''^ii 
 
 ON THEENCLITIC 7V£ IN tMEY LATIN 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 FOR THE 
 
 ACQUISITION OF THE DEGREE 
 
 OF 
 
 
 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 
 AT THE 
 
 KAISER-WILHELMS- UNIVERSITAT STRASSBURG 
 
 BY 
 
 MINTON WARREN 
 
 OF PROVIDENCE U. S. A. 
 
 BALTIMORE & STRASSBURG 
 1881. 
 
 • * 
 
 ■ -»■■• 
 
 /v,^^' }/^i 
 
[From the American Journal of Philology, Vol. 2, No. 5.] 
 
 ON THE ENCLITIC NE IN EARLY LATIN. 
 By Minton Warren. 
 
 Within the last twenty years much attention has been paid to 
 the peculiarities of early Latin. Striking deviations from the 
 usage of the classical period have been pointed out in the regimen 
 of verbs, in the signification and use of certain particles and con- 
 junctions, and in the principles governing the subordination of 
 clauses. A multitude of monographs have contributed valuable 
 material for the construction of an historical syntax. Not to speak 
 of others, Liibbert has traced the development of quom, Kienitz 
 of quin, and Becker, in Studemund's Studien Bd. I, has made a 
 most exhaustive study of the Syntax of Indirect Questions in 
 Early Latin. The enclitic ne, commonly known as the Inter- 
 rogative Particle, has not to my knowledge received a special 
 treatment in recent times. It occurs about i loo times in Plautus 
 and over 400 times in Terence. Hence a discussion of its use 
 which should aim in any sense to be exhaustive would far exceed 
 the limits of a journal article. I shall therefore in the following 
 pages content myself with the attempt to show that in the earliest 
 Latin the use of this particle was not confined to questions. I 
 shall then seek to establish a probability in favor of the existence 
 of two particles nc distinct in origin and signification. 
 
 I proceed at once to treat the passages where ne is found in the 
 MSS. with no interrogative force, for which reason the text has 
 in most cases suffered violence at the hands of the editors. 
 
 Mil. 309 (II 3, 38). The slave Sceledrus, on discovering that 
 Philocomasium has eluded his vigilance, gives utterance to his 
 agitation and alarm in the following words : 
 
 Edepol facinus fecit audax. Hocine si miles sciat 
 
 Credo hercle hasce aedi's sustollat tolas atque me in crucem. 
 
 Hocine BD, hoc me C In line 310 I follow Fleckeisen and Brix ; 
 see Tyrrell's ed. for MSS. readings. Parens keeps hocine and 
 
 ' Lorenz says, Philol. 32, p. 302, Auch C hat hoc ine welches Klotz sogar 
 vertheidigt. Bergk vermuthet hdce si mMs sciat. 
 
puts an exclamation point after sciat. Ritschl's change to hoc 
 nunc is adopted by Brix, Lorenz, Fleckeisen and Tyrrell. Fleck- 
 eisen however in Jahrb. 105, p. 71, proposes to read hoc enim. 
 Langen treating oi enim, in Beitrage zur Kritik und Erklarung des 
 Plautus, p. 270, gives hoc nunc the preference. Lest the position 
 of hercle, which usually follows si immediately (cf Epid. 326), 
 should excite suspicion, I call attention to J'ersa, 627 f. 
 
 Tu si banc emeris 
 Niimquatn hercle hunc mensem vortentem, credo, servibit tibi. 
 
 Epid. 73(1 I, 73): 
 
 Haecine ubi scibit senex 
 Piippis pereundast probe. 
 
 Hecine B, haeccine J, hec F, hecine E (cf. Goetz' ed. of Curculio 
 p. ix.) Muller, Plant. Pros. p. 732, proposes to emend by reading 
 haec hercle or haec hodie. Goetz is wisely conservative. Although 
 he makes no explanation, he evidently does not regard haecine 
 as introducing a question. Parens puts an interrogation point after 
 senex. 
 
 Mil. 565 (II 6, 82) : 
 
 Orationemque SC. Egone si post hiinc diem 
 Muttivero etiam quod egomet certo sciam 
 Dato excruciandum me : egomet me dedam tibi. 
 
 Although the Ambrosianus with BCD has egone, the editors with 
 one accord substitute ego nunc. So too Tyrrell, without even 
 mentioning in his critical apparatus the reading of the MSS. 
 And. 478 (III I, 20): 
 
 Hicine me si inparatum in veris nuptiis 
 Adortus esset, quos mihi ludos redderet ? 
 
 Hiccine BCD'G'P (^Hicine D^E, Hie G ex ras.) Some of the 
 codices of Donatus give Hie si me im.paratum, but the best codex, 
 the Parisinus, gives Hie m,e m,isi in parta, evidently a corruption 
 of hicine me si inparatum. Consequently any change here is 
 direcdy in the face of the best MS. authority. Bothe however 
 3oes not scruple to transpose me, and reads Hie iyiparatum me si. 
 Fleckeisen, Klotz, Meissner, and Umpfenbach follow him. Wagner 
 reads hie nunc me. Conradt, Metrische Composition der Como- 
 dien des Terenz, p. 117, reads Hie ne, "da die Fragepartikel 
 durchaus fortgeschafft werden muss." Spengel nevertheless in his 
 edition makes bold to retain hicine, citing for its support Mil. 309 
 
V' 
 
 and 565. His theory of explanation, however, involving as it 
 does an anacoluthon, I cannot in view of all the facts accept. It 
 does not fit all the other cases. 
 Mil. 936 (III 3, 62) : 
 
 Bene ambula, bene rem gere. At egone hoc si ecficiam plane 
 Ut concubinam militis meus hospes habeat hodie 
 Atque hinc Athenas avehat si hodie hiinc dolum dolamus 
 Quid tibi ego mittam muneris? 
 
 Egone B, egonec CD. Here metrical considerations forbid the 
 mere substitution of nunc for ne and the editors have been pushed 
 to other devices. Muller, Nachtrage zur Plaut. Pros. p. 82, 
 proposes ego hoc nunc si. Ritschl too by transposition inserts 
 his favorite nunc so as to read At ego nunc si ecficiam hoc plane. 
 So too Fleckeisen and Lorenz. Seyffert (Philol. xxix, p. 399) 
 finds nunc here " huchst matt und iiberfliissig," and looks upon ne 
 or nee as a mere dittograph of hoc. Brix approves of this view 
 and would have us read (with hiatus) at ego hoc si ecficiam plane , 
 which is simply a return to Bothe's reading (in my copy of 1821). 
 I wish to make it apparent how much trouble the editors have taken 
 to get rid of a simple ne, which, if a rational explanation can be 
 found for it, must after all be retained. I know of no better 
 parallel for this particular passage than is furnished by Poen. I 3, 
 18 (420 Geppert). To appreciate tlie scene, one must picture to 
 himself the youth Agorastocles quite overjoyed at the prospect of 
 outwitting a pimp and getting possession of the lovely Adelphasium. 
 Milphio, his slave and willing agent in the matter, has been too 
 often wheedled by fair promises to put faith in them any longer, 
 and hence, when his master begins a long-winded sentence promis- 
 ing him his freedom, he interrupts him at every turn, and bids him 
 go bring the witnesses. 
 
 AG. Egone edepol, si istuc lepide ecfexis. MI. I modo 
 AG. Ut non ego te hodie. MI. Abi modo. AG. Emittam manu 
 MI. I modo. AG. Non hercle merear pro hoc. MI. Abi, abi modo 
 AG. Quantum Acherunti est mortuorum. MI. Etiamne abis ? 
 AG. Neque quantum aquai in mari est. MI. Abiturunes? 
 
 The enigmatical character of the whole speech, which is too long 
 to quote entire, is shown by the words of Milphio as he goes off 
 in a rage, muttering : 
 
 Nam isti quidem hercle orationi est Oedipo 
 Opus coniectore. 
 
It has puzzled the editors as well. I have given the text of Geppert 
 except that I have omitted the interrogation point after manu. The 
 only emendation which specially concerns us here is that of egone 
 egoyie found in ABCD to egone edepol. This may have been 
 suggested to Geppert by Men. 1023 (1025 Bx), 
 
 Ergo edepol, si recte facias, ere, me[d]emittas manu. 
 
 Bothe omits one egone and makes no attempt to heal the halting 
 verse. Egone is most likely a dittograph, and edepol is on the whole 
 a probable substitution. If accepted, however, it precludes the 
 idea-of a question, since it is not employed either by Plautus or 
 Terence in interrogative sentences. Bothe in fact does not seem 
 to regard egone as introducing a question, but indicates by leaders 
 placed after manu that Agorastocles' speech is broken off. Parens 
 reads egone ? egone ! si, etc., but his commentary shows that he 
 caught the true sense of the passage. He interprets thus, " ego 
 profecto te manumittam si istuc feceris," and again, " non hercle 
 velim pro mercede mortuos omnes consequi, etc., ut non te mittam 
 manu si . . . effeceris." An exactly parallel use of ui non occurs 
 in Bacch. 11 84", 
 
 Quern quidem ego ut non [hodie] excruciem, altenim tantum non meream. 
 
 Hodie was added by Hermann. The MSS. have alterum 
 ianium auri, which Fleckeisen and Ussing keep, the latter 
 without inserting hodie'' (cf. also Stich. 24, Men. 218.) Both 
 in Mil. 936 and Poen. 420, egone must be retained, but not 
 as part of an interrogation. Agorastocles' words taken con- 
 nectedly give then the following sense or nonsense : " I in good 
 sooth, so you play cleverly your part, would not forego the giving 
 you this day your freedom, to earn as many as are the dead in 
 Acheron, nor yet as many as are the waters in the sea, nor as all 
 clouds that are, nor as the stars in heaven," etc. 
 
 The next example which I shall cite is very similar. Asin. 884 
 (V2,34): 
 
 PA. Aiidin quid ait? ART. Audio. DE. Egone ut non domo uxori meae 
 Siibrupiam in deHciis pallam quam habet atque ad te deferam 
 Non edepol condiici possum vita uxoris annua. 
 
 Fleckeisen and most editors put an interrogation point after 
 
 ' In Bursian's lahresbericht for 1881, Heft 3, p. 39, I find that Brachmann 
 follows Fleckeisen, but reads altrum. Perhaps we should read, Quern quidem 
 egone ut non e'xcruciem, altrum tdntutn auri non meream, cf. Haut. 950, Syrum 
 quidem egone, €te.7-see below 
 
deferam. The usual conditions under which the egone ut ques- 
 tions are employed by Plautus are not here fulfilled, as is clearly 
 admitted by Kraz (Stuttgart Program, 1862, p. 33), Ussing cites 
 the parallel passage Cas. 400*^*^- (11 8, 68) : 
 
 Tribus non conduci possum libertatibus 
 
 Quin ego illis hodie comparem magnum malum, 
 
 and reads Ego ne, but the ne is certainly enclitic. It seems to me 
 that there is no more interrogative force felt in ut iion than in 
 ^uin, although I admit that in an earlier period the construction 
 itself may have grown out of a paratactic question, as has been 
 proved for quin clauses. 
 
