THE LATIN PRONOUNS. 14461.7 THE LATIN PRONOUNS IS : HIC : ISTE : IPSE A SEMASIOLOGICAL STUDY BY CLARENCE LINTON MEADER, PH.D., INSTRUCTOR IN LATIN IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN •gjSr"- Beto pork THE MACMILLAN COMPANY LONDON: MACMILLAN co., LTD. 1901 All rights reserved COPYRIGHT, 1901, nv CLARRNCH LINTON MRADER. ANN ARBOR PRINTING COMPANY "THK INLAND PRESS" TO PROFESSOR EDUARD VOn WOELFFL1N THIS WORK IS RESPECTFULLY AND GRATEFULLY DEDICATED. PREFACE. The general plan of the following book1 was out- lined and the collection of material begun in Munich, in the summer of 1898. By June 1899 such progress had been made, that I found it possible to state my results in a form sufficiently definite to enable Pro- fessor W<">lfflin to make an abstract of the same for publication in the eleventh volume of the Archiv fur lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik. Since my return to America in the fall of 1899, I have devoted such spare time as the duties of my position have allowed, to the further investigation of the subject, and have been able not only to add important new results to those already obtained, but to extend and illustrate still more fully by varied citations the results set forth in the printed abstract. The original plan of the work provided for a chap- ter on ille and one on idem. These would have formed chapters II and III, the present chapters II, III, IV and V becoming IV, V, VI and VII. As they are not yet in a suitable form for printing, they are omitted for the present. The results thus far obtained in the study of the two pronouns are partly n in chapter V. 1 In the summer of 1900 chapter I and Section A. of chap- mftted to tht- . culty of tlu- I'nivi-rsity in as a thesis for the degree <>: • -f Philosophy. viii Preface. The present work contains the results of a line of investigation, in the conduct of which the historical method has been followed. In this particular it differs from all others that have been written on the subject. The most important of the modern treatises, that of Joseph Bach, extensive as it is (270 pages), makes no effort to discuss the pronouns from this point of view. It is confined almost entirely to the usage of the ante- classical period, and has for its main object the estab- lishment of the thesis, that in the scriptores prisci the three demonstratives hie, iste and ille correspond to the three persons of the verb respectively. The only attempts of a historical nature that have hitherto been made are in the form of brief notices, to be found, for example, in Schmalz's Lateinische Syntax and in vari- ous monographs on the Latinity of particular writers. These rarely exceed a page or two in extent, and from the nature of the case make no claim to being any- thing else than fragments. Such works are, to be sure, of very great value, and without them an his- torical grammar in the proper sense of the word would be impossible. Yet they have their limitations and necessarily lack the perspective gained by following the changing meanings of the words through several centuries and by observing their relationships to each other and to synonymous expressions. The selection of Latin texts from which the mate- rial for the present work was taken, is very full and representative, and covers every period of the develop- ment of the Latin language from Plautus to Isidore, as may be seen from the list of sources printed at the end of the volume. Preface. ix In the statement of the deductions made from this collection of data, my object has been to adduce the evidence for the existence of each usage, to trace as far as possible its gradual development through all the periods in which it is found, and to illustrate its vari- ous aspects by typical examples. While attention has been directed mainly to the post-classical usages, some parts of the volume deal quite fully with usages of the pronouns that are distinctively classical; and it is hoped that the remaining chapters contain much that will prove of interest and value for the full under- standing of the Ciceronian and Augustan Latinity. Throughout the entire work, the so called "regular" or ' ' classical ' ' meanings of the words have been treated, whenever some discussion of them was neces- sary to the understanding of the later meanings; and no pains have been spared to search out in the classical writers the beginings of the later changes, or the con- ditions out of which they grew. The following chapters, however, are by no means to be regarded as a complete history of the pronouns under discussion. The changes dealt with have been forth in broad general lines; and, although the development of each meaning is traced from its first appearance as far downward as possible, a detailed analysis of the questions treated or of the passages 1 has rarely been entered upon. The forms of the words have received attention, only when they have materially affected the meaning. The magnitude of the entire investigation has made it necessary to omit the • h questions as the psychological nature of the changes involved, the special conditions x Preface. to which individual authors were subjected, and the influence of one author upon another. At almost every step in the progress of the work important prob- lems have arisen and glimpses of interesting fields awaiting the student have often tempted me to turn aside for a moment. Yet rarely has a brief space of time been devoted to these minor questions. They are reserved for the future. The wide and varied reading both of the Latin texts and of the modern authorities has in itself been no small task. Never- theless it seems unwise to defer publication any longer. It is hoped that the book, mere outline as it is, may justify its existence. One who has himself conducted a line of research involving so many different problems and requiring so extensive a collection of data as the present one, will be the first to appreciate the difficulties of the work and to overlook any defects that it may contain. All friendly criticisms and suggestions will be gratefully received. I take this opportunity to express my thanks to those who have aided me in my work. I can scarcely hope to be able ever to repay the debt of gratitude I owe Professor Wolfflin, who with unsparing gener- osity and by the sacrifice of much of his valuable time, aided me with continual encouragement and advice. By placing his excellent library and other resources at my service, he so facilitated my work, that I was enabled in less than three semesters to accomplish as much as would have required as many years under less favorable circumstances. Likewise to my former teachers, Professors Martin L. D'Ooge, Francis W. Preface. xi Kelsey, John C. Rolfe, George Hempl and Joseph H. Drake, of the University of Michigan, I desire to express my gratitude both for my collegiate training in linguistics and for many valuable suggestions on this book. Professor Rolfe and Dr. Henry A. San- ders, of the University of Michigan, and Dr. George V. Edwards, of Olivet College, have been so kind as to read all the proofs, and have called my attention to numerous defects that would otherwise have escaped my notice. Great as these obligations are, they can scarcely be greater than those I owe my wife, who by her sympa- thetic and intelligent appreciation of my work has afforded me much assistance, and has been to me an unfailing source of inspiration. ANN ARBOR, MICH., Dec. 24, 1900. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. IS. PAGE. Introductory, ....... 3 A. A in Poetry. 1 . Frequency of its Occurrence in the Scrip- tores Prisci and Lucretius, in Catullus, the Writers of Elegy and Idyls, in Epic Poetry, in Satire and kindred Branches, in Didactic Epos, 8 2. General Attitude of the Poets toward the Word, 13 3. Attitude of the Poets toward the special Forms of the Word: Preference for the forms is, ea and id and Avoidance of all other Forms. — Reasons for this Attitude, . 15 B. Is in Prose Literature. 1 . Legal and other Scientific Literature, . 28 2. History, etc., 30 3. Pompeius, Commentum in Donattim, . 32 xiv Contents. CHAPTER II. HIC. A. The Rivalry between Hie and Is. 1. Eo = Ideo, Hoc = Ideo, . . . -35 2. Eo with the Comparative and Hoc with the Comparative, 48 3. Id est and Hoc est, 53 4. Ad id and Ad hoc, .... 66 a. = Praeterea, 66 b. Expressing Purpose, . . . 71 5. Ob id and Ob hoc, 73 B. The Correlations Hie— Ille, Hie— Hie, Ille— Ille, etc. 1. Hie — Ille, 79 a. Relative Order of the two correlated Clauses, 80 b. The adjectival and substantive Forms, 82 c. The adverbial Forms, . . -89 2. Hie — Hie, 96 a. The adjectival and substantive Forms, 97 b. The adverbial Forms, . . . 101 3. Ille— Ille, . . 105 Note on Ille, Hie and Is in legal Formulae, . 107 CHAPTER III. ISTE. Introductory. — The Etymology and the classical Meaning of Iste, 1 1 1 A. Iste = Hie. i. Evidence proving the Usage, . . 116 a. Iste tuus, etc., . . . .116 Contents. xv b. The Employment of Iste outside of direct discourse, . . . . 117 c. The Collocations iste meus, iste nos- ter, etc., 120 d. Iste Referring to Objects connected with the Speaker, . . . .121 e. Iste Employed in Connections usu- ally Reserved for Hie, . . 125 f. Iste and Hie refering to the same Antecedent, . . . . .131 g. Iste— Ille = Hie— Ille, . . 132 h. Iste = OOTOS in early Latin Transla- tions from the Greek, . . .137 i. The Evidence furnished by the Glos- ses, ... 142 j . The Evidence of the Romance Lan- guages, . . .143 k. The Testimony of the Roman Gram- marians, 144 I. The incorrect Orthography Isthic, . 144 2. Geographical Extension of the Usage, . 144 3. Chronological Limits of the Usage, . .145 4. Relative Frequency of the Use of Iste and Hie, 149 5. Semasiological Nature of the Change, . 152 B. Iste = Ille or I- 159 CHAPTER IV. IPSE. Introductory. — The classical Usage. A. Ipse = Idem. i. The Phrases ipse qui, is ipse, ille ipse, hoc and particularly id ipsum and hoc ipsuni, expressing Identity, . 163 xvi Contents. 2. Ipse unsupported by another Pronoun, . 171 a. Ipse parallel with Idem or Unus, . 175 b. Ipse contrasted with Alius and Alter, 177 c. Ipse = Idem in short adverbial For- mulae or Phrases, . . . 177 d. Ipse = Idem as proved^by the gen- eral Context, 178 e. Ipse = 6 auros, . . . .180 f. The Evidence of the Glosses, . .182 3. Geographical Limits of the Usage, . 182 4. Chronological Limits of the Usage, . .183 5. Ipse = Item, 184 B. Ipse — Ille or Is, 184 CHAPTER V. THE DETERMINATIVE AND THE DEFINITE ARTICLE.— SUMMARY. A. The Determinative. 1. Ille - is, . . 193 2. Hie = is, 195 3. Idem = is, 196 4. Ipse = is, 196 B. The Definite Article, 197 1. Ille = Definite Article, . . .198 2. Is = Definite Article, . . . .198 3. Hie = Definite Article, . . . 199 4. Iste = (?) Definite Article, . . . 205 5. Idem = Definite Article, . . . 206 6. Ipse = Definite Article, .... 208 C. Summary and Conclusion, . . . 213 Sources, 218 Addenda and Corrigenda, . . . . 221 CHAPTER I. IS. CHAPTER I. IS. In the study of these pronouns we may profitably begin with the determinative is. It is the simplest in its elements (cf. *ol-so > ille, *e-p-so > ipse, *e-so- to > iste, *ho-i-ce > hie),1 and in all the periods of the Latin language it is the weakest in meaning of the above mentioned pronouns (see Schmalz, Latein- ische Syntax in I wan Miiller's Handbuch der kl. Alt, II. 2, 3d ed. p. 444 : "es schliff sich auch als kleines \V« irtchen sehr bald so ab, dass es uberhaupt fast ganz ausser Kurs kam' ' ) . Traces of an original stronger demonstrative force are not far to seek. We may men- tion the familiar use of is qui in the sense approaching that of talis ut (see Harpers' Latin Lexicon s. v. for citations from Cicero, and add Sen. Contr. 