (^%,fidelis pro eo quod ab eo fit id quod dicit. P. 25. Seditionis proprietas a M. Tullio manifestata est in libro de Republic a iv, ' eaque dissensio civium, quod seor sum eunt alii ad alios ^ seditio diciturJ The same note, illustrated by the same quotation, is given by Servius (Dan.), A. i. 149, Isidore, 5. 26. 11. Catax dicitur quern nunc coxonem vocant. Lucilius . . . Paulus, 45, catax, claudus. Gloss. Amplon. p. 285, cadax, a coxa claudus. Silones super ciliis prominentibus dicti, significatione manifesta. Varro yi/to^i (x^avTov ... I have argued, in the Transactions of the Oxford Philological Society (1879-1880), that silones ought to be corrected into cilones. C and s are constantly confused in manuscripts, and notably so in the Harleian MS. of Nonius. I do not see how silo can mean a man with prominent eye- brows. If cilones be right, compare Paulus, 43, chilo dicitur cognomento a magnitudine labrorum ; cilo sine aspiratione, cut frons est eminentior, ac dextra sinistraque veluti recisa videtur. See further Caper Orth. p. 97, Keil, and Placidus, 25. Compernes dicuntur longis pedibus. Lucilius . . . Better Paulus, 41, compernes nominantur homines genibus plus iusto coniunctis. P. 26. Lingulacae dicuntur verbosi. Varro Papia papae . . . Paulus, 117, lingulaca genus piscis, vel viulier argutatrix. Rabulae litigiosi, a rabie dicti. Varro Papia papae . . . Paulus, 272, rabula dicitur in multis intentus negotiis peritusque ad radendum {rapiendum?) quid au/erendumque, vel quia est in negotiis agendis acrior, quasi rabiosus. P. 27. Strabones sunt strabi quos nunc dicimus. Varro Flaxtabulis, nepl inapxt-Siv, ^ multi enim, qui limina intrarunt int^ris oculis, strabones sunt facti'' . . . Lucilius . . . Compare Pliny, II. 150, Acron and Porphyrio on Horace S. 1. 3. 44. NONIUS MARCELLUS. 303 Exierminatum est praeter terminos mi'ssum. Lucilius . . . Cicero. Isidore, 10. 87, exterminatus ah eo quod sit extra ter- minos suos eiectus. Exodium est finis ^ a Graeco tractum, quasi e^w t^? oSoO, etc. Illustrated by three quotations from Varro's Saturae, in two of which the phrase ad exodium occurs. Paulus, 80, exodium, exiium ; Placidus, 9, ad exodium, ad finem vel terminum. [In the first example from Varro the Harleian MS. has KOiVfiov, exodium ; should we not read Kaveiov ad exodium ? J. H. O.] Futus est dictus aputando (so the Harleian manuscript). Plautus Pseudolo, purus putus est ipsus. Varro Hecatombe . . . Pro- metheo . . . Nam et rationes ea causa putari dictae sunt quotiens ex hisfraudis aut falsi aut mendacii aut iniqui aliquid separatur. Et ipsum namque dubitantes cum dicimus puto, significamus nos in rebus incertis et obscuris falsis opinionibus fieri ambiguosos. This is a test passage as bearing on the relation between Gellius and Nonius. Gellius, 7. 5, discusses the words putus and putare, mainly in reference to the phrase argenti puri puii occurring in an ancient treaty between Rome and Carthage. He quotes the phrase also from the Alexander of Ennius, and the bh naibcs oi yepovTcs of Varro. The gist of the notes in Gellius and Nonius is much the same, but in the instances he quotes Nonius is entirely independent of Gellius. The common autho- rity may well have been Verrius Flaccus, for Paulus and Festus (216, 217) have the following note: putus antiqui dicebant pro puro, unde putatae vites et arbores, quod decisis impediments re- manerent purae. Aurum quoque putatum did solet, id est expur- gatum, et ratio putata, id est pur a facta. Instances are given from Ennius and Plautus. It will be observed that the original note of Verrius must have covered the ground occupied both by Gellius and Nonius, in respect both of its statements and its illustrations. The same note, or parts of it, may be found in Paulus, 108, s. V. imputatum, Donatus, And. 2. 6. 11, Ad. 5. 3. 10, Servius (Dan.), A. 8. 522, and Isidore, 17. 5. 32. P. 28. Compedes non a pedibus dictae, sed ah impedimento. Varro Prometheo . . . Flaxtabulis . . . Parmenone . . . Ses- 304 NONIUS MARCELLUS. quiulixe. The theory repudiated by Nonius is represented by Placidus, 1 6 and Isidore, 5. 27. 7. Edulia . . . Afranius Privigno. Placidus, 40, eduh'a, cibus vel esca, ab edendo dicta. P. 29. Merenda dicitur cibus qui post meridiem datur. Af- ranius Fratriis . . . Paulus, 123, merendam antiqui dicebant pro prandio, quod scilicet medio die caperetur. Fuller notes on this word are given by Isidore, 20. 2. 12, 20. 3. 3. Calces a calcando, quod est nitendo, dictae sunt, non a calci- trando ; nam de omnibus pedibus et de hominum et universorum animantium did potest. Nam sunt calces extrema pars pedum terrae proxima. Vergilius //<$. 5 . . . 10 . . . Servius, A. 5. 324, calcem dicimus unde terram calcamus : ergo non proprie dixit calcem cake terit, etc. Isidore, 11. i. 114, calcis prima pars plantae ; a callo illi (illo ?) nomen impositum quo terram calcamus, etc. Pp. 29-30. The notes on mediocritas and modestia may be paired roughly with those in Isidore, 10. 172. 168. P. 30. Antes sunt quadraturae, unde et antae dictae sunt quadrae columnae. Vergilius Georgicorum lib. 2, ' iam canit effectos extremus vinitor antes! Paulus, 16, antes sunt extremi or dines vinearum. Unde etiam nomen trahunt antae, quae sunt latera ostiorum. Comp. Servius and Philargyrius on G. 2. 417. Camerum, obtortum ; unde et camerae, tecta in curvitatem for- mata. Vergilius Georgicorum lib. 3. Paulus, 43, camera et camuri boves a curvatione ex Graeco Kafinr] dicmitur. Comp. Philargyrius, G. 3. 55; Isidore, 15. 8. 5; Macrobius, Sat. 6. 4. 23. Immunis dicitur sine officio, sine munere. Vergilius Georgi- corum lib. 4. . . . Cicero Philippica i. Paulus, 109, immunis, vacans munere, aliquotiens pro improbo ponitur, ut apud Plautum, ^immune est f acinus! Comp. further Servius, A. 12. 559, Scholia Bobiensia Pro Sest. 57 (p. 306 Orelli), Philargyrius, G. 4. 244, Isidore, 10. 140, notes which are all apparently ultimately to be referred to Verrius Flaccus. Dirum est triste, in/ensum, et quasi deorum ira missum. Ver- NONIUS MARCELLUS. 305 gil. . . . Cicero De Seiiectute. Paulus, 69, dirus, dei ira nafus. So Servius, A. 6, 373 ; Isidore, 10. 75. Exordium est initium ; unde et vesh's ordiri dicitur cum insti- tuitur detexenda. Vergil. . . . Cicero. . . Lucilius. Festus, 185, ordiri est rei principium facer e^ unde et togae vocantur exordiae (?), Isidore, 19. 29. 7, ordiri est texere. P. 31. Sudum dictum est quasi semiudum, ut est aer post pluvias serenus et liquidus. Vergil . . . Plautus . . . Lucilius. Servius, Aeu. 8. 529, sudum est quasi suhudum, serenum post pluvias . . . \Alii sudum semiudum volunt dici^ cum per nubes ad nos perveniat solis ictus non integer^ Philargyrius, G. 477, sudum est serenum, subumidum ; proprie autem sudum pars serena inter nubes, quasi semiudum. Festus, 294, sudum Verrius ait significare sub\iidum. Sed auctorum omnia exempla poscunt ut su\dus signi- ficet . . . sine udo, ut se\curus sine cur a]. Inritare dictum est proprie provocare, tractum a canibus^ qui cum provocantur, irriunt. Lucilius . . . Terence . . . Vergil . . . Sallust . . . Plautus . . . Varro. Festus, loi, hirrire, garrire, quod genus vocis est canis rabiosae. Donatus, And. 3. 4. 18, inritatus, commotus, ira provocatus, ut in Phormione. Ducitur autem verbum a canibus^ qui restrictis dentibus hanc litteram R inritantur. Ad. 2. 14. 8, inritari proprie canes dicuntur. Lucilius., de litter a R, ' inritata canes quod homo quam planius dicit! As this line of Lucilius, and a line out of the Phormio, are quoted by Nonius, it is reasonable to suppose that the notes of Donatus and Nonius are derived from the same source. P. 32. Arcanum dicitur secretum vel absconditum, quod quae in area sunt, celata sint et abscondita. Vergilius, Aeneidos, lib. 4 . . . lib. I. Paulus, 16, arcani sermonis significatio trahitur sive ab arce . . . sive ab area, in qua quae clausa sint tuta manent, cuius ipsius origo ab arcendo pendet. Servius, Aen. i. 262, arcana seer eta, Unde et area et arx dictae. Isidore, 20. 9. 2, arcanum, id est secretum, unde ceteri arcentur. Tormina genus morbi, dicti quod dolore torqueat. Cicero, Tusculanarum lib. 2. Isidore, 4. 16. 4, ileos dolor in- X 3o6 NONIUS MARCELLUS. iestinorum . . . Hi et torminosi dicuniur ab intestinorum ior- mento. Monumenti proprietatem a monendo M. Tullius exprimendam putavit^ ad Caesarem, Epistola 2 . . . Vergilius, lib. 5. Paulus, 139, monere . . . sic monimenta quae in sepulcris. Comp. Servius, Aen. 3. 486; Isid. i. 5. 11. i. Rivales dicti sunt quasi in unum amor em derivantes. Terentius in Eunucho. Donatus, Eun. 5. 8. 42, rivales . . .facta translatione nominis a feris bestiis, quae sitientes cum ex eodem rivulo haustutn petunt, in proelium contra se invicem concitantur. Sic Ciceio pro Caelio 'sin erit ex eodem fonte rivalis! Placidus, 79, rivales , qui de uno amore discedunt. Gestire significat laetum esse ; dictum a gesticulis facilioribus {/elicioribus ?). Terentius in Eunucho . . . Vergilius, Georgico- rum lib. 1. Paulus, 96, gestit qui subita felicitate exhilaratus nimio corporis motu praeter consuetudinem exultat. Servius, G. i. 387, gestire est laetitiam suam corporis habitu significare. So more fully Donatus Eun. 3. 5. 7, who quotes the line from the first Georgic. Involare est inruere, insilire ; aut a volatu, aut a vola, id est media manu, dictum. Terentius Eunucho . . . Lucilius, lib. 30. Servius, Aen. 3. 233, involare dicimus intra volam te?iere, etc. 6. 198, vola dicitur media pars sive pedis sive manus. Paulus, 370, s. v. volae vestigium, palma manus vola dicta. Comp. Placidus, 58, Isidore, 17. 7. 67. P. 33. Segne . . . sine igni . . . Vergil . . . Cicero. So Velius Longus in the Verona Scholia, Aen. 4. 149; Isidore, 10. 247. Paulus, 338, derives the word from sine nitendo. P. 34. Interpolare est immittere et interponere . . . et est tractum ab arte fullonum, qui poliendo diligenter Vetera quaeque quasi in novam speciem mutant. Cicero . . . Plautus. Isidore, 19. 22. 23, interpola vestis ilia dicitur, quae dum sit vetus ad novam speciem recuratur. Everriculum genus est retis piscatorii, a verrendo dictum, Vil quod trahatur, vel quod, si quid fuerit piscium nactum, everrat. Cicero. Paulus, 78, exverrae sunt purgatio quaedam domus, ex NONIUS MARCELLUS. 307 qua mortuus ad sepulturam ferendus est, etc. Servius, Aen. i. 59, verrere est trahe^'e, a rete quod verriculum dicitur. Comp. Isidore, 19- 5- 3; Servius, G. i. 142. P. 35. Angina genus morbi, eo quod angat ; et Graece a-wdyxn appellatur. Lucilius, lib. 30. Paulus, 8, . ,/aucium dolor angina vocatur. Plautus, ' vellem me in anginam vorti, quo huic aniculae fauces praeoccuparem' The same line of Plautus is quoted by Servius, G. 3. 497. Arquatus morbus dictus qui regius dicitur ^ quod arcus sit con- color de virore, vel quod ita stringat corpora ut in arcum ducat. Lucilius . . . Varro. Isidore, 4. 8. 13, icteris Graeci appellant a cuiusdam animalis nomine, quia sit coloris fellei. Hunc morbum Laiini arcuatum, a similitudine caelestis arcus. Privum est proprium unius cuiusque ; unde et res privata. Lu- cilius, lib. 30 . . . Idem, lib. i. Paulus, 226, privos privasque antiqui dicebant pro singulis. Ob quam causam et privata di- cuntur quae unius cuiusque sint : hinc et privilegium et privatus. Gellius, 10. 20. 4, on the word privilegium : quia veteres privata dixe7'unt quae nos singula dicimus. Quo verbo Lucilius in primo saturarum libro usus est, etc. Nonius, it will be observed, adds a quotation from Lucilius which is not in Gellius. Acron, Hor. S. 2. 5. 11, privum est quod unius cuiusque proprium est et alter ius non est . . . unde et privilegium, ut hoc Plautinum indicat, ' exile et ferte fustes privos in manu! Fratrum proprietatem Nigidius acutissime dixit ; '- f rater est ^ inquit, ''dictus quasi fere alter! = Gellius, 13. 10. 4. Paulus, 90, f rater a ^pryr^r], vel quod est fere alter. P. 36. Depilati dictum rarefacti. Lucilius, lib. 29, ' Gnatho, quid actum est .^ Depilati omnes sumus.' Paulus, 204, pilat . . . pro detrahit pilos, a quo depilati. P. 37. Aqua inter cus, hydropum morbus; quasi aqua inter cutem. Lucilius . . . Cicero. Placidus, 60, inter cus, hydrops. Maltas veteres molles appellari voluerunt, a Graeco, quasi fiaXaKovs. (So the Harleian MS.) Lucilius, lib. 27. Porphyrio, Hor. S. I. 2. 25, sub Malthini nomine quidam Maecenatem sus- picantur significari ; ab re tamen nomen finxit, maltha enim X 2 3o8 NONIUS MARCELLUS. fioKaKos dicitur. Paulus, 135, malta dicitur Graece pix cum cera mixta. Portorium dicitur merces quae portitoribus datur. Lucilius, lib. 27. Festus, 237, had a note on portorium, which is now mutilated. Sedulo significat sine dolo. Lucilius, lib. 27. So Donatus, Ad. I. I. 25, 3. 3. 59; Servius (Dan.), A. 2. 374 = Isidore, 10. 247; comp. ib. 244. P. 38. Versipelles dicti sunt quolibet genere se commutantes. Lucilius . . . Plautus. Isidore, 10. 278, versipellis eo quod in diver sa vultum et mentem vertat. Inde et versutus et callidus. Capital dictum est capitis periculum. Plautus . . . Lucilius. Paulus, 48, capital, /acinus quod capitis poena luitur. Clandestino est abscondite. Lucilius, lib. 26. Placidus, 23, clandestina res, occulta. P. 39. Eliminare, extra limen eicere. Pacuvius . . . Pomponius . . . Ennius . . . Accius. Quintilian, 8. 3. 31, memini iuvenis ad- moduM inter Pomponium et Senecam etiam praefationibus esse tractatum, an ^ gradus eliminat' in tragoedia did oportuisset. Pla- cidus, 39, eliminare, extra limen proferre, vel publice secretum quid dicer e. Vituperare dictum est vitio dare, tamquam culpae *vel displi- centiae. Terentius Andria. Donatus, And. Prol. 8, vituperare est mala vitio dare et etiam bona. Pilar e dictum estut plumare, pilis.vestiri. Afranius . . . Novius. Paulus, 204, pilat, pilos habere incipit. P. 40. Rabere dictum est a rabie. Varro, Idem Attii quod Titii, ' quid est, quid latras, quid rabis, quid vis tibi? ' Caecilius. Paulus, 272-3, rabidus a rabie, qui morbus caninus est. Catullus, * rabidus furor animi^ Tintinnire dicitur sonar e ; unde et tintinnacula sunt appellata. Afranius Vopisco, ' tifttinnire ianitoris impedimenta audio.' Ni- gidius, lib. 17 (18 the Harleian MS.). Festus, 364, tintinnare est apud Naevium . . . et apud A/ranium, ^ostiarii impedimenta tintinnire audio.' Comp. Isidore, 3. 21. 13. Verminari positum torqueri, a vermibus, quod facile se torqueant. NONIUS MARCELLUS, 309 i- Pomponius. Festus, 375, vermina dicuntur dolor es corporis cum quodam minuto motu quasi a vermibus scindatur. Hie dolor Graece arpocjios diciiur. Infahre^ foede^ ut est adfahre^ pulchre. Pacuvius Niptris. Paulus, 28, ad/abrum,/abre /aclum. P. 41. Reserare, aperire, a sera dictum, etc. Festus, 282, has a fragment on resero illustrated from Pacuvius. Tergiversari, fallere et dicta mutare. Et est quasi tergum verier e, ut ait Plautus Amphitruone ... M. Tullius De Officiis. Isidore, 10. 271, tergiversator quod animum quasi tergum vertat hue et illuc. Prudentiam a providendo dictam dilucide ostendit M. Tullius in Hortensio, etc. Isidore, 10. 201, prudens, quasi porro videns. P. 42. Occationem ob occaecatis seminibus, qua id efficitur, did M. Tullius voluit, De Senectute, etc. Comp. p. 61, occationes pro- prietas his indiciis aperitur. Varro, De Re Rustica, lib. i, ' et postea occare, id est comminuere, ne sit glaeba, quod ita occidtmt, occare dictum.^ Serenus ^ Occatio occaecatio est.' Festus, 181, occare et occatorem Verrius putat dictum ab occaedendo^ quid caedit grandes globos terrae ; cum Cicero venustissime dicat ab occaecando^fruges satas. Both etymologies are given by Isidore, 17. 2. 4. Verniliter pro adulatorie, a vernis, quibu^ haec vivendi ars est. Caecilius Venator e. Placidus, 84, vernilis^ subdolus et malus et servilis. Pecuniosorum et locupletium proprietatem aperuit M. Tullius, De Republica, lib. 2, a pecore pecuniosos^ et a possessionibus locorum locupletes appellatos adserens ; * multaeque dictione ovium et boum, quod tunc erat res in pecore et locorum possessionibus, ex quo pecuniosi et locupletes vocabantur! Paulus, 119, locupletes, locorum multorum domini. Isidore, 10. 155, refers to the same passage of Cicero as that quoted by Nonius. Compare further Nigidius ap. Gell. 10. 5. 2, Servius, E. i. 33, Isidore, 16. 18. 4. Viritim dictum est separatim et per singulos viros. M. Tullius De Republica . . . Plautus . . . Varro. Paulus, 378, viritim dicitur dari quod datur per singulos viros. 