 In Haut. 950 (V i, 77) the Codex Bembinus reads : 
 
 Sed Syrum quidem egone si vivp adeo exornatiim dabo 
 Adeo depexum, ut dum vivat meminerit semper mei. 
 
 The MSS. of the Calliopian recension BCDEHGP have, accord- 
 ing to Umpfenbach, Sed Syrum MEN Q^iid eum ? CHR Egone ? 
 si vivo, except that G has ergo me. From personal examination, 
 however, I can state that Cod. Par. 7899, Umpfenbach's P, has no 
 interrogation point after egone, although it is commonly found in 
 P after questions. Cod. Par. 7900 A saec. X on the other hand 
 reads egone ? Nonius Marcellus cites the latter part of this verse 
 twice to illustrate Depexum and Exornare (cf. Quicherat's ed. pp. 
 7 and 336). The MSS. have egone. Quicherat inconsistently reads 
 ego nae in the first place and egone f in the second. Even as early 
 as the fourth century, however, the corruption of the text (which 
 was no doubt due to a misunderstanding of the use of egone) had 
 taken place. Donatus in his commentary on Adelph. Ill 3, 46 
 quotes thus, Sed Syrum ME. Quid eum. ? Bentley, without know- 
 ing the reading of the Bembinus, saw at once the impropriety of 
 keeping egone ? as a question. I give his comment somewhat 
 abridged. ^'^ Egone semper respondet verbo secundae personae ut 
 Phorm. I 2, 7. Sed quid tu es tristis ? Egone ? Huic igitur 
 loco non convenit. Repone Se'd Syrum.. Quid eum f Ego si vivo, 
 eum adeo exornatiim dabo.'' Fleckeisen discusses the passage 
 (Philol. II, p. 76, 1847) and proposes Sed Syrum M. Quid eum ? 
 CH. neego sivivo, etc. In his ed. of 1865, however (not, as it seems, 
 having ascertained the Bembine's reading), he gives, with hiatus, 
 Sed Syrum quidem ego si vivo, etc. Wagner, both in his German 
 and English edition of the play, adopts egomet, Klette's emenda- 
 
tion (Rhein. Mus. XIV, p. 467). Shuckburgh, the latest editor 
 (1878), who however has never heard of Umpfenbach's critical edi- 
 tion, follows Fleckeisen. For quidetn used before a conditional 
 clause, to make emphatic a preceding accusative, I need only to 
 refer to the passage cited above, Bacch. 1184, and And. 164, quern 
 quidem ego si seiisero. If MS. authority is to have any weight in 
 the passages above discussed, egone stands in need of no defence. 
 Its meaning may be illustrated by the early use of the asseverative 
 enim to emphasize a conditional statement, Persa 236, Enim non 
 ibis nunc vicissim nisi scio. Compare the similar use of the 
 stronger compound enim, vera, Phorm.937, Enimve'ro si porro esse 
 odiosi pc'rgitis . . where the threat is broken off by Demipho's 
 asking Quid fades ? 
 
 In seven of the examples already given it must have been 
 noticed that ne precedes a conditional clause. Hidden away amid 
 the critical apparatus of Terence I have found a tun which I think 
 may now claim admission to the text. 
 
 Adelph. 770 (V I, 8): 
 
 Tun si meus esses. . . SY. Di's quidem esses Demea 
 Ac tuam rem constabilisses. DE. exemplo omnibus 
 Curarem ut esses. 
 
 G alone has tu. Umpfenbach attributes the n of tun in P to a 
 second hand. I myself could see no trace of a correction, and 
 there is no crowding of the letters. As there is evidently no inter- 
 rogation here, the editors with one consent have eliminated the n. 
 The interrupted threat of Demea, to which Syrus gives so witty a 
 turn, is taken up again in the words exemplo omnibus. The 
 form tun shows convincingly what we might have inferred equally 
 well from the forms hicine, hocine, that the ne in these formulas is 
 enclitic and short, and therefore this ne is not to be identified with 
 the prepositive ne, as has sometimes happened in the passages 
 containing egone si. 
 
 The next example is of a somewhat different character. Pseud. 
 
 371(13,137): 
 
 Ecquid te pudet? 
 BAL. Ten amatorem esse inventum inanem quasi cassam nucem. 
 
 Ten is found only in the Ambrosianus, the other MSS. have te. 
 Ritschl in his edition writes ted to obviate hiatus, tacitly recognizing 
 the fact that the infinitive depends directly on pudet, and that there 
 is no room here either for a question or an indignant exclamation. 
 
In Neue Plaut. Excurse, Heft I, p. 44, he prefers to keep ten, 
 adding, " obgleich die Erklarung des Fragesatzes im dortigen 
 Zusammenhange nicht ganz einfach ist." Bergk, in his treatise on 
 Auslautendes D im alten Latein, p. 53, remarks, " Ich wUnschte 
 R. hatte diese Erklarung gegeben ; denn mir erscheint das fragende 
 ne dort ganz unstatthaft." He calls attention too to the fragment 
 of Ennius quoted by Cic. de Div. I 31, 66 : 
 
 Hoc dolet 
 Men obesse, illos prodesse, me obstare, illos obsequi. 
 
 where AV have men, which Ribbeck retains, Trag. Frag. p. 21. 
 Bergk's own suggestion that the n is either a phonetic affix to 
 prevent hiatus or a relic of the old accusative ending m, hardly 
 deserves serious consideration. Fleckeisen keeps tene as question, 
 Brix in Jahn's Jahrb. 115, p. 331, discusses the passage at length, 
 giving as the proper reading for verse 370 : 
 
 Niimquid aliud etiam voltis dicere? CAL. Ecquid te pudet? 
 
 He too reads ten t.X.c., as a sort of jeering retort made by the leno 
 in the form of a question dependent in thought xx^on pudet. If we 
 compare however passages like Adelph. 432 Numquid vis ? DE. 
 Mentem vdbis meliorem dari, and Mil. 617 f. : 
 
 PE. Quid id est quod cruciat ? cedo. 
 PL. Me tibi istuc aetatis homini facinora puerilia 
 Obicere, etc. 
 
 I think it will be admitted that a direct statement dependent 
 on pudet understood is much more natural. Ten has the 
 force of te enim or te vero, only somewhat weaker. This is made 
 clear by two analogous passages, Capt. 566"'' (III 4, 36) : 
 
 Tu enim repertu's, Phi'locratem qui superes veriverbio. 
 
 and Pseud. 631" (II 2, 36) : 
 
 Vae tibi : tu inventus vero, meam qui furcilles fidem. 
 
 In dependent statement tu enim repertus might have been expressed 
 by Plautus thus, ten esse repertum. Lorenz, although he reads 
 Pseud. 359 (=371'') ted esse inventum, translates "Ja daruber 
 dass du," and this ja gives the sense of ne or enim. In Pseud. 
 631, Plautus may have written Vde tibi : tiin inventus vero, which 
 would relieve us of the necessity of either admitting hiatus after 1u 
 or scanning tibi. The n would fall out very easily before inventjis, 
 as it has in Pseud. 371 in all the MSS. except A. With the verbs 
 
invenio and reperio the use of some affirmative particle may have 
 been especially common. Another instance is furnished by Eun. 
 
 930 (V 4, 8) : 
 
 turn hoc alterum, 
 Id verost quod ego mihi puto palmarium 
 Men repperisse, quo mode adulescentulus 
 Meretncum ingenia et mores posset noscere, etc. 
 
 A has MEN at first hand, but some late scribe has struck out the 
 N. The Vaticanus also has men. The editors read me, but Ttien 
 must be kept, I think, as another instance of survival. Lest I may 
 seem over-hasty in claiming for ne the force of enim, I wish to call 
 in here the evidence of an old glossary. On p. 52 of Codex Par. 
 7610 (saec. XIII) 2d part, at the close of quite a long article on 
 ne, I found these words : '■'Ne adverbium corripitur scilicet pro 
 enim vel pro nonne hoc est interrogativum vel affirmativum. 
 Dehortativum vero producitur et conjunctio similiter." (Exactly 
 the same words may be read in Cod. Par. 761 1 (saec. XIII) p. 105, 
 and Cod. Par. 7612 (saec. XIV) p. 115.) The testimony is une- 
 quivocal. I wish I might trace it back to its first source. I could 
 show, if space permitted, that much of the article on ne coincides 
 in phraseology with Priscian, and represents good grammatical tra- 
 dition ; but I have searched through Keil's edition of the Grammatici 
 Latini in vain for any coupling of enim and nonne to explain 
 different sides of 7ic. In the light of this gloss it is interesting to 
 recall Fleckeisen's emendation of hocine to hoc enim. in Mil. 309, 
 and Langen's proposal to substitute w«2/i/«^ .^ for mihi enim. f in 
 Casina II 6, 14 (cf Ceitrage p. 267.) Seyffert too would substi- 
 tute in Rud. 1003 Ita?ie vero ? for Ita enim vero ? which does not 
 occur elsewhere. In my judgment we must also recognize the 
 enclitic nc in the following passage. Cure. 138 ff. (I 2, 47) : 
 
 Tu me curato ne sitiam: ego tibi quod amas iam hue adducam. 
 Phaed. Tibine ego, si fidem servas mecum vineam pro aurea statua statuam, 
 Quae tuo gutturi sit monimentum. 
 
 Tibi ne ego, BEJF. To the separation of tibi and ne in the MSS. no 
 great importance can be attached. It often occurs where the ne 
 stands in a question, cf Cure. 419 tu ne in B, 82 ei ne BE. 
 M filler, Plaut. Pros. p. 405, reads with transposition, ne ego tibi, 
 etc. Fleckeisen (cf Philologus II, p. 107) omitting tibi reads ne 
 ego, si Jide'm \ttc\ mecjim servas aured pro statua. Mahler, in his 
 dissertation De Pronominum Personalium apud Plautum collo- 
 
catione, has shown that ego tibi is the normal position unless 
 special emphasis is to be given the pronoun of the second 
 person. Here tibi is emphatic, and the ne belongs more properly 
 to it than to ego. If ego were emphatic and ne the asseverative 
 particle of which Fleckeisen treats, we should expect this order, ne 
 ego tibi. There is no certain proof, as we shall see later, that 7ie 
 is found postpositive with pronouns. The reading tibine is still 
 further supported by the fact that a conditional clause si Jidem 
 servas follows ; but even without this it might be defended by the 
 following remarkable passage, where ne, undoubtedly enclitic, 
 occurs and is retained by the latest editor, Goetz, Epid. 541 (IV i, 
 
 14): 
 
 Plane hicinest is, qui in Epidauro primus pudicitiarn mihi pepulit. 
 