3,3; Veil. Pat. 2,82,2 ea adiit pericula, a quibus seruari se posse desperauerat; Plin. Epist. 3,12,4; Gerber and Greef, Tac. p. 709 d} "i. q. talis, eiusmodi"). Still more clearly does this force of the pronoun appear when it serves to introduce an ut-clause, as in Plant. Capt. 934f. Pater, et petere a te ego potero et di earn potcsla- tL-in dabunt, [res. Ut beneficium bene mcixnti nostro mcrito imiiie- N art- tin- fU-rivati- pted by Stolz .inatik, i- 4 The Latin Pronouns, Such passages are rare in Plautus; a second instance is Poen. 1186 eo genere. Later examples are: Nepos, Them. 6,i(<r/". Lupus, Der Sprachgebrauch d. C. Ne- pos p. no); Veil. Pat. 2,90,4; Plin. Epist. 6,6,8; 6, 14,1 ea conditione ne; Tac. Dial. 23,20 ita...ea... is. . -ea. . .ea. . .is. . .ea. . .sic. . .sic. . . , ut...; Ann. i,6,2o(see G. and G., Lex. /. <:.); Censorinus 1,6; Jus- tin 37,1,7; Script. Histor. Augustae, Geta 7,4 etc.; Tertullian, Ad Nationes i,7/>; Lactantius, De Opi- ficio Dei 4,3; 12; Ambrosius, Exameron 2,3,n(27E); Augustine, Epist. 22, qm bis; Alcimus Avitus 7(6), p. 35,i2(P); Boethius, De Consolatione Philosophiae i,6/r.,28. A stronger demostrative force, approach- ing the normal meaning of ille, is also to be observed in such passages as Plaut. Trin. 746 . . . .atque ea condicio uel primariast; Amph. 781 Haec east profecto patera; Caecil. Statius, 28 f. (p. 338.) (apud Cicero, De Sen. 25 and Nonius 1,20) Turn equidem in senecta hoc deputo miserrimum, Sen tire ea aetate ipsum esse odiosum alteri. Cf. Virg. Aen. 3,393. In other instances the stronger demonstrative force of the pronoun is evident from the fact that the word it modifies is contrasted with another (cf. Plaut. Stich. 239-241; Men. 574), or is itself repeated (cf. Asin. 179; True. 122; Trin. 238; Ovid, Met. 7,43^. With the demonstrative hie such a repetition is very common in all periods both with poets and prose writers (Plaut. Men. 132; Horace often). Ille is not so often repeated in this way as Is in Prose and Poetry. 5 hie. The repetition of the determinative is uncommon. These and similar types of construction, in which the determinative bears traces of a stronger force, are met in all periods of the literature. In dealing with the semasiological and syntactical changes of this pronoun, it will be necessary, as the sequel will show, to draw a sharp distinction both be- tween the usage of the prose writers and of the poets, and between the various subdivisions of these two great branches, e. g., between technical prose, history and oratory; between the epos (in the narrower sense), satire, lyric poetry, etc. Within these smaller groups again it will be advisable to distinguish the chronologi- cal relations of the authors. There is entire justifica- tion for thus classifying the Roman prose literature; for, while a classification of modern prose literature on the basis of the prominence of poetical or rhetorical characteristics would doubtless lead to great confusion and many inconsistencies, the case was entirely differ- ent with the Greeks and the Romans. This is apparent from the two passages Cic. De Leg. 1,5 opus (sc. his- toriae) unum hoc oratorium maxinie; Quintilian 10, 1,31 historia est proxima poetis et quodam modo car- men solutum. For further details on the style of historical composition in antiquity see Norden, Die Antike Kunstprosa 1,81-95. The poetical coloring of IJvy, particularly of the first decade, will at once occur to the reader, although it must not be over- looked that the Augustan historian adopted a more r style after he had completed the first decade, the subject matter of which was poeticis ina^is decora fatmlis qiiam incorrtiplis reruni ^estarnin monuineiitis. 6 Tfie Latin Pronouns. It will also be recalled that the details of the complete history of Rome which Cicero and Atticus contem- plated writing conjointly, were so arranged that Atticus was to establish the historical facts, while Cicero was to furnish the rhetorical embellishments (cf. the corre- spondence with Atticus for the year 45 and Plutarch's Cicero 41). A. IS IN POETRY. We take up first the use of is in the poetical litera- ture of the Romans, because it is here that we find the most striking proofs of the weakening of its force and its gradual disuse. The French editor Dacier ap- pears to have been the first to call attention to the fact that the expression eius atque in Horace, Ode 3,11,18 is unpoetical. The eminent Bentley in his note on this passage says: "sed poetae epici, magno sane cum iudicio, uocabulum hoc perpetuo mulctarunt exilio; ne heroici carminis maiestatem humi serpere cogerent; utpote singulis fere periodis recursurum, ni stilo subin- telligerentur extrinsecus, neque praesentia sua uersus inquinaret. inde est quod in toto Uirgilio ne semel quidem occurrit eius, bis duntaxat in Ouidio, ut Trist. 3,4,27." (a third, but doubtful passage is Met. 8,16) ".. .eo tamen peius noster (i. e. Horace), et quod in carmine lyrico longe supra Ouidii elegos surgere debuerit, et quod. . ." Adolf Kiessling's note on eius in O. 4,8,18 in part confirms, in part contradicts and in part expands Bentley's affirmation: "der sonst der Sprache der Oden, wie iiberhaupt gehobenem Ausdruck fremde Gebrauch von is (doch scheut die Elegie das Pronomen nicht) mag hier durch den scherzhaften Zug, der durch das ganze Gedicht geht, sich entschuld- Is in Poetry. 7 igen lassen." Bentley does not comment on this pas- sage. Kiessling brackets the stanza in which eius occurs, 3,11,18. As for the reason that led the poets to avoid this word, both Kiessling and Bentley hint vaguely that it is unpoetical. Bentley seems to be condemning only the form eius, while Kiessling' s state- ment may be understood to include all the forms of the pronoun. I know Dacier's attitude only from Schiitz, 3d ed. (1889), p. 402. Grosrau, Sprachlehre, :. H, Anm. 2 makes a somewhat more definite and detailed statement: "Wie et id, idque auf den ganzen Satz bezogen, so steht isque am Anfang des Satzes scharf hinweisend bei Cicero, haufig bei Virgil, 1,215; 3,596; 4,203; 6,684 e* a?- Sonst haben die Dichter httheren Stiles das Wort vermieden, da es nurformcllc hung, kcinc cigcntliche Bcdcutung hat" (the italics are mine). Quite a different reason is assigned by Schmalz, /. c. "Is war den Dichtern unbequem, weil es sich nicht gut in den Vers fiigt, und so meiden es Catull, Virgil, Horaz, Lucan, auch der Metriker Ter- entian, sichtlich." This statement seems to be a somewhat misleading abridgment of Obermeier, Der Sprachgebrauch des M. Annaeus Lucanus, p. 15: "Ohne Zweifel war dieses Pronomen. . .zu unbequem da sich seine obliquen Casus nur schlecht in den Hexa- meter fiigten." The questions suggested by all these inadequate statements are numerous and render im- perative a careful examination of the entire problem. In the investigation of this question it will be . first, a ted above, to determine the A-e frequency of is in ill 8 compared with that in the prose writ- 8 The Latin Pronouns. Proceeding chronologically let us begin with a review of the usage of the early poets. Taking a selection from their extant works and fragments large enough to be representative, we obtain the following table of percentages:1 hie is ille ipse iste idem Comicorum fragmenta ed. Ribbeck 42 25 20 4 7 2% Tragicorum " " " 33 30 16 10 65 Plautus, Captivi 40 26^ 16 3% 13 \% " Casina 34 29 22 2% 12 i " Menaechmi 43 20 i8K 4>i 12 2% Trinummus 30% 33 i8& 7% 9 i% average of the above 37 27^ 18% 4% «5i i% Ennii fragmenta 38 23 17^ 10 3J4 7 This table is based upon the following total number of occurrences of these pronouns: Comici 319, Tragici 187, Captivi 422, Casina 254, Menaechmi 372, Tri- nummus 500, (excluding prologues); Ennius 153. It will be seen from this table that the pronoun is occurs more frequently than any of the others with the exception of hie, and in one instance, that of the Trinummus, more frequently than hie. Ennius' use of is will be discussed more in detail below. Lucretius in his usage of these pronouns holds a place very near the archaic poets, a circumstance which is of importance as furnishing further evidence of his sympathies with these writers, and showing his de- pendence upon them. In books i, 2, 3, 6 of his poem the above pronouns occur in the following proportions: hie 34, is 25, ipse 20, ille 14, idem 8, iste o. In 1 It has not been thought necessary to make the percentages in the tables exact to a small fraction of one per cent. Accord- ingly their sums sometimes slightly exceed or fall below a hundred. Is in Poetry. 9 Catullus, however, we find an important change. His complete works give us: hie ille ipse is idem iste 39 25^ I$y2 I2Z/2 4*/3 2*/i with which cf. Caesar 20 9^ 14 50^ 6 ^ It will be observed that in Catullus is occupies the fourth rank, being less frequently used than either hie, ille or ipse. The Aratea, a translation made by Cicero in his earlier years, although antedating Catul- lus, shows a much stricter avoidance of the word. In the fairly extensive fragments of the Aratea (about 550 lines) that have come down to us, is is met with only three times: verse 250 (is), frag. XV (eius), verse 315 (eum); while in Catullus (about 2000 verses, many of them much shorter than Cicero's hexameters) it occurs 42 times. This apparent inconsistency in the usage of Cicero and Catullus disappears, however, when we distinguish between thelatter's "Nugae" and his longer poems in hexameters (No. 62 Uesper adest and No. 64 Epithalamium Pelei). These two poems, which make up about one-fourth of the Catullus-cor- pus show but a single instance of is (64,122), since the word eius is unquestionably corrupt in v. 109 of the Kpithalamiurn. ing thus determined the date at which is be- gins to be less frequently used in poetry, we may now proceed to distinguish the various branches of poetry and to set fortli in tabular form the whole number of occurrences of the determinative pronoun in ( a) satire, (b) didactic epos, (c) elegy, (d) historical and heroic epos, (e) ode. 10 The Latin Pronouns. SATIRE (with related branches). Horace,i Sat. and Epist. 31 instances to ca. 4000 verses, or i to 130 vv. Persius 6 Juvenal 4 Martial " 5 475 3800 8600 i " 80 i " 950 i " 1720 DIDACTIC EPOS. Cicero, Aratea 3 i Virgil, Georgica 9 Manilius 24 Germanicus i Epos Aetna I Grattius, Cynegetica 2 Serenus Sammonicus i Nemesianus 2 Auianus, Fabulae 2 550 verses, or inst. to iSovv 2200 " " 11 " 245 4200 " " " 170 950 11 " 95o 6;4 " " 654 ^-40 " 270 IIOO " IIOO 672 654 " " " 327 Virgil, Bucolica Tibullus 5 Lygd. and Paneg\ r. 2 Sulpicia i Propertius8 13 Ovid, Amores 2 " Tristia, Pont. 66 Statius, Siluae 6 Calpurnius i ELEGY and IDYL. 2 inst. to ca. 800 verses, or i inst. to 400 1900 Aeneid Ovid, Metamorphoses Lucan, Pharsalia Valerius Flaccus Statius, Thebais Statius, Achilleis Silius, Punica, B'ks i-iband 17 Ilias Latina Dracontius, Carm. Prof ana Claudianus 300 4100 " 2450 " 6250 ' ' 3900 " i " " " 760 " EPOS (historical and heroic). instance to ca. 380 200 300 315 1225 95 650 760 125 verses 165 !33° 220 320 1125 190 500 600 5000 JIn the same lines hie occures 350 times. 2 Propertius 2,24,51 is now read Hi or Ni instead of li. Is /;/ Poetry. 1 1 It might at first thought seem to the reader that the number of occurrences of is in Ovid's Ex Ponto and Tristia is too large to warrant the assertion that the poet avoided the pronoun. The relative smallness of this number, however, is apparent at a glance, when we note that on an equal number of pages of Caesar the pronoun occurs about 800 times. The following are the precise references to the passages in which is occurs, only, however, for those authors who employ the word but a small number of times: Persius 6,16 ob id. 3,95 quidquid id est. 6,65 quid- quid id est. 2,71 id. 3,48 id. 5,97 id quod. Juvenal 3,182 id uitium. 