310 NONIUS MARCELLUS. P. 43. Vernas veteres appellabant qui vere sacro fuerant nati . . . Plautus . . . Lucilius. Festus, 372, vernae qui in villis vere nati . . . et [quod) tunc rem divinam instituerii Marti Numa Pompilius pads concordiaeve obtinendae gratia inter Sabinos Romanosque, etc. Concinnare est facer e, ut Plautus Amphitruone . . . Recte autem concinere et consentire intellegi potest, quasi concanere, etc. This note is evidently in a confused state, but some light may be thrown upon it by Paulus, 38, concinnare est apte componere, concinere enim convenire est. It would appear from this that Verrius must in some way have connected the two words. Compare further Placidus, 27, concinnatus /actus. A similar note recurs in Nonius, p. 90. P. 44. Blatis et blateras, confingis^ aut incondite et inaniter loqueris [aut a Graeco /3Xa^] aut a balatu. Plautus. The words in brackets I have introduced from Paulus, 34 : blaterare est stulte et praecupide loqui, quod a Graeco fi\d^ originem ducit. Compare Placidus, 15, Acron, Hor. S. 2. 7. 35. Percontari, diligenter inquirer e. Plautus . . . Et est proprietas verbi ab eo tracta quod vada in fluminibus contis exquiruntur. Festus, 21 ^,percunctatio pro inter rogatione dicta videtur ex nautico usUf quia canto pertemptant cognoscuntque navigantes aquae alti- tudinem. Ob quam causam ait Verrius etiam secundam syllabam per solere scribi. So Donatus, Hec. 2. i. 2. Cerriti et larvati male sani, et aut Cereris ira aut larvaruvi incur satione animo vexati. Plautus. Paulus, 54, cerritus^furi- osus: 119, larvati furiosi et mente moti, quasi larvis exterriti. Acron, Hor. S. 2. 3. 277, cerriti proprie dicuntur qui a Cerere percussi sunt : so Servius, Aen. 7. 377. P. 45. C as sum veteres inane posuerunt. Et arbitrandum est eius verbi proprietatem magis ab aranearum cassibus dictam, . . . non, ut quibusdam videtur^ quasi quassum. The etymology re- pudiated by Nonius is adopted by Servius (Dan.), Aen. 2. 85. Propriam corvorum vocem croccitum veteres esse voluerunt. Plautus in Aulularia, * simul radebat pedibus terram^ et voce croccibat sua' Paulus, 53, crocatio corvorum vocis appellatio. (Miiller suggests crocitio. The Harleian MS. of Nonius here reads NONIUS MARCELLUS. 311 originally crocchitum and croccibat ; assuming the spelling with the double consonant correct, it would be easy for croccire to be corrupted into crocare) Sublevit significat inlusit et pro ridiculo hahuit . . . Plaulus. Placidus, 79, sublevit subtunxit, a liniendo (surely subunxii). Investes dicuntur impuberes^ quibus propter teneram aetatem nulla pars corporis pilat: Hoc et Aeneidos lib. 8 videtur sensisse Vergilius, ^ aurea caesaries ollis atque aurea vestis' So too Servius on the passage (Aen. 8. 659). Paulus, 368, vesticeps puer qui iam vestiius est pubertate ; e contra investis est qui necdum pubertate vestitus est. Placidus, 58, investem, impuberem, sine barba. Ludibria proprietatem trahunt a levi ac sine pondere, et con- temnendo, aut, quod magis verum est, ludicro. Vergilius. Placidus, 63, ludibrium est aliqua res quae ludo et contemptu digna est. P. 46. Febris proprietatem a ferviditate morbi vel mali, ut a calendo calorem, Varro Andabatis aperiendam putat. So Isidore, 4. 6. 2, Servius, G. 3. 458. P. 47. Exporrectum, e x ten turn ; por rectum enim est tentum, id est, porro iactum. Varro Endymionibus^ ' quare si in somnum reccideris^ dapi rrore (so Biicheler) eris iterum exporrectus^ Is this note corrupt, and made up out of two, one of which was on experrectus and the other on exporrectus ? Paulus, 80, has two notes : experrectus est qui per se vigilare coepit, expergitus ab alio excitatus : and a little below, exporgere, porro agere, exporrigere. On p. 79 he connects experrectus viith por rigo. Torculum, quod usu torcular, dictum quod intortum laticem vitis vel oleae exprimat. Varro. So Isidore, 15. 6. 7, s. v. torcular. Cingulum a cingendo . . . Varro Gerontodidascalo, *novus maritus tacitulus taxim uxoris solvebat cingulum.'' Paulus, 63, cingulo nova nupta praecingebatur, quod vir in lecto solvebat, etc. P. 48. Silicernium pessime intellegentes ita posuisse Terentium putant quod incurvitate silices cernat senex. Silicernium est pro- prie convivium funebre quod senibus exhibetur. Varro Meleagris, Donatus, Ad. 4. 2. 48, gives as alternative derivations silentes cernere and silicem cernere. Paulus, 295, silicernium erat genus farciminis, quo fletu (?) familia purgabatur. Dictum autem 312 NONIUS MARCELLUS. silicernium quod cuius nomine ea res instituebaiur, is iam silentium cerneret. Caecilius Obolostate, ^ credidi silicernium eius me esse esurum! Another etymology is offered by Servius, Aen. 5. 92. Elixum, quicquid ex aqua mollitur vel decoquiiur, nam lixam aquam veteres dixerunt, etc. Paulus, 76, elixa a liquor e dicta. Isidore, 20. 2. 22, elixum eo quod in aqua sola decoquiiur. Lixa enim aqua dicitur, ah eo quod sit soluta, etc. Parochus a Graeco tr actum est nomen, quod vehicula praebeat : oxrjfMTa enim Graece, Latine vehicula appellantur. Varro. Acron, Hor. S. I. 5. \^, parochi genus officii qui solent per egrinis salem et ligna praebercy et significat publicum cur sum. Vel parochi sunt qui solent legatis causa rei publicae iter facientibus necessaria min- istrarCy publici muliones. P. 49. Trossuliy equites Romania dicti sunt torosuli (so I think we should read after the first hand of the Harleian MS.) Varro. Paulus, 367, trosuli equites dicti quod oppidum Tusculorum Tros- sulum sine opera peditum ceperint. Cetarii genus est piscatorum quod maiores pisces capit, dictum ab eo quod cete in mari maiora sunt piscium genera. Vergil . . . Varro. So Donatus, Eun. 2. 2. 25, Placidus, 22. P. 50. Lingulacae, locutuleiae, a procacitate linguae et loquendi proprietatem trahunt. Plautus. Paulus, 117 (quoted above). Fures significationem habere a furvo . . . quod per obscuras atque atras nodes opportuna sit eis mali effectio . . . Varro ostcndit Rerum Divinarum lib. 14... Homerus, KktnTjj he re wktos afidvo). Gellius, I. 18. 4, quotes the same passage of Varro (which is rightly given in the Harleian MS. from the Rerum Divinarum) more fully than Nonius, but does not give the line of Homer. The derivation oifur ixomfurvus may also be found in Servius, G. 3. 407, A. 9. 350, Placidus, 47, Isidore, 5. 26. 18, Acron, Hor. Od. 2. 13. 21. Ventorum proprietates, etc. This note is an abridgment from one which is given in a fuller form by Gellius, 2. 22, and Isidore, 13. II. Nonius again, however, shows his independence of Gellius by quoting passages of Homer which are not in the note of the latter. NONIUS MARCELLUS. 313 P. 51. Peni^ vel penoris (so the Harleian MS.), etc. Gellius, 4. I, illustrates the forms and meanings of this word at great length from Q. Scaevola and other jurists. Servius, Aen. i. 703, has a note which gives the pith of Gellius's remarks, but adds instances from Horace, Plautus, and Persius. Laevum significari veieres voluerunt quasi a levando. Vergilium quoque sub hac osientatione posuisse veteres putant (so Harl.). Georgicorum lib. 4, ' si quern Numina laeva sinunt, auditque vocatus Apollo! Ennius Annalium lib. 3, ^ olli de caelo laevum dedit inclutus signum.' Gellius, 5. 12. 13, gives the opposite interpretation of laevus in the line from Vergil ; Ennius he does not quote at all. Servius, G. 4. 6, agrees with Nonius. See further Servius, Aen. 2. 54. 693 ; 9. 631 ; Schol. Veron. Aen. 2. 693. Rudentes ea causa sapientissimi dictos volunt, quod Junes, cum vento verberentury ruder e existimentur ; atque hunc sonum pro- prium funium^ non asinorum putant. Festus, 265, rudentes vestes nauticae, et asini cum voces mittunt. Comp. Isidore, 19. 4. i. Infesti proprietatem hanc esse Nigidius voluit, quasi nimium festinantis ad scelus vel ad fraudem. The note of Nigidius is given in full by Gellius, 9. 12. 6. In like manner the following note of Nonius on maturare is' given fully from Nigidius by Gellius, 10. II. Lictoris proprietatem a ligando dictum vetustas putat ; ita enim carnificis officium antiquitas fungebatur. M. Tullius pro Rabirio. Gellius, 12. 3, gives the same explanation as Nonius, quoted from Valgius Rufus, and a different one from Tiro. Paulus, 115, lictores dicuntur quod fasces virgarum ligatos ferunt. Hi parentes magistratibus delinquentibus plagas ingerunt. P. 52. The note on soror = Gellius, 13. 10, where Nigidius is quoted on/rater. It may therefore come from Nigidius. Lues a rebus solvendis proposita. Licinius Macer Annalibus, lib. 2. Paulus, 120, lues est diluens usque ad nihil, tr actum a Graeco Xvav. Comp. Isidore, 4. 6. 19. Placidus, 60, lues, solves. The following note on humanitas is given more fully by Gel- 314 NONIUS MARCELLUS. lius, 13. 7, but differently worded, Gellius making no mention of comitas. Ador frumenti genus quod epulis et immolationibus sacris pium putatur, unde et adorare, propitiare reb'giones, potest dic- tum videri. Varro . . . Vergil. Paulus, 3, and Isidore, 17. 3. 6, connect it with edo. The following note on y2z<:z>j'= Gellius, 13, 20, but Gellius gives the quotations in a different order. With the substance of the note may be compared also Isidore, 11. i. 33, Donatus, Eun. 2. 3. 5, Servius, Aen. 6. 560. The next (p. 53), on vestibulum, is virtually identical with that in Gellius, 16. 5, but can hardly be borrowed from it, as Nonius has a passage from the De Oratore of Cicero which Gellius has omitted. The note on vescus in the same chapter of Gellius is undoubtedly taken ultimately from Verrius Flaccus, and this may also be the case with that on vestibulum ^ The various views of the ancient scholars on this word may also be found in Servius, Aen. 6. 273 ; 2. 469, Isidore, 15.7. 2. Bidentes qui existimant ob earn causam oves a Vergilio dictas quod duos denies habeant, pessime ac vitiose intellegunt ; nam nee duos denies habeni, et hoc quidem genus monsiri est. Nonius pro- ceeds to quote Pomponius and Laberius on bidens^ and Nigidius on bidental. Hyginus, apud Gell. 16. 6, whose note corresponds closely in substance with that of Nonius, does not quote La- berius, and cites Nigidius on bidentes, not on bidental. Paulus, 33, says bidental dicebant quoddam templum, quod in eo bidentibus hostiis sacrificaretur. Bidentes autem sunt oves duos denies Ion-- giores ceteris habentes. Isidore, 12. i. 9, bidentes vocant eo quod inter octo denies duos altiores habent : compare further Acron, Hor. Od. 3. 27. 13, A. P. 471; Servius, A. 4-57; 6. 39. The original note may have come either from Hyginus or from Verrius. P. 54. The note on /enus is given more fully in Gellius, 16. 12. 5 : the substance of it is from Verrius : see Paulus, SGj/enus et feneratores et lex de credita pecunia fenebris a fetu dicta, ^ See p. 270. NONIUS MARCELLUS, 315 quod crediti nummi alios pariunt, et apud Graecos eadem res TOKOS dicitur : so ib. 94. The following one upon recepticius servus is stated by Gellius (17. 6) to come from the work of Verrius De obscuris Catonis: as a fact it is quoted from the De Verborum Significatu by Festus, 282. Again Nonius cannot be borrowing from Gellius, as he has a quotation from Cicero De Oratore which Gellius knows nothing of. Siticines. This note is preserved in a fuller form by Gellius, 20. 2. lumentum a iungendo veleres dictum putant, g littera in eo nomine attrita. Nam et vedabulum dicunt quod nunc vehiculum dicitur. A curious misunderstanding; Gellius, 20. i. 28, iu- mentum quoque non id solum significat quod nunc dicitur, sed vectabulum etiam, quod adiunctis pecoribus trahebatur, veteres nostri iumentum a iungendo dixerunt. Surely it is impossible here that Nonius had the note of Gellius before him. He seems to think that vectabulum stands to vehiculum as iug- mentum to iumentum. P. 55. Nonius defines the word arcera, and illustrates it from Varro. Gellius, 20. i. 29, defines it in the same way, but does not quote any illustration. Paulus, 15, arcera genus plaustri est modici quo homo vectari possit. Compare Placidus, 9. Tropaei significantiam propriam Varro Bimarco ostendit ; ' ideo fuga hostium Graece vocatur Tponf], Hinc spolia capta, fixa in stipitibus, appellantur tropaea.' So Servius, Aen. 10. 775, Isidore, 18. 2. 3. Luxum, id est vulsum et loco motum, quod nunc luxatum ignari latine dicimus. Inde luxuria, quia a recta vivendi vig. sit exclusa et electa. Paulus, 119, luxa membra e suis locis mota et soluta, a quo luxuriosus, in re familiar i solutus. 120, lux- antur . . . i.e. luxuriantur. So Isidore, 10. 160. Culinam (perhaps colinam) veteres coquinam dixerunt, non ut nunc vulgus putat. Varro . . . Plautus. Acron, Hor. S. 1.5. 38, culina dicta est coquina quia ibidem di penates colantur, etc. Isidore, 20. 10. i, ab igne colendo culinam antiqui dixerunt. This is Varro's etymology as quoted by Nonius. 3i6 NONIUS MARCELLUS. P. 56. Petauristae a veteribus dicehantur qui saltihus vel schemis levioribus moverentur, et haec proprietas a Graeca nominatione descendi't, atro rov ireraaBai, Varro Epistola ad Caesar em. Comp. Isidore, 11. 2. 9 . . . Idem^ de Vita Populi Romani. Festus, 206, petaurisias Lucilius a petauro appellatos existimare videtur, cum ait ^ sicut mechanici cum alto exiluere petauro I At Aelius Stilo quod in aere volent, etc. P. 57. Curiam a cur a dictamNzxxa designate de Vita Populi Romani, lib. 2 (so, not 3, the Harleian MS.) Paulus, 49, curia locu^ est ubi public as curas gerebant, etc. So Isidore, 15. 2. 28. Legionum proprietatem a delectu militum, etc. So Isidore, 9. 3. 46. Enixae : for this note comp. Placidus, 37. Remulcare dictum quasi molli et leni tractu ad progressum mulcere. Sisenna Historiarum lib. 2. Paulus, 279, remulco est cum scaphae remis navis magna irahitur. Isidore, 19. 4. 8, illustrates the word from Valgius. Gloss, ap. Lowe, Glossae Nominum, p. 169, remulcant, scapha navem ducunt. P. 58. Agilem, celerem, ab agendo. Sisenna Historiarum lib. 3. Isidore, 10. 6, agilis ab agendo aliquid celeriter, sicut docilis. Expediti et impediti ex una proprietate habent vocabuli causam, aut exsolutis pedibus aut inligatis. Sisenna Historiarum lib. 4. Donatus, And. 3. 5. 11, impeditus proprie est qui ita pedes habet inligatos ut progredi non possit. Testudines sunt loca in aedificiis camerata, ad similitudinem aquatilium testudinum, quae duris tergoribus sunt et incurvis. Vergil . . . Sisenna. Compare Servius, Aen. i. 505, Isidore, 15. 8. 8. Adolere verbum est proprie sacra reddentium, quod significat votis vel supplicationibus numen auctius facere^ ut est in iisdem Made esto. Vergil. Servius, Aen. i. 704, adolere proprie est augere, etc. P. 59. Accensi genus militiae est administrantibus proximum. Varro Rhetoricorum lib. 20. Paulus, 18, accensi dicebantur qui I NONIUS MARCELLUS, 317 in locum mortuorum militum subiio subrogabaniur, dicti ita quia ad censum adiciehantur . Ne/arius from far [quo scelerati uti non debeant). So Isidore, 10. 188, both notes coming ultimately from Varro. Mansuetum dictum est quasi manu suetum {viansuetum Harl.), quod omnia quae sunt natura fera manuum permulsione mitescant. Unde Vergilius, etc. Paulus, 132, mansuetum, ad manum venire solitum. Alii aiunt mansuetum dictum nequ£ et misericordia mae- stum, neque ex crudelitate saevum, sed modestia temperatum. Isi- dore, 10. 168, mansuetus mitis vel domitus, quasi manu adsuetus. P. 60. Rotundum a rota dictum est, etc. Isidore, 20. 12. i, rotundum a rota vocatum. Inepti proprietatem Cicero De Oratore lib. 2patefacit\ quern enim nos ineptum vocamus, is mihi videtur ab hoc nomen habere quod non sit aptus. Isidore, 10. 144, ineptus apto contrarius est, quasi inaptus. P. 61. Deversoria dicta sunt hospitia, a devertendo. Cicero De Oratore lib. 2. Isidore, 15. 3. \o, diver sorium dictum eo quod ex diversis viis ibi conveniatur. Her edii proprietatem indicat Varro De Re Rustica lib. i, ' bina iugera, quod a Romulo primum divisa viritim, quae heredem se- querentur, heredium appellaruntJ Paulus, 99, heredium,praedium parvulum. Placidus, 52, herediolum, possessiuculam. Legumina Varro De Re Rustica lib. i dicta existimat quod non secentur, sed quod legantur. Isidore, 17. 4. i, legumina a legendo dicta, quasi electa. Porcae agri, quam dicimus, significantiam Varro designat De Re Rustica lib. i, qua aratrum vomer e striam facit, sulcus vocatur. Quod est inter duos sulcos, elata terra, dicitur porca, quod ea seges frumentum porricit. Accius Parergorum lib. i, bene proscissas cossigerare (?) or dine porcas, bidenti ferro rectas deruere. Porcae sunt signa sulcorum quae ultra se iaci semina prohibent : porcere enim, prohibere, saepius legimus. Festus, 218, porcae appellantur rari sulci, qui ducuntur aquae derivandae gratia, dicti quod porcant, id est prohibeant aquam frumentis nocere. Paulus, 15, porcet dictum ab antiquis quasi porro arcet. Placidus, 1\,porcam, terram quae inter sulcos est elata. 