 The MSS. have hicine or hiccine ; is has been added by Goetz. 
 Camerarius emends to hie ille est. Prof. Studemund has been 
 kind enough to furnish me with his own reading of the Ambro- 
 sianus, which, as it differs somewhat from that of Loewe, I will here 
 give. The verse is divided up between two lines. At the end of 
 the first LANE Kic . . . s . can be deciphered with space enough 
 for HICINEST. In the second line, after a brief space, inepidauro 
 
 VIRGINI PRIMUS PUDI . . . lAM PE . . ULIT. PepuHt waS 
 
 probably miswritten/>^;^M/zy. '^\\k\ex primiis , which is found in the 
 other MSS. also, or virgini, must be due to a gloss. I prefer to 
 keep />rmwj' and to regard 540 and 541 as anapaestic septenarii. 
 
 540. Certo east, quam in Epidauro memini me pauperculam conprimere. 
 Phil. Plane hicinest qui mihi in Epidauro primus pudicitiarn pepulit. 
 
 The parallelism between these two emphatic statements will be 
 perceived at once. There is not a shadow of a question present. 
 The hicine is simply a stronger hie, if you choose hie enini or hie 
 vero. 
 
 Other corresponding cases of hicine I confess I have not found. 
 The usage must have been obsolescent even in the time of Plautus. 
 Later recensions may have removed the few cases of its occurrence, 
 and substituted other expressions in their place. Geppert, so far , 
 as I know, is the only modern editor who for the sake of the verse 
 has inserted ne where there is no interrogation. I am unable to 
 learn, from the books at my command, that he has anywhere 
 explained the usage, or supported it by such examples based on 
 MS. authority as I have given. For the sake of completeness I 
 
lO 
 
 give the passages which in a note on Trin. 589 (see his ed. p. 163) 
 he has thus emended: Pseud. 348 huncine, 410 hucine, 954 illici- 
 nest, 1 175 hicine ;, Rud. 778 huncine, 1357 illicine ; Stich. 435 
 huncine ; Trin. 590 istucine. 
 
 I cannot undertake to discuss these passages here. It is no part 
 of my present purpose to bring forward the letter w as a rival of 
 the ablatival d with which some editors have so liberally be- 
 sprinkled the text of the early poets. I shall be satisfied if I 
 succeed in shielding it in the passages where it does occur. To 
 do this more effectually, I propose to show that an enclitic ne with 
 affirmative force is recognized by the ancient grammarians, as may 
 be proved from their works and from glossaries founded upon 
 ancient sources. I have already given one such proof above. 
 
 Priscian (Keil II, p. loi) says : " Dubitativae sunt, quae dubit- 
 ationem significant, ut an, ne correpta, necyie ... (I omit the 
 examples) frequentissime tamen eaedem interrogativae sunt, ut 
 Virgilius in III' Aeneidos : Hec torts Andromache Pyrrhin' con- 
 ubia servas ? Idem in X :^ tanton' me crimine dignum ? Haec 
 eadem invenitur et pro confirmativa ut Horatius in IP sermonum : 
 
 Clarus erit, fortis, iustus, sapiensne etiam et rex. 
 
 Idem in I : ^ 
 
 O seri studiorum, quine putetis 
 Difficile et mirum Rhodio quod Pitholeonti 
 Contigit. 
 
 Terentius in Andria : * 
 
 Nuncine demum istud verbum in te incidit. 
 
 Hie enim ne conjunctio nee interrogativa, nee dubitativa, sed con- 
 firmativa est. Virgilius in X : " 
 
 Tantane me tenuit vivendi, nate, voluptas 
 Ut pro me hostili paterer succumbere dextra? 
 
 Est enim pro etiam.'" 
 
 It will be noticed that in all these passages it is the enclitic 7ie of 
 which Priscian is treating, and not the asseverative ne to which 
 (Keil II, p. 479) he assigns the meaning -o -(hu and the circumflex 
 accent. Priscian's use of the terms affirmativa and conjirmativa 
 
 1 Aen. Ill 319. i* Aen. X 668. 
 
 3 Hor. Sal. II 3, 97. * Hor. Sat. I 10, 21. 
 
 *Cf. And. V 3, II and 14, and IV I, 59. * Aen. X 846. 
 
II 
 
 may be better understood by reference to the following passages, 
 Keil II, pp. 85, 103, 156, 243, 253, 287, 337, et al. He includes 
 under them the Greek '^ and the Latin nam, enim, ergo, etiam, 
 in particular phases of their use ; e. g. for enim in affirmative sense 
 he very properly cites (Keil II, p. 104) Adelph. II i, 14 enim non 
 sinam.. As confirm.ativa he also enumerates (II, p. 85) profecto, 
 scilicet, quippe, videlicet and nempe. Now nempe is one of those 
 particles in the pronunciation of which the nicest discrimination is 
 required to settle upon the proper voice-inflection, and we get no 
 comfort here from the editors. The very passage cited by 
 Priscian from Persius to illustrate the affirmative sense of nempe, 
 namely Sat. Ill i, nempe haec assidue, is given by Jahn and 
 Duebner with a question mark, by Hart with an exclamation point, 
 by Gildersleeve, Pretor and Heinrich with a colon. The scholiast 
 too regards it as a question and attaches to nempe the sense of 
 num,quid non. Acron in his commentary on Horace, Sat. I 10, i, 
 says : " Nempe aut interrogantis aut confirmantis." In Trin. 427. 
 (II 4.25): 
 
 LE. Nempe quas spopondi. ST. immo ' quas despondi' inquito. 
 
 Parens, Ritschl, and Wagner have a period after spopondi ; 
 Fleckeisen, Geppert and Brix a question mark. Riley trans- 
 lates "These, I suppose that I was security for?" Bonnel 
 Thornton renders very briefly " I engaged for." Shall we then 
 cry out that Parens, Ritschl, Wagner and Thornton are perfect 
 dolts because they did not see, what ought to have been as plain 
 as day, that nempe quas spopondi is a question ? or shall we call 
 Brix an ignoramus because he did not divine that a Roman spend- 
 thrift would certainly have dropped his voice before he reached 
 that melancholy word spopondi? Yet Hand's treatment of 
 Priscian is not more fair when he says, Tursellinus, vol. IV, p. 73, 
 " Nemo vero incautius in hac re versatus est quam Priscianus. 
 Nam postquam exposuerat ne et dubitationem significare et in 
 interrogatione poni, loquitur de vi confirmativa, collatis exemplis 
 prorsus alienis et male expositis ita, ut ad extremum addat : est 
 enim pro etiam.." Let us look at these ' exempla prorsus aliena ' 
 a little more closely. It is well to premise that when Priscian calls 
 ne a dubitative particle he does not deny that lustitiaene prius 
 mirer belline laborum ? is a question, and when he speaks of ne 
 as confirmative, he refers to the intrinsic value of the particle, and 
 to the peculiar coloring which it gives to any utterance, and he is 
 
12 
 
 not at pains to tell us what inflection we are to give the voice. He 
 leaves it free to the scholiast of Persius to decide that nempe is a 
 question, but he has felt nevertheless the true force oi nempe. The 
 Vergil passage beginning tantane, speaks for itself. It is a 
 question and Priscian recognized it as such, and yet he interprets 
 ne by etiam, which he elsewhere styles confirmative. So sapiensne, 
 if I mistake not, would mean for Romans ' wise forsooth,' and 
 might be so pronounced as to convey to one person the feeling of 
 questioning doubt, to another of ironical assurance. Acron says of 
 it, "Aut interrogatio audientis aut dicentis dubitatio." To my 
 mind ne has quite the force of nempe in Hor. Ep. I i6, 31 : 
 
 ' nempe 
 Vir bonus et prudens dici delector ego ac tu.' 
 
 An instructive Plautine parallel for quine is found in Epid. 449 
 
 (1114,13): 
 
 Ego sum si quid vis. MIL. Nempe quem in adulescentia 
 Memorant apud rages armis, arte duellica 
 Divitias magnas indeptum ? 
 
 Here of course the relative clause is not one of characteristic re- 
 quiring the subjunctive, but this does not aflect the force of 
 nempe. Acidalius changes for metrical reasons nempe quem to 
 quemne, in which he is followed by Goetz. We shall see later on 
 that Scaliger identifies this ne oi quemjie with the ne of /««^ (com- 
 monly written tu ne), which every one admits to be affirmative. 
 Porphyrion moreover says, " ne adjectum, ut egone, hine ; abundat 
 ne syllaba." Acron quotes Priscian, but is evidently in the same 
 confusion in which most of the modern editors are. For the 
 very latest theory on this subject see Keller, Epilegomena 
 zu Horaz, p. 507,' where quine is said to be the fuller form for quin 
 and qui a modal-instrumental. Does Keller mean to assign to 
 quine the force of ' how not'? Really the most sensible comment 
 which I have found is that of Cruquius. " Videtur autem mihi," 
 he says, " esse Atticism us pro "? yz '' qui utique, qui certe, nam ea 
 
 ' " Dieses quine ist, was bis jetzt noch Niemand beachtet zu haben scheint, die 
 vollere Form fiir quin, nichts anderes ; und qui ist somit nicht eigentlich der 
 Nominativ, sondern der Instrumental-Modalis." 
 
 - Cf. Lucian Charon 24 : 
 
 '0 rfjc avolag, 61 ye ovk laaatv — 
 and Ovid Fast. II 45 : 
 
 A ! nimium faciles qui tristia crimina caedis 
 Fluminea tolli posse putetis aqua! 
 
^3 
 
 particula ye familiaris est Demostheni in ea significatione." Not 
 that I admit any influence of Atticism. But it maybe claimed that 
 at least in the Terence passage Priscian has most wofully blundered. 
 His memory has indeed played him false, for he has mixed up 
 three passages in one, but his interpretation is sound. No one will 
 fail to be convinced of this who shall compare And. 683, 
 
 Nihil ad te, DA. Quaere. PA. Em, ntincin demum ? DA. At iam hoc tibi 
 inventum dabo, 
 
 with Cas. 421 (III I, II), 
 
 Meminero ST. Em ! nunc Mint te demum nullum scitum scitiust. 
 
 The ne in itself is as much affirmative in the one case as e7iim in 
 the other. Here too we have an excellent illustration of the near- 
 ness of ne to enim, and the real worth of the gloss already given. 
 And this brings me to the consideration of other glosses. Although 
 Ritschl, Loewe and others have abundantly shown how much light 
 may be shed on the signification of a word by a neglected gloss, as 
 yet only a beginning has been made in the utilization of the riches 
 which the old glossaries contain. It is to be hoped that before 
 many years Loewe, whose admirable design is set forth in the 
 Prodromus Corporis Glossariorum Latinorum (Leipzig, 1876), 
 will provide us with the material. I have been able to examine for 
 my special purpose most of the important glossaries to be found in 
 the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, and in the Libraries of Berne 
 and St. Gall. For the sake of convenience I will here name the 
 principal of these. Foremost of all is the famous Liber Glossarum 
 Cod. Sangermanensis 12, 13, Parisinus 11529 and 11530 (cf. Loewe 
 in Prod. p. 225, Wilmanns in Rhein. Mus. XXIV, p. 367, and 
 Usener in same vol. p. 387). For some reason Prinz, who supplied 
 Wilmanns with data in regard to this glossary, mentions only the 
 early part of it as in existence. The glossary does not, however, 
 as he states, close with E ; the second tome, containing the letters 
 F-Z, being designated by the catalogue number 11530. It con- 
 tains 246 leaves, on the first of which is written, Antiqui glossarii 
 pars secunda S. Germ. lat. 12, 2. The whole work is thus desig- 
 nated in the catalogue, " Glossarium antiquissimum Ansileubi 
 putatur." Usener, whose patience in such investigation is well 
 known, could get no definite information in regard to this worthy 
 bishop. The codex belongs to the eighth century. I shall refer 
 to it as A. 
 