6,413 id uitium. 7,162 quidquid id est. 10,183 id. Martial 2,30,5. 7,31,12. 14, 145,1; in all three cases is or id at the beginning of a line. 3,1,1. 6,68,11; in both instances the formula quidquid id est. In addi- tion to these passages it occurs twice in the prose intro- ductions. Friedliinder's index is misleading, since it cites only two examples. Virgil, Georgica 1,432 is. 2,23960*. 263 id. 3,252 eos. 289 e&. 510 eit. 4,89 eum. 334 earn. 430611111. Germanicus, Phaenomena 32 eas. Aetna 253 ea. Gratius 224 eius. 363 id. Serenus Sammonicus 1095 id. Nenu^iamis, Cynegetica 212 quicquid id est. 298 id. inns 2,2 cam. 20,5 is. (rariti lectio 40,4). il, Hucolica 3,35 id quod. 9,37 id quidem. Tilmllus i , 2,39 f is to. 6,25 eius. 10,66 is. 2,3,33 quisqn: 12 The Latin Pronouns. Lygdamus 3,4,94 Isque. 6,12 eum. Sulpicia 4,7,8 id. Ovid, Amores 3,4,3 ea. 15,5 Si quid id est. Statius, Siluae 1,4,53 ea- 6,49 quisquis is est. 5, 1,219 Is- 5>65 Quisquis is est. In verse 1,2,180 ea is a conjecture of Bahrens for et, and, like Uerum id, at (for uerum erat) 5,5,49, is not accepted by Vollmer. Calpurnius, Eel. 4,12 Quidquid id est. Lucan 1,171 is. 2,726 Non ea. 3,611 earn. 4,546 eum. 7,4o6(eo=propterea). 10,265 non id (uaria lec- tio ita). The poorer MSS. show forms of is in 3,228. 6,733. 828. 9,538. 1062. The passages in the sixth, seventh and tenth books are overlooked by Ober- meier, /. c. Statius, Achilleis i, 811(^2,137) Is I lias Latina 22 eius. 640 idque. Dracontius 5,271 Id quod. 6,57 Uix ea fatus eram. ClaudianusXXXIII( = Proserp. 1,117). XXVIII, 558. To these tables might have been added the Disticha Catonis and the Carmina De Figuris and De Ponderi- bus. These show one instance of is to every thirty- five to seventy lines, a frequency easily accounted for by the prosaic character of the subject matter and the carelessness of metrical treatment. In Corippus it is rarely used (examples: loan. 2,326 ea; 6,255 Uix ea; 8,33; 127 Uix ea; Laud. lust. 1,79). The same is true of Cyprian's Heptatuch (Genesis 1039 Is qui; 1347 Id; Deuteronomy 57(953) id). In view of the strictness with which Cyprian avoided this word one should hesitate long before accepting Mayor's conjecture of is qui for ille qui Deuteronomy 124. 5( = io4of). In Is in Poetry. 13 the poetical portions of Boethius, De Consolatione Phil, it does not occur. On the avoidance of the word by the Satirists see §orn, Der Sprachgebrauch des Eu- tropius, 11,4. For Commodian see below. The discrepancy between Ovid's Amores and his Tristia is perhaps to be explained by the circumstance that the former were written at Rome at the beginning of his career, at a time when he was strongly under the influence of his early rhetorical training, the latter in exile in his later years, at a time when his style was less careful. In putting forward this explanation, however, we must not fail to remember that the Meta- morphoses, which is the last poem Ovid wrote before his exile, shows a comparatively frequent use of the determinative. Before inquiring in detail what the above tables teach us concerning the use of this pronoun in the poets, it remains only for me to point out the strik- ing contrast between the usage of the early poets discussed above (p. 8) and typical later poets. This contrast is clearly brought out by the following table: hie is ille ipse iste idem icorum frag. 33 30 16 10 6 5 licorum fr, 42 25 20 472 Catullus 39 12 25 15 2 6 Virgil. Acn. Ill 49 5 23 14 3 5 Silius. Bks. VIII and IX 58 3 20^ 12 I 5^ Lucan.Hks.IIaii.ini 60*4 i 19 13 3 22j Let us now see what the above tables teach with reft: . the attitude of the poets toward this pronoun. 14 The Latin Pronouns. If the suggestions of Bentley and Grosrau cited above are true (cf. the words "epici carminis maiesta- tem — inquinaret" — "hoheren Stiles" — "kerne eigent- liche Bedeutung' ' ) , we must in order to be consistent in detail, assume that the higher forms of poetry should be stricter in their avoidance of the word than those branches which do not rise so lofty above the sermo pcdcstris. Such a condition of affairs is precisely what we find reflected very clearly in the detailed table for Catullus above. We likewise find the determinative all but banished from Horace's Odes, while it is far less rigidly excluded from the Epistles and the Satires, as the two passages above mentioned are the only ones in the Odes in which is occurs. But, since the usage found in the works of Ennius (see below page 16) is slightly different, the evidence of such a distinction is limited to these two instances. Virgil employs it more rarely in his Georgics than in the Aeneid, though on the general theory we should expect the contrary. Juvenal in his Satires is much more sparing of is than the writers of the heroic epos, Statius and Valerius Flaccus, while Martial, the writer of epigrams, avoids the word more strictly than any other Roman poet except Claudian and Boethius. In fact each of the branches distinguished above shows great variety within itself. The average number of lines corre- sponding to each occurrence of is varies in the Satire, etc. from 80 to 1720 Didactic Epos from 170 to noo Elegy and Idyl from 95 to 1200 Heroic and Hist. Epos from 125 to 1300' 1 If we include Claudian, 5000. Is in Poctrv. 15 Any attempt to establish a general canon based on the distinction of genera is therefore seen to be futile. If we disregard the genera and undertake to determine some principle based on chronology, we shall likewise be unsuccessful in discovering a regularly operating principle. However, in general, it is perfectly clear that the post-Augustan poets and especially the later writers, are much more strict in the exclusion of the pronoun than the Augustan. Compare, e. g., Martial (i X 1720)' with Horace (i X 130); Statius, Silvae (i X 650) with Tibullus ( i X 380) , with Propertius ( i X 320) or with Virgil's Bucolics (1X400); L,ucan (1X1430) with Ovid's Metamorphoses (i X 165); and Dracontius (1X1200) with Virgil's Aeneid (1X125). In other words, the rule of composition, for such we must call it, was more strictly applied as time went on, and as originality played an increasingly less prominent part in Roman literature. We shall be impressed with the comparative rarity of is in poetry, when we consider that Caesar alone has over two thousand instances of is, even omitting the forms hi and his, which in a large number of cases undoubtedly represent original ii and against Horace's 34 and Virgil's 75. An examination of the usage of the poets with a to determining whether they observed any dis- tinction in the use of the special cases reveals some striking facts. Certain forms of is are rigidly avoided, while for others a strongly marked preference is shown. This preference for certain cases is seen in some writ- long before any tendency to avoid the word B .Me. Knnins for example, if we are 1 /'. i., "in- in-4amx- ill 1720 1 6 The Latin Pronouns. justified in making deductions from the somewhat limited number of extant fragments of his works, ob- serves a careful distinction in the use of the forms of is, as employed in his Hexameters on the one hand and in his Dramas, the tone of which approaches that of the vernacular, on the other. In the fragments of the Annals (600 verses) only the forms is, ea and eos and the monosyllabic forms sam, sas, sos, sum occur, there being in all fifteen instances. In the Satires (86 verses) only is occurs (four times). In the Fabulae the word occurs about as often as in the Annals, but with this marked difference: the form is is used only once, ea only once, id four times, while the forms ei, eum, eo, eis, entirely excluded from the Annals, occur seven times, the forms with the initial sibilant being entirely rejected. The facts are most evident in tabu- lated form (based on L. Miiller's edition, 1884): Ann. Sat. Fab. Monosyllabic forms and ea 18 7 Other forms i (eos) 7 In view of the somewhat scanty fragments of En- nius one might be tempted to regard the above men- tioned conditions as a result of chance, did he not find them strikingly confirmed by the usage of the later poets. To make this clearer we here insert a tabulated statement of the relative frequency of the cases of is in the Augustan and post-Augustan poets mentioned in the above tables with the exception of the Tibullus-corpus, Propertius, Horace and Manilius, who are not so rigid in the exclusion of the oblique cases, and with the addition of Ennius' Annals, Ca- Is in Poetry. 17 tonis Disticha, the Carmina de Figuris, de Ponderibus and de VII Planetibus, Namatianus and Priscian's Periegesis. For the sake of comparison with a stan- dard prose- writer we adjoin in a parallel series the figures giving the relative frequency in Caesar. Num- ber of instances: other is (sam, etc.) ea id eum, earn eo, ea eos, eas forms total Caesar 50 90 175 24$ 360 185 940 2045 Poets 104 150 112 22 15 5 2 410 For Caesar the occurrences are stated in round num- bers and include the Pseudo- Caesarian Bell. Alex., Bell. Afr., and Bell. Hisp. The two isolated cases in the poets are eius from Ovid, Ex Ponto 4,15,6 (omit- ted in Heinze's text) and Ilias Latina 2,2. The above figures yield the following percentages: Caesar 21A ^A %1A 12 17^ 9 46 100 Plautus 15 5^ 30 19^ 7 3^ 19^ 100 Poets 25^ 36^ 27^ 5^ 3^ i^ Y2 loo In this table Plautus is represented only by the four plays tabulated above. The forms eius and ei (Dative) make up seventeen per cent, of the nineteen and one- half per cent, in the last column but one. If we now include in the poets the totals for the Tibullus-corpus, pertittt, Horace and Gratitis, the proportions re- main still not very materially altered: other is ea id eu(a)m eo(a) forms Occurrence^: iiS 152 144 36 22 20 492 24 31 29^ 7^ 4^ 4 100 We observed above that the detenu inative as a whole voided by the poets. The la-t two tables show 1 8 The Latin Pronouns. that in the handling of the special cases also careful discrimination was made. Certain forms of is have entirely disappeared, others are rarely used, while still others have become decidedly less frequent than in prose. On the other hand a marked preference is shown for the monosyl- labic forms is and id and for the pyrrhic ea. With these three forms the poets have in fact developed a number of formulae that find frequent employment. Among the more common of these may be mentioned: i 2 isque, idque. Ennius, Lucretius, Tibullus, Virgil, Ovid, Statius, Silius. 3 atque is. Statius, Silius. 4 atque ea. Lucretius, Virgil, Ovid, Statius, Silius. 5 uix ea (often followed by fatus erat). Virgil, Ovid, Statius, Dracontius. 6 dumque ea. Statius, Silius. 7 quidquid id (is) est (es). Lucretius, Tibullus, Virgil, Statius, Nemesianus, Avianus, Cal- purnius. Of these nos. 1,2,5,6 are of quite frequent occurrence, there being nearly one hundred instances in all. None of them, however, are found in Lucan. The form e£ shares with other pyrrhic words the peculiarity of often filling the last two short syllables of the fourth foot of the hexameter. Thus is formed the cadence ^^ — ^^ — ^ so common in our epics. Examples are: Virgil, Aen. 2,17 ea farna uagatur; 3,505 ea cura nepo- tes; 660 ea sola uoluptas; 4,379 ea cura quietos; 2,123 ea numina diuom; 3,100 ea moenia quaerunt; 12,216 ea pugna uideri; Ovid, Met. 6,154 ea cuncta placer ent; Is in Poetry. 