31 8 NONIUS MARCELLUS. P. 62. Fracescere, tamquam friari, et putrefieri vetustate, Varro De Re Rustica lib. i. Paulus, ^o,/racebuni, displicehunt. Placidus, ^^^/racebunt, sordebunt, displicebunt, dictum defracibus^ qui sunt stillicidia sterquilinii. Calonum . . . proprietas haec habetur (so Harl.), quod ligna militibus sumministrent ; KoKa enim Graeci ligna dicunt, ut Homerus, inX de ^vXa KoX' eiredepTo. The same account of the word is given by Servius, Aen. 1.39, and Porphyrio, Hor. Epist. i. 14. 42. Paulus, 63, somewhat differently : calones viilitum servi dicti quia ligneas clavas /erebant, quae Graeci KoKa vacant. Is quoque qui huiusmodi telo utitur clavator appellatur. In another place (225) he derives it from calare : so Porphyrio, Hor. S. I. 2. 44. Conticinium^ noctis primum iempus, quo omnia quiescendi gratia conticescunt. Isidore, 5. 31. 8= Placidus, 70, conticinium est quando omnia silent, conticescere enim silere est. Comp. Servius (Dan.), Aen. 3. 587. Delibratum^ decorticatum, ut deartuatum, per artus discissum. Paulus, 73, delubrum . . . delibratum, id est decorticatum. P. 63. Grumae sunt loca media, in quae derectae quatuor con- gregantur et conveniunt viae. Est autem gruma mensura quae- dam, qua fixa viae ad normam {lineam Harl.) deriguntur, ut est agrimensorum et talium. Ennius . . . Lucilius. Paulus, 96, gruma appellatur genus machinulae cuiusdam, quo regiones agri cuiusque cognosci possunt. Luculentum, pulchrum et bonum et perspicuum ; dictum a luce. Licinius Macer . . . Plautus Cortiicularia. Paulus, 120, lucu- lentus a luce appellatus. Isidore, 10. 54, luculentus ab eo quod sit lingua clarus et sermone splendidus. P. 64. Convicium dictum est quasi e vicis iocum, qui, secundum ignobilitatem loci, maledictis et dictis turpibus cavillentur. Paulus, 41, convicium a vicis, in quibus prius habitatum est, videtur dictum, vel immutata litter a quasi convocium. Propages est series et adfixio continua vel iuge ducta. Pages enim compactio, unde compages, et propagare, id est genus iuge longe milter e. Paulus, 227, propages progenies a propaganda, ut NONIUS MARCELLUS. 319 faciunt rustici cum vitem vetulam supprimunt ut ex ea una plures faciafit. P. 65. Aequor ah aequo et piano ^ etc. So Isidore, 13. 12. i, and elsewhere, Servius, Aen. 2. 69, G. i. 50. 469. Maefitana ab inventore eorum Maenio dicta sunt, unde et co- lumna Maenia. Cicero Academicorum lib. 4. Festus, 134, Maeniana appellata sunt a Maenio censore, qui primus in foro ultra columnas tigna proiecit, quo ampliarentur superiora spectacula. Natrices dicuntur angues natantes. Cicero . . . Lucilius. Isi- dore, 12. 4. 25, natrix serpens aquam veneno inficiens . . . de quo Lucanus ' et natrix violator aquae J P. 66. Manum dicitur clarum ; unde etiam mane, post tenebras noctis, dieipars prima ; inde Matuta, quae Graece AevKodia. Nam inde volunt etiam deos Manes manes appellari, id est bonos et pros- peros . . . Inde immanes nan boni, ut saepe. Paulus, 122, matrem Matutam antiqui ob bonitatem appellabant, et maturum idoneum Usui, et mane principium diei, et infer i di manes, ut suppliciter ap- pellati boni essent, et in carmine Saliari Cerus manus intellegitur creator bonus. So ib. pp. 125, 147; 157-8, he gives an ety- mology from manare (compare Varro, L. L. 6. 4). For a further version of the note see Servius, Aen. 3. 63, and compare also Isidore, 5. 30. 14; 8. 11. 100; 10. 139. Fodicare est fodere, a fodiendo dictum. Cicero. Hence we may perhaps emend Paulus, 84, fodare fodere, into fodicare fodere. Praeficae dicehantur apud veteres quae adhiheri solerent funeri, mercede conductae, ut et flerent et fortia facta laudarent. Plautus, in i^rzw/arza ... Lucilius ... Varro. Paulus, 22'^, praeficae di- cuntur mulieres ad lamentandum mortuum conductae, quae dant ceteris modum plangendi quasi in hoc ipsum praefectae. Naevius. . . . Plautus, it should be observed, is quoted on the same page. Compare further Servius, Aen. 6. 216, 9. 486, Acron, Hor. A. P. 431. In this case the note of Varro, De Lingua Latina (7. 70), corresponds far more closely than usual with that of Festus. P. 67. Proletarii dicti sunt plebeii, qui nihil reipublicae exhi- 320 NONIUS MARCELLUS, leant, sed tantum prolevi sufficiant. Cato . . . Cassius Hemina . . . Varro. Paulus, 226, proletarium capite censum, dictum quod ex his civitas constet, quasi prolis progenie ; id^m et proletanei. Gellius in his note on the word (16. 10) gives instances different from Nonius. Prosapies generis longitudo, dicta a prosupando aut proserendo. Cato. Festus, 22^, prosapia progenies ; id est porro spar sis et quasi iactis liberis, quia supare significat iacere et dissicere. P. 68. Optiones in cohortibus qui sunt hones ti gradus, utoptatoSy quod est electos, et adoptatos, quod adscitos, Varro De Vita Populi Romania lib, 3, existimat appellari : ^ refer entibus centurionibus et decurionibus adoptati in cohortes subibant, ut semper plenae essent legiones ; a quo optiones in turmis decurionum et in cohortibus centurionum appellati! Festus, 184, optio est optatio, sed in re militari optio appellatur is quern decurio aut centurio optat sibi rerum privatarum ministrum. 198, optio qui nunc dicitur, antea appellabatur accensus. Is adiutor dabatur centurioni a tribune militum, etc. See further Donatus, Eun. 5. 8. 27, Isidore, 9. 3. 41. The following notes in this book of Nonius, then, stand in a more or less close relation to notes in Paulus, and may therefore perhaps be referred ultimately to Verrius Flaccus : V.I, senium. '^,velitatio,hostimentum. \,capulum. ^,temu- lenta. 6, exercitus. 8, nautea, caperrare. 9, examussim,focula. 10, bardus, inlex, lurco. 13, veterinus, creperus. 14, vitulans. 15, tor r us (?), grumus. 16, expectoro, lac to. 17, strena (.?), adulatio (?), manduco. 18, exdorsua, rumen, rutrum, nebula. 1 9, trua. 2 2 , capronae, glisco. 2 3 , saga, lapit, munes, petulantia, procacitas, Kalendae{i). 25, valgus, catax, cilo (i), compernis. 26y lingulaca, rabula. 27, exodium, putus. 29, merenda. 30, antes, camerum, immunis, dirus, exodium. 31, sudus, inritare. 32, arcanum, monumentum, gestire. 34, everriculum (^). 35, angina, privus. 36, depilati, /rater. 37, portorium (?). 38, capital. 39, pilar e. 40, rabere, tintinnire, verminari, infabre. 41, reserareij). 42, occaiio, locuples. 43, verna, concinnare, viritim. 44, blatero, percontari, cerriti. 45, croccitum, investis. 47, exporrectum, experrectum (?), cingulum. 48, silicernium, NONIUS MARCELLUS, 321 elixum. ^g,trosult. ^o,lingulacae. ^i^rudentes. ^z^lidori^.)^ lues (?), ador (?). 53, bidentes, /enus. 54, recepticitis, arcera. 55, luxus. 56, petaurista. 57, curia^ remulco. 58, adolere, accensi. 59, mansuelum{}). 61, heredium, porca. 62 ^ calones. 6-^, gruma, luculentus. 6^, convidum,propages. 6^, Maemana. 66, mantis, /odicare {^), praefica. ^^j, proletaru,prosapies, optio. The following notes cannot be referred to Verrius Flaccus, but have parallels in Gellius, the commentators of the fourth century, Placidus, and Isidore, and may therefore be regarded as coming from the same sources as those corresponding notes : P. 3, Phrygiones. 6, pe/k'ces, calvitur. 9, mutus. 11, con- centurio. 12, exsul. 13, haustrum. 14, Avernus, extorris. 15, torrus. 17, deliro. 20, corporare. 21, cernuus, caries. 24, ignomifii'a, fides. 25, seditio. 26, straho. 27, exterminatus. 28, edulia. 29, ca/c^j-, mediocritas. 30, modestia. 32, tormina, involare. 33, segnis. 34, inter polar e. 35, arquatus. 37, «^tt<2 inter cus, malta, sedulo. 38, versipellis, clandesiino, elimino. 39, z^^'/w- perare. 4 1 , ter giver sator, prudens. 45, cassus, sublevit, ludibrium. ^6,/ebris. 47, torcular. 48, parochus. 49, cetarii. ^o,/ures, venti. ^i,penus, laevus, in/estus, maturare. 52, ^(?r^r, human- itas, fades. 53, vestibulum. 54, siticines. 55, iumentum, tro- paeum, culina. 57, enixae. 58, ^^//zif, impediti, testudo. 59, nefarius. 60, rotundus,ineptus,deversorium. 6i,legumen. 62, conticinium. 65, natrix. XL THILO'S SERVIUS^ {Journal of Philology, Vol. X,) The second volume of this work contains the Servian com- mentary on the fourth and fifth books of the Aeneid, with an elaborate preface, in which the editor sets forth at length his views on the work, the manuscripts on which its text is based, its authorities, its date, and its general character. The appear- ance of this preface, while it makes the volume doubly welcome, also makes it possible for a reviewer to criticize the edition, for the first time, as a whole. There are two recensions of the Servian commentary^, one of which contains many more notes than the other. These notes are sometimes supplementary to those of the shorter ver- sion, sometimes repetitions of them, sometimes inconsistent with them. The fuller recension is generally known as the Servius of Daniel, from the fact that the different manuscripts in which it is contained were first used by Peter Daniel, who edited it from these manuscripts in 1600. An account of the manu- scripts used by Daniel, all or nearly all of which are fortunately still in existence, is given both by Thilo and Thomas, of whose excellent essay on Servius I have spoken elsewhere. The two ' Servi Grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilium commentarii. Recen- suerunt Georgius Thilo et Hermanntts Hagen, vol. i. fasc. 2. Lipsiae, 1881. The essays on the ancient Vergilian critics and commentators prefixed to the fourth edition of Conington's commentary were published before the appearance of this volimie. '■' In this paper the supposed interpolations in Servius are enclosed in brackets. THILCSS SERVIUS. 323 scholars are in substantial accord on all points but one. The additional notes on the first and second Aeneids are contained in a manuscript now at Cassel. A Fulda manuscript, con- taining additional notes on the same two books, was collated for Daniel by Scioppius. The readings of this codex, as given by Daniel, do not always coincide with those of the Cassel MS, Thomas, like Schubart before him, doubts whether the Ful- densis of Daniel is the same as the now suniving Cassellanus. Thilo maintains their identity in a very interesting and ingenious argument ; but until Thomas has replied to him, it cannot be said that the last word has been spoken on the subject. The first question to be decided with regard to the Servian conmaentary affects the character of the fuller version. Is the fuller version the true Servius, while the vulgate (as with Thomas and Thilo we may call it) is an abridgment? Or is the vulgate the genuine Servius, while the additional notes are interpolations ? And if interpolations, by whom and when were they added to the genuine commentary ? The view that the fuller recension represents the genuine commentary was maintained by Joseph Scaliger, and has been recently upheld, though in a different form, by Ribbeck. Mas- vie, on the other hand, and Ottfried Miiller, contended for the non- Servian origin of the additional notes, and Thomas and Thilo agree with them. In the essays prefixed to the first volume of Conington's Virgil (fourth edition) I ventured to express a doubt whether this latter view is correct ; and a further examination of the evi- dence has led me to form the opinion that the additional notes have, on the whole, as good a right to bear the name of Servius as the vulgate. I doubt whether either recension of the Servian commentary can claim to come entirely from the hand of Servius, and to represent all that he had to say upon his author. But as Servius was celebrated as a very learned lecturer on Vergil, I suspect that the commentaries now bearing his name represent, in a fuller and a shorter shape respectively, notes which were at \arious times given by him in his lectures, and which were Y 2 324 THILO'S SERVIUS. edited without any serious attempt to present a properly homo- geneous whole. It used to be supposed that the additional notes were con- demned absolutely by the words ut dixit Servius which were thought to occur in one of them on Eclogue 9.1. But Thomas informs us, in the supplement to his essay, that these words are not really there. The only important piece of external evidence which could affect the question is therefore gone, and we are left entirely to considerations drawn from the character of the notes themselves. The chief arguments relied upon by Thomas and Thilo, as showing that these additional notes did not form part of the original commentary of Servius, are, so far as I can ascertain, the following : (i) The additional notes fall into two classes; one of which includes comments which are really supplementary to the vul- gate, while the other consists of notes which, although they have been inserted in the text in such a way as to present a specious appearance of coherence with it, are really out of place, and interrupt the sequence of ideas. In many cases the addition is made with the aid of conjunctions such as ergo, nam^ enim, quod, quia, and the like, which, on examination, are found to be out of place. Thilo notices in particular that the word sane is used in an irrational way in the additional notes. In some passages again the additional note has had the effect of mutilating the text of the vulgate. (2) The additional notes quote a great variety of opinions upon disputed points without deciding upon any one in par- ticular, while the vulgate usually does so only to adopt one in preference to the others. {3) The vulgate, when referring to an opinion previously expressed, or an observation previously made, always uses the words ut supra diximus, while the additional notes speak im- personally, ut supra dictum est. (4) Where the manuscripts of the vulgate mention the names of Donatus and Urbanus, the manuscripts containing the addi- THILO'S SERVIUS. 325 tional notes omit these names. This is, however, the case only with Donatus and Urbanus, not with Probus, Asper, or any- other commentator mentioned in the vulgate. (5) The compiler of the additional scholia assumes that the commentary on the Eclogues and Georgics preceded that on the Aeneid, while the vulgate assumes the reverse order. It may be observed, by the way, that the commentary of Aelius Donatus must have followed the same order as that observed in the additional scholia. (6) In some cases the author of the additional scholia seems to have followed a different text from that followed by the author of the vulgate. (7) The additional notes, containing quotations from Sallust, are probably to be attributed to Asper, others to Probus, others to Aelius Donatus. Many agree with Vergilian notes in Macrobius, but it cannot be shown that they are borrowed from that author. (8) The character of the vulgate differs from that of the additional notes. The latter sometimes exhibit a deeper learn- ing than the vulgate, while at the same time they are often expressed in worse Latin. The notes on grammar are inferior, but those on lexicography and interpretation, superior, to those of the vulgate ; and the fables are given, in the additional notes, in a fuller form. (9) The question must be answered whether scholars later than Servius, who seem to have known and used the Servian commentary, had the vulgate or the fuller version before them t Little can be made, in this connection, of Cledonius, Pompeius, Priscian, the scholia on Lucan or on Statins ; but the first writer among the mythographi, and Isidore in his Origmes, evidently borrowed from the shorter Servius. In an immense number of passages, where there is a verbal correspondence between the notes of Isidore and those of Servius, Isidore repeats the note of the vulgate, though he might as easily, had he had the fuller version before him, have copied from it. In some cases, however, it appears as if the compiler of the fuller commentary had taken his notes from Isidore. 326 THILO'S SERVIUS. The conclusion which Thilo draws with regard to the com- position of the additional scholia is this : that they were com- piled by one writer, who had before him not only the writings from which extracts were made by Macrobius, but also the Origines of Isidore ; that his date must therefore be later than that of Isidore (about 570-640), and that from some slight indications it may be inferred that he was a Christian. Before passing on to the more important points involved in the discussion, I may remark that this last inference is based on the slightest possible evidence. Thilo appeals to two notes on Aen. 4. 