Cod. Bernensis i6, saec. IX = 
 
 258 
 
 IX = b 
 
 li 
 
 
 224 
 
 (< 
 
 X = c 
 
 a 
 
 A 
 
 ,92,1 
 
 (t 
 
 IX = d 
 
 Parisin 
 
 us 
 
 7640 
 
 (( 
 
 X=e 
 
 (( 
 
 
 7641 
 
 (1 
 
 X=f 
 
 i( 
 
 
 7642 
 
 (( 
 
 Xl=.g 
 
 ** 
 
 
 7643 
 
 <l 
 
 XI = h 
 
 M 
 
 
 7644 
 7610 
 
 (4 
 
 xin = i 
 xni = k 
 
 (I 
 
 
 761 1 
 7612 
 
 it 
 
 XIII =/ 
 
 XIV = m 
 
 t( 
 
 
 7680 
 
 (( 
 
 IX-X = «, 
 
 tl 
 
 
 7690 
 
 (t 
 
 IX =0, 
 
 14 
 
 a, is a copy of the Liber Glossarum, con- 
 taining the letters A-E. 
 belong to the so-called affatim glossaries 
 described by Loewe, Prod. p. no f. 
 
 ^} 
 
 " Sangallensis 907 " VIII : 
 
 908 "VI-VIII: 
 
 912 " VIII: 
 
 238 " VIII : 
 
 cf. Loewe, Prod. p. 229. 
 
 n, Abavus Glossary, cf. Prod. p. 103. 
 
 o, has three separate vocabularies, cf. Prod. 
 
 p. 88. 
 / 
 1 
 r. cf. Prod. p. 139. 
 
 Of printed glossaries I have consulted Glossarium Lat. Bibliothecae 
 Par. antiquissimum saec. IX. (ed. Hildebrand, Goettingen 1854) = 
 H ; Luctatii Placidi Glossae (ed. Deuerling, Leipzig 1875) = P ; and 
 the glossary appended to De Vit's ed. of Forcellini's Latin Diction- 
 ary. Finally, through the kindness of Prof. Studemund of Strassburg 
 I have had access to one of the rarest of incunabula, namely, ' Salo- 
 monis ecclesiae Constantiensis epi glosse ' described by Usener 
 Rhein. Mus. XXIV, p. 389 = S. 
 
 I shall give first the glosses in which jie is interpreted by ergo. 
 
 egone : ego ergo. A a g h s c n. 
 
 egone : ego ergo vel numquid ego propterea. 
 
 egotie : ego ergo an ego. i. 
 
 egone : ego ergo numquid ego. n. 
 
 he cine : ista, hec ergo. A k 1 m g h i. 
 
 hocine : hoc ergo. q. 
 
 huncine : hunc ergo. q. 
 
 Placidi. Istamcine (sic) .• stam ergo. A P. 
 
 Istancine : istam ergo an iste. k 1. 
 
 istacine : ista ergo. i. 
 
 istanccine : ista ergo ? an istam. i^. 
 
 De Glos. mene : me ergo. A d h i q s. 
 
 mene : vero pro anme vel me ergo. kl. 
 
 eS. 
 
m. 
 
 15 
 
 mene : vera pro amne vel me ergo. 
 
 nonne : non ergo, q s. 
 
 ne : ergo, s c. 
 
 nullane : ergo nulla. A. 
 
 satin : satis ergo. A h i. 
 
 tantane : tanta ergo. A h i n q. 
 
 tune : tu ergo, b n c. 
 
 tune : nunc tu vel vero, tu ergo. e. 
 
 It has thus been shown that in glossaries of widely different 
 character and origin ergo is a very common interpretation of ne. 
 But some of these glossaries are themselves as old as the VIII 
 century. The sources must lie much further back. As we have 
 seen, the gloss istamcine : stam ergo is due to Placidus and prob- 
 ably referred to a passage from Plautus, although this form does 
 not occur in the extant plays. On the other hand the gloss me7i'e : 
 me ergo, which in the Liber Glossarum is preceded by the yiota 
 ' De Glos.', is probably due to some early commentator on Vergil, as 
 also the gloss tantane : tanta ergo. Probus in discussing the use 
 of ne (Keil IV, p. 145) quotes Verg. Aen. i, 37, mene incepto 
 desistere victam? and Aen. i, 132, tantane vos generis tenuit fidu- 
 cia vestri? which afterwards became stock illustrations of the 
 grammarians. Now in his comment on the first passage Servius 
 says, " mene, ne non vacat, significat enim ergo et est conjunctio 
 rationalis, et mene sic habet emphasim ut Ast ego quae divum 
 incedo regina.'^ Very like this is his comment on Verg. Bucol. 
 3, 21, "An mihi cantando victus non redderet ille. An pro ergo 
 ut Cominianus dicit." It is remarkable that Charisius (Keil I, 
 p. 229), commenting on the force of an, in the same passage says, 
 " Sed Marcius Salutaris vir perfectissimus pro ergo rectius sensit." 
 The inference then is perhaps not unfair that Servius borrowed from 
 Cominianus, and Cominianus from Marcius Salutaris, who probably 
 flourished early in the fourth century. He in turn may have 
 borrowed it from some earlier grammarian. As the explana- 
 tion of ne in mene by ergo became traditional doctrine, it need 
 excite no wonder that the gloss was extended to numerous other 
 cases, and thus found its way at last into the glossaries. It must be 
 conceded then that the gloss itself may lay claim to a very 
 respectable antiquity, that it antedates the Bembinus of Terence 
 and the Ambrosianus of Plautus, as well as Donatus. There would 
 seem to be no good reason why we should deny an equally early 
 
lb 
 
 origin to the interpretation of ne by vero found quite as frequently 
 in the same glossaries, as will be seen from the following exhibit : 
 
 anne : an vero. A i.' 
 
 anne: nonne an vero adverbiunt inter rogandi. gm. 
 
 hicine : hie vero. A, corrupted in h into hiccine : hie virgo. 
 
 hicine : ex ea re. A. 
 
 hiccine pro hicne, hiccine, hie vero ex ea re. i k 1 m. 
 
 De Glos. Hoc : istud. A. 
 
 Hocine : ocvero (sic). A. 
 
 hoc: istud vel tale) , , , • 
 
 ;- kimghcio. 
 hoccine : hoc vero ) 
 
 hoccine :■ hoc vero vel hoc usque hoc putas. ne S. 
 
 hocine : hoc verum. r. 
 
 hacine : hac ergo 1 • c u- 1 
 
 hanci?ie : istam vero J 
 
 hoscine : hos vero. q 1 k m i o n. 
 
 haecifie : ita vero. p r. 
 
 V\Yg\]\ hiincine — histum vero. Ai. 
 
 hunecine (sic) : istH vero an hunc. k. 
 
 hunccine : istutn vero an hunc. q h i 1. 
 
 itane : ita vero. A q S. 
 
 De Glos. itane : ita vero. i. 
 
 itane : putas sic, ita ergo vero \ c 
 
 itine : ita vero ) 
 
 mene : vero pro anme vel me ergo. 1 m. 
 
 tune : nunc tu vel vero tu ergo. e. 
 
 Compare with these H, p. 159, haec inde : haec vero, haecvero : 
 haec inde ; p. 162, hiscinet : ipsius autem, hoccine: hoc vero ; 
 p. 163, hoscine : hos vero ; p. 186, ita vero : itinestet, itine : ita vero. 
 Finally in i I have found siccine : sic etiam. That these glosses 
 go back to an ancient source may, I think, be made clear by the 
 following considerations: (i) The orthography itself of the Liber 
 Glossarum points to a good source, for it is better than that which 
 Priscian lays down as correct. He teaches (Keil I, p. 592), " Ce 
 quoque solebant per omnes casus vetustissimi addere articularibus 
 vel demonstrativis pronominibus, hoc est ab aspiratione incipienti- 
 bus, ut hicce, huiusce, haecce, hocce unde hoc quasi duabus conso- 
 
 ' This gloss may throw some light on Phorm. 175 where Dziatzko reads 
 earn anne for the unintelligible amare of the MSS., and Eugraphius has an vero, 
 which may be due to a gloss. 
 
17 
 
 nantibus sequentibus solent poetae producere — et sic in antiquis- 
 simis codicibus invenitur bis c scriptum, quomodo est apud Teren- 
 tium in Andria : Hoccine est credibile aut memorabile ? " 
 
 Now of what date Priscian's ' codices antiquissimi ' were we do 
 not know. We see, however, that the false orthography with two 
 ^'s came in quite early. It is found in all the later MSS. of Plautus 
 and Terence. Cf Bacch. 1090, hoccine BCD; Haut. 203, 
 hunc cine D ; hunccine EF ; And. 236, hoccine BCEGP. The 
 Liber Glossarum agrees with the Bembinus and the Ambrosianus 
 in having but one c, while the later glossaries have commonly 
 two. (2) It has been shown by Usener (Rhein.. Mus. XXIV, 
 p. 383) that the nota ' Virgili ' which is prefixed in A to 
 the gloss huncine : hisium vera indicates that the gloss was 
 drawn either from a glossary to Vergil, or from a glossed MS. of 
 Vergil based upon the commentary of Aelius Donatus. The nota 
 ' De Glos.' prefixed in i to itarie : ita vero also indicates a 
 good source, and this with the fact that the same gloss occurs in 
 the Liber Glossarum compels me to reject Loewe's hypothesis 
 (Prodromus, p. 347) that the glosses staec : ita vero and itine : ita 
 vero are only corruptions of a fuller gloss itane vero : itine stec. 
 (3) The gloss hoc : istud which precedes in A hocine : oc vero, and 
 which also has on the margin the nota ' De Glos.' takes in several 
 other MSS. the form hoc : istud vel tale. The explanation by 
 means oi talis is found several times in Servius, cf. Aen. IX 481, I 
 253, and IV 237. So too Donatus to Hec. I i, 3 remarks, Hiscine 
 \E f) (1) rri (T.i q id est talibus. It would seem then to be no unfair 
 conclusion that the tradition of these glosses reaches back to the 
 fourth century of our era. It may possibly go even further back. 
 The gloss hocine : hoc vero vel hoc usque, which indicates clearly 
 the intensive force of hocine, may well be compared with this gloss 
 from Festus (Miiller, p. 358-9), " Tamne : eo usque, ut Aelius Stilo 
 et Opilius Aurelius interpretantur. Itaque Afranius : ' Tamne 
 arcula tua plena est aranearum,' " which Paulus gives thus, " Tanne : 
 eo usque, Afranius ' Tanne arcula tua plena est aranearum ' " (cf. 
 Ribbeck Com. Frag. p. 217). The spelling tanne is phonetic, as 
 Miiller remarks, pointing to Cicero's well-known statement that 
 cumnobis was pronounced cunnobis. Tamne was probably of rare 
 occurrence as compared with sicine or itane. It is not found in 
 Terence. Our Plautine texts give it twice, Merc. 172, where the MSS. 
 have Tandem, and Mil. 628 where B has tam me, the rest tamine. 
 Better vouchers than Varro's teacher and than Opilius (or Opillius), 
 whom Varro often follows, we could hardly desire. 
 