19 8,123 ea fabula: uerus; 15,64 ea pectoris hausit, etc., etc.] Statius, Thebais 2,73; 4,242; Valerius Flaccus 3,223; 455; 4,144; 6,18; 7,108; 8,43. Compare with this peculiarity the observation made by Edwards, The Ablative of Quality and the Geni- tive of Quality in Latin, New York, 1900, p. 39, that the Ablative of quality corpore stands nearly always in the fifth foot of the hexameter, because of the im- possibility in many instances of employing the Geni- tive in this position. Whatever may have been the reason or reasons that led the poets to distinguish be- tween the Ablative and the Genitive construction,1 the 1 It is evident that the choice between these two construc- tions, if determined simply by the technique of prosody, must depend, in Virgil and the later writers at least, upon the charac- ter (vocalic or consonantal) of the initial vowel of the following word. As a matter of fact, in Lucretius 1,1-300 the dissyllabic la with initial consonant that follow a dactylic word in the fifth foot of the hexameter are about three times as frequent as the words with initial vowels in the same position (in Virgil i, 1-300 the proportion is about two of the former to one of the latter). There would accordingly be more opportunity on an average to employ the Ablative, if the choice were determined merely by the character of the following word. Is it not more likely that the reverse would be the case, and that the character of the final dissyllable would be determined by the use of the Ablative or the Genitive in the fifth foot ? Or, if Lucretius was forced to use a word like posse in the sixth foot, would he have found any difficulty in writing 1,4-SS solidi reperiri corpori ' posse ? Since writing the above, I have laid this question before Dr. r.ls, who agrees with me that I. urretius was not constrained by the metre to write corpore, referring to 2,53 rationi' potestas and a.'.-j; niunini' diuae. He urges, however, and rightly enough, that the influence of Lucretius, and particularly of Vir- gil, » lent usage must have been great. 2O The Latin Pronouns. appearance of the word corpore so often in the fifth foot is easy of explanation. In the Latin hexameters a dactylic word often forms the fifth foot (about 230 cases in Lucretius i , 1-300, Virgil i , 1-300 and Juvenal, Satire i), less frequently in the first foot (about 80 cases in the same lines) seldom in the fourth (12 cases) and very rarely in the second and third (no cases) . It is a question then of the diaeresis and the penthemimeral caesura. Applying these conditions to the pronoun is, we may readily conjecture that, if no elision takes place (elision occurs very rarely; so Ovid Met. 2,785 and Silius 7,160 — In both cases it also precedes the diaresis), the form ea will stand only in a foot that is followed by the diaeresis, /. c., in the fifth, fourth and first often, in the third less fre- quently, in the second very rarely. What we actually find is that out of 86 instances of ea 48 fall in the first foot, 28 in the fourth foot, 8 in the third and 2 in the second. The excess of the occurrences in the first foot over those in the fourth (we might have expected the reverse) is accounted for by the frequent use of is as a correlative. Thus out of the 201 passages in which various forms of is occur in Ennius, the Tibul- lus-corpus, Propertius, Virgil, Ovid, Lucan, Statins and Silius, 118 fall to the first foot, 34 to the fourth, 25 to the second, 19 to the third, 5 to the fifth and none to the sixth. This also explains the absence of is from the sixth foot and its infrequent appearance in the fifth. In addition to the cases of is counted in the com- parison drawn between Caesar and the poets the fol- lowing instances occur in metrical inscriptions: Is in Poetry. 21 id: Biicheler, Carm. Epigraph., nos. 767; 995,26; 1009 Quicquid id est; 1031; 1258 Idque (= C. I. L. XII, 2098; VI, 12652; XI, 1273 (ex sche- dis); VI, 6592; 23004); Hubner, Inscriptiones Hispaniae Christianae ex Zamorae schedis. eius: B. 765 (= C. I. L. XII, 2143). ei (dat.): B. 489 (monosyllabic); 492 (iambic) (= C. I. L. 111,10501; 754). eo (for eum): B. 474 (= Ephem. Epigraph. IV, p. 346, no. 936). ea: B. 774 (= C. I. L. VIII,684). Taking up the forms in detail, we may now observe that the forms is and ea are among those less fre- quently found in prose. This is also true of id, but the contrast between the prose usage and that of the poets is not so marked in the case of this form. Most striking of all is the almost entire absence of eius in the poets, which is used by the prose writers more frequently than any other form, occurring, for exam- ple, in Caesar upwards of three hundred times. It is fairly common in Lucretius (55 times in books 1-3; 6) and Manilius (12 times), who often employ it to fill the last foot of the hexameter. The only other poets of those cited in the above tables, who t are: Catullus 84,5; Tibullus 1,6,25; Propertius o; 4,6,67; Horace, Satires 2,1,70; 6,76; Ovid, Trist. 3,4,27; ex Ponto 4,15,6 (some manuscripts have- huius — In Met. 8,16 eius is a questionable read- : (Vratins 224. From tlii> count the ante-classi- >oets and Connnodian arc- also omitted. The latter culiarities in his use of the word, as in his metrics in general. lie u>» - is, however. >par- 22 The Latin Pronouns. ingly, showing the forms: is 4 times, ea 6 times, eius 3 times, eo 12, ear urn 5, eos 6, eis 3. Entirely miss- ing from the poets are ii(ei) Nom. pi., eae and eis. Omitting Commodian and the inscriptions mentioned, earum occurs only in Catullus 63,54; Horace, Sat. 2,8,92; eorumonly in Horace, Sat. 1,4,80; eos only Pro- pertius 2,21,7; Horace, Epist. 2,1,67; Virgil, Georg. 3,252; Aen. 1,413; Carmen de Pond. 72; eas Horace, Sat. 1,10,14; ei (dat.) only Catullus 82,3; Ovid, Hal. 34. It is also worthy of comment that only the in- stance in the Carmen de Ponderibus and those in the inscriptions fall later than the Augustan age. This clearly shows not only that the later writers in metre avoided the word as a whole, but also that they were more rigid in the exclusion of the oblique cases just enumerated. As a matter of fact, in the entire post- Virgilian literature under discussion there are only five cases of eum, five of eo, one of eius, two of ei. Three of these fall to Lucan. Considerable light is thrown upon the reasons for this attitude of the poets by the explanations of Wolff - lin- Header in the Archiv fiir lateinische Lexiko- graphie und Grammatik XI, 373 ff: i) 'The nominative forms ii, ei, eae were indis- tinguishable in pronunciation, and hence in metrical value, from the Dative and from the Nominatives hi and hae. The poets' ears could hardly have felt the combination of sounds eae as an objectionable caco- phony, since they frequently admit such forms as meae, deae, etc. lis was avoided for the same reasons as ii.' This point suggests one of the most interesting as Is in Poetry. 23 well as most important problems of textual criticism. The questions involved are a) at what time was the phonetic identity of ii and hi, eae and hae, iis and his (hiis also occurs) an accomplished fact ? b) how far has this confusion operated at a later date to cause corruption in the manuscripts of the earlier writers ? Weissbrodt, De usu pronominum is et hie quaestio, Progr. Bromberg, 1878,79 has shown quite clearly that this confusion could scarcely have become general before the end of the second century A. D. , although isolated cases of hi for ii and of his for iis are found much earlier. In the fourth and fifth centuries this confusion was very common, if not universal. The attempt of Hans Ziegel, De is et hie pronominibus quatenus confusa sint apud antiques, Marburg, 1897, to bring order into the chaos must be regarded as a distinct advance. He endeavors to prove by the colla- tion of certain manuscripts, that an unknown gram- marian of the fourth or fifth century established some rules for the guidance of authors or scribes in the choice between the two sets of forms. Still his results cannot be accepted until they receive confirmation by the consultation of other manuscripts. If the question were one of orthography and phonetics only, it would be comparatively simple. It is, however, complicated b)r considerations of semasiology. The weakening of the force of hie, which will be treated in the following chapter, had in the classical period so far advanced as •nder the interchange of the two words no uncom- mon occurrence. We may therefore not unreasonably inquire, whether the writers, though perfectly aware of the orthographical, phonetic and seinasiolo^ical dis- 24 The Latin Pronouns. tinctions (however slight) between the two words, nevertheless deliberately chose his and hi in preference to iis and ii. One circumstance, which, so far as I am aware, has never been noted, is of great weight: in sentences of the type of Quint. 9,2,1 nam mihi de his sen tenti arum figuris dicere in animo est, quae ab illo simplici modo indicandi recedunt, other forms than his and hi are of the rarest occurrence, while these two forms are quite frequently met with (Compare, e. g., the readings in Cato, De Agricultura 1,4; 18,6; 52,1; 66,2; 149,2; 158,2). We feel called upon to lay con- siderable stress upon this fact in view of the surprising persistency with which modern writers on Latin gram- mar cite instances of hi and his to prove the weaken- ing of the meaning of hie. Very few writers quote instances of any other form. This extraordinary per- ponderance of the two forms hi and his would be more naturally brought about by manuscript corruption than by semasiological conditions contemporary with the author, since such conditions would be likely to aifect all forms alike and not simply the two just mentioned. As no instance of iis or is (for iis) occurs in the poets mentioned above except the dramatists, it is very difficult to say whether the confusion in manu- script tradition has affected their works as well as those of the prose writers.' 2) 'The Nominative ei was coincident in form with the Dative ei.' 3) 'The Dative ei varied between the monosyllabic pronunciation (L,ucilius 4,4o(Ei coni. M.); 7,27; En- nius, Fab. 204 (Miiller); Catullus 82,3), the iambic (Ovid, Hal. 34 — L,ucan avoids the Dative 6,172 by Is in Poetry. 25 using viro [Obermeier, /. r.]) and the spondaic (see Ritschl, Opusc. II, 419, where are quoted twenty-two examples from the comedians and seven from Lucre- tius).' 4) 'The forms eum, earn, eo, ea, eos, eas varied between the monosyllabic and the dissyllabic pronun- ciation, and eorum, earum were pronounced with and without synezesis.' 5) 'Eius is still more uncertain in its pronuncia- tion. It is monosyllabic (Cicero, Arat. apud De Nat. Deor. 2,109) or pyrrhic under the republic (cf. L,ach- mann on L,ucr. pp. 27; 161), while the normal Augus- tan pronunciation was trochaic.' 'To avoid such difficulties the poets excluded the forms in question entirely from their writings.' On the whole subject of the uncertainty and variety in pronunciation of the dissyllabic and trisyllabic forms of is see Bucheler, Lateinische Declination, index s. vv. Positive evidence that the considerations just men- tioned played a part in determining the poet to avoid the use of these metrically inconvenient forms of is, is found in the similar attitude of the poets toward idem. The evidence collected by Bucheler, op. cit. s. idem, eadem, etc., shows that we have no reason for supposing that the confusion in pronunciation of idem was any less than that of the determinative. On the contrary, the transference of the accent would tend still further to bring about the disappearance of the initial vowel of the oblique cases (compare the form of the Nom. inaac., sg. and pi. Dat.