200 and 301, which he thinks (after Burmann) show a Christian tone. The first is as follows : significat sine inter- missione fieri sacrificia, ad quern [quae ?), excubare per diem et noctem necesse sit, ut dicimus quotidie in officio esse ; non ergo apud quas dii excubani, sed quae diis excubantur. The second is this : '■commotis excita sacris ;' verbo aniiquo usum tradunt; moveri enini sacra dicebantur, cum sollemnibus diebus aperiebantur templa instaurandi sacrificii causa; cuius rei Plauius in Pseudolo ?neminii, ' scis tu profecto, mea si commovissem sacra^ quo pacto et quantas soleam turbas dare.' Hoc vulgo apertiones appellant. I wish that Thilo had pointed out explicitly what mark of Christian authorship he finds in these notes. His other argu- ment, that the compiler of the additional scholia often speaks of the customs of the Roman ritual as things of the past, need prove no more than that his notes were written after 382 a. d. Let us now proceed to examine the arguments for the non- Servian origin of the additional scholia in the order in which (nearly following Thilo) I have stated them. (i) There can be no doubt that many of these notes are repetitions of what has been said in the vulgate, and that many again interrupt and interfere with the coherence of the vulgate. So much is this the case that Thilo sometimes transposes them ; a proceeding which, however tempting, is in my opinion ques- tionable in a case of this kind. If we are to form an opinion on the character of a supposed interpolation, it is important that it should be exhibited to the eye of the reader, so far as possible, THIWS SERVIUS. 327 in the form in which the manuscripts present it. When these additional notes are embedded in the text of the vulgate, to take them out of their place and print them separately is to assume the point which has to be proved, that they are' essentially heterogeneous to their surrounding. Even where the sense of the vulgate is unquestionably interfered with by the interrupting matter, it would, in my opinion, have been safer to print the text as it appears in the manuscripts, relegating conjectural transpositions to a note, than to pursue, as Thilo has done, the opposite method. Indeed I have found two cases, and I dare say I might find more, in which I think it doubtful whether any transposition was required ^ The phenomenon presented by these notes does not differ in kind from what meets us in the Terentian commentary which bears the name of Donatus. This work abounds in repetitions ; a fact which may show either that its author must have copied, or dictated to a class, identical notes from two or more older commentaries, or that the commentary is not the work of one scholar but of two, one of whom subsequently added, without any regard for symmetry, notes taken from a second work similar in character to the first. Or again, the same scholar may have given two or more sets of lectures, the notes of which partly coincided with and partly differed from each other, and the two * Aen. I. 52, Poetae quidem fingunt hunc regem esse ventorum \Hippotae sive lovis sive Neptuni filium. Qui cum immineret bellum, quo Tyr- rhenus, Lipari frater, Peloponnesum vastare proposuisset, missus ab Aga- memnone, utfreta tueretur, pervenit ad Liparum, qui supra dictas insulas regebat imperio, factaque aniicitia Cyanam filiam eius in matrimonium sumpsit et Strongulam insulam in qua maneret accepit. Varro autem dicit hunc insularum regem fuisse,'] ex quarum nebulis etfumo, etc. Aen. I. 145, levat, levesac navigabiles facit^ ut ' nostrumque leves quaecum- que laborem^ [Alibi levat, laxat : ut ' atque arta levari Vincla iubet Friamus.^ Tridenti autem pro tridente, dativum pro ablativo. Aperit, ideo quod harenarum congerie impediente praeclusae ad navigandum erant. Ceterum bis idem. Ergo inmisso in eas mari aptas ad navigandum facit. Sic Sallustius, ' sed ubi tempore anni mare classibus patefactum est.' Tern- perat, tranquillum facit. Atque rotis stanmas, etc. Bene non moratur in descriptione currus, ut citius liberetur Aeneas^ At in quinto ubi nullum periculum est, etc. This is the order in the Cassel MS. I am not convinced that any change is necessary in either case. 328 THILO'S SERVIUS. sets of notes may have been carelessly embodied, side by side, in the commentary bearing his name. The fuller version of Servius does not essentially differ in character, *so far as its repetitions and inconsistencies go, from such scholia as those of Donatus on Terence. The vulgate of Servius is indeed, on the whole, a homogeneous work, which may fairly be supposed to come from one hand. Yet even the vulgate is not always consistent with itself, and sometimes gives us notes which bear the appearance of having been transcribed independently of each other and never harmonized*. Taken by themselves, these considerations point to the conclusion that though the fuller version of Servius cannot be called a homogeneous work, it has at least as good a right to bear the name of Servius as the Terentian commentary that of Donatus. And it must further be observed that, as I hope to show in a moment, there are many cases in which the vulgate and the additional notes are absolutely homogeneous. The second and third arguments are no doubt of importance as accentuating the facts already dwelt upon. It cannot be denied that there are slight dififerences of character between some of the additional notes and those of the vulgate. (4) I am unable to see how this fact bears on the question of the Servian character of the additional notes. Where, in the vulgate, the names of Donatus and Urbanus are expressly mentioned, in the corresponding passages of the fuller version they are suppressed, and alii^ or a similar word, is substituted for them. This shows that there were at least two recensions of that part of the commentary which is undoubtedly Servian, but what has it to do with the character of the supposed interpolations ? (5) This fact again proves no more than that there were two editions of the Servian commentary, one of which began with the Eclogues, and the other with the Aeneid. But there is some probability that this was the case with the vulgate as well. For in ^ See, for instance, p. 5, H- 9-12 in Thilo's edition; p. 51, 11, 3 foil., compared with p. 76, 11. 17 foil. THIWS SERVIUS. 329 the Harleian manuscript of Servius, — my account of which, written in 1878 \ has not come under Thilo's notice, — the Servian memoir of Vergil is prefixed both to the commentary on the Aeneid and (in a shorter form) to that on the Eclogues. I do not gather from Thilo's account of his manuscripts that this is the case with any other copy of the vulgate ; but it shows that the commentary on the Eclogues was by some editors of Servius considered to be at least independent of that on the Aeneid. With regard to (6) it must be admitted that the facts adduced by Thilo make in favour of separating the notes of the fuller version from those of the vulgate. The same may perhaps be said of (8), though it might be as reasonably inferred that, so far as the notes on lexicography and interpretation go, the fuller version represents an older commentary than the vulgate. No conclusion that seriously affects the question can, so far as I see, be drawn from (7), for there can be no doubt that notes of Asper and Probus are embedded in the vulgate as well as in the additional scholia. (9) I have not examined the passages which are alleged to have been borrowed from Servius by the first writer among the mythographi. But on the question of the relation between Isidore and Servius I am wholly unable to agree with Thilo. This point is of the utmost importance, as bearing on the question both of the sources of the vulgate, and of the relation between the vulgate and the additional notes. Could it be shown with certainty that Isidore copied from the vulgate of Servius, while he was ignorant of the fuller version, no doubt we should have a strong argument in favour of supposing the notes of the latter to be insertions by a later hand. But I think, and will endeavour to show, that Isidore did not copy from the vulgate of Servius, but that the numerous coincidences between the vulgate and Isidore are due to community of sources, and also that a comparison between Isidore and the fuller Servius shows that many notes in the latter are absolutely homogeneous * In the preface to a pamphlet entitled Ancient Lives of Vergil. 330 THiWS SERVIUS. with the vulgate, and cannot, therefore, be supposed to be inter- polations. All considerations drawn from external evidence make strongly against the theory that Isidore borrowed from the vulgate of Servius. The Origines of Isidore is a work of reference, arranged under heads on a perfectly intelligible system, and bears the plainest marks of having been derived from a work or works of a similar kind. It is certain that Isidore had access to the Pratum of Suetonius, and nearly certain that he largely con- sulted it ; and there is no proof that he did not know the great work ofVerrius Flaccus. At least there is much in Isidore which must directly or indirectly have come from the latter. Now it is abundantly plain, and is allowed by Thilo, that the Pratum of Suetonius was much used by Servius. We shall therefore be prepared, a priori, to find that Suetonius was the common authority for many identical notes in Servius and Isidore. Why indeed should Isidore, with Suetonius or an abridgment of Suetonius before him, go out of his way to look for information in Servius ? It would be like hunting for a needle in a bottle of hay. But we can safely leave a priori ground, and give instances of notes taken from Suetonius by Servius and Isidore alike. Serv. Eel. 3. 8, hirqui autem sunt oculorum anguli, secundum Suetonium Tranquillum in Vitiis Corporalibus. Isid. 12. I. 14, hircus lascivum animal et petulcum . . . cuius oculi ob libidinem in transversum aspiciunt, unde et nomen iraxii. Nam hirqui sunt oculorum anguli secundum Suetonium. Serv. Eel. 3. 105, ulna proprie est spatium in quantum utraque extenditur manus. Dicta ulna arvb t&v aXevSiv, i. e. a brachiis, unde et \evKa)\€Pos "Upr) dicitur. Licet Suetonius unum cubitum velit esse tantummodo. Isid. II. I. 64, ulna secundum quosdam utriusque manus extensio est, secundum alios cubitus^ quod magis verum est, quia Graece a}\€vr} cubitus dicitur. Serv. Aen. 7. 612, Suetonius in libro De Genere Vestium dicit tria esse genera trabearum. Unum dis sacratum, quod est tantum de THILO'S SERVIUS, 331 purpura. Aliud regum, quod est purpureum ; hahet enim album aliquid. Tertium augur ale, de purpura et cocco mixium. Isid. 19. 24. 8, irabea erat togae species ex purpura et cocco, qua operti Romanorum reges initio procedebant. Hanc primum Romulus adinvenisse dicitur, ad discretionem regii habitus. Serv. Aen. 7. 627, secundum Suetonium in libro De Vitiis Cor- poralibus arvina est durum pingue, quod est inter cutem et viscus. Isid. II. I. 81, arvina pinguedo cuti adhaerens. In these cases the reference in Servius proves the Suetonian origin of the note in Isidore, or makes it highly probable. Had Isidore been copying from Servius, why should he not have written out his notes in full and without any variation ? But the very points in which the two writers differ show, in my opinion, that Isidore is abridging the passages in Suetonius from which Servius is quoting more fully. In the case of the note on hircus, indeed, the explanation given by Servius of transversa iuentibus hircis is quite different from that of Isidore. Let us now consider some instances where there is a verbal coincidence between Isidore and the vulgate of Servius. Serv. Aen. i. 12, urbs dicta ab orbe, quod antiquae civitates in orbem fiebant, vel ab urvo, parte aratri, quo muri designabaniur . Isid. 15. 2. 3, urbs vocata ab or be, quod antiquae civitates in orbem fiebant, vel ab urvo parte aratri, quo muri designabantur , unde est illud * optavitque locum regno et concludere sulco.' Locus enim futurae civitatis sulco designabatur, id est aratro. Cato : * qui urbem, inquit, novam condet, tauro et vacca aret, ubi ar aver it, murum facial, ubi portam vult esse, aratrum sustollat et portet, et portam vocet! If Isidore is here borrowing his first words from Servius, it is natural to ask how it happens that he does not quote the line on which Servius is commenting, but another inaccurately remembered; and secondly, what was Isidore's authority for the second part of his note, which is so closely connected with the first that it is natural to suppose that the whole comes from one source ? Was Verrius Flaccus the ultimate authority? See Fest. 375, s. v. urvat. 332 THILO'S SERVIUS. Serv. ib. et earn deleverat Scipio Aemilianus. Quae autem nunc est postea a Romanis est condita. Isid. 15. I. 30, ex lis profeda Dido in litore Africae urhem condidit^ et Karthadam nominavit, quod Phoenicia lingua ex- primit ; mox sermone verso Karthago est dicta : hanc Scipio delevit. Quae autem nunc est, postea a Romanis condita est. Karthago autem antea Byrsa, post Tyrus dicta est, deinde Karthago. In this instance also the words common to Servius and Isidore occur in Isidore as an integral part of a longer note, and the supposition that they are taken from the passage in Servius is unnatural. Nor is there any other note in Servius from which they could be derived. Much the same may be said of the following notes : Serv. Aen. i. 43, rates, abusive naves : nam proprie rates sunt conexae invicem trahes. Isid. 19. I. 9, rates et primum et antiquissimum navigii genus e rudibus tignis asseribusque consertum, ad cuius similitudinem fabricatae naves ratariae dictae. Nunc iam rates abusive naves : nam proprie rates sunt conexae invicem trabes. The ultimate authority for this note may have been Verrius Flaccus: see Fest. 273, s. v. rates, where much the same in- formation is given. Serv. Aen. i. 62, foedere, modo lege, alias pace, quae Jit inter dimicantes. Foedus autem dictum vel a fetialibus, id est sacer- dotibus per quos fiunt foedera, vel a porca foede, hoc est lapidibus occisa, ut ipse ' et caesa iungebant foedera porca^ Isid. 18. I. 11, foedus est pax quae fit inter dimicantes, vel a fide, vel a fetialibus, id est a sacerdotibus dictum. Per ipsos enim fiebant foedera sicut per saeculares bella. Alii foedera putant a porca foede et crudeliter occisa, cuius mors optabatur ei qui a pace resiluisset (?). Vergilius, * et caesa iungebant foedera porca! Now this note of Isidore bears a much closer resemblance to a note, compounded partly of the vulgate and partly of a sup- posed interpolation, on Aen. 8. 641, where the etymology from fides is given, and referred to Cicero. So far as it goes, there- THILO'S SERVIUS. 333 fore, the note would go to prove that in this case the additional matter in the enlarged Servius is not an interpolation. As to the authority for the note, it may very well be Suetonius, whose name is mentioned by Isidore in its near neighbourhood, but ultimately it comes from Verrius Flaccus ; Paul. 84, foedus appellatum ab eo quod in paciscendo foedere hostia necareiur. Vergihus, ^et caesa lungebant foedera porca' Vel quia in foedere interponatur fides. Serv. Aen. i. i^j^), fessus generate est : dicimus enim/essus animo^ [id est incertus consilii^ ut ^ ter fessus vatte reseditl et fessus cor- pore, quod est mag is proprium, et fessus rerum a for tuna ve- nientium, ut hoc loco. 8. 232, ter fessus valle resedit ; egens consilii. Sallustius, ^fessus in Pamphyliam se receptat.' Nam corpore fatigatum dicimus, animo vero fessum ; quamvis haec saepe confundat auctoritas. Here again it seems that the addi- tional note of the fuller version formed part of the original comment. Let us now compare Isid. 10. loi, who adds some- thing which is in neither note : fessus quasi fissus, nee iam integer salute ; est autem generate. Dicimus enim fessus animo^ ut 'ter fessus valle resedit^ et fessus corpore^ quod magis est proprium, et fessus rerum a casu venientium. Fatigatus, quasi fato agitatus. Serv. Aen. i. 21^, f eras dicimus aut quod omni corpore feruntur, aut quod naturali utuntur liber tate et pro desiderio suoferuntur. Isid. 12. 2. 2, ferae appellatae eo quod naturali utuntur liber tate^ et desiderio suo ferantur. Sunt autem liber ae eorum voluntates, et hue atque illuc vagantur, et quo animus duxerit eoferuntur. Here it is true that Isidore's comment corresponds in general drift with the vulgate, to which the fuller version adds a remark which is not in Isidore : still the wording of the two notes is so different that it is improbable that one was copied from the other. The additional note, sane veteres prope omnes quadru- pedes feras dicebant^ ut ' inque feri curvam conpagibus alvum Contorsit,' et * armenialis equae mammis et lade ferino^ should be compared with the Verona scholia on Aen. 7. 489, and Nonius, p. 307. 334 THILLS SERVIUS. Serv. Aen. 4. 7, nihil interest^ utrum umbram an nociem dicat ; nox enim umbra terrae est, ut supra (2. 251) ^ involvens umbra magna terramque polumque! Isid. 5. 31. 