i8 
 
 Now nothing compels the conclusion that in the first instance all 
 these glosses were made to explain ne used in interrogative 
 sentences. We have seen that Plautus and Terence use Hocine si, 
 Egone si, Hicine si, Tun si, etc. I have looked in vain in Plautus 
 for an example of ego vero si or hoc vero si, or in fact of any 
 pronoun thus strengthened by vero before a conditional clause. 
 Cicero however does employ vero in this way. Compare e. g. 
 Somn. Scip. VIII i, ego vero, siquidem — patet, enitar ; De Domo 
 47, 122, ego vero si — dicer em — defenderem ; Cat. II v, Hunc 
 vero si secuti erunt stii comites, where vero is something more than 
 but. Cicero aiso uses hie vero in questions ; e. g. De Domo 38, 
 102, Hanc vero, pontifices, lab em turpitudinis et inconstantiae 
 poterit pop2ili Romatii dignitas sustinere f Plautus never uses 
 hie vero in this way. What more natural then than for an acute 
 observer, noticing the difference between the usage of Plautus and 
 later writers in this respect, to explain ne by vero f A passage in 
 Terence where the MSS. have hie vero preceding a conditional 
 clause, here challenges our attention. Eun. 299 ff. (II 3, 8) : 
 
 * Hie vero est qui si occeperit 
 
 Ludum iocumque dicet fuisse ilhim alterum, | praeut hiiius 
 Rabies quae dabit. 
 
 So reads the Bembinus. Instead of dicet BCDEGP have dices, 
 and in v. 299 aniare after occeperit. Modern editors following 
 Bentley begin v. 301 with praeut huius. Priscian (Keil II, p. 50) 
 quotes the passage in illustration of the use of praeut, giving dices 
 the reading of the Calliopian recension, but not amare, although 
 on Lindemann's evidence a Heidelberg codex has qui sic amare 
 occeperit. Arusianus quotes with dicet. Wagner remarks on 
 the difficulty of the passage and complains of previous editors for 
 passing over it sicco pede. Hie and qui must of course refer to the 
 youth Chaerea, whereas dicet if retained must have for its subject 
 senex. This sudden change of subject may account for the 
 confusion of Donatus, if we are to credit him with the following 
 remark, " Hie vero est : Utrum senex an Chaerea ? sed senex 
 potius/" and again, " //ic vero est: Senex (which is of course 
 false) Qui, scilicet Chaerea." Compare with this Eugraphius' more 
 intelligent explanation, " Hie adulescens, si amare coeperit, fratrem 
 eius Phaedriam dices ludum et iocum- fuisse, hoc est, non amasse." 
 In his Comment, on Eun. II 3, 56 Donatus cites the line loosely 
 thus, O infortunatum senem, si et hie amare coeperit. Bentley 
 says of dicet, "eo ipso ineptum est, quod quivis aliquis aeque 
 dixerit. Repone dicas.'' Dices if used of a definite person would 
 
19 
 
 be supported by Eun. 567, Primam dices, scio, si videris. For 
 amare occepit compare Adelph. 327, Eun. 568, Phorm. 82. 
 
 In view of passages already discussed it must be admitted that 
 Terence might have written Hicine si amare occc'perit, etc. Did 
 he, for the sake of being better understood by the coming 
 generations, avoid an obsolescent usage, and for the sake of greater 
 emphasis employ a rather awkward circumlocution the like of 
 which does not occur in Plautus ? — hie veto est qui si. As con- 
 servative critics we may not lay ruthless hands upon the manu- 
 script tradition, but when we remember Ritschl's dictum (Proleg. 
 P. CXXl),' " longius autem aTerentiana integritate Bembinus, quam 
 a Plautina Ambrosianus abest," it is hard to escape the suspicion 
 that this passage in its present form is due to a later revision, at a 
 period perhaps when it was common to gloss hicine by hie veroi' 
 This suspicion is rather increased by Schlee's comment on these lines 
 in a recent dissertation, Berlin 1879, De versuum in Canticis Terenti- 
 anis consecutione, p. 46, " mira vero ac singularis est haec versuum 
 consecutio et qualis nusquam in Terentii canticis occurrit." The dicet 
 of A may stand for an original dicetis which was addressed to the 
 audience and which was misread dicet is, but I make no attempt here 
 to reconstruct the lines. If we consider how modern editors have 
 changed And. 478 and similar passages, we may conceive of the 
 ancients being even bolder in their emendations. That the passage 
 in question lends strong authority to the ?ie : vero glosses I think no 
 one will deny. The same service is rendered for the ne : ergo glosses 
 by another passage in Terence. And. 849 f. (V 2, 8) : 
 
 Eliam tu hoc responde, quid istic tibi negotist ? DA. Mi'hin? SI. Ita. 
 
 DA. Mihine. SI. Tibi ergo. DA. Modo ego intro ivi. .SI. Qv'iasi ego quam 
 dudiim rogem. 
 
 Mihine DGP, michine BCE. For responde see Becker, Stude- 
 mund's Stud. p. 177 f. In Prisc'an (Keil II, p. 286) we read, "Jr, 
 conjunctio tarn completiva quam confirmativa invenitur apud illos 
 . . . quomodo apud nos vero et autem . . . similiter waw, eiiivi, ergo 
 non solum causales vel rationales sed etiam completivae et confir- 
 mativae inveniuntur." To this doctrine he recurs later on (Keil 
 II, p. 337), " Nostri quoque frequenter ergo repletivi loco accipiunt. 
 Terentius in Andria, Mihi7ief Tibi ergo.'' In another place 'Keil 
 II, p. 100) he says oi ergo, " invenitur tamen etiam pro expletiva ut 
 Terentius in Andria Mihine 9 Tibi ergo.'' The affirmative force 
 of ergo in early Latin has been frequently pointed out by modern 
 
 ' Cf. Opusc. V, p. 371. 5 Cf. however Eun. 930. 
 
20 
 
 scholars. Ussing in a note on Amphitruo 172 remarks that it is 
 equivalent to the German ' ja.' ' 
 
 Now it is a little singular that nowhere in Plautus in answer to the 
 questions mihine? egone? do we find tibi ergo or tu ergo. The 
 following instances occur, however, of ne, used in such an answer. 
 Trin. 634(111 2, 8): 
 
 Egone? LES. Tune. LYS. Quid male facio ? LES. Quod ego nolo, id quom facis, 
 tune BCD. 
 
 Epid. 575(IV2, 6): 
 
 Tu homo insanis. PER. Egone? PH. Tune. PER. Quor? PH. Quia ego istanc 
 
 quae siet 
 
 ego ne J tune? B tu ne ] tune E cf. Goetz' 
 
 ed. of Curculio p. xv. 
 Stich. 635(IV2, 51}: 
 
 Egone? tune, mihine? tibine. vi'den ut annonast gravis? 
 EGONE TUNE MIHINE TIBINE (sic cum spatiis) A. 
 egone? tune? mihine? tibine? BCD. 
 
 Capt. 857 (IV 2, 77) : 
 
 Egone ? ER. Tune. HE. Tum tu mi igitur erus es. ER. Immo benevolens. 
 
 Sonnenschein does not state whether tu is separated from ne in the 
 MSS. To these, two other passages have been added by emenda- 
 tion. Most. 955 (IV 2, 38) : 
 
 Egone? AD. Tune. TH. Ne molestu's: sine me cum puero loqui. 
 
 So Fleckeisen, Philol. II. p. 92. Egone tu tu ne molestus BC. tutune D. 
 
 Mil. 439 (II 5, 39) : 
 
 Egone SC. Tune. PH. Quae heri Athenis Ephesum adveni vesperi. 
 tu. MSS. tu ne. Ritschl. 
 
 It will be seen that the authority of the best MSS. so far as 
 known to us, favors the writing of tune as one word. This is 
 actually done by Goetz in Epid. 575, who also retains as we have 
 seen haecine in Epid. 73, and hicine in Epid. 541. But the other 
 editors write tu ne, and explain ne as the asseverative particle 
 which in older editions appears as nae. In this they follow Fleck- 
 eisen, who in the second volume of the Philologus, p. 61 ff. has 
 given a most admirable and exhaustive treatment of ne in its 
 various uses. On p. 91 he sets apart by themselves the 
 
 ' Lorenz Philologus 32, p. 296, has a good note on ergo, in which he shows 
 that this is only a partial statement of the truth. There is indeed danger of 
 losing out of sight the causal force which may be combined with the confirma- 
 tive. 
 
21 
 
 instances of «^ which we have just cited, as exceptional both in 
 position and in force. With so much the more reason can we claim 
 that the ne is enclitic. No metrical tests can show that the e of 7ie 
 is long, as it is found in the thesis: On the other hand, in the 
 passage from Stichus the rapidity of movement and the equipoise 
 between question and answer in both pairs Egonc ? tunc, mihinif 
 tibine. is quite destroyed if we read Egonef tu ne. mihinif 
 tibi ne. Moreover, if we change the quantity we lose the mocking 
 echo of the answer, which perhaps more than anything else con- 
 tributed to keeping these formulas alive so long. We may well 
 compare the use of nempe^ in Rud. 565-7 : 
 
 Nempe meae? SC. nempe nescio istuc. LA. Qua sunt facie? SC. Scitula: 
 
 Vel ego amare uiramvis possim si probe adpotus siem. 
 
 LA. Nempe puellae ? SC. Nempe molestu's : i, vise [intro] si lubet. 
 