-Abl. pi. idem and :n— the normal forms employed in the hexameter — with the unroinpouiKkd ii, eis. iis, rarely or never 26 The Latin Pronouns. employed by the poets). The reduction of these two forms to dissyllables rendered their employment in metrical writings possible, or at least unobjectionable; and placed them, in fact, metrically on the same basis with is and id. Accordingly we frequently find them in poetry, while ii and iis are absolutely avoided. This is in itself sufficient proof that the difficulty of metri- cal treatment was the chief objection to the two simple forms. In Catullus, Tibullus-corpus, Proper tius, Hor- ace's Odes, Ovid's Ex Ponto, Martial and Juvenal the following forms of idem occur, if we may trust the indices: idem Nom. sg. and pi. 72 times; eadem Nom. sg. pi. and Ace. pi., 38; isdem Dat.-Abl. pi. 7 times; other forms, 13 (10 in Ovid and Juvenal.). Horace is less strict in the use of idem, precisely as he is less strict in the exclusion of is from his Satires and Epis- tles. I have no doubt that the examination of Virgil, Lucan, Silius, Statius and Valerius Flaccus would reveal still greater caution on the part of these writ- ers in the use of idem. While there can be no doubt that these considera- tions have played an important part in determining the exclusion of the determinative and the pronoun of identity from poetry, we must not overlook other con- siderations. It was a true feeling for the language that led Dacier to remark on the unpoetical character of is, and that led Bentley (if his opinion was not formed independently) to approve his judgment. The determinative does express in most cases only "for- melle Beziehung," but it is going too far to add, as Grosrau does, that the word "keine eigentliche Bedeut- ung hat." To be sure, the word often adds so little Is in Poetry. 27 to the sentence that it may be dropped even in prose, yet the usage of the poets shows that here, as in prose, the word often has a more or less strong demonstrative force, "he and no other," sometimes approaching talis in meaning (cf. supra}, while, vice versa, it is less fre- quently used as a simple correlative with qui. We occasionally find it where in classical prose we should expect ille or hie. From correspondence with Professor Shorey, of the University of Chicago, I learn that the same feel- ing concerning the weakness of the meaning of certain words underlies his note on Horace O. 4,2,33 and the statement found on p. xix of the Introduction to his edition of Horace's Lyrics. This discussion would be incomplete and perhaps misleading, if we should omit to state that even in prose the forms ei (ii) Nom. pi. and eae are extremely rare. In Caesar, for example, the two combined make up only i2/3 per cent, of the entire number of occur- rences of the determinative, in the Rhetorica ad Herennium only i */$ per cent., in Curtius ^ per cent., in Florus */$ per cent., in Apuleius ^ per cent., while they are entirely absent from Fronto B'ks. 1-5. Is their scarcity due to their disappearance orption) into the forms hi and hae, or to disuse <1 by a weakening of meaning? The answer must ]>end the solution of the problem stated on pages ;. It may further be added that even the form would from the bare fact of its being Nom. pi. 1 rather infrequent use as a substantive either in prose or TOTM < more often in the latter ), while both hi and IKK- wouM often be understood from the per- 28 The Latin Pronouns. sonal ending of the verb or represented by the relative qui, quae. The form id, on the other hand, was largely used in prose as well as in poetry (compare the numerical prominence of the neuters hoc and haec), yielding in the Rhetorica ad Herennium 25^ per cent, of all instances of the determinative, in Florus 27, and in Pronto (and M. Aurelius), B'ks. 1-5, 29 per cent. B. IS IN PROSE LITERATURE. Although the prose literature of the Romans does not show peculiarities in the use of is so striking as those just discussed, yet some interesting and valuable facts may be learned from observing the attitude of the prose writers. An examination of the monu- ments shows that is is less and less frequently em- ployed in proportion as the style passes from the cold and unimpassioned scientific exposition (legal litera- ture, Cato, De Agr., etc.} through the more lively historical narrative into the impassioned tone of ora- tory and rhetorical (declamatory) prose (Seneca). In fact it is par excellence the pronoun of the curial style. In all our preserved laws, formulae, etc., hie hardly appears at all. When it does, it refers with few excep- tions to the subject matter of the document itself. Ille occurs previous to the year 48 A. D. only three times in Bruns' Fontes. The passages are: lex Cor- nelia de XX quaestoribus (81 B. C.) 1, 5 ollis homini- bus in which case ollis seems to have the force peculiar to formulae, ' ' so and so " ; lex a vicanis Furf ensibus templo dicta (58 B. C.) 1. 3 comulateis olleis legibus illeis regionibus (in which case it certainly bears the meaning just mentioned) — cf. Hermes VII, p. 201, Is /// Prose Literature. 29 where the style of this provincial document is dis- cussed. In view of the extreme rarity of the word, one is surprised to meet with it in the Laws of the Twelve Tables 10,8 ast im cum illo (/. e., auro quo iuncti sunt dentes) sepeliet. Aside from the question as to how much the text of the laws has been modern- ized, there is of course a possibility of corruption in the manuscripts of Cicero, where the passage is pre- served. If the text is sound, the demonstrative may be justified by the contrast between the gold particu- larly mentioned in the sentence just cited, and the general prohibition neue aurum addito. Even after the date above mentioned ille appears rarely in the laws. In the S. C. Claudianum (48 A. D.), which really has the form of an address and not of a legal document, ille occurs four times. In the carelessly written decretum proconsulis Sardiniae (79 A. D.) there is an example; likewise in the S. C. Macedonianum (69-79 A. D.), where illi stands simply for ei; in the testamentum Galli (first century); in the testamentum Dasumii (108 A. D.); in the lex arae lovis Salaritanae (137 A. D.), in which occurs the above cited formula ollis legibus ollis regionibus; in the epistula praefecto- rum praetorio (168 A. D.), where illo = eo; in the lis fullonum de pensione solvendo where illud quod — id quod; in the gesta de aperiendo testamento (474 A. D.), quod .... illud = quod .... id. It should be noted that only few of these are public documents, which keep closer to the- <. -la^k-al usage. Turning now to the writers of scientific prose we find the relative frequency of the six pronouns to be 30 The Latin Pronouns. is hie ille ipse idem iste Cato 59^ 23^ 3 2 ii Vitruvius 64 22 ft 5* 8 Gaius 64 15 4 8 8 Dictys Cretensis 70^ 13 2^ 8^ 4 Dares Phrygius 72 II 7^ 6?£ 2 * In the first three cases hi and his are counted with hie although there can be no doubt that many of them should fall into the is-column. Owing to the con- fusion between ii and hi, iis and his, 73 and ii would probably be a more exact proportion for Dictys Cre- tensis. In the case of Dares those instances of hi and his which undoubtedly represent original ii and iis are included in the 72 per cent. The last two writers are added not as scientific writers, but because their per- centages approach nearest to those of Cato, etc. They may easily have used the pronoun is so largely in order to give their writings a flavor of antiquity. The historians in their employment of these pro- nouns show some marked differences: is hie ille ipse idem iste 6 /'B 7 « Caesar 50^ 20^ 9^ Curtius 36 21 16^ Suetonius 553/i i3j£ 62/z Justin 35 22 14^ Victor 50^ 22 9 12 Vz ii 7 i The pronouns ille and ipse are decidedly more fre- Is in Prose Literature. 31 quent, — it could not be otherwise in historical litera- ture,— while is has decreased. The less frequent employment of is by Curtius and Justin could be easily accounted for. The African Latinity of Florus and his poetical coloring, for which see Archiv f . lat. Lex. u. Gram. VI, iff. [Wolfflin], removes him widely from these. He shows: 17 24 26 27^ 5^ # With him, as with Catullus, is holds the fourth place instead of the first, its position being usurped by ille and ipse. He represents the extreme phase of a movement, which has left clear traces of its influence on the historical and particularly on the patristic literature. A medial position is occupied by the fol- lowing writers: is hie ille ipse idem iste % % % % % % Seneca Rhetor 13% 35^ 35 6 3% 6% Pliny, Epistulae 16 34 23 16 6j£ 4^ Macrobius, Som. Scip. 16 47 ii>£ 15^ 8#" 2 Boethius, De Consol. 23^ 35^ 2oj£ 13 3^ il/z The facts told by these tables require no comment. The following chapters will be found to describe in detail the semasiological changes that explain, to a large extent at least, the shifting of the predominence in usage from one pronoun to another. Concerning the weakening of is in particular, those interested may consult Praun, Hemerkungeii y.ur Syn- Vitruv j>. s^; Sorn, Der Sprachgebrauch des Kutropiu>, part II, p. 3; and Hoppe, Pro- :i, p. 8. :i cite no writer in whose works is has so far 32 The Latin Pronouns. been replaced by hie, ille and ipse as in those of the grammarian Pompeius. In his writings it is confined almost entirely to certain set formulae or phrases. As a free and independent word it is nearly extinct. The following table is based on the first 108 pages of Keil's edition of Pompeius. is hie ille ipse idem iste totals Number of instances: Caesar and continuators 2.73(2045 830 382 525 277 5 749 304 140 189 101 2 1485 Pompeius 24 425 430 235 35 335 1484 Percentages: Caesar, etc. 50^ 20^ 9^ 14 6 % Pompeius i# 27^ 28^ 17^ 2# 22 The conclusions which are to be drawn from this table are to be found in chapter III. In reference to the disappearance of the individual forms of is, little is to be said beyond the remarks on the forms ii, iis, eae made above. It is well known that in later Latin the form eum (neuter) made on the analogy of ipsum, bellum, etc., usurps the place of the form id, except in the phrase id ipsum (= Italian desso) and probably a few other formulae. Examples are cited by Geyer, Kritischeund sprachliche Erliiuter- ungen zu Antonini Plac. Itin., p. 41. CHAPTER II. HIC. CHAPTER II. HIC. A. THE RIVALRY BETWEEN HIC AND IS. The encroachment of hie on the province of is is most clearly demonstrable in the case of certain short formulae or phrases, in which the neuter Nominative, Accusative or Ablative is used to refer not to some particular word, but to the general idea of the follow- ing or the preceding sentence or clause. Such phrases are eo (= ideo, propterea), hoc (= ideo, propterea), both either with or without a following quia, quod, ut, ne, etc.\ eo with the comparative, hoc with the com- parative; id est, hoc est, both explanatory; ad id, ad hoc with various meanings; ob id, ob hoc; postea, postidea, (post id, post e£), posthac (post hoc, p. haec — also postilla and ill£); eiusmodi, huiusmodi; and lastly eo consilio, hoc consilio, the last two not being fre- quently employed. These are all special cases tinder the general principle stated by Kuhner, L,at. Gram., £ 1 1 8, 2 Anm. 7 and 8 (= vol. II, p. 455). The first five pairs form the subject of the present section. /. Eo=ideo, hoc— ideo. The causal use of these two Ablatives is fully developed as early as Plautus, not to mention the doubtful passage in the lex XII tabularum 2,2 morbus sonticus .... aut dies status cum hoste .... quid 36 The Latin Pronouns. horum fuit uitium iudici reoue, eo dies || die || diffen- sus || diffissus, Th. Mommsen || esto. Examples of hoc = ideo are: Pseud. 