3, noctem autem fieri dicunt, aut quia longo itinere lassatur sol, et cum ad ultimum caeli spatium pervenit elanguescit, ac labef actus efflat suos ignes, aut quia eadem vi sub terras cogitur, qua super terras pertulit lumen, et sic umbra terrae noctem facit. Unde Vergilius, ' ruit Oceana Nox,' etc. Here surely the agree- ment between Servius and Isidore is of the slenderest. Serv. Aen. 4. 30, sinus dicimus orbes oculorum, id est palpebras, quae a palpitatione dictae sunt, nam semper moventur. Isid. II. I. 39, palpebrae sunt sinus oculorum, a palpitatione dictae, quia semper moventur. Concurrunt enim invicem, ut adsiduo motu reficiant obtutum, etc. Here not only does Isidore add something which is not in Servius, but it is plain that the object of his note is different. He is defining palpebra, Servius is explaining sinus. Serv. Aen. 4. 130, iubare exorto, nato Lucifero : nam proprie iubar Lucifer dicitur, quod iubas lucis effundit ; unde iam quic- quid splendet iubar dicitur, ut argenti, gemmarum. Est autem Lucifer inter dum lovis ; [nam et antiqui ' iubar ' quasi ' iuvar ' dicebant i\ plerumque Veneris stella, unde Veneris dicta est, ut (8. 590) ^ quem Venus ante alios astrorum diligit ignes' [alii iubar solem, alii splendor em siderum dicuni\. Isid. 3. 70. 18, Lucifer dictus eo quod inter omnia sidera plus lucem ferat ; est autem unus e planetis. Hie proprie et iubar dicitur, eo quod iubas lucis effundat ; sed et splendor solis ac lunae et stellarum iubar vacatur, quod in modum iubae radii ipsorum extendantur. Isidore's note here combines observations which are to be found in the vulgate and the fuller commentary combined. There is no ground for supposing that he is borrowing from Servius, nor need we go far for the common source of the note. Paulus 104 clearly points to Verrius Flaccus: iubar stella quam Graeci appellant (pma-cpopov vel ecnrepop, hoc est Lucifer, quod splendor eius diffunditur in modum iubae leonis. THILO'S SERVIUS. 335 Serv. Aen. 10. 775, tropaeum dictum est a-nh rov TpiTrea-dai, id est ab hostium conversione : unde qui hostem fugasset merebatur tropaeum, qui autem occidisset, triumphum, diro tov Opiafx^eveiVy id est ab exultatione. Isidore, 10. 2. 3, tropaeum dictum airh ttjs TpoiTrj9, id est a conversione hostium et fuga. Nam ab eo quod hostem quis fugasset, merebatur tropaeum, qui occidisset^ triumphum, qui dictus est dno ttjs BpiayL^rjs, i. e. ab exultatione. Plenae enim victoriae triumphus debetur semiplenae tropaeuvi .... Tranquillus autem triumphum Latine dicit potius appellari quod is qui trium- phano urbem ingrederetur tripartita iudicio honoraretur. Here Isidore is much fuller than Servius, and gives us reason to suspect that he had Suetonius before him. In all these cases, where the words of Isidore and Servius coincide, Thilo remarks exscripsit Isidorus ; with what reason I leave readers to decide. As this is a case where the brick may be taken as a sample of the house, it is not necessary to quote any more instances. I will only observe that there are number- less passages where the correspondence between Isidore and Servius is only of a general kind, and where Thilo observes not exscripsit but conferatur Isidorus. In these passages, as far as I can see, the only hypothesis which can account for the correspondence is that of a community of sources. And if Isi- dore and Servius used the same sources in one large number of instances, it is difficult to see why they should not have done so in another ; or (to put the same thing from the other side) if Isidore copied from Servius in one set of instances, why he should have refrained from doing so in another. Let us now examine the relation of Isidore, not to the vul- gate, but to the fuller version of Servius. Thilo himself allows that there is a considerable number of passages, of which he gives a list on p. xliv, in which Isidore appears to have copied scholia from the fuller version and neglected the notes of the vulgate on the same points : nor is he disinclined to concede that in this case a community of au- thorities is the cause of the correspondence. As there is here no difference of opinion between us I need not dwell further on 336 THILO'S SERVIUS. this point. It is more important to consider in detail some passages in which the vulgate and the fuller version can be shown, by a comparison with corresponding notes in Isidore, to be homogeneous. The first which I will take is discussed by Thilo, p. xli. Isid. ID. 260, sequester dicitur qui certantibus medius intervenit, qui apud Graecos 6 /leVo? dicitur^ apud quem pignora deponi solent. Quod vocabulum ab sequendo factum est^ quod eius qui electus sit utraque pars fidem sequatur. Serv. Aen. 11. 133, pace sequestra^ media ; nam[que~\ sequester est [aut] medius inter duos alter cantes^ \aut\ apud quem aliquid ad tempus seponitur, [dictum autem a sequendo, quod eius qui electus sit utraque pars fidem sequitur^ Pacem ergo sequestram indutias dicit, i. e. pacem temporalem et mediam inter bellum praeteritum et futurum. I agree with Thilo that Isidore is not here borrowing from the fuller edition of Servius, but that both writers are taking from a common authority, whom I suspect to be not Lavinius Luscus De Verbis sordidis (Gellius, 20. 11), but Verrius Flaccus : Festus 339, sequester is dicitur qui inter aliquos [qui certant m£dius\ ut inter eos convener it ^ \ita tenet depositum alt\quid, ut ei reddat, etc. But the point on which stress should be laid is, that the vulgate and the fuller edition of the Servian note are here homogeneous, and there can therefore be no question of interpolation. And so with the following instances (Thilo, p. xlii) : Serv. Aen. i. 505, testudine, camera incurva, [id est /brnicata^ quae secundum eos qui scripserunt de ratione templorum ideo sic fit ut simulacro caeli imaginem reddat, quod constat esse convexum. [Quidam tradunt apud veteres omnia iempla in modum testudinis /acta, at vera sequenti aetate divinis simulacris positis, nihilo- minus in iemplis factas esse testudines, quod Varro ait, ut sepa- ratum esset, ubi metus esset, ubi religio administraretur. Bene ergo, cum de templo loqueretur, addidit ei testudinem. Idem Varro De Lingua Latina ad Ciceronem, * in aedibus locus patulus relinquebatur sub divo, qui si non erat relictus et contectus erat, THILO'S SERVIUS. 337 appellahatur testudo! Cicero in Bruto, ' commentatum in quadam testudine cum servis litter alis fuisse' Quidam testudinem locum in parte atrii volunt adversum venientibus^ Isid. 15. 8. 8 gives an abridged version of the two notes combined, again showing that, in the common source from which both were drawn, the two formed part of the same com- ment. Testudo est camera templi obliqua, nam in modum tes- tudinis veteres templorum tecta /aciebant, quae idea sic fiebant ut caeli imaginem redder ent, quod constat esse convexum. Alii testu- dinem volunt esse locum in parte atrii adversum venientibus. Compare Nonius 58, testudines sunt loca in aedificiis camerata, ad similitudinem aquatilium testtcdinum, quae duris tergoribuS sunt et incurvis. Vergilius Aeneidos lib. 1 (505), 'inforibus divae, media testudine templi' Sisenna Historiarum lib. 4,'C. Titinius quidam . . . primo ante testudinem constititl etc. Serv. Aen. 8. 402, liquido electro^ \aut liquefacto aui\ puro ; et secundum Plinium in Naturali Historia tria sunt electri genera^ unum ex arboribus, quod sucinum dicitur. Aliud quod natura- liter invenitur^ tertium quod fit de tribus partibus auri et una argenti ; quas partes etiam si naturale resolvas invenies. Unde errant qui dicunt melius esse naturale. Electri autem natura probatur veneno, quo recepto et stridorem emittit, et varios ad similitudinem [arcus caelestis'\ reddit colores. \Et ad lumina in convivio clarius auro et argento lucet.'\ Isid. 16. 24, electrum vocatum, quod ad radium solis clarius auro argentoque reluceat, Sol enim a poetis Elector vocatur. Defaecatius est enim hoc metallum omnibus metallis. Huius tria genera : unum quod ex pini arboribus fluit, quod sucinum dicitur, alterum metallum quod naturaliter invenitur et in pretio habetur, tertium quod fit de tribus partibus auri et argenti una. Quas partes etiam si naturale solvas invenies. Unde nihil interest natum an /actum, utrumque enim eiusdem naturae est. Electrum quod naturale est eiusdem naturae est, ut in convivio et ad lumina clarius cunctis metallis fulgeat et venenum probet. Nam si eo infundas ven- efium, stridorem edit et colores varios in modum arcus caelestis emittit. In this instance also it is clear that the vulgate and the fuller 338 TBILO'S SERVIUS. version together make up a homogeneous note, which is given in another and slightly different form by Isidore. Its source may either be Pliny, with whose words (37. 31 ; 33. 81) much of it coincides, or some later writer, such as Suetonius, quoting and enlarging Pliny's observations. Serv. Aen. i . 119, gaza Persicus scrmo est, et significat divitias, \u7ide Gaza urbs in Palaestina dtcitur, quod in ea Cambyses rex Persarum cum Aegyptiis bellum infer ret divitias suas condidit.'\ Isid. 15. I. 16, Gazam oppidum Palestinae condiderunt Evaei, in qua habitaverunt Cappadoces pristinis cultoribus interfedis. Vocata autem Gaza, eo quod ibi Cambyses rex Persarum thesau- ros suos posuit, cum bellum Aegyptiis intulisset, Persarum enim lingua thesaurus gaza nominatur. Serv. Aen. i. 373, annates: inter historiam et annates hoc in- terest; his tor ia est eorum temporum quae vet vidimus vet videre potuimus, dicta anb rov laropelv, id est videre ; annates vera sunt eorum temporum quae aetas nostra non novit ; unde Livius ex an- nalibus et historia constat. Haec tamen confunduntur licenter, ut hoc loco pro historia inquit annates. \Ita autem annates conficie- bantur : tabulam dealbata?n quotannis pontifex maximus habuit, in qua praescriptis consulum nominibus et aliorum magistratuum digna memoratu notare consueverat domi militiaeque terra marique gesta per singulos dies. Cuius diligentiae annuos commentaries in octoginta libros veteres rettulerunt, eosque a pontificibus maximis a quibus fiebant annates maximos appellarunt ; unde quidam ideo dictum ab Aenea annates aiunt, quod et ipse religiosus sit et a poeta tum pontifex inducatur.^ Isid. I. 63. 3, annates sunt res singulorum annorum. Quae- cumque enim digna memoria domi militiaeque, mari ac terrae per annos in commentariis acta sunt, ab anniversariis gestis annates nominantur. Historia autem multorum annorum vet temporum est, cuius diligentia annui commentarii in libris delati sunt. Inter historiam autem et annates hoc interest, quod historia est eorum temporum quae vidimus, annates vero sunt eorum annorum quos aetas nostra non novit. Unde Sallusiius ex historia, Eusebius et Hieronymus ex annalibus et historia constant. THIL&S SERVIUS. (UJ 1^ ^ ^ '^'^^9 The Servian note is here fuller than that of^siddi'eT - Thel' substance of the whole carne, as Gellius (5. 18) tells us, from Verrius Flaccus. I could add many more similar instances ; but enough has, I think, been quoted to show that there are a considerable number of cases where a note in Isidore closely resembles one only to be found in the fuller version of Servius. The hypo- theses at command for explaining this phenomenon are, so far as I can see, the following : either that Isidore borrowed from the fuller version of Servius, which must therefore be at least as old as the sixth century, or the beginning of the seventh: or that the interpolator borrowed from Isidore; or that these notes were taken by Isidore and the author (or authors) of the fuller Servian commentary from the same or similar sources. Thilo rejects the first hypothesis altogether, and seems inclined to lean in some cases to the second, in some to the third. But the second assumes that the author of the additional notes was later than Isidore, which is the very point in question ; and I therefore am strongly inclined to adopt the third, which Thilo himself allows to be the most natural in some cases (p. xlv). If in some cases, why not in all ? If, as I have endeavoured to show, Isidore did not borrow from Servius, but used the same authorities, it follows that the matter common to both writers can claim a very respectable antiquity, and authority in proportion; while with regard to those additional notes of Daniel's Servius, which are shown by a comparison with Isidore to be homogeneous with the vulgate,. it is clear that they cannot be regarded as interpolations. Nor again is there any reason for suspecting the integrity of those which are really supplementary to the vulgate. With regard to those which are not homogeneous with the vulgate, which repeat it, or contradict it, I am unable to see that we are com- pelled to infer more than this, that they represent a different recension of the Servian commentary; but that they were not inserted in it until long after the time of Servius I see no grounds for believing. When we consider the general character z 2 340 THILO'S SERVIUS. of the fourth century commentaries on Roman authors, such as that of Donatus on Terence and of the Pseudo-Asconius on Cicero, when we reflect that their style and manner are in the main impersonal, that they bear the clearest marks of being compiled and abridged from the numerous works of earlier scholars, and that they present the same phenomena of repeti- tions and general looseness and carelessness in composition, we are justified in pausing before we deny to the fuller version of Servius its right to the name which it has so long borne. The additional notes are undoubtedly drawn from the same sources as those of the vulgate; they are often homogeneous with them, and their style, though later than that of the Verona scholia, is on the whole neither earlier nor later than that of Servius. Thilo has said but little on the sources of the Servian com- mentary. He does not, in my opinion, at all succeed in showing that Servius borrowed from Aelius Donatus. The memoir of Vergil which bears the name of the latter is generally attributed to Suetonius, and I have endeavoured to show, in my edition of this work, that Servius extracted his shorter biography from the fuller work of the latter, and was thus able to add details which in the memoir by Donatus are omitted. Thilo mentions a num- ber of passages in which notes in the Servian commentary cor- respond with notes of Donatus on Terence. But on examining these I find that in many .cases the Servian note is fuller, and that it is not seldom possible to point out an older form of the comment in Nonius, or Verrius Flaccus, or both. Nonius and Verrius, it may be observed, are hardly mentioned in Thilo's preface. Yet it is these two authors above all others who must, in my opinion, be more thoroughly studied than any others, if we would arrive at sound conclusions respecting the sources of the Latin commentaries of the fourth century. XII. CRITICAL MISCELLANIES. {Journal of Philology, and American Journal of Philology. 1 THE GRAECI ANNALES OF FABIUS PICTOR. Cicero, De Dtvinatione, i. § 43, says, hisque adiungatur etiam Aeneae somnium, quod in nostri Fabii Pictoris Graecis annalibus eiusmodi est, ut omnia quae ab Aenea gesta sunt, quaeque illi acci- derunt, ea/uerint, quae ei secundum quietem visa sunt. The words Graeci annates are usually explained as meaning * annals written in Greek.' No doubt Dionysius (i. 6) mentions Fabius Pictor as one of the historians who had written in Greek on the early legends of Rome : but I submit that the words Graeci annates, if they are to be explained on the analogy of Romana historia and the like, should mean ' Greek history ' not * history written in Greek/ Cicero, Brutus, § 77, historia quaedam Graeca, scripta dulcissime : Tusc. 5. § 112 (quoted by Jahn), Cn. Aufidius . . . Graecam scribebat historiam : but Brutus, § 81, ^. Albinus, is qui Graece scripsit historiam. Graeca quaedam historia in the first of these passages I suppose to mean ' a certain Greek story :' Graecam historiam in the second to mean ' Greek history ' in general. Compare Quintilian, 2. 4. 19, nam Graecis historiis plerumque poeticae similis licentia est. And it is certainly strange that Cicero should nowhere else mention the fact that Fabius Pictor wrote in Greek, but should always speak of him with Cato as exemplifying the baldness of early Latin prose. I am in- clined to suppose that Fabius Pictor wrote the bulk of his great work in Latin, and that the Graeci A finales, or Greek history, formed a separate book, in which the story of Aeneas was con- tained. That this was written in Greek it would be rash to doubt 342 CRITICAL MISCELLANIES. in the face of the express testimony of Dionysius : but I contend that Cicero never says so. Possibly Fabius took over this part of his history from a Greek writer. PLAUTUS. Asinaria 391, Clamat procul si que?7i vide t ire ad sese calcitronem. So Nonius, p. 44 : the manuscripts of Plautus have se. The line as given by Nonius runs, however, better, and is probably what Plautus wrote. 