 Thornton renders the last hne very well, "And young forsooth? 
 SC. Forsooth you're plaguey troublesome." With this passage 
 in mind I prefer to read in Most. 955," TH. Egone f AD. Tune. 
 TH. Tilne molestu's, giving to ne in each case a force bordering on 
 that of ne7npe, " I forsooth ? — you forsooth ! — ^Sooth you are 
 troublesome:" with suitable voice-inflection. My reading is 
 nearer to tu tune of the MSS., inasmuch as I only add a ne which 
 might easily have dropped out, whereas Fleckeisen inserts ne and 
 omits tu. Ussing regards the 7ie as asseverative and reads Egone ? 
 — Tu. — tu ne, etc., which is inadmissible \ine is enclitic and short. 
 Moreover, the accentuation tu ne does not elsewhere occur. I must 
 not omit to state here that Scaliger seems to have identified the ne 
 in these examples with the enclitic «J often affixed to relatives. 
 At least I have found in the Codex Parisinus 11 305, which bears in 
 the catalogue the title " Notes de Scaliger sur Plaute," the following 
 annotations: To Trin. Ill 2, S, "Egone f Tune. Tune '\d est tu 
 ut in Milite quemne ego servavi in campis." To Amph. II 2, 65 
 " quaene id est quae frequentissimum apud Plautum et apud 
 'Catullum Fratrem quemne ipsa reliqui.''' And again to Cist. IV 
 2, 6, " Quamne in manibus tenui atque accepi hie ante aedis," 
 quam.ne id est quam. He doubtless took Priscian at his word 
 where he says that the 7ie of quine is affirmative. 
 
 ' Compare also the echoed question Persa 220, Itanest? Itanest? and Persius 
 Sat. II, 19, cuinam? cuinam? , 
 
 ^ My reading is not possible if one rigidly exclude from Plautus dactyls with 
 trochaic caesura. Before consonants moreover in connected discourse tun is the 
 regular form. I should not think of keeping tune molestus except as a sort of 
 formula. Metrically ^(^w^.'' Tune. Zi/« w^^j^/*? would be better. 
 
22 
 
 Of this affirmative ne we have already pointed out four cases of 
 survival in Terence, one in Ennius, and nine in Plautus, to which, 
 if our view be accepted, six more must now be added, occurring 
 in a mocking answer. Terence must have known this use in the 
 plays of Plautus, and probably in the folk-speech of his time. Did 
 he intentionally avoid it, and substitute ergo for ne f We look in 
 vain for a second example oi ergo thus used. We know how early 
 in the commentaries of Vergil the glossing of ne with ergo became 
 common. We do not know whether Donatus found tibi ergo 
 in his codex. Long before Priscian and the author of what is 
 known as the Calliopian recension, the gloss ergo might have sup- 
 planted ne in the text. A glossarist would not have taken the 
 trouble to change mihine, which is metrically impossible if we read 
 tibi ergo, to mihin. On the other hand, had Terence himself 
 written ?nihin, the scribe who in v. 849 was very careful to keep 
 mihin ? even before a vowel, would hardly have written mihine. 
 Mihin occurs in And. 476,'Phorm. 506, 1048, with no MS. variation. 
 Unfortunately this verse is not found in the Bembinus ; Hertz tells 
 us at least that only an N can be made out after the beginning of 
 the verse. Umpfenbach does not even record this. Perhaps a 
 closer scrutiny might at least show whether there was space for 
 tibi ergo. I feel quite confident that Terence wrote mihine ? tibine. 
 If it shall be decided that he wrote tibi ergo, I shall make him 
 responsible for the ne : ergo glosses, and shall thus through Priscian 
 indirectly prove the affirmative nature of the enclitic particle ne. 
 
 If any one has had the patience to follow me thus far, he will 
 naturally be inclined to ask for a more explicit statement of my 
 views in regard to the interrogative particle ne, and its relations to 
 the affirmative particle, which has up to this point formed the 
 subject of discussion. To avoid all misunderstanding, I wish to 
 state distinctly at the outset my belief in the existence of an inter- 
 rogative particle ne of negative origin, the limits of whose use, 
 however, must I think be drawn more closely than they have been 
 hitherto. When I find that Haut. v. 563 vidin ego te f is cited by 
 Julius Rufinianus as non ego te vidif ; when I find in Cod. Par. 
 7900 A, edixin And. 495 and dixin Adelph. 83 glossed by nonne 
 edixi and nonne dixi, and when I find Remigius in his commentary 
 on Martianus Capella (Cod. Par. 8674) explaining coepistine (cf. 
 Eyssenhardt, p. 300) by nonne coepisti, I do not say that the 
 authors of these glosses have confused the facts,' but I infer that to 
 
 ' Hand Turs. IV, p. 77, says of Priscian omnia miscuit. 
 
 / 
 
23 
 
 them the negative force of ne is as clear and sharp as the negation 
 in carCt, won't, etc., is clear to an English speaker. 
 
 On the other hand, when Priscian tells me that ne is sometimes 
 affirmative, citing in illustration passages most apposite, as I have 
 tried to show ; when numerous glosses representing ancient tradi- 
 tion interpret ne to mean vero, ergo, enim and etiain ; when every 
 one admits that sin is equivalent to si vero ; I cannot shut my eyes 
 to all this testimony and declare that ne is purely and simply nega- 
 tive, and that hence all the phenomena in its use must be made to 
 square with the negative conception. Nor can I intrench myself 
 as Hand ' does behind the pr(5found philosophical observation 
 that every question implies doubt, and that all doubt borders upon 
 negation, and that hence every question contains a negative ele- 
 ment, which very naturally finds its expression in ne. Practically 
 speaking every question does not imply doubt, and does not so far 
 as expression is concerned call for a negative element. If we look 
 at the hard facts of language we shall find Plautus in 563 questions 
 and Terence in 346 employing no interrogative particle or pronoun 
 whatever, and that, too, in questions exactly parallel to those in 
 which Hand assigns to ne a negative force. We shall find, more- 
 over, vero occasionally taking the place of ne, and here and there 
 enim and nempe in questions for which editors in some cases have 
 actually substituted ne. The Greeks use y, ; we ourselves employ 
 really and truly in interrogation. But vero, enim, nempe, y,, and 
 really, are by nature affirmative. No a priori reasoning, therefore, 
 can bar out. the possibility of an affirmative ne. For myself I see 
 no reason for dissociating the forms egone,. tune, hicine, etc. 
 found in direct statements, where any negative notion is of necessity 
 excluded, from the same forms found in questions. In commenting 
 on Eun. V 4, 41, Donatus says, ''Obsecro an is est? insultantis ut 
 in Phormione (945). Ah / tune is eras ? nam sciebat eum esse.' 
 Hand would of course translate. Ah, you were not he ? but it is 
 difficult to conceive why there must of necessity be a negative force 
 in tune is which does not reside in ayi is ? Shakespeare in As 
 You Like It, III 2, 410, makes Rosalind say, " But in good sooth 
 are you he that hangs the verses on the trees ? " after Orlando 
 has confessed the act. Cf. All's Well that Ends Well, V 3, 47 : 
 
 PAR. O my good lord, you were the first that found me ! 
 LAF. Was I in sooth? and I was the first that lost thee. 
 
 This affirmative sense, in sooth, with the various shades of mean- 
 
 'Tursellinus IV, p. 71. 
 
24 
 
 ing which it may be made to take on by different modulations of 
 the voice, is, t claim, far more natural for ne where irony, surprise, 
 indignation and kindred emotions are to be expressed, than the 
 simply negative force. I need only mention here the ironical use 
 ofvero (cf Donatus to Eun. V 2, 69, "vera, slpio'^ixw^ ut egregiam 
 vero lauderny^ A very good instance of this is seen in And. 917, 
 Est vero huic credendum, Chreme, which the early editors punctuate ' 
 as a question. I conceive ne to have a force very like this in Trin. 
 
 960 f : 
 
 Quem ego qui sit homo nescio 
 Neque oculis ante hunc diem untquam vi'di, eine aurum crederem ? 
 BCD ei nemirutn. 
 
 In treating the several cases of survival of the formula egone ? 
 tune. I have tried to prove that the ne of the answer is an echo of 
 the ne in the question, and that the two stand in very much the 
 same relation to each other as the two nempe's (to take another 
 example) in Aul. 290 : 
 
 CO. Nempe hue dimidium di'cis, dimidium domum? 
 ST. Nempe sicut dicis. 
 
 The whole tone here is of course quite different from that of the 
 egone ? questions. 
 
 In Adelph. 770 I have pointed out an instance of the survival of 
 tun before a condition, tun si metis esses, with the force of tu vero. 
 But this does not differ in any essential respect from the tun found 
 in Phorm. 932, tu7i hanc duceres, si tibi daretur? nor from a 
 hundred other tun\ which I might cite. It is simply a matter of 
 voice-inflection, and the ne in the earliest period of its use was 
 something more than a mere sign. Of course I do not claim that, 
 when with the constant friction to which the commoner coins of 
 language are exposed, the particle had become reduced to a single 
 letter, its force was vividly felt by the people who used it, any more 
 than I would claim that ordinary English speakers attach any 
 force to the ^ of as or such or recognize its connection with the so 
 of also. No Roman had any feeling for the c in sic or hoc as a 
 separate element in a compound word. In this respect the affirma- 
 tive particle ne was at a great disadvantage compared with the 
 negative. Every Englishman has at least a vague sense of the 
 separate force of n in nought and none, and the nt in s ha' n't, and 
 every Roman would feel clearly the difference between dixin and 
 dixi. An affirmative particle would be much more likely to fade 
 out into a mere sign. Yet that the abridged forms ten, men, tun 
 were used for emphasis long after the n had ceased to have for the 
 
25 
 
 speaker any independent value, cannot be doubted. In this light 
 
 I think we must interpret such scholia as the followifig : Donatus 
 to And. II 3, ID, Egon dicam 9 To ego emphasim habet ; And. 
 Ill 2, 12, Ran contemnor : hoc est adeone contemnor, valde con- 
 temnor ; And. I 5, 28, Eine ego ut adverser f Pronomen hoc vim 
 qualitatis habet; et est cur tali, tarn bono (cf. Hec. I i, 13); And. 
 