807 l Ilium (sc. coquum) conducunt (homines) potius qui uilissumust. Hoc ego fui hodie solus obsessor fori; 819 ff . Ei homines cenas condiunt strigibus, conuiuis intestina quae exedint. Hoc hie quidem homines tarn breuem uitam colunt; Miles 850 . . . .ego promebam postea, Hoc illi crebro capite sistebant cadi; Hoc is here a probable and generally accepted con- jecture of Brix 2d ed. for the MSS. hie. Cist. 319 ff. Nam hasce aedis conductas habet meus gnatus, haec ubi astat. [nominauit. Hoc hanc earn esse opiniost: nam haec ilium I cite these passages in full since they are the only ones known to me in Plautus. Ussing ad Asin. 235 (= 248 U) says "hoc = ideo" but I cannot regard the passage as an indisputable instance of the construc- tion. Sentences of the type Stich. 127 Sed hoc est, quod ad uos uenio quodque esse ambas conuentas uolo (cf. Asin. 864; Merc. 711; Men. 1135) do not belong here, inasmuch as the passage Rud. 1258 Illuc est quod nos nequam seruis utimur T All citations from Plautus follow the larger revision and completion of Ritschl's edition by I/dwe, Gotz and Scholl. Eo = Ideo, Hoc — Ideo. 37 proves that this hoc is an Accusative. Slightly differ- ent is Lucr. 6,379, where Wakefield (apud Munro ad loc.} would take hoc in the causal sense. Munro is clearly right in rejecting this explanation of the word. In like manner the passage Miles 1321 Istuc crucior, a viro me tali abalienarier shows that Stichus 9 sed hoc, soror, crucior: Patrem tuom meumque .... (13,14). . .nunc inprobi uiri officio uti is to be excluded from this context. In Stichus 41 ego te hoc, soror, tametsi es maior, Moneo ut tuom memineris officium hoc is plainly Accusative. For Miles 297 see below p. 40. There is to my knowledge no instance of this construction in Terence. Was the graceful imitator of the Greeks led by his love of sermonis elegantia to avoid the construction ? The only passage that I can call into question is Phor. 804, and since the causal hoc does not occur in the comicorum fragmenta, Kiess- lingad Hor. Sat. 1,2,53 "wie Ofters in der Sprache der Komodie" should read "wie vereinzelt bei Plautus." A similar judgment must be passed upon Lorenz ad Mil. 850 "hoc = 'darum'; derselbe Abl. Pseud. 807; 822 und ofters." The only other examples which Hand, Tursellinus 111,92 and 93 cites as certain are: Lucr. 4,555 (now 553); 660 (now 658); 624 (now 622); . Geo. 2,425 (Uss. ad Plaut. Aul. 248 takes Virg. Aen. 9,492 in this way); Plin. Epist. 2,19,3 hoc quod; Seniiana schol. ant. litt. ad Eel. 10,18 (Duker pro- 38 The Latin Pronouns. poses here ob hoc against the MSS). If to these we add L,ucil. 6,29 (corrected by M tiller to hac); Catullus 44,13 (where cod. Oxoniensis reads li=hoc); Lucr. 4, 360; 6,274; 864 (in all these instances, as in the cases cited by Hand, the word stands in the formula hoc ubi1 at the beginning of a hexameter); 3,531 (where hoc is a conjecture of Munro for the MSS. reading haec.); Hor. Sat. i,2,53f; 1,6,41; 1,7,10; we shall see that one may well question the correctness of Kiessling's pro- cedure in making this construction characteristic of the language of comedy. The construction was doubtless avoided on account of the phonetic identity of hoc Nom. and Ace. sg., hoc Abl. and hoc Adverb ( = hue), which rendered the form ambiguous. Careful writers could therefore em- ploy the form only where the context left no doubt as to its meaning. They could easily find substitutes for it in the causal expressions ob hanc rem, ob hanc cau- sam, de hac causa, hac causa (later also hinc) and the like, or if necessary, in qua causa, qua de causa, quam ob rem, etc. It was no doubt in part this feeling that led to the juxtaposition of the Ablatives ipso, solo, uno and the superlative maxime, although, of course, no one would deny that these words at the same time intensify or otherwise modify the meaning of hoc. Another means of avoiding the locution was the phrase ob hoc discussed below, pp. 73ff . Ter. And. 268 offers ex hoc. The same purpose is imperfectly served by the addition of a quod clause (causal), although in 1 Lucretius has similarly hie ubi at the beginning of a hexa- meter in 6,446; 524; 836; (cf. Hor. Epist. 2,2,136). In Lucre- tius 4,1093 hoc = "by this means." Eo = Ideo, Hoc = Idco. 39 some cases this clause is itself susceptible of a double interpretation, and more perfectly effected by the addi- tion of a quia or a quom clause, which last form of correlation had a precourser in the Greek rourw .... dion, as exemplified in Antiphon -£/>} r. Hpw. $w. 3 rourat iffatOrjffav, Stort <e3> iipsuffavro. The causal Ablative eo is slightly more common in its simplest form than is causal hoc. A typical exam- ple of this usage is Plaut. Trin. 363 f. Nam sapiens quidem pol ipsus fingit fortunam sibi: [malust. Eo non multa quae neuolt eueniunt, nisi fictor The remaining instances in Plautus are: Bacch. 298 Non me fefellit, sensi: eo exanimatus fui; Bacch. 95; Capt. 837; 860; Cist. 7 (Ms); Poen. 288; Pers. 276; Rud. 876; True. 85. Trin. 372 (not 371) may perhaps be placed here. Truculentus 180 is doubtless an interpolation. Poen. 478 . . . .uiscum legioni dedi Fundasque: eo praesternebant folia farferi is beyond doubt the right reading, but eo is here an Ablative of means. I believe Ussing's interpretation of Asin. 435 (= 432U) eo = "than he" is correct, but the parallels he cites are not appropriate and do not prove the point. There are to my knowledge only 6 eleven certain instances in Plautus. From Terence I can cite only the passage Hec. 238 i in oppido aibant turn esse: eo ad earn non admissa stun. The passage Adel. 620 offers an instance of eo denot- 40 The Latin Pronouns. ing purpose or end, not cause. After Terence we first meet this pronoun in the Ciceronian age. For even assuming the correctness of the reading in Cato, De Agr. 22,3 (see Keil's critical note ad loc.)y we must interpret it with Gottfr. Grosse (translation of Cato, Halle, 1787) and Holtze, Syntax, prise, script. 1,221 in the sense "for this purpose," "to this end" (Grosse: "die kosten dazu betragen ...."). In fact, notwith- standing the statement of Kiihner, op. cit. II, p. 745 (cf. Hand, Turs. II, 410) to the contrary, the usage is well attested for Cicero himself and for Sallust. The instances are: Cic. De Div. 2,46 f rater es; eo uereor; De Nat. Deor. 2,30 quocirca sapientem esse mundum necesse est, naturamque perfectione rationis excellere, eoque deum esse mundum, omnemque uim mundi natura diuina continere; De Fin. 3,16 fieri autem non posset, ut appeterent aliquid, nisi sensum haberent sui eoque se diligerent; Sallust, Jug. 42,1 nobilitas noxia atque eo perculsa; Orat. Phil. 13 (= Maurenbrecher Fr. 1,77,13) antea malum publicum occulte, auxilia palam instruebatur, eo boni malos facile anteibant. It does not occur in these two writ- ers without the connectives et, que or atque. From this time on eo occurs in its simple form in all periods of the development of the language, at least down to Boethius (De Consol. Phil. 3,3/^,4). Here should also find mention the formula eo fit ut, as in Cic. Acad. 2,66; De Leg. 3,39; Sallust, Cat. 52,23; 53,4. The familiar type of construction Plaut. Most. 636 Quid eost argento f actum ? along with hinc fit, inde fit, etc., would perhaps lead Eo = Ideo, Hoc-Ideo. 41 one to suppose that the eo here expresses an idea of separation or of source rather than one of cause. Yet on the other hand, when we meet with such instances as Plaut. Amph. 756 Eo fit quia mihi plurimum credo (cf. Ter. Haut. 505, in which eo is correlated with a causal conjunction), and such as Plaut. Cure. 61 id eo fit, quia || ideo BEJ || , in which the subject of fit is expressed, we are led to conclude that the probabili- ties are at least as strong, that the Romans felt the causal force of the eo in this formula.1 Those who wish to study this locution more in de- tail may consult the following passages: Hor. Sat. i, 6,89; i,9,55; 2,8,65; Livy 2,48,4; 3,66,4; 71,6; 4,7, n; 10,9; 5,16,4; 17,10; 20,9; 46,9; 6,5,5; 7,8,5; 19, 5; 8,8,8; 17,8; 9,11,11; 36,4; 40,9; 22,47,5; 29,1,20,- 20, i; 25,12; 30,42,16; (Observe that in lyivy this con- struction is confined for the most part to the first de- cade— Cf. Stacey, Die Entwickelung des livian. Stiles,. in Archiv fur latein. Lexikographie and Grammatik X (1898), p. 17-82); Velleius Pat. 2,67,4; Plm. Nat. Hist. 24,62; Quint. 2,16,4; *7»7; 4,2,80 (Bonnell reads aut); 119; 3,3; 11,3,29; for Tacitus (about fifty instan- ces) see Gerber und Greef p. 351; Pronto 2^m(N); Apuleius, Apol. pp. 500,17 (Paris edition of 1688); 509,2; 514,1; 525,8; etc., etc.\ Gellius 11,9,1; Censori- nus, De Die Nat. 18,8; 8,5; 14,2; Victor, Historia Abbrcviata 15,3; 38,5; 39,20; 40,8. As in the case of hoc, so in that of eo, ambiguity (since co may mean "thither," "to the end that" 1 Cf. also ita fit ut. 6 42 The Latin Pronouns. — expressing purpose — or " hence," with illative force) led to the infrequent use of the word, which was avoided by differentiation, giving rise to the forms ideo and eo usque. Still other expressions, such as propterea, ob earn rem, ea causa, etc., and later inde and ob id, contributed to the disuse of eo causal. From the foregoing, particularly from the infre- quent occurrence of hoc, it is clear that we can speak of a rivalry between hoc and eo in the simple forms only in a limited sense. Both of these expressions are more frequently used in correlation with a causal or a conditional clause. In Plaut. Mil. 298 Primumdum, si falso insimulas Philocomasium, hoc perieris. hoc gathers up the cause just stated in conditional form (cf. below p. 47). The only passage in Plautus that can possibly be considered to exemplify the usage is that quoted by Hand, op. dt. p. 93, Rud. 388 Hoc sese excruciat animi, Quia leno ademit cistulam ei. Munro also ad Lucr. 3,531 cites this passage as an instance of causal hoc. The question may, however, be raised whether hoc is here Ablative or Accusative. A very close parallel is afforded by Trin. 1170 Quom ille itast ut eum esse nolo, id crucior, the only difference being that this instance has the passive (middle?) voice instead of the active. Another type of construction which strongly confirms the assumption that hoc is Accusative, is that found in Stichus 9ff. cited above, in which an epexegetical Eo = Idea, Hoc = Idea. 43 Accusativus cum infinitive stands in apposition with the hoc. This is evidently also the view of Kiihner, op. tit. II, § 126, 3,b, who cites Stich. gff., Mil. 1321 Istuc crucior, a viro me tali abalienarier, and Capt. 597 (should be 600) Crucior lapidem non habere me, under the rubric "Der Ace. cum Inf. steht . . . . nach den verbis affectuum." The construction does not to my knowledge occur in Terence. In fact it is not until comparatively late in the period of the Silver Latinity that hoc....quia, etc., becomes at all fre- quent. It is quite common in the Patristic literature from Cyprian on, usually in the correlation hoc.. .. quod, in which case ambiguity is usually avoided by adding ipso. Cypr. Epist. 30,5^ qui ruerunt, hoc ruerunt, quod caeca temeritate incauti fuerunt; 31,5^ iam hoc ipso quod non cessimus, uicimus; 6m nee hoc animentur quia multi sunt, sed hoc ipso || ipsud T || magis reprimantur, quia non pauci sunt; Arnobius 2,2/> uel hoc ipso quod , quod ; Tertullian, Ad Nat. 1,5^ cum tamen aliquos de nostris malos probatis, iam hoc ipso Christianos non probatis; Am- brosius Ex. 1,6,23(12 F) nam hoc ipso quod diuersae eadem sint naturae, simplicem. . . .motum habere non possunt. Passages from pagan writers are Script. Hist. Augustae, Avid. Cas. 7,8; XXX Tyran. 26,7; Boeth. De Consol. 5,6/^,45. Owing to the frequency of the correlative use of is, eo is far more common in this construction. It occurs in Plautus (co....quod or quia): Asin. 620; 844; Bacch. 319; Capt. 70; 994; Cist. 237; 492; 44 The Latin Pronouns. Pers. 785; 834; Rud. 24; 1114; Stich. 