701, Demam hercle iam de hordeo, tolutim ni badizas. So the manuscripts and Nonius, p. 4. The editors get rid of the hiatus by inserting tibi after iam. Is it possible that Plautus vjTOiQ /ordeo .-^ Aulularia 625, Simul radebat pedibus terram, et voce croccibat sua. Crocibat or Croccibat? Goetz, Loewe, and SchoU print crocibat, but I have hardly any doubt that croccibat is right, sup- ported as it is by grocchibat in the manuscripts, and croccibat and crocchitum in the best manuscripts of Nonius, though Nonius, p. 455, has crocire. Crocatio in Paulus, p. 53, may perhaps be a mistake for croccitioy just as in Nonius, p. 85, liguratio is given by the Harleian MS. for ligurritio. I do not, however, deny that croccire, crocire, and crocare may all have existed, as Loewe argues that they did (see his Opuscula, pp. 248-250, printed with his Glossae Nominum by Goetz), Bacchides 376, Ut celem tibi^ Pistoclere, iua flagitia aut damna aut dtsidiabula ? Desidiabula is the manuscript reading, but I much prefer that (;{■ Nonius, p. 75, dispoliabula, 'ways of robbing.' Dispoliare is a good word, occurring more than once in comic writing ; but it is difficult to see what is the origin of desidiabula, for which, I y-the-by, the lexicons adduce no parallel. Captivi 77-73, Nam scortum in convivio Sibi Amator, talos fjuom iacit scortum invocat. So B (the Vetus Codex Camerarii.) Goetz, followed by Sonnenschein, reads Nam scortum in convivio CRITICAL MISCELLANIES. 343 Amalor, talos quom tacit, sibi invocat. It is possible to keep nearer to the manuscript, and also to produce a more rhyth- mical line, by reading nam in convivio sibi Amator . . . scortum invocat. 156, Quid credis ? Fugitant omnes hanc provinciam Quod oh tiger at postquam captus est Philopolemus tuus. So B. Brix writes Quid credis ? postquam Philopolemus captust tuos Quod ob tiger at, fugitant omnes hanc provi7iciam. I would suggest, as an easy improvement upon the first line, post Philo- polemus quam captust tuos. 198, Nunc ser Vitus si evenit, ei vos morigerari m6s bonus t, Eamque et erili imperio ingeniis vostris lenem reddere. A very slight change will restore the metre and the sense : . . . ei vos morigerari mos bonus t, Et erili imperio : eamque (sc. ser- vitutem) ingeniis vostris lenem reddere. 274, Etigepae I Thale'm talento non emam Milesium. The commentators do not find it easy to explain the point of talento : and again the sense requires a comparison between Thales and Philocrates. To obtain this I would suggest the fol- lowing emendation : Euge I prae tali Thaletem non emam Milesium. 417, Nam si servos mi e'sses, nihilo se'tius Obsequiosus mihi fuistt se'mper. The construction is impossible : I propose quam si servos mi esses. Compare Truculentus 341, nemo magis respiciet . . . quam si. 431, Atque horum verborum causa cdveto mi iratHsfuas. For caveto Bentley and Bothe conjecture cave tu : but may not the right reading be cavito.^ Servius, on Aen, 4. 409, says that Catullus used the form caver e. So perhaps in Asinaria 372, where the MSS. give caveto ne suscenseas, we should read cavito. 577, Quid ais, furcifer .^ tun te gnatum memoras liberum? Fleckeisen emends tun memoras gnatum te esse liberum ? We should keep nearer the manuscripts by reading tun tete gnatum memoras liberum ? 661, Sator sartor que scelerum et messor maxume. So the 344 CRITICAL MISCELLANIES. manuscripts and editions; but the Harleian MS. of Nonius, p. 7, has preserved the true form of the verse, sartor saiorque. 690, Qui per virtutem peritat non inter it. So the MSS. ; Nonius, p. 422, according to the Colbertinus and the second reading of the Leyden MS., has perit aut non interit. On this hint I would suggest Qui per virtutem perit, abit, non interit. Fleckeisen writes qui per virtutem perit at non is interit : Professor Arthur Palmer has recently proposed qui per virtutem perit, perit at non interit. Epidicus 152, Nonius reads (p. 8), aliquam inde exsolvam, extricahor aliqua. Plenus consilVs : at least if Quicherat may be trusted. This surely means aliqua me inde exsolvam. The whole line may, to Nonius, have stood aliqua me inde exsolvam, aliqua extricahor, etc. The palimpsest, however, has aliqua ope exsolvar, Goetz and his coUaborateurs read aliqua ope exsolvam. I am, however, disposed to think that both the ope of the pal- impsest and the me inde exsolvam of Nonius are glosses : and that the line should run aliqua exsolvar, extricahor aliqua. lb. 609, Quid illud est quod caperat illi frons severitudine ? So the manuscripts and editions : but Nonius, p. 8, has quid illud est quod illi caperrat frons severitudine .^ The spelling caperrat is attested also by the Harleian MS. of Nonius, p. 173, and by the manuscript of Apuleius, Met. 9. 16, caperratum supercilium. I am therefore inclined to accept the order of the words, and the spelling, given by Nonius. Menaechmi 1047. See p. 368 foil. Trinummus 492, Verum nos homunculi Satillum animai. For satillum I had conjectured vatillum, before I knew that Loewe had proposed batillum : I am now glad to see that vaiillum is accepted by Goetz and Scholl. LUCILIUS. I. 36, Et mercede merent legiones. So Lucian Mtiller reads, after Janus Dousa. But the words are quoted as follows by Nonius, p. 345 ; ' Meret* humillimum et sordidissimum quaestum CRITICAL MISCELLANIES. 345 capit . . unde et meritoriiet meretrices dicunhir . . . Lucilius, lib. i, ' et mercede meret religiones^ Porphyrion, however, on Horace, i Epist. 3. 6 [quid studtosa cohors operum struit.^)^ says, to illustrate the metaphorical use of cohors, Lucilius eos qui cum praesidibus ad salarium eunt mercede meras legiones ait. He must therefore have read legiones, not religiones, in the passage of Lucilius, and have understood Lucilius to be using the word in a metaphorical sense, as Horace was using cohors. Now, by simply joining together the words mercede and meras we obtain the epithet mercedimeras, ' mercenary,' from merces and mereo : Lucilius eos qui cum praesidibus ad salarium eunt mercedimeras legiones ait. In the manuscripts of Nonius, I suppose mercede meret religiones to be a corruption of mercedimerae legiones, the last syllable of Tnerae {mer§) having been repeated and merged into the follow- ing word, and mer§legiones having thus become meret religiones. GAIUS GRACCHUS. Gellius, 15. 12, quotes the following words from this orator : Si ulla meretrix domum meam ifitroivit, aut cuiusquam servulus propter me sollicitatus est, omnium nationum postremissimum ne- quissimumque existimatote. Omnium nationum is the manuscript reading. The corrupt nationum has been variously emended, by Lipsius into natorum, by Gronovius into latronum, by Beloe into hominum natorum. Of these conjectures natorum is clearly the best from a palaeographical point of view; but it seems doubtful whether omnium natorum or hominum natorum would be good Latin, though nemo natus is. Besides, the adjectives postremissimum nequissimumque would have more point, if the word with which they were joined connoted some definite quality. Compare Sallust, Hist. i. 48. 3 (Dietsch), M. Aemilius, omnium flagitiosorum postremus : 4. 61. 12, incepta mea postremus servorum Archelaus exercitu prodito impedivit. From this point of view Gronovius's latronum is more suitable to the context than natorum. I would, however, propose raponum. Nonius, p. 26, rapones a rapiendo dicti : Varro, Papia papae, irepl iyKwuiau : 346 CRITICAL MISCELLANIES. praetor vester eripuit mihi pecuniam : de eo questum ad annum veniam ad novum magistratum, cu7n hie rapo umbram quoque spei devorassit. Raponum would be palaeographically almost as good as natorum, and more pointed perhaps than latronum. It should be noticed also that Varro uses it of a provincial governor. VARRO, RES RUSTICAL I. 2. 9. Nam Stolonis ilia lex (Schneider). For Stolonis we should perhaps read Stolonis est {Stolonisst.) I. 2. 10. Alterum collegam tuum, vigintivir quifuit (Schneider). The best manuscript as reported by Politian gives rightly viginti virum qui fuit. Compare Cato, Orat. 40. 3 (Jordan), trium. virum si sim. Huiusce^ iiiquam^ pomaria summa sacra via ubi poma veneunt contra auream imaginem (Schneider). Keil (in his Observations on Varro and Cato) has rightly restored, from the best manu- scripts, contra aurum imago for contra auream imaginem. Scaliger conjectured contra aurum, id est magno. Contra aurum is a phrase used of things that sell ' for their weight in gold.' If Scaliger's emendation be adopted, we must of course with him regard id est magno as a gloss on contra aurum, and expunge imago from the text. Keil formerly wished to write the whole passage thus : Huiusce, inquam, pomarium summae sacrae viae, ubi poma veneunt contra aurum, imago ; ' his orchard is a copy of the head of the Via Sacra, where apples are sold for their weight in gold.' The same, or nearly the same, sense may, however, be elicited from the words if we adopt the reading of the editio princeps, pomarii for pomaria. The sentence will then run thus : Huiusce, inquam, p07narii summa sacra via, ubi poma veneunt contra aurum, imago ; * you may get a notion of his orchard on the top of the Via Sacra,' etc. (So now Keil.) I. 4. 2. Nemo enim non eadem utilitate non formosius quod est emere mavult pluris quam si est fructuosus turpis (Schneider). The masculines fructuosus and turpis have nothing to agree ^ Keil's edition of this work appeared while this sheet was passing through the press. CRITICAL MISCELLANIES. 347 with, and I should therefore propose to read quavi si, eisi fruc- tuostus, turpest ; 'than if, though more profitable, it is ugly.' The reading before Victorius, quam si est fruciuosius iurpe, gave much the same sense. Ryck con]tctmQd /ructuostus iurpius. I. 13. 7. Varro is speaking of the ruinous size of private villas, pessimo publico aedificatae. Schneider gives the following version of his words : Ac cum Metelli ac Lu^ulli villi's pessimo publico aedificatis ceriant. Quo hi laborafit ut spectent sua aestiva triclinaria ad frigus orientis, hiberna ad solem occidentem, potius quam, ut antiqui, in quam partem cella vinaria aut olearia fenestras haberet, cum fructus in ea vinarius quaerat ad dolia aera frigidiorem ita olearia calidiorem. For quo hi (the best manuscript had quod hi) Keil formerly wished to write qui : but quo hi might stand as an in- terrogative, ' to what purpose do these men toil ? ' For the last part of the sentence, which, as Schneider gives it, is hardly translatable, I would propose, for want of a better, the following emendation : Cum fructus quaerat ut ad vinaria dolia aera frigi- diorem, ita ad olearia calidiorem. I. 24. 3. Quod Cato ait circum fimdum ulmos et populos . . . seri oportere, sed hoc neque, etc. Either oportet should be inserted after oportere {quod Cato ait . . . oportere, oportet :) or sed should be omitted. 1.40. I. Et si aqua quae influit in agrum inferre solet. Perhaps Varro wrote et si qua aqua, quae influit in agrum, inferre solet. 1. 59. I. Depomis : conditiva viala struthea, etc. The passage should be differendy punctuated : de pomis conditiva : mala struthea, etc. (So now Keil.) 2. I. 19. Dicuntur agni chordi qui . . . remanserunt in volvis intimis. Vocant xopiov a quo chordi appellantur. ^ttsNeenintimis and vocant Keil formerly wished to insert nam Graeci cutem in qua inclusi haerent in volvis intimis vocant xop'iov. There seems no need to assume the existence of so large a lacuna, but it is possible that after intimis the words in iis or in his have fallen out. If so, the sentence should run, in volvis intimis. In iis (or in his) vocant xop'oi/, etc. 348 CRITICAL MISCELLANIES, 2. I. 23. Ne frigus caedai. Laedat should be read with Ursinus, / having been probably confused with / and then with c. (So now Keil.) 2. 2. 8. Suhicere oporiet virgulta alia^ quo mollius requiescani. For alia I would propose alia. 2. 4. 17. St minus pariai, fructuariam idoneam non esse. Here an indication of a quotation seems to have dropped out, it being very awkward to carry on oporiet (in a different sense) from the preceding clause, par ere tot oportet porcos quot mammas habeat. 2. 9. 16. The oldest manuscript gives si alter videm fiier aeger est. Scaliger, rejecting the reading which Schneider adopts, si alter indesinenter aeger est, conjectured si alter itidem uter. Would not the corrupt words of the manuscript be better represented by si alter uter ut inter dum fit aeger est ? 2. 10. 4. /« emptionibus dominum legitimum sex fere res per- ficiunt : aut . . . aut . . . tumve cum in bonis sedioneve cuius sub corona emit. Tumve is manifestly wrong, and I should propose to read for it sex turn {vi*"^^). 3. 2. 3. Sed non haec, inquit, villa quam aedificarunt maiores nostri,/rugalior ac melior est quam tua ilia perpolita in Reatino. Nuncubihic vides citrum aut aurum ? etc. A note of interroga- tion should be placed after Reatino. (So now Keil.) 3. 2. 16. Reliquis annis omnibus et hanc expectabis summam^ . . . neque hoc accidit his moribus nisi raro ut decipiaris. For et I would read ait^ and for accidit accidet. Reliquis annis omnibus^ ait, hanc expectabis summam, neque hoc accidet his moribus, etc. 3. 4. I. Ut aiunt post principia incastris. Ut aiunt in castris, post principia .^ Scaliger would read, Ugo vero, inquit^ a prin- cipiisy ut in castris. 3. 5. 14. Circum falere et navalia sunt excavata anatum s tabula. Read circum falere,. ut navalia, sunt excavata, etc. 3. 16. 22. The oldest manuscript gives aut inopiam esse habuisse dicitis ait cum sint apes. Esse has been emended into escae ; but the passage is not yet healed. It is possible that a quotation has been omitted, and that there is a lacuna : inopiam CRITICAL MISCELLANIES. 349 escae . . . hahuisse dicit. Is ait., cum sint. I find that Scaliger proposed nee cum animadverterint haud inopiam esse, abivisse dicit. Is ait, etc. referring is to Menecrates. 3. 17. 2. Alterum (piscinarum genus) et sine fructu. Read alterum, nee sine fructu, which gives the sense required. VARRO, SATURAE. Mutuum Muli, nepl yj/apio-fiov, ap. Non. p. 115, s. v.gratlatores. The manuscripts give the quotation as follows : Grallatores qui gradiuntur pertieae ligne finaremotet ab homine eo qui in istat angitantur sicilianimi nostri sunt grallae crura ae pedes nostri essiare kivtjtoi sed ab animo moventur. The passage has been variously corrected, all scholars agreeing now to begin the sentence with ut, which is to correspond with sic. Biicheler, in his Petronius and Varro's Saturae (p. 195 in his edition of 1 871), gives the passage as follows : Ut grallatores qui gra- diuntur, pertieae sunt ligna cfyvcrei dKimrjTa, sed ab homine eo qui instat agitantur, sic illi animi nostri sunt grallae [crura ae pedes nostri\ (pvaei aKivrjToi, sed ab animo moventur. I suspect that grallatores qui gradiuntur are the words of Nonius: compare Paulus, p. 119 (M tiller), ^ra/Za/^r^j appella- bantur qui . . . gradiebantur. If so, the rest can be corrected without any violent changes as follows : Pertieae ligneae . . . ambuli ab homine eo qui in iis stat (so Muretus) agitantur : sic ilia animi nostri sunt grallae, crura ae pedes nostri ; ipsi (for essi = issi) aKivrjToi, sed ab animo moventur. Finaremotet I suppose to be not a Greek word, but some compound of -ambulus : perhaps lignambuli, which might, I suppose, be a translation of CICERO. Tusc. 4, § 16. Voluptati {subiecta sunt) malevolentia laetans malo alieno, deleetatio, iactatio et similia. Thus the passage is given in the manuscripts of Nonius, p. 16, s. v. laeto = ' to inveigle.' Cicero is apparently translating the passage of Stoical doctrine 350 CRITICAL MISCELLANIES. given by Diogenes Laertius, 7. 