 II 6, 4, Nihilne est s.u(friiu<Tiid^ antiquorum pro nihil (cf. 7iihil 
 enim, Kec. 850). In like manner Servius to Verg. Aen. II, 657, 
 Mene efferre, etc., nam pronomina habent vim suam nonnum- 
 quam et emphasim. Both commentators must have had, I think, 
 a dim sense of the latent force of ne, although they could give it no 
 adequate expression in words. Servius is quite as much at a loss 
 to explain enim in Verg. Aen. VIII 84 : 
 
 Quam pius Aeneas tibi enim, tibi, maxima Juno, 
 
 " vacat enim et tantum ad ornatum pertinet," and yet we know 
 that Vergil has ventured to refresh here in ejiim that strong assev- 
 erative force in which alone it is known to Plautus. Nothing can 
 illustrate better the danger of looking at early Latin through 
 Ciceronian spectacles than this very word enim. Only fifteen years 
 ago William Ramsay, in his edition of the Mostellaria, p. 206, could 
 say: "We maintain that in the early writers enim vero sxgm^ts 
 ' for in truth,' as enim always signifies ' for.' " Our much despised 
 Priscian might have taught him better (Keil II, p. 103 and 104), 
 " Invenitur etiam pro affirmativa, ut Terentius in Andria (I 3, i), 
 Enim vero Dave nihil loci est, etc., et maxime praepositiva hanc 
 habet significationem,et idem in Adelph. (II i, 14) enim non sinam" 
 It was reserved however for Langen in 1880 (Beitr. p. 261-271) 
 to show that enim does not occur before Terence in any other 
 than asseverative force, and that only rarely in Terence does it mean 
 for. I think we shall not err if in some passages of Plautus and 
 Terence we reinforce the original asseverative or affirmative 
 meaning of ne. Certainly tmie in answer was stronger than tu, 
 and German editors are fond of translating it ' du ja.' So too ne 
 in a question frequently Corresponds to enim or vero in the answer. 
 I might multiply instances, but the following will suffice : Adelph. 
 924, Tun iubes hoc f — Ego vero iubeo. Pseud. 979, Tune's 
 Ballio ? — Ego enim. vero is sum (cf Epid. 541, Hicinesf). Persa 
 185, ain vero ? — aio enim. vero (cf Amph. 344). Amph. 758, 
 Tun dicis f — Tun negas ? — nego enim vero. Compare itane vero f 
 in Rud. 971 with ita enim verof Rud. 1003, quiane in Most. 11 32. 
 
 Verbero etiam inrides? TR. Quian me pro te ire ad cenam autumo ? 
 
26 
 
 and Persa 850 with quia enim in Merc. 648, Mil. 1140, Pers. 228, 
 and especially True. II 2, 11, 
 
 Quid tibi ego maledico? STR. Quia enim me triincum lentum nominas, 
 
 enim me A BCD ; me, Spengel, on account of metre. Fleckeisen, 
 Jahrb. loi, p. 702, omits ego and retains quia enim. Had Plautus 
 used quian m.e in direct statement, I think his contemporaries 
 would have understood him, as Horace's friends doubtless under- 
 stood quine putetis, and nemon ut (Sat. I i, 108; Keller and 
 Holder, nemo ut with hiatus). I should not venture however to 
 put quian m.e in the text. 
 
 One of the most common uses of ne in Plautus is in connection 
 with the exclamatory infinitive : so Asin. 226 Hae'cine te esse oblitum, 
 , in ludo qui fuisti tarn, diu ! With this may be compared Cic. de 
 Fin. II 10, 29, Hoc veronon videre ! which Madvig thus explains, 
 Hoc vero credibile est eum non videre ? (see And. 625, hocinest 
 credibile? and compare Lucret. II 16 nonne videre? with Lachmann's 
 note). Cic. ad Att. VII 2, 8, Chrysippum vero, quem ego . . in honore 
 habui, discedere a puero ! It is evident that vero in the Ciceronian 
 passages performs the same office as ne in Plautus, and \}a3X.nonne^ 
 in the Lucretian passage is equivalent to non vero and is not a 
 compound of two negatives like nonnumquam, in which case we 
 should expect the negative force to be lost. In view of such pas- 
 sages I do not see how one can dismiss lightly the ne • vero glosses 
 or attribute them to some ignorant glossarist. The late Prof. 
 Fritsche may very possibly have held to the negative origin of ne, 
 but if so, he translated Hor. Sat. II 4, 83 ten-radere, etc., better than 
 he knew, "musst du denn wirklich ? " 
 
 I now pass to the most difficult part of my task. It is a dis- 
 advantage to be a foundling, and many particles live under a sort 
 of social ban because they cannot point to a family tree. What a 
 stigma attaches to /taud because it cannot prove its paternity ! 
 How much more ready we are to admit non into the society of our 
 pet adjectives ! Clearly relations and a respectable ancestry must 
 be found for ne, else it will still rest under the baneful suspicion of 
 being nothing more than a bastard negative, whose true origin 
 has for family reasons been concealed. The most expeditious way 
 to dispose of it would no doubt be to father it upon the asseverative 
 ne. This Schoemann (Lehre von d. Redetheilen, p. 221) has 
 done, calling it "die abgeschwachte Form " The temptation to do 
 
 ' Spengel is, I think, mistaken in denying nonne to Plautus and Terence. It 
 was used like anne and namque before vowels, and if we can trust the MSS. it 
 was not confined to questions ; see Merc. 62, nonne ut Phorm. 969, nonne hercle. 
 
27 
 
 this is strong, and in declaring against it I have not overlooked 
 the striking affinity between passages like Haut. 918 and Haut. 
 950. This resemblahce is due to the fact that both ne and ne 
 are to be referred to a common pronominal stem which for con- 
 venience sake we may with Fick call na (cf. Worterbuch d. Indo- 
 Germ. Sprach. I, p. 122). To this he assigns the office of strength- 
 ening other pronouns (Skr.-na in e-na, Zend na enclitische Partikel 
 in ke'm nt (c/uem-nam), -na in ci-na wer, dacna f. das selbst (?) ■\- 
 •yrj, vat'traun, versichernd, -•>// in tyw-.'rj , zwr^ ; -va in (hi-^a derselbige, 
 ->- in Ti->-(i(;, zi-v-i, Ti-^d, lat. ne, nae, traun, versichernd, 7ia-m in 
 quisnam, wer doch, n in nu-n-c u. s. w., Goth, -n in hun, ains-hun.') 
 The Latin language seems to have gone its own way in the devel- 
 opment of this stem, and to have been more prolific than any of 
 the cognate tongues. I owe to M. Breal the following clear state- 
 ment regarding it (see Memoires de la Societe de Linguistique de 
 Paris, I, p. 195,) : ''na avait a I'origine un sens demonstratif. II a 
 donne I'adverbe interrogatif num et avec le c enclitique nmic ace. 
 m.; la conjonction nam ace. f., la particule interrogative nc dont la 
 flexion casuelle a tout-a-fait disparu, ou qui peut-etre n'en a jamais 
 eu. La forme secondaire ni a donne I'accusatif nem dans nempe. 
 De plus notre pronom s'est conserve comme enclitique sous les 
 formes nam et num. dans quisnam et etianmumy Etymologists 
 generally have derived nempe from nani-pe without taking the 
 trouble to explain on what phonetic principle nam -\- pe gives 
 nempe while nam ■\- que gives namque. Breal, as we see, assigns 
 to nem a distinct origin. What if nem itself be the fuller form of 
 the enclitic ne "which Breal admits may have lost a case ending? 
 The Latin language would then have started with three particles 
 of similar formation, nam, netn, and num, all of which were used 
 in interrogations, though not confined to them; while nem. from 
 the greater frequency of its enclitic use had lost its final 7n before 
 the literary period. The independent existence of 7iem is tacitly 
 admitted by Corssen, Ausspr. II, p. 640, when he says : " Ehe 
 die enklitische Partikel -pe an ne^n- antrat, war das m auslautend, 
 also schwach nachklingend ; diesen schwachen verschwindend 
 kurzen Laut behielt es auch vor der Anfiigung -pe, wie das m von 
 enim in der Tonverbindung von enim vero. So ward nempe mit 
 verschwindend mattem und kurzem labialen Nasallaut gesprochen 
 fast wie *nepe und so bei den Biihnendichtern gemessen " Nepe is 
 found, too, in the MSS. in Trin. 328 in BCD, where Ritschl remarks 
 m.emorabili indicio pyrrhichiacae mensurae, and in Trin. 966 in D. 
 The vanishing of the nasal sound is perhaps still more clearly 
 
28 
 
 proved by a gloss which I have found in the Cod. Bern. 224, saec. 
 X, p. 217, neppe : eerie. Neppe is found according to Ribbeck in 
 Verg. Georg. Ill 259 in c = Cod, Bern. 184, saec. IX, to which 
 our gloss may refer. 
 
 The independent existence of nem receives further support from 
 a gloss of Festus (M tiller, p. 162), iV^-mut, nisi etiam vel nempe 
 usus est Cato de pot. /^'-ibunicif, cum ait : " nemut . . . aerumnas." 
 The letters italicized are due to conjecture. Paulus (Muller, p. 163) 
 gives simply 'nemut nisi etiam, vel nempe.' Meyer and Duebner, 
 Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta, p. 168, assign the mutilated 
 fragment to Cato's oration ' de Tribunis Militum,' which was prob- 
 ably delivered in the year 171 B. C. (see Jordan's ed. of the 
 Fragments, Proleg. p. Ixxxiv). We cannot be absolutely certain 
 however that Verrius Flaccus did find the words in Cato. Now, 
 as the loose compounds sicut, velut, praeut and prout presuppose 
 the existence of sic, vel, prae and pro, so a compound nemut pre- 
 supposes the .existence of 7iem, and it is clearly quite improbable 
 that nam -f- ut should ever give nemut. I need not rehearse here 
 the familiar facts in regard to the dropping of m, final in the Roman 
 folk-speech from the earliest times. If now we posit a form 
 tunem, for an early period we might expect to see it reduced to 
 tune and finally to tun, just as noenum becomes noenu and finally 
 nan. And as non is the regular form even in Plautus, occurring 
 hundreds of times, while noenum. has good MS. authority in only 
 one passage Aul. 67 (I i, 28, see Ussing's note and Langen Beit. p. 
 263) although used as an archaism by Lucilius and Lucretius, so 
 under the most favorable circumstances we could not expect more 
 than two or three cases of the fuller form nem in the MSS. of Plautus. 
 If I were asked to give examples where nem ut might have been used 
 in a pre-Plautine period, I should give the following : 
 
 Egone(m) ut te adversum mentiar, mater mea (Aul. 682). 
 Egone(m) lit cavere nequeam, quoi praedicitur (Pseud. 516). 
 Hicgne(m) lit a nobis iioc tantum argenti aiiferat (Piiorm. 955). 
 Niinc agitas sat tiite tuarun\ rerum ; egone(m) ut opem te mih i 
 Ferre putem posse inopem ? (Bacch. 637). 
 
 Ritschl omits ne and does not consider it a question. Dombart 
 in Bliitt. f. bayer. Gymnas. u. Realschulwesen, 1880, p. 40, claims 
 that nam was originally asseverative by nature : " nam, enim 
 und vero sind ursprtinglich versichernd und bedeuten ' in der 
 That.' Daraus entwickelte sich fruher bei nam spater bei enim 
 eine begriindende und erlauternde Bedeutung." As the comic 
 poets use nam quis for the classical quisnam, so nem, as is proven 
 
29 
 
 by nempe, was not always enclitic. In an early period we might 
 conceive of it taking the place of nam in the fpUowing sentence, 
 Cist. IV I, ID. I give the reading of Pareus : 
 
 Nam hercle ego illam anum inridere me ut sinam? satiu'st mihi 
 Quovis exitio interire. 
 
 Terence could only use nem as an enclitic and for him the m was 
 irrecoverably lost. Compare for instance with the above passage, 
 Eun. 771 : 
 
 Hancine ego ut contumeliam tam insignem in me accipiam Gnatho ? 
 Mori me satius est. 
 