177; True. 272; Vid. 70; in Terence (under the form eo.... quod or eo quia): Haut. 787; Bun. 415; Ad. 698; and in Cato, De Agr. 6,4 eo quia; 17,1 eo quia || ea quae Jocundus || ; 37,1 quod.. ..eo. Here I would place also the passage from the Origines cited by Gellius 17,13,3 non .... eos . . . . eo postremo scribo quin populi et boni et strenui sient, "I mention them last not for this reason because they are not . . . . " Gellius cites this passage in explanation of the quin in the sentence non idcirco Isocrates causas non de- fendit, quin id utile esse et honestum existumaret. "Isocrates' reason for refraining from the pleading of law suits was not that he thought it profitless and dis- honorable." The usage is also found in Plautus1 Trin. 341 Non eo haec dico quin quae tu uis ego uelim et faciam lubens: Sed.... The construction represents the more usual non eo . . . . quia non (compare Asin. 844), and is parallelled by Ter. Haut. 554 Neque eo nunc dico, quo quicquam ilium sen- serim; Sed siquid, ne quid, where an affirmative motive is stated, "I mention it now not that (because) I may have noticed anything 1 On obtaining access, after much difficulty, to O. Kienitz, De quin particulae apud priscos scriptores Latinos usu (Carls- ruhe, 1878), I notice that he brings (p. 21 ) the passage from Cato into connection with Plautus, Trin. 341. Eo = Ideo> Hoc = Ideo. 45 in him, but....", and with reversed order of the clauses, by Ter. Eun. 96 f, Non pol, quo . . . .plus .... diligam, Eo f eci : sed .... A sed would naturally follow the two passages from Gellius. The second one (which Gellius cites first) bears on its face indications of being ' ' made to order ' ' by some rhetorician and not quoted from a work of literature. This construction is not recognized in Harpers' Lexicon, sub voc. quin. The correlation eo .... quod, etc., further occurs in Rhetorica ad Herennium 3,4,7/>; in Cicero's orations thirteen times, in Nepos, Eum. 11,5 (see addendum, p. 219 infra)] in Celsus, B'ks 1-5, seven times. Its association with quod was so common (the two words being either sepa- rated by intervening words or in juxtaposition), that the words coalesced both in form and meaning (cf. Ital. cio die < ecce •+• hoc + quod) so that eo quod (causal) comes to be equivalent to quod (causal). This coales- cence is convincingly proved by the circumstance that, after quod, quia, quoniam take on the usage dico quod (quia, etc.} es(se)t = dico esse, eo quod is also (in late Latin) used in the same way — see S. Siluiae Perigri- natio ad Loca Sancta 8,2 dicent eo quod, " they will say that"; 8,5 retulit eo quod. Particularly instruct- ive is the New Testament passage Mark 9,26(25), where the following readings represent the original (JUSTE roue TfoJUouc ^IY€IV $7i aittOavw. i Vulgate: ut multi dicerent quia mortuus est (so cod. Brixianus f and the majority of the ante- Hiero- nyinian translations, with either est or esset). 46 The Latin Pronouns. 2 Cod. Veronensis b: dicerent eo quod mortuus esset. In the S. Siluiae Perigrin. the construction occurs pp. 48,27; 49,12; 58,9; 63,31; 64,13 and, with the infinitive, 66,6. In Justinian's Novellae eo quod is sometimes used to render 8 tort. In 679-680 A. D. in a judgment of Thierry III (printed in Lindsay, Hand- book of Lat. Inscr. p. 127) occur the expressions dicerit eo quod porcione sua . . . retenirit and dedit in respunsis eo quod ipsa terra. . . . tenuerant. This coa- lescence justifies what would otherwise appear to be redundency in the excerpta ex libr. glossar. apud Gotz, Corpus ¥,215,5 lampadas solstitium estibum (sicl) .... ideo lampadas dicitur eo quod ex eo die lampas solis . . . . (cf. Isidore. De Nat. Rerum 8,2 sol- stitium autem aestiuum ideo lampas dicitur eo quod ....; Ktymol. 1,17,7 note a)- See also Bonnet, Le Latin de Gregoire de Tours, p. 326. A similar cumu- lation of causal particles occurs in Isidore, Origines 1,4,16 a.... in omnibus gentibus ideo prior est lit- terarum pro eo quod ipsa prior nascentibus uocem aperiat. The gradually weakening eo was replaced, as has been implied above, by ob id, ob hoc, ideo, idcirco, propterea, ob earn rem (causam), and other causal ex- pressions. It is a matter of great difficulty, even if it is not impossible, for us to know whether the Romans felt any difference between the eo in the type of sen- tences just mentioned and that exemplified by Plaut. Aul. 240 Eo dico, ne me thensauros reperisse censeas; Eo = Ideo, Hoc = Ideo. 47 and Ter. Phor. 745 Ho perperam olim dixi, ne uos. . . . Effutiretis, in which eo looks forward to a purpose clause instead of a causal clause. The same difficulty arises in the case of the two correlations hoc (Abl.). . . .quod and hoc (Abl.) .... ut(ne). However the case may stand, it is desirable for the purposes of modern grammatical study to draw a sharp distinction between the two constructions, and not to cite the latter type as an ex- ample of causal eo or hoc, as is sometimes done by modern writers. This same uncertainty arises, when we inquire whether the Romans were conscious of a difference in meaning between the use of the Ablative in the form eo (hoc) . . . .quia, and eo (hoc) ... .si (quia . . . .eo (hoc) and si. . . .eo(hoc) ). If Nepos in a well known pas- sage Hann. 2,6 used cum and si (apparently merely varietatis causa) to express two similar sets of relation- ships, with how much greater ease might a speaker have passed (either consciously or unconsciously) from eo (hoc). .. .quia to eo (hoc).... si! The construc- tion occurs as early as Plautus (see Trin. 371(372?) || eo om. cod. F || ; Poen. 1194). The answer to the question whether in these con- structions hoc retains a strong demonstrative force, while eo remains purely correlative, is one which must have a more or less subjective coloring. Yet it is cer- tain that hoc could not have been used extensively (and we are justified in assuming; that it was used more extensively in the colloquial language than in the literary language) without sacrificing some, if not 48 The Latin Pronouns. all, of its demonstrative force. This statement holds true mutatis mutandis of the other formulae discussed in this chapter. In the case of the others, however, the rivalry of the two pronouns was sharper than in the present case, and the tendency to confusion greater. NOTE. — Id causal or expressing purpose and hoc (Ace.) bearing the same meanings are of such infre- quent occurrence that they need not be discussed here. Hand, op. cit., does not mention them (he treats hoc causal throughout as an Ablative). The only(?) cases of this id in Plautus and Terence are: Plaut. Amph. 909; Capt. 680; Epid. 192; Mil. 1158; Terence, And. 157; 376; 4H; Hun. 150; 323 (scholia, ed. Schlee p. 101,5 "//] propter hoc"); 393 (scholia, p. 102,1 "/</] propter hoc"); 829 (scholia p. 109: "id] propter id"); 1005 (scholia, p. 112: "/#] ideo"); Hec. 368; Phor. 259; Adel. 791 (scholia, p. 160,15). See further Kiihner, op. cit. II, p. 212, Anm. 3. 2. Eo cum comparative = hoc cum comparative. The instrumental construction ' ' by this (so much) the more, less," etc., and the Ablative proper (separa- tion) construction are here to be distinguished. Hoc (Abl.) plus ne facito is cited by Cicero from the lex XII tabularum (see Scholl p. 153) in De I^eg. 2,59. Both constructions occur with hoc and eo in Plautus and Terence. The following are the passages: A. Instrumental hoc: Plaut. Amph. 166 f . dura hoc || hec codd. E F; haec Z; corr. Angelius [| < magis > (add. Cam- erarius) servitus est Eo and Hoc with the Comparative. 49 Quod noctesque diesque adsiduo satis super- quest .... (254) Hoc adeo hoc conmemini magis, quia illo die inpraiisus fui; Ter. Eun. 220 f. PHAED. Opus faciam, ut defetiger usque, ingra- tiis ut dormiam. FARM. Uigilabis lassus: hoc plus facies. B. Ablative hoc: Plaut. Cure. 670 f. .... Hoc prius uolo Meam rem agere; Pers. 764 .... Oh, nihil hoc magis dulcest; cf. Rud. 279 Neque hoc amplius. . . .quicquamst; Ter. And. 30 f. ____ Quid est, Quod tibi mea ars efficere hoc possit amplius? C. Instrumental eo: Plaut. Aul. 376 Atque eo fuerunt cariora, aes non erat; . 298 f . Uideo ego te Amoris ualde tactum toxico, Adulescens; eo te magis uolo monitum. Mil. 1080 Eo minus dixi, ne haec censeret me aduor- suin se mentire; Most. 763 f. Nam ille eo maiore hinc opere sibi exempluui petit, Quia isti unibrain audivit cssc acstak- so Men. 151; Merc. 971; Most. 902 a; Poen. 883; Rud. 9 50 7Jie Latin Pronouns. 92; Trin. 274; 856; (cf. Cist. 380 eo sum tardiuscula). Ter, Ad. 698 Quia tarn misere hoc esse cupio uerum, eo uereor magis. D. Ablative eo: Plaut. Mil. 926 Ko potuit hercle lepidius nil fieri; Ter. Haut. 62 f . . . . . Annos sexaginta natus es, Aut plus eo, ut conicio. . . . ; Hec. 421 Dies triginta aut plus eo in naui fui. Cato has only hoc, and always in the phrase hoc amplius (= praeterea), De Agr. 57; 94; 142; 157,10. In the Rhetorica ad Herennium, on the contrary, the hoc does not occur, while eo is found eight times, always as an instrumental. From the very first we notice a discrimination between these two pronouns; we find the instrumental use predominant with eo, and the usage that is devel- oped from the true Ablative predominant with hoc. This is very conspicuous in the case of Plautus and the Rhetorica ad Herennium. In Plautus there are twelve cases of instrumental eo to one of the true Abl. construction and two of instrumental hoc to three of the Abl. construction. The distinction is still more apparent in the writ- ings of Cicero. We find the true Ablative eo only half a dozen times in the orations, philosophical writings and the letters Ad Familiares and Ad Quintum Fratrem (cf. Acad. 2,35 quid eo levius? De Fin. 1,41 quid eo mise- rius dici aut fingi potest? De Nat. Deor. 3,23 nihil est Eo and Hoc urith the Comparative. 51 eo (sc. mundo) melius: nihil est eniin eo pulcrius). In contrast with this we find eo over one hundred and forty times as an instrumental. Similarly in Yarro, Res Rust, eo = ''than this" only once, 1,18,3 eo plus, but is used with the other meaning about fifteen times. Varro's use of the word is somewhat circum- scribed. He joins it usually with magis, minus or facilius. Sallust likewise has in Jug. 80,6 eo amplius = plures denis, but with the other force eighteen times. Both Nepos and Livy (Books 41-45 are not included) use it only in this latter sense, nine times and one hundred times respectively. Celsus in books 1-3 fol- lows Livy, using in all but one passage (i,pr. eo. . . . magis quoniam) the relative quo instead of quia, quo- niam, ne, tic. With hoc we find the case entirely different. Cicero differs from Cato in that he uses hoc with the com- parative supported by or introducing quia, quod, etc., that is to say, in sharp rivalry with eo, in thirty-four passages in his orations (see Merguet, Lex. sub voc. II, p. 468, d, a), and in twenty-two passages in his philo- sophical writings (Merguet, II, p. 154,5, d, a)- ^n tne letters (only parti all}' collated) it occurs in both senses (Ad Fam. 4,4,2 hoc ipso melior. . . .quod; 11,29,3 Qoc milii tfratius facere nihil potes; — the same words in 13,66,2; 74; 79; 16,22,2). Sallust avoided hoc en- tirely, always using ad hoc instead of hoc amplius and hoc plus. Varro, Res Rust. 3,10,3 has hoc minus and hoc plus Ablative. Nepos has it only three times: Ale. 11,2 hoc amplitis; Timotli. 4,6 hoc plura.... 1; Dat. 5,4 hoc maiore fore in discriniine, quod .... Livy uKo only three times (books 41-45 are not in- The Latin Pronouns. eluded) 1,23,8; 36,25,4; 38,26,7; being in each case translatable by "so much the." Celsus offers us 3,5 (= p. 83 D) hoc ipso peius.. ..quod; 8,1 (= p. 326) quo latiora. . . .sunt, hoc hebetiora. The lack of a stronger demonstrative force in the determinative makes its use as an instrumental Ablative impossible except in a few cases, while the weakening of the demonstrative force in hoc makes possible its use in the other sense. The following passages will illustrate the close contact of the two constructions: Valer. Max. i>pr. meapar- uitas eo iustius ad fauo- rem tuum decucurrerit, quo cetera diuinitas opinione colligitur. Plin. Nat. Hist. 8,1 quo largiore aluntur lacte eo tardiorem uisum accipi- unt. 14,80 uinum omne dulce minus odoratum, quo tenuius eo odoratius. Sueton. Cal. 15 inferias.. instituit, et eo amplius (=praeterea) matri Cir- censes . . . Florus i, 24(2, 8), 1 8 partem .... dari placuit eo li- bentius, quod .... rex, quo paten- tia pueri magis delecta- tusest,hoc||et hoc A2|| certius perseuerantiae experimentum sumere uoluit. cf. 3,6,1; 4,7,2. 10, 175 omnia animalia quo maiore corpore, hoc mi- nus fecunda. 23,40 quo generosius ui- num est, hoc magis ue- tustate crassescit. Jul. 38 nummos, quos pol- licitus olim erat, uiritim diuisit, et hoc amplius centenos pro mora. i, 1 8(2, 2), 1 4 hoc inlustrior noster(5r. exercitus), quod .... Id est and Hoc est. 53 Hoc amplius was a favorite and often employed phrase (beginning with Plaut. Rud. 279), and was used from Cicero (see Tull. 44; Phil. 13,50), and (?) Varro (cf. Res. Rust. 2,10,9) on, in the sense of praeterea or ad hoc. Instead of it, eo amplius appears unexpect- edly in Suetonius (vid. sup.), Aggenus Urbicus, Ter- tullian, De Pud. 5 ( = p. 226,20), Lucifer Caralitanus, De Regibus Apostatis n ( = p. 61,24 H) and Gaius 2,172; 3,212. Instead of the usual eo secius, we meet in Lucan 1,315 hoc secius, doubtless due to the poet's strict avoidance of the determinative. Of the poets, Lucretius alone, to my knowledge, uses eo with the comparative. See 1,69 eo magis, with which com- pare 2,125 hoc etiam magis; 2,826f. quanto. ... | .... magis, hoc magis, and Virg. Aen. 5,94 hoc magis; Geor. 4,248 quo magis. . . . , hoc acrius. j. Id est and /we est. Id est is doubtless the older of these two formulae. Hoc est is met for the first time in Lucilius 9,32f. .... in praeposito per Pelliciendo, hoc est inducendo geminato L. Id est occurs for the first time in Cato, De Agr. 57 (three times). The real rivalry between them begins for us with the Rhet. ad Herennium and is, of course, confined to prose. Although id est stands nowhere in the work without a variant, yet the reading is scarcely to be rejected in i,i6,26w and should probably be retained in 1,6,10. Hoc est occurs seven times, serv- ing always to define a general idea by i) stating its ixment elements, as in 1,7,11;* Ime tres titilitates tametsi in tola oratione sunt conpuraiidae, hoc est, ut 54 The Latin Pronouns. atiditores sese perpetuo nobis attentos, dociles, beni- uolos praebeant, tamen....; cf. 2,i4,2i/>; 2,30,48^; 3,8,15^; 3,9; i6p; or by 2) adding a result brought about by the idea denned, as i,6,9/> cum turpem causam habemus, hoc est, cum ipsa res animum audi- toris a nobis alienat; 3,11,20 mollitudinem uocis, hoc est, ut earn torquere in dicendo nostro commodo possimus . . . . f aciet exercitatio; 4,1,1^ does not here concern us (cf. Cic. De Nat. Deor. 1,98; Lael. 58; De Fin. 2,91; Tusc. Disp. 2,30). Id est is used in the same manner: i) 1,16,26^ inuenta ratione firma- ment inn quaerendum est, id est, quod continet accusa- tionem, quod adfertur contra rationem defensionis. 2) 1,6,10 si persuasus auditor < fuerit, id est, > si ora- tio aduersariorum fecerit fidem auditoribus .... With hoc est 4,1, ic may be compared id est 4,n/>; 2,26,40. In Cicero we find convincing evidence that the two phrases had fairly entered upon a course of rivalry that was to last over five hundred years. It is clear that Cicero carefully weighed the two formulae and adopted or rejected each at different periods in the development of his style. In his speeches down to the year 56 B. C. occurs only one unquestioned case of id est, Verr. 3,116, to which may possibly be added 3,67. Concerning the sentence id est.... lex, in Frag. A, VII, 29 (= B, 6,13 Orelli = pro Cornelio II, anno 65) Sigon. apud Orellium II (1883), p. 72,12 says "sus- tuli duas voces idest res, quae videntur in albo libri positae fuisse eis vocibus declarandis 'cum ea feratur' et locum hunc per se satis mendosum mendosiorem reddunt." Hoc est, on the other hand, occurs Rose. Amer. (anno 80) 87; 103; 117; Div. in Caecil. (anno Id est and Hoc est. 55 70) 1 1 ; Impeachment of Verres (anno 78) thirty-seven times; Tullio (anno 72) 50; Caecina (anno 69) eight times; Cluent. (anno 66) 148; De L,eg. Agrar. (anno 63) 1,2; 2,31; Sulla (anno 62) 49; De Domo (anno 57) 78; Piso. (anno 55) (65)66; Milo. (anno 52) 24; Phil, (anno 44); 2,70. This last example ( 'et consul et Antonius!' ' hoc est dicere: et consul et impudicissimus, et consul et homo nequissimus does not strictly speaking belong in the present category (cf. De Nat. Deor. 1,98 and the similar examples referred to on p. 54 supra], since hoc est dicere (cf. Ital. cioe dire) forms an independent sentence, in which hoc clearly retains its strong demon- strative force. In other words, fifty-three cases fall before and during the consulate, four after it. None are later than the year 52. To these fifty-seven we should add sixteen instances of hoc est in the De Inventione against one of id est. After the year 56 are found t\venty-four instances of id est in the ora- tions, eleven of them in the Philippics. If Cicero was consistent in abandoning hoc est in his later years, we should expect to find only id est in his philosophical writings, all of which fall in the fifties and the forties. As a matter of fact, id est occurs over a hundred times, hoc est only five times, four of these last being in his work De Fin. (2,16; 98; 4,56; 71) and one in the De Xat. Deor. (2,17). So also in his letters Ad Fam. hoc occurs only twice 14,2,3 (anno 58); and 5,12,8 (anno 57). Id est stands 5,17,3 (anno 57) and in eleven other passages dating between the years 50 and 43 *. lents <lo not follow the onitor in this particular. Hoc est was written by Asin. Pollio 10,32,2 (anno 43); Brutus, Ad Hrutuin 1,17,6 (at: Caecina 6,7,4 (anno 44). 56 The Latin Pronouns. The same conditions are observable in the letters to Atticus and to Quintus. In the De Oratore (an?io 55) hoc est occurs 1,180; 2,66. If in this formula hoc preserves to some extent its demonstrative force (and Cicero's consistent attitude would suggest that to him the two formulae were not strictly synonymous), the suggestion may with some hesitation be hazarded that hoc est, the stronger term, was found by Cicero more natural when in the height of his energy and power, while id est was a less forcible expression which he adopted after his spirits were crushed by his banishment. It may be objected to this explanation that it would be valid chiefly in explaining the usage in the orations and not so likely to hold true of the De Inventione. If we bring the use of the Rhetorica ad Herennium into connection with that of Cicero, an- other explanation is suggested. The Auctor may have been under the influence of the Greek ™yr^<m of his sources, and may thus have determined the usage of Cicero; or in view of the uncertainty of our knowledge of the relations of Cicero and the Auctor ad Heren- nium, it may be better to assume that the two writers were independently affected by Greek influence, to which Cicero's early training in rhetoric and philoso- phy exposed him. It may be unnecessary to assume the influence of any special book, since Cicero spoke Greek fluently. In this connection it is interesting to note that in the Archiv fur lat. L,exikogr. und Gram- matik X (1897), p. 478, Prof. J. C. Rolfe confirms (with additional evidence derived from the letters, philosophical and rhetorical works) the conclusions of H. Hellmuth (Acta Sem. Erlangensis i, p. i2of.), Id est and Hoc est. 57 who, following up a suggestion of Wolfflin (Philologus XXXIV, 144), points out that between the years 62 and 54 B. C. Cicero gradually passed in his orations from the spelling abs te to ab te. The consistency with which Cicero's successors in Roman literature adopted his later practice speaks well for the soundness of his judgment, and suggests that id est was the normal and natural phrase. Varro shows id est sixty -eight times, not including the doubt- ful passages, two in the Res Rust. ([3,2,18; 3,16,3]) and four in the De Ling. Lat., Livy four times (9,19, 7 — Miiller here omits id est — ; 10,8,10; 37,15; 21, 10, 8) in books 1-40, Vitruvius twelve times (see Nohl's index), Velleius Paterculus 2,23,6; 48,4; 63,3; Vale- rius Maximus 2,4,1; 6,6,5; ^^Ext.2] 8,9,1; and Pe- tronius offers seven instances (see Segebade u. Lom- matzsch s. v.} while none of these writers use hoc est. In Caesar and Nepos both phrases are wranting. Sallust alone has an instance of hoc est: Jug. 31,20 (in an oration) uos autem, hoc est populus Romanus . . . .satis habeatis. In the same oration in § 26 id est occurs. The occurrence of hoc est in Catullus 83,6 is not surprising in view of the results that we have reached in the first chapter. A preference on the part of the writers of ' 'Silver Latin" for hie over is makes itself felt from Seneca the Klder on, in the reappearance of hoc est (cf. Sen. Contr. i.i, 19). Id est occurs 9,4, 1 1 an hie pro patriu fecerit, id est: an illo tempore.. ..; cf. io,/>r.i6; Kxc. ir. 7,7. Ascon. Ped. in 1'isonianam 52 has IKK- est. and in De Ben., De Clem., Ad Lucil. returns to the later Ciceronian daage, -lowing 44 (-f-?3) cases The Latin Pronouns. of id est. In De Ben., De Clem., and Ad L,ucil. 1-25 hoc est does not occur. Pliny, N. H. books 2,3,6-15, 23-30 has hoc est 39 times, id est 20 times. Fronti- nus, De Aquis 7 has id est; De Contr. Agr. p. 58,14 (I,) hoc est. Quintilian has id est: 3,7,15; 11,28; 9, 4,80; 1,9,1; 5,49; 11,12; 3,5,4; 5,10,86; etc.] hoc est : 3,7,1; 7,1,14; 8,2,20; 8,3,89 (a citation from Cassius). Pliny's Letters show id est nine times, hoc est five times; Panegyr. id est twice, hoc est eight times. The following conspectus shows the attitude of the later writers: ID KST HOC EST Balbus, Ad. Cels. page 100,10 None. Hyginus Grom. De Contr. Agr. 9 times. None. •' " De Gen. Con. 5 times. None. " " De Lim. Const. None. p, 170,4; 171,4. Siculus Flaccus Over five times. Fronto [M. Aureli uerba] p. 213 N. Gellius, Noct. Alt. ca. 46 times. 9 times. Florus 10 times. " De Virg. Or. an P. Once. Gaius At least 29 times. Suetonius 10 times. 3 times. Aero ad Horat. 3,5,23- 3,5,24- " " Verr. 3,116. Decretum Commodi Once. Censor. De Die Nat. 16 times. 5 times. Porphyr. in Horat. 355-f3i doubtful or spur- i; 79 + 12 doubtful or spur- ious. ious. Volus. Maecianus xx; 14; 15; 29; 46; 6st>is; 9; 10; 12; 13; 15; 6t,quin- fivts; J2* quies; 69; 72; 73. Script. Hist. Aug. None. Hadr. 10,2; Helius 2,6; None. None. Macrin. 8,4; Max. II 2,4; 28,8. Gord. 2,2; 3,2; 5; 33,1. Gord. 3,3. Did, 8,9; Pescen. 7,6; Ant. P. 2,8; 7,3; M. Aur. 5,5- None. Id est and Hoc est. 59 ID EST HOC KST Script. Hist. Aug. Avid. Cas. [4,3.] Avid Cas. [3,7.] Gall. 11,3; 21,5. Gall. 6,2; 19,4. XXX Tyr. 24,5; 32,5- None. Heliogab. 4,2; 3; 17,4. Heliogab. 24,3. Alex. Scv. 15,3; 45,6; 61,2. do. 6,2; 25,7; 39,6. Aurclian 22,1. Aurelian 32,4. Frontinus P. [16,4-] Agennus Urbicus p. 17,21; 25,9. 8,25; 23,24; 62,3; 63,12; 74,2: 77,7; 89,16. Eutropius One. None. Macrobius At least 78 times. Exc. Bob. V, p. 651 bis. Boethius, De Consol. 2,7/r.n. De Arith. Often. Often. DeGeom. Passim. Passim. Justinian, Novcllae (Au- thentica) Passim. Passim. Cassiodorius At least 15 times. Once. Jordanes Passim. None. Schol. Gronov. in Cic. 30 times. P. 392.4i; 397.29 (Orelli). Patristic Literature: Min Fel. 6. None. Tertullian 20. None. Cyprian II. 6. Arnobius 10. Once. Lactantius IX. Once. Firm Ma tern. 8. 4- Ambrosius 8. 4- Paulin. Nolan, l 12. None. Augustin. Epist. Often. Seldom. Lucifer Car. None. 7- S. Silv. Peri. "se*centies."t "raro."t Diaconi Lib. 116,5; 6; 13> 19