114, r]bovr\^ vcf>' rjv rdTTfTai ki^Xj^o-w, cTTixaipdcaKia, repyJAis k.t.X. It is clear that malevolentia laetans malo alieno answers to enLxaipeKaKia, and that it was therefore a mistake on the part of the editors before Quicherat to change laetans into ladans. But in that case what is the point of quoting the passage, as Nonius does, to illustrate lac tar e ? Lactare, I reply, was illustrated by lactatw, which we should substitute for tactatio, and which stands for the Greek KrjXrja-is, ' allurement,' ' enticement/ Pro Murena, § 42. Quid tua sors ? Iristis^ atrox : quaes tio peculatus, ex altera parte lacrimarum et squalor is^ ex altera plena catenarum atque indicum. Catenarum is generally given up by the editors. If an emendation is required, I would suggest calendariorum, ' account books : ' but possibly catenarum might stand in the sense of ' legal snares or devices or securities,' as Horace says adde Cicutae Nodosi tahulas centum, milk adde catenas. Pro Cluentio, § 82. The two best manuscripts read an ad ipsum cuMle, vobis iudkibus, ventre possumus ? The other manu- scripts, followed by Baiter, give ducibus for indicibus. The true reading I suspect to be indicibus : comp. In Verrem, 2. i, § 105, an, qua est ipse sagacitate in his rebus, sine duce ullo, sine indice, pervenerit ad hanc improbitatem, nescio. OVID. Ibis, 291, Utque parum mitis, sed non impune, Prometheus Aerias volucres satiguine fixus alas. Parum mitis is translated by Mr. Ellis 'that failed in his philanthropy.' But is this the natural interpretation of the words ? Merkel conjectures operum mitis, which again seems to me strained. I would propose parens ignis : * the inventor of fire, but to his cost.' Compare Horace's curvaeque lyrae parentem. 315, Utque necatorum Darei fraude secundi, Sic tua subsidens devoret ossa cinis. For subsidens, which it is not easy to explain satisfactorily, the CRITICAL MISCELLANIES. 351 Gale manuscript, as reported by Mr. Ellis, gives sucdndens, while succendens and succedens are also found. Succindens or succendens, I think, must be right, succindeo coming from sub and candeo, 'to glow underneath.' I may add that the Gale manuscript {G.) also seems to pre- serve the right reading in the following passages : no, Destituant oculos sidera clara tuos : lumina G. : compare Georgic i. ^, vos O clarissima mundi Lumina. Sidera may well be a gloss. 137, Robora dum monies, dum mollia pabula campi, Dum Tiberis Uquidas Tuscus habebit aquas. Mitia G. : compare Met. 2. 288, Quod pecori frondes alimen- taque mitia, fruges Humano generi, vobis quoque iura minisiro ? 5. 342, Prima dedit fruges alimentaque mitia terris : 15. 478, Or a vacent epulis, alimentaque mitia carpant : 1 4. 690, l^ec, quas hortus alii, cum sucis mitibus herbas. 159, Verbera saeva dabunt sonitum, nexaeque colubris Conscia fumabunl semper ad or a faces. Colubrae G. rightly: compare (with Merkel) Met. 4. 492, motae sonuere colubrae. 641, Pauca quidem fateor, sed di dent plura rogatis. Di tibi plura rogatis G. : rightly, I think : compare Georgic 3. 513, Di meliora piis, erroremque hostibus ilium. PAULUS. P. 119 (Miiller), Grallatores appellabantur pantomimi, qui, ut in saltatione imitarentur Aegipanas, adiectis perticis furculas habentibus atque in iis superstantes, ob similitudinem crurum eius generis, gradiebantur, etc. For pantomimi, which is not an accurate description, I would TQ2idpanomimi, 'imitators of Pan.' Festus, p. 273, s. V. redamptruare. Pacuvius : proaererenda gratia : simul cum videam. I would read for proaererenda, not promerenda, with Ursinus, but pro referenda, and take the words pro referenda gratia as referring to the usage of redamptruare. 352 CRITICAL MISCELLANIES. The whole then would run, pro referenda gratia : Pacuvius, etc. See the gloss on redampiruare, quoted p. 358. SUETONIUS. Vita Horatii: Praeterea (Augustus) saepe eum inter alios iocos purissimum pene (or paene) et homuncionem lepidissimum appel- labat. Muretus, followed by modern editors, wrote purissimum petum, the point or meaning of which I am unable to discover. I should propose ^ot purissimum to read with Lambinus putissimum (comp. Gloss. Philox. puti^ fuKpoi, putus niKpo^, and Ps.-Verg. Catalepton, dispeream nisi me perdidit iste putus) and for paene paegnium, the name of the little boy in the Persa of Plautus. Compare Captivi 984 (^parvolus) Paegnium vocitatust, NONIUS. P. 44, ?,.v. pandere. (Varro) De Vita Populi Romani lib. i, ^ Hanc deam Aelius putat esse Cererem,' etc. For hanc deam I suggest Pandam deam^ as the name is required : see Arnobius, 4. 3- P. 46, Vulpinari dictum estfraudibus et mendaciis vera perver- tere: dictum ab inrectum sed intorto vulpium cursu. Inrectum sed the Harleian : Quicherat reads inrecto. For inrectum sed I pro- pose anfractuoso et. DIOMEDES. P. 365 (Keil), Tranquillus quoque his adsentiens in libello suo plenissime edere incohata disseruit. As the discussion is on the word incohare, I propose to read plenissime de re incohata dis- seruit. PLACIDUS AND GLOSSARIES. [These notes are arranged, for greater convenience, in alphabetical order. The pages referred to in the case of Placidus are those of Deuerling's edition. Gloss. Philox. = the Latin-Greek Glossary wrongly bearing the name of Philoxenus, as edited by Vulcanius in 1600 : Gloss. .<4w//^2, feretrium fertilem. Gloss. Yj^m:dX,feretriusfertilis, A a 2 356 CRITICAL MISCELLANIES, Fardmen, ipsa species (Gloss. Amplon. and Epinal). Read isicii species (or perhaps ensicii, which is another form of the word). Fariolus, vates (H. G. p. 25). Fariolus is altered by Hagen, but it may be right: Terentius Scaurus, p. 13 (Keil), quern antiqui fariolum^ nos hariolum. Feronia^ dea cogorum (H. G.p. 14). Hagen reads Tuscorum ; perhaps lucorum: Aen. 7. 800, viridi gaudens Feronia luco. Ferratas crudes (H. G. p. 57). Trudes : Aen. 5. 208. Fessam aeiate femen^ vel fassum sine viribus (H. G. p. 25). Ready^jjwzw aetate, senem, vel lassum, sine viribus. Aen. 2. 596, fessum aetate parentem. Fluctuans ! undam nutans (H. G. p. 21 ). Read fluciuans^ undans^ natans. Gnaricantionum, serm&num (Placidus, p. 50). So the manu- scripts of Placidus : the liber glossarum^ how^ever, gives gnarifi- cationum, which Deuerling adopts. I should prefer to read gnarigationum : Paulus, p. 95, gnarigavit significat apud Livium narravit. In burim^ in curvationem (Placidus, p. 59). Deuerling would change in burim into imburvum : but there is no need for this : see Servius and Philargyrius on Georg. 1. 170, domatur In burim. In ludicro, res quae de luto dantur (H. G. p. 17). Hagen would change ludicro into lubrico. I would propose Ludicrae res, quae de ludo dantur, supposing in to be due to a repetition of the first syllable of ludicro-. compare Servius, Aen. 12. 764, ludicra praemia, vilia, digna ludo. In mundo, in expediio vel ad manum, in procinctu (Placidus, p. 58). Here two glosses are probably confused, the second of which began with in procinctu. For in rnundo is not synonymous with in procinctu, and Paulus, p. 109, has separate notes on the two phrases. Incubitus dicitur ab incumbendo sive iacendo sive aliena cupiendo (Placidus, p. 55). This note requires no alteration, such as has been suggested by Deuerling and recently by Mr. Onions; for Servius, on Aen. i. 89, says incubare dicitur . . . aliena per vim velle ienere. CRITICAL MISCELLANIES. 357 Inexiricahilis ! error laber intus (H. G. p. I07). Not (with Hagen) inextricahilis error, labor invidus^ but inextricabilis error, labyrinthus : Aen. 6. 27, Hinc labor ille domus et inextrica- bilis error. Inprolis, nondum vir (H. G. p. 39). Hagen would read inpubes, which is unnecessary ; Marius Victorinus, p. 20 (Keil), inproles enim est qui nondum vir est. lactatus, indue tus, captus (Placidus, p. 59). Read ladatus ; Paulus, p. 107, lacit, unde lac tat. Nonius, p. 16, lactare est inducere vel mulcere, velle decipere. (This emendation has also been made by Lowe.) lam parvi tenebant I iam ad terras veniebant (H. G. p. 4). Y or parvi Hagen conjectures portum. But we should probably read iamque arva tenebant (Aen. 2. 209). lurgio, incursatione (Placidus, p. 59). Probably for iurgio, iuris actione : Paulus, p. 103, iurgatio, iuris actio. lurgo glutto (H. G. p. 35). Gurgo Hagen: more probably lurcho. Lexa luxuriosa (H. G. p. 19). Luxa (?). Paulus, p. 119, luxa membra e suis locis mota et soluta, a quo luxuriosus^ in refamiliari solutus. So Nonius, p. 55, Isidore, 10. 160. Limo solatio, cenoso stagno (H. G. p. 38). Not (with Hagen) lutoso loco, but limoso lacu (Aen. 2. 135). Lumine tergo^ truci, terribili (H. G. p. 58). Not taetro (with Hagen), but tofvo : Aen. 3. 677, cernimus adstantes nequiquam lumine torvo. Lupercus sacerdos gentilium qui deus archanum sacra fani celebrat (H. G. p. i). Fauni Hagen rightly iox fani : for the rest read sacra Fauni celebrat, qui deus Arcadum. Magmentum . . . Cornutus, quicquid mactus, id est quicquid distrahitur (Placidus, p. 66, according to the MSS.). For mactus Deuerling prints mactatur : I propose macitur, from maco * to mutilate.' Manas, malas, maxillas (Placidus, p. 67). Probably a confu- sion of two glosses, the first of which began Manias (see Paulus, p. 128) and ihe second malas, maxillas. 358 CRITICAL MISCELLANIES. Nebulonem, bonuni vel levem (H. G. p. 69). Read vanum vel levem : Donatus on Eun. 2. 2. 38, nebulonem, vel quia nebulas obtctat, . , .vel inanem et vanum, ui nebula est. Ntxantem, saepius natarJem (H. G. p. 6). Hagen proposes saepius nutantem. I would read saepius niientem, and refer the gloss to Aen. 5. 279, nixantem nodis sequein sua membra plicantem. Parioleius I divinatus (H. G. p. 52). Probably fariolatus : comip2iTe/ariolus above. Pegaso, homo iocularis : so Gloss. Hild., Gloss, ap. Mai CI. Auct. vols. 6 and 7. Gloss. Amplon. (p. 366) and Epinal give pegaso homo iacularis. Gloss. Amplon. p. 369 polimio graece homo vanus. The true reading I suspect to be paegnio, homo iocularis. Poster a aura, frequens dies (H. G. p. 26). Hagen rightly &!XitXidi'i frequens into sequens : I would read aurora for aura. Protenus I confestim . . . acutum (H. G. p. 44). Read actutum for acutum. Recidivina, renascentia a morte aut vetustate renovata : vel ex ruinis in integrum restituta (H. G. p. 99). This gloss is a con- fusion of two, one on recidiva, the other on rediviva. Read recidiva, renascentia a morte. Rediviva, ex vetustate renovata. Festus, p. 273, redivivum, ex vetusto renovatum. Redandare, gratiam referre (H. G. p. 97). Read redantruare : Nonius, p. 165, redantruare reddere : compare Fest. p. 273, {redamptruare) pro referenda gratia : Pacuvius ; ' simul cum video Graios nihil mediocr iter Redamptruare, opibusqu£ summis persequi* Sertis, floribus, coronis. Subtilis vel ardua loca sive rocce in mare (H. G. p. 24). For subtilis, which seems to be the begin- ning of a second gloss, I would read subices : Nonius, p. 168, Gellius, 4. 17, Ennius in tragoedia quae Achilles inscribitur subices pro aere alto posuit : compare Festus, p. 305, subices Ennius in Achille . . .posuit cum dixit nubes. Sochors I hebes vanus stultus neglegens fictuus (i. e. fatuus) vel le inter incedens (H. G. p. 38). For le inter I would read not leviter (Hagen), but leniter. Tabes, cruor, sanguis (Placidus, p. 84). This gloss looks like CRITICAL MISCELLANIES. 359 a corrupt abbreviation of a note in which tabus ^ cruor, and sanguis were distinguished: Schol. Veron. on Aen. 8. 106 (from Asper) : cruor proprie dtcttur, nam quamdiu in corpora est, sanguis est, cumfluit cruor, cum exiit tabus est. Valus, qui pedibus iunctis ambulat (H. G. p. 40). Not varus (Hagen), but vatius. Versibus, callidus, artificiosus (H. G. p. 3 7). Read (not versutus with Hagen, but) persibus : Varro, L. L. 7. 107, sub hoc {verba persibus) glossema ^ cailide' subscribunt : Festus, p. 217, quotes the word from Plautus ; compare Paulus, p. 336, sibus callidus sive acutus. FOUR OXFORD MANUSCRIPTS OF THE ORIGINES OF ISIDORES [Read before the Oxford Philological Society^ These MSS. are (i) one of the ninth century, in the Ubrary of Queen's College, which contains only half the work ; (2) one of the twelfth century, in the library of Oriel College; (3) one of the thirteenth century, in the library of Balliol College ; (4) one of the eleventh century, in the library of Trinity College. They appear to represent two distinct editions or ver- sions of the Etymologiae, characterised respectively {a) by a different arrangement of the early chapters of the first book, (^) by the presence or absence of certain lacunae, especially in the tenth and nineteenth books, (<:) by the exhibition of different readings. One of these recensions is represented by the Queen's College and Trinity MSS. (R and T), the other by the Oriel and Balliol MSS. (B and O), of which the Oriel MS. appears to be decidedly the better. (^) With regard to the arrangement of the first book, the Queen's College MS. gives in its index an order different from ^ My attention was called to these manuscripts by Mr. F. Madan, one of the Sub-librarians of the Bodleian and late Fellow of Brasenose College. 360 CRITICAL MISCELLANIES. that which is followed in its text. The order given in the index is as follows : 1. De disciplina et arte, 2. De septem liber alibus disciplinis. 3. De grammatica. 4. De partibus or attorns, 5. De voce, 6. De liiieris, etc. But as a fact the arrangement which it follows is — 1. De disciplina et arte. 2. De septem liber alibus disciplinis. 3. De litter is. 4. De grammatica. 5. De partibus orationis. 6. De voce. This arrai^ement is given by T both in index and text. B and O, however, follow in their text the arrangement given in the index of R. The arrangement given by B and O is, it should be remarked, in harmony with that proposed by Isidore himself in the section De Grammatica, and therefore almost certainly right : divisiones autem artis grammaticae a quibusdam dinumerantur . . . partes orationis octo, vox articulata, littera. No notice of the difference of arrangement is taken either by Arevalo or Otto. (V) B and O also differ from R in exhibiting certain lacunae^ of which the following are instances : — I. 38. 13. Dicentes, ut ait Terentianus, lellAlaNI • EIIYlaN. Then follows a lacuna of a line and a half. O. 5. 27. 12. After the ^oidiS ex generevinculorum Bhas a lacuna of a line and a half, O of rather more than a line. 10, 54. After captus B has a lacuna of a line and a half, O of two lines. Similar lacunae of less or greater length are found in these MSS., but not in R, and in the following places : 10. 59. After crispus, claudus, and curvus. 10. 68. Ader dulcis : in the same passage after et decibilis B,0 have decibilis and then a lacuna; R autem decibilis without a lacuna. CRITICAL MISCELLANIES. 361 10. 105. Mitx/remens, where R has no lacuna. 10. no. Khtr fornicarius. 10. 113. Mier grandis. Then B and O have a gloss which is not in R, gallodromus, discurrens etfraude decipiens. 10. 126. After idoneus. 10. 150. B and O give impostor^ occulte se (or sed) immittens. Interceptor proprie dicitur, etc. R omits the words occulte . . . immittens. 10. 156. After largus. 10. 162. After languidus. 10. 168. MiQv quasi mutus. 10. 171. After maior and minor. The lacuna after minor is succeeded by the words mango, fraude decipiens^ which are omitted in R. 10. 204. Mi^x perpetuus. 10. 207. Aiier primus 2iiid.postr emus. 10. 212. hiter per sever ans. 10. 232. After quaestor, quaestuosus, and querimoniosus. 10. 242. After supremas partes dicimus B and O have suavis, and then a lacuna. 10. 259. After sospes. 10. 268. After tristis. 10. 269. After truculentus. 11. 93. Mter scapula. 12. 5. 15. Khtr lendes. 12. 6. 44. After congr us. 12. 8. 4. After vespae. 14. 4. 16. After Lacedaemonia. 15. I. 37. After Caesar earn Cappadociae. 17. 9. 80. Kher portulaca. 17. II. 7. After abrotonum and cerefolium. 19. 5. 3. After ;2ajja. 19. 17. 15. Between the words ex creta argentaria cum, and pur pur is par iter tingitur. 19. 18. 3. After vel luto lapides, marcellus, and machina. 19. 19. 6. After agrantes. 362 CRITICAL MISCELLANIES. 19. 19. 15. MiQT canterium 2Ln^guvmox cuvia. After this last lacuna B and O add simia (B), cuiua (O), i. e. ventosa ; see 4. 1 1. 3, guva, quae a Latinis a similitudine cucurbita, a susptrw ventosa vacatur. 19. 22. I. Amtctus is inserted after intumentum^ and then fol- lows a lacuna. 19. 22. 13. A lacuna after apocalama. 19. 26. 2. Mier galnapes. 19. 27. I. Between the words id est and a vellendo. 19. 28. 8. After blatteum, blarum, and masticium. 20. 2. 19. After simila dJid. polltnes, 20. 3. 12. After /j>rm- 20. 6. 3. After caniharus. (r) An inspection of a few passages enables us also to state that there are important differences of reading which mark the two families of MSS. The following are specimens : I. 3. 4. Ut nosse possimus, R; possemus, B, O. 9. 5. 49. Istt quos sub se diximus^ R, T ; sub secunda, B, O. {Sub se, it may be observed, is a mistake for subesse, which occurs in the identical note of Placidus on the same point.) 9- 5- 50- Quod bellum primo vianu incipiebanty R, T ; prima mane, B, O. 10. 21. Aequimanus appellatur utraque manu gaudium tenens, R ; aequimanus appellatur qui gladium vel quodlibet genus expedi- bile (so O ; expectabile, B) utraque manu incunctanter utens, B, O. 10. 102. Formidolosus aformidine, id est a sanguine dictus,'K) formidolosus aformo, id est a sanguine dictus, B, O. In the next line R gives a praecordia /ugiens, O ad praecordium, B id prae- cordia. 10. 