 Primarily the difference in meaning between nam and nem in 
 such questions could not have been very great. Nam and enim 
 often border very closely on one another, and again diverge widely 
 in their use. Quia enim, so frequently found in Plautus and 
 Terence, is quite different from the archaic quianam, but quite like 
 quiane (for quianem), as I have tried to show above. So we need 
 not be surprised to find uti7i differing both from utinam and from 
 ut enim, in Epid. 277. EP Ut enim praestines argento, pn'usquam 
 veniatfiliuSy cf. Cas. 165, Poen. 845. Utine in fact is nothing 
 more nor less than an inverted nemut, to which it stands in the 
 same relation that curnam stands to the Plautine nam, cur. I 
 cite here all the passages of its occurrence in Plautus and Terence. 
 Epid. II 2, 41 (225): 
 
 Utin inpluvium indiita fuerit ? AP. Quid istuc tam mirabilest ? 
 Merc. Ill 3, 15 (576): 
 
 Senex hirquosus, tu aiisculere mulierem ? 
 Utine adveniens vomitum excutias miilieri ? 
 
 Rud. IV 4, 19(1063): 
 
 DAE. Gripe 'animum advorte ac tace. 
 GR. Utin istic prius dicat? DAE. Audi loquere tu. GR. Alienon prius. 
 
 Phorm. V 6, 34 (874): 
 
 Somnium : utin haec ignoraret suom patrem ? GE. Aliquid credito. 
 
 Hec. II I, 2 (199) : 
 
 Pro deum atque hominum fidem, quod hoc genus est, quae haec est conjuratio! 
 Utin omnes mulieres eadem aeque stiideant nolintque omnia. 
 
 But I must defer till another time any special discussion of the 
 interrogative use of the affirmative ne. The cases where ne 
 
30 
 
 strengthens a relative, of which there are some twenty-five in 
 Plautus and Terence, are perhaps the most interesting, inasmuch 
 as here the close relation between ne and nempe is most clearly 
 seen. Here too as in the case of nempe we shall often have diffi- 
 culty in deciding whether there is any real question involved. I 
 find for instance that Bothe anticipates my view in not regarding 
 Cist. IV 2, 6 as a question. I cite from his edition, without making 
 myself responsible for his metre : 
 
 Quamne in manibus tenui atque accepi hie ante aedis cistellam, ubi ea est, 
 Nescio ; nisi ut opinor, loca haec circiter excidit mihi. 
 
 Tyrrell in his excellent edition of the Miles, at verse 62 points out 
 that this usage is very similar to the Hibernicism sure, " sure they 
 both asked me." He reads quae me ambae obsecraverint, without 
 a question, where Bentley and Scioppius read quaene ... .^ At 973 he 
 reads quae cupiat, where Ritschl and Brix quaen cupiat ? In both 
 cases I should keep 7ie without a question. Ussing in Epid. 444 
 (449 Gz.) keeps nem,pe quein in adulesce'ntia. Goetz, as we have 
 seen, unwilling to admit nempe^ under the ictus, reads with Acidalius 
 quem,ne. If we accept this reading, the change to nempe quern 
 must be referred to an early revision, whose author recognized the 
 connection between nempe and ne{in). Doubtless a Roman soldier 
 in the first Samnite war might have said nem quem, just as our 
 Plautine hero in v. 462 says nam quid parcam ? 
 
 I have before alluded to certain points of contact between the 
 Plautine use of enim. and of 7ic. I look upon enim not as a com- 
 pound of nam, but of nem, or rather nini, to which it stands in the 
 same relation as equidem- to quidem. I say of nim, for I think it 
 probable that, as we have of is both the accusatives em and im, so 
 nim may have existed side by side with nem, although in less com- 
 mon use. A closer scrutiny of the MSS. may reveal a very few cases 
 of ne = nem, but I hardly expect it. Even if some slight vanish- 
 ing nasal sound were heard in the time of Plautus, it would probably 
 not have been represented by any written sign, and later scribes 
 certainly would not Introduce a sound which had died away in the 
 language. I attach no importance, therefore, to a corruption like 
 ei nemiruTn for eine aurum in Trin, 960 BCD, as aurum often 
 becomes mirum in MSS." Should nem be found in A, that would 
 
 ' The metrical question is still an open one, cf. Pseud. 353, 1189 Rud. 565, 
 Bacch. 188, and Muller Plaut. Pros. p. 433 ff. 
 
 ^ Cure. 10, Egone apieularum is cited by Priscian as ego nam, etc. 
 
be a different matter. I hope no one will call me rash or incon- 
 sistent if following the MSS. quite closely I propose nim as a 
 possible reading in two passages which have sorely vexed the 
 editors. The first is Trin, 922, where B has ancharesancharmides 
 mim charmides. C and D have Anchares ancharmides min 
 charmides. See Ritschl's critical note and Brix. 3d ed. for the various 
 emendations which have been proposed ; vtim has been changed 
 to numne, numnam, anne, ain, num and enim. My own view receives 
 its best illustration from Terence, Phormio 307. Demipho exclaims 
 in anger : 
 
 hominem conmonstrarier 
 Mihi istum volo aut ubi habitet demonstrarier, 
 
 to which Geta, as if pretending not to know certainly, replies, Nejnpe 
 Phormionem ? Langen, in his very valuable article on nempe, Beitr. 
 p. 125 ff, translates ' Du meinst wohl den Phormio ? ' and remarks : 
 " Der Hinweis auf Phormio ist nicht so sicher das Plautus hier nempe 
 gebraucht haben wiirde." Now it seems to me unquestionable that 
 an earlier generation might have used nem or nim Phormionem 
 where Terence uses netnpe, and with strong affirmative force. It is 
 perhaps a solitary survival of this use which we have here. Ribbeck 
 in Rhein. Mus. XXVII, p. 179, proposes : 
 
 SYC ad hoc exemplumst : Char. CH Chares ? an Charmides ? SYC enim Charmides: 
 Em istic erat. 
 
 I should read nim for enim, attaching to it the same sense. 
 Paleographically nim = min of CD. Moreover I agree with 
 Brix 3d ed. that the future erit must be kept.' The other passage 
 is Merc. 767, 
 
 CO. Ni(m) metuis tu istanc. LYS. Sapio: nam mihi unicast. 
 Ni metuis libri, Num metuis Camerarius 
 
 Ne metuis h. e. metuisne Meursius. Ritschl reads nempe metuis. 
 It may be a mere accident that nempe is not found in Plautus 
 associated with the verb metuo. Enim is thus found, Pers. 319 : Enim 
 m,etuo ut possim. reicere in bubile, ne vagMur, cf Cas. 281, Mil. 
 429. Some may therefore prefer to substitute enim as Ritschl has 
 nempe for ni, but I think we shall do better to keep the simple 
 
 ' Or following the MSS. still more closely we may read ; SYC. ad hoc exem- 
 plumst an Chares an Charmides CH nim Charmides ? SYC Em istic erit. For 
 an — an cf. Epid. 223, cf. Langen Beit. p. 266. 
 
32 
 
 particle, from which, according to my view, the others are derived. 
 It may have been even in Plautus' time an archaism in this usage, 
 as noenu was for Lucretius. The bantering tone is very evident : 
 ' Sooth you're afraid of her.' 
 
 I am moreover emboldened to keep nim by the following gloss 
 found in Cod. Bern. A 92, i, saec IX, p. 14, nim: ni, nisi, si 
 non, of which no doubt the earliest form was nim: ni, nisi and si 
 non having been added later to explain tii. It is easy to dismiss 
 such a gloss with a shrug of the shoulders as the absurd attempt 
 of some ignorant scholiast to explain away a corruption in the 
 MSS. But it is unfair to pronounce sentence upon a gloss of 
 which we do not know the context. No doubt many of the 
 ' happy emendations ' of modern times, did we but know it, are 
 only ingenious attempts to explain what for the ancients needed no 
 explanation. So hie nunc has been substituted for hicine, and 
 egomet for egone. Spengel in True. II 6, 52 f reads : 
 
 Is te dono. PHR. Poenitetne te, quot ancillas alam 
 
 Qui etiam alienas siiperadducas, quae mihi comedint cibum? 
 
 Quin etid men super adducas BCD. 
 
 Haupt (Hermes III, p. 229) proposes to read Quine examen super 
 adducas. Dombart (Philol. XXVIII, p. 735) Quin etiam mi in- 
 super adducas, which reading I accept as being nearest to the MSS. 
 But I differ from Dombart inasmuch as I regard quin, with Haupt, 
 as equal to quine, i. e. quine(m). It is very like Horace's ' quine 
 putetis.' Now Kiessling, whose eminence as a Plautine critic no 
 one will deny, comparing Eun. 1013 and Rud. 579, proposes 
 (Jahrb. 97, p. 634) ni eiiatn examen superadducas, and we must 
 admit with Fleckeisen that the emendation is ' very tempting.' 
 But if my view of the passage is correct, it is quite the same as 
 glossing ne{m) or ni(m) with nisi. So, too, in Bacch. 637 (already 
 cited) we might substitute nisi etiam for egone{ni) ut, and still fairly 
 represent the sense of the passage. I cannot believe that Verrius 
 Flaccus was guilty of a worse blunder than this would be in his 
 gloss, nem ut : nisi etiam velnempe. 
 
 MiNTON Warren. 
 
.■«Mi?f!v|'.>'.-n 
 
 The foregoing Dissertation was originally presented in 
 Latin to the Philosophical Faculty of the Strassburg University 
 and by them accepted in 1879. Owing to the writer's sudden 
 recall to America, its publication was unavoidably deferred. 
 In its present English form (due to practical reasons connected 
 with its insertion in the American Journal of Philology) it has 
 received some modifications. These reprints have the sanction 
 of the Philosophical Faculty of the Strassburg University. 
 
 CORRIGENDA ET ADDENDA. 
 
 p. 3, 1. 10 ff. from bottom, put ... for period before MI. in each verse. 
 7, 11. 2, 4- 9 „ „ read inventus. 
 
 7, 1. 8 „ „ read repertus. 
 
 9. 1. 20 „ „ read KIC(INEE)S(T). 
 
 19, 1, 13 „ „ read Mihine? 
 
 20, 1. 17 ■ y, r, on special examination I find that J has 
 
 tune} (sic.) 
 22, 1. 20 from top, omit sentence beginning : Perhaps, According to 
 Studemund only V i.e. the first three strokes of the M oi Mihine} 
 can be read in the Bembinus. 
 
 28, 11. 10, 11, 12 from bottom put interrogation-point at end of each 
 
 verse. 
 
 29, 1. 8 from bottom dele period after prius. 
 
 29, 1. 3 from bottom add Hec. I, l, 9 (66). Utin eximium nemirum 
 habeam ? SY. Neminem : 
 
■,i<^'X . "•*' '■ 
 
 ■"<•. 
 
 
 ti 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 ^''f'*^. 
 
 
 :;>ii£iS2^j^