145. Inhumaiumy qui nee inane absenti suppetil tumulus ^ R ; inhumanum, cui nee inane habenti surrexit tumulus, B, O, T. 10. 150. Impostor interceptor, R ; impostor, occulte se {sed B) inmittens. Interceptor etc., B, O. 10. 159. Elius autem latro est inquit later 0, R ; melius autem latro est quam latero, B, O. T gives a confusion of the two readings, melius autem latro est inquid latro. CRITICAL MISCELLANIES. 363 10. 160. After the words quod libet, R adds libidinostis a Liber 0, qui puellarum. B and O libidinosus a Libera^ qui puellari cor pore pingitur. 10. 188. Nuiritor quasi nutu eruditor, R, T; quasi nutri eruditor, B, O. Neither Arevalo nor Otto, the two most recent editors of Isi- dore's Etymologiae^ seems to have had any clear idea of the distinction between the two classes of MSS. In some instances they seem to be unaware of the existence both of the lacunae and of the additional notes which mark the family of B and O, and even where they mention the lacunae^ or mark them in the text, they do not state explicitly to what extent they have MS. support in doing so. Whatever opinion future editors of Isidore may form as to the respective merits of the two recensions of the Etymologiae, it will clearly be their duty to recognise the dis- tinction between them, and to ascertain, if possible, whether the lacunae are not filled up in one or other of the older MSS. From Otto's apparatus criiicus it seems that a few of them at least are filled up in one of the Toledo MSS. It would be rash to hazard an opinion as to the comparative merits of the readings respectively offered by the two recen- sions. In one case, however, it will probably be acknowledged that B and O are right as against R ; in 10. 188. The reading of R, nutritor quasi nutu eruditor (or eruditior)^ which is adopted and defended by Arevalo and Otto, seems clearly inferior to that of B and O, nutritor quasi nutri, eruditor, the meaning of which is that nutritor may either be a verb, the imperative of a deponent nutrior, or a substantive = eruditor. NEC TO, NEXUM -I, NEXUS -US. Necto, which does not appear in Greek, but to which Sanskrit offers a cognate in the base nah-, was an old Italian word for *to bind:' Festus, p. 165, nectere ligare significat ; and seems to have been in the old legal phraseology the equivalent of the 364 CRITICAL MISCELLANIES. later oUigare: Gloss. Hild. nedit ohligat^. Thus a debtor whose person was imprisoned or services exacted on account of his debt was nexus or bound: Varro, L. L. 7. 105, liber qui operas suas in servitutem pro pecunia quadam debebat, nexus vocatur, Cic. Rep. 2, § ^^^nectierque postea desiium : Livy, 2. 23. 1, nexos ob aes alienum i 8. 28. 2,se nexum alicui dare : so Val. Max. 6. I. 9. Justin, 21. i. 5, (Dionysius) nexorum tria milia car cere dimittit ; 21. 2. 2, career em nexis . . . rep/el. As applied to things, nec/o meant ' to put in pawn : ' Festus, p. 165, nexum aes dicebatur pecunia quae per nexum (from nexus "tis) obligatur :' Dig. 49. 14. 22. i, res neXas p^nori, for which a moment afterwards the expression res obligatas occurs. Nexum, as a substantive, means sometimes the thing pledged, sometimes the process of pledging. In the latter sense it should, m my opinion, be carefully distinguished on the one hand from nexus -us, which is a general word for any contract or obligation, and on the other hand from mancipium. Mancipium is a pro- cess of sale, nexum a process of pledging person or property as security for a debt. The nexum and mancipium were indeed sometimes confused by the Romans themselves, in consequence of the fact that in certain cases a nexum could be contracted per aes et libram, which was the regular proceeding in the case of a mancipium, and also because a mancipium or * sale ' might be accompanied or followed by a nexum in case of non-payment of the purchase-money. The confusion between nexum and mancipium is as old as the jurist Manilius : Varro, L. L. 7. 105, nexum Manilius scribit omne quod per aes et libram geritur, in quo sunt mancipia : Mucius, quae per aes et libram fiant ut obligentur, praeter quae mancipio dentur. Hoc verius esse ipsum verbum ostendit de quo quaerit : nam idem quod obligatur per libram nee suum fit, inde nexum dictum. That is, Varro agrees with Mucius Scaevola that the proper meaning of nexum is a thing which is (as it were) not its own master (^ec suum) ; and that nexum (as a process) always * Compare Festus, p. 190, obnectere, obligare, maximein nuptiis frequens est. CRITICAL MISCELLANIES. 365 implies an olligatio : when such obligatio takes place per aes et libram, then the aes et libra are employed to create a nexum, but not otherwise. This view is confirmed by Cicero (de Oratore, 3, § 159), who notes, as an instance of the improper or metaphorical employ- ment of language, the use of nexum as = quodcunque per aes et libram geritur. The confusion is made by Festus, p. 165, Miiller: nexum est, ui ait Gallus Aelius, quodcumque per aes et libram geritur, idque necti dicitur. Quo in genere sunt haec, iestamenti /actio, nexi datio, nexi liberatio. This note is so wanting in precision that it is impossible to suppose that it really represents what Verrius Flaccus wrote. How can it be sense to say quodcunque per aes et libram geritur, id . . . necti dicitur ? But the phrases nexi datio and nexi liberatio involve the important admission that nexum meant originally the thing pawned or pledged, not the process of pledging. Both the datio nexi (giving of a thing or person in pledge) and the liberatio nexi (freeing of the thing or person) could, as Festus says, be performed per aes et libram. The solutio or process of freeing the thing or person in pledge is described by Gains, 3. 173: est etiam alia species imaginariae solutionis., per aes et libram, quod et ipsum genus certis in causis receptum est, veluti si quid eo nomine debeatur quod per aes et libram gestum sit, sive quid ex iudicati causa debeatur. Adhibentur autem non minus quam quinque testes et libripens ; deinde is qui liber atur ita oportet loquatur, ' Quod ego tibi tot milibus eo nomine \yelui secundum] man\cipium sum damn\as, solvo liberoque hoc aere aheneaque libra hanc tibi libram primam postremamque secundum legem public am! Deinde asse percutit libram eumque dat ei a quo liberatur, velut solvendi causa. I suppose then the stages in the history of the meaning of nexum to have been as follows : It meant first a thing bound : then a thing put into another person's power, or pledged ; then (of money) a sum owed to another for a sum lent, and therefore (as it were) bound, but released when paid : then the process of pledging or mortgaging. 366 CRITICAL MISCELLANIES, In Cicero, de Oratore, i, § 173, nexorum, mancipiorum iura : Caec. § 102, horum nexa atque herediiates^ nexa may mean the property pledged or mortgaged : in Har. Resp. § 1 4, iure privato, I'ure hereditarw, iure auctorttatis, iure next: Rep. 2, § 59, omnia nexa civium liber ata^ nedierque posiea desitum, it means pledge or mortgage as a transaction. Comp. Livy, 2. 23, 8. 28. In Cicero, de Rep. 1.27, omnia non Quiritium sed sapientium iure pro suis vindicare, nee civili nexa (MS. sexo\ sed lege naturae , nexum is used in quite a general sense. Nexus -us is a general term for * bond,' ' contract,' ' obligation,' and may thus (if so be) include mancipium and nexum. Gloss. Amplon. p. 218, nexus obligatio, ohligatura. XII Tabb. 6. i (Bruns), cum nexum faciei mancipiumque, uti lingua nuncupasit^ ita ius esto (i.e. when he has made a contract and a sale, though nexum here has been taken as the neuter). Cic. Paradoxa, 5, § 35, non enim ita dicunt eos esse servos ut mancipia, quae sunt dominorum facta nexu aut aliquo iure civili: Top. § 28, traditio alter i nexu: Fam. 7. 30. 2, cuius quoniam proprium te esse sentis mancipio et nexu^ meum autem usu etfructu : Mur. § 3, in eis rebus repetendis quae mancipi sunt, is periculum iudicii praestare debet qui se nexu ohligavit : Livy, 7. 19. 5, sorte ipsa obruebantur nexumque inibant (entered into a contract or bond for the transference of their persons) : Dig. 10. 2. -^-^^ partem nexu pignoris liber am : 12. 6. 26. 7, ut venditorum nexu venditi liber aret (the contract of sale): 46. 4. i, acceptilatio et liber alio per mutuam interrogationem, qua utriusque contingit ab eodem nexu absolutio : Festus, p. 165, pecunia quae per nexum obligatur: Ti. Donatus, on Aen. 8. 74, solent quippe liber ari nexu qui semel promittunt et semel vota per solvunt : Isidore, 5. 7. i, nexus foederis faciendi. The sum of the above argument is that nexum -i, when it refers to a transaction or process, is, properly speaking, applied only to cases of pledge or mortgage : and that nexus -us, which in the accusative is liable to be confounded with nexum, is applicable to any bond or contract whatever. CRITICAL MISCELLANIES, 367 SECO = NARRO, The evidence for the existence of a verb seco or sequo = narro is contained in a note of Paulus, p. iii, inseque apud Ennium die, insexit dixerit ; in Gellius, 18. 9. 2 foil., where it is argued that insece, insecenda are the right forms, not inseque, insequenda : and in Placidus, p. 59. 16, insequis, narras, refers, sed inter dum pergis. A comparison of the last two notes makes it very prob- able that they, like that of Paulus, were derived from Verrius Flaccus. A gloss quoted by Loewe (Prodromus, p. 420), sequius sermo (of which more anon), may be explained by the notes above cited ; and perhaps the manuscripts of Plautus, Mil. Glor. 1220 (Ritschl), are right as against modern editions in giving sum secuta (I have spoken), not sum locuta. Before considering the question whether sec- = narrare is identical (as the ancient Roman scholars seem to have sup- posed) with sec- = sequi, I wish to call attention to a passage in the above-quoted chapter of Gellius, which I cannot but think has been misunderstood. To make the matter perfectly clear I will transcribe the whole (18. 9. 2 foil.). Part of it is un- fortunately mutilated : * Insecenda ' quidesset, quaeri coeptum. Turn ex his qui aderant, alter litteraior fuit, alter litter as sciens : id est alter docens, doctus alter. Hi duo inter se dissentiebant. Et grammaticus quidem contendebat ... * insequenda,' enim scribi inquit, debet, non * inse- cenda^ quoniam ' insequens ' significat . . . traditumque esse * inseque,' quasi ^perge dicere,' et ^ insequere ;' itaque ab Ennio scriptum in his versibus * Inseque, Musa, manu Romanorum induperator Quod quisque in bello gessit cum rege Philippo! Alter autem ille erudi- tior, nihil mendum, sed recte atque integre scriptum esse per sever abat, et Velio Longo, non homini indocto, fidem esse habendam, qui in commentario quod fecisset de usu antiquae lectionis scripserit non ' inseque ' apud Ennium legendum, sed ' insece ;' ideoque a veteribus^ quas * narrationes ' dicimus, ' insectiones ' esse appellatas ; Var- ronem quoque versum hunc Plauti de Menaechmis, ' nihilo minus esse videntur sectius quam somnia] sic enarrasse ; ^nihilo magis 368 CRITICAL MISCELLAXIES. narranda esse quam si ea essent somnia! Haec illi inter se certabant. Ego arhitror et a M. Catone ' insecenda ' el a Q, Ennio * insece ' scripium sine ' u' litter a. Offendi enim in hybliotheca Patrensi librum verae velustatis Livii Andronici, qui inscriptus esl'Odvacreca, in quo erat versus primus, cum hoc verbo, sine ' u ' littera, * Virum mihi^ Camena^ insece versutum^ /actus ex illo Homeri versu "Avbpa fioi evvene Movcra noXvTponov. Illi igitur aetatis et fidet magnae libro. credo. Nam quod in versu Plautino est ' sectius quam somnia * nihil in alteras partes argumenti habet. • Etiamsi veteres autem non ' inseque,' sed * insece ' dixerufit, credo quia erat lenius leviusque, tamen eiusdem sententiae verbum videtur. Nam et ' sequo ' {seco r) et ' sequor ' et item ' secta ' et ' sectio ' consuetudine loquendi differunt : sed qui penitus inspexerit^ origo et ratio utriusque una est. Doctores quoque et interpretes vocum Graecarum avhpa fxoi epuerrc Mova-a, et eanfrc vvv fxoi, Movaai, dictum putant quod Latine ' in- seque^ dicitur ; namque in alter o v geminum, in alter o or esse tralatum dicunt, Sed etiam ipsum illud lixr] quod significat verba aut versus, non aliunde esse dictum tradunt, quam ano tov eneaOai Kai TOV eiVeii'. Eadem ergo ratione antiqui nostri narrationes sermonesque ' insectiones ' appellitaverunt. I wish to call especial attention to the line from the Menaechmi (1047), which is thus given from the manuscripts by Ritschl: Haec nihilo esse mihi videntur sectius quam somnia. This line is usually quoted as giving an example of an adverb sectius = setius^ and translated 'these things seem to me nothing else than dreams.' It strikes one as odd that the singular sectius can thus be used for sectiora. But passing over jthis, there seems to be no evidence anywhere for the form sectius but this line : old inscriptions and good manuscripts agree in giving setius (not to be confounded with secus or sequius). The consideration, how- ever, which to my mind throws most suspicion on the form sectius is this : that Varro explained the line in question to mean haec nihilo magis narranda esse quam somnia. The word nar- randa can refer to no word in the line except the supposed CRITICAL MISCELLANIES. 369 sectius : for just below Gellius, in discussing the respective claims of insece and inseque, says : quod in versu Plautino est, ^ sec tills quam somnia,' nihil in alteras partes argumenti habet. What point can there be in this remark if sectius = setius ? The whole gist of the discussion is that insequo or inseco means narro, and insectio = narratio. I think it therefore almost certain that instead of sectius we should read sectio or sectio est. The line, according to Varro, should yield the sense nihilo magis narranda esse quam si ea essent som?iia. The manuscripts of Plautus give haec nihilo esse mihi videntur sectius quam somnia. May the line have run thus : haec nihilo est mage, ut videtur, sectio quam somnia? or haec nihilo mage, ut videtur, sectiost quam somnia.^ The construction nihilo mage sectio est haec quam somnia for haec nihilo magis secenda sunt quam somnia might be easily paralleled from Plautus, who uses verbals in -tio with a following accusative, as quae tibi hunc virum tactiost for cur hunc virum tangis.'^ The gloss sequius sermo may also easily, and without any vio- lence to the ductus litterarum, be corrected thus : sectio est sermo. Seco 'to say' ought however, to all appearance, to be dis- tinguished from SECO=SEQ[/OR. Nonius, p. 404, says secare sequi, unde et sectatores honor um sector es dicti sunt. Vergilius lib. 10 (107) '■quam quisque secat spem' Servius on the passage in question repeats this expla- nation, secat, sequitur, tenet, habet, ut (6. 900) ' Ille viam secat ad naves;' unde et sectas dicimus habitus animorum et instituta philosophiae circa disciplifiam. Comp. Isid. 19. 19. 8, sectio dicta a sequendo ea quae ceperil {cupiatT) nam secare sectari et sequi est. The glosses edited by Hildebrand give (p. 269) secat, meat, praecidit; and conversely (p. 206) meat, secat. The notes in Nonius and Servius, as is so often the case, have all the appearance of having been derived from a common source ; and if I am right in my reasoning in the essays intro- ductory to the fourth edition of Conington's Virgil (vol. i) this common authority is probably at least as old as the age of B b 370 CRITICAL MISCELLANIES. Trajan. Gellius, in the passage which we have been discussing, seems to imply that he knew, or thought he knew, of a word seco-=.sequor : but it is difficult to say whether he would have identified this with, or classed it as akin to, the secare = sequi of Nonius and Servius. However this may be, Verrius Flaccus undoubtedly connected sectio and sedores with sequor^ for Paulus, p. 33 7> says sectio per secuHo iuris ; sec tores et qui secant dicuntur et qui empta suapersequuntur. Comp. Pseudo-Ascon. Verr. i , § 6 1 , sedores autem dicti qui spent lucri sui secuti bona condemnatorum semel auctionabantur, proque his pecuniam pensitabant singulis. We may fairly assume, I think, that no Roman scholar would have supposed that sector and sectio were formally identical with secutor and secutio^ and we might therefore, even had there been no such notes in Nonius and Servius as we have quoted, have assumed that in their opinion these words come from a lost word seco=sequor. As it is, we have the testimony of Nonius and Servius to the actual existence of such a word, and the fact (which should not be lost sight of) that inseco or insequo was by some explained as =/^r^ /\ \^^ \^<^^ ■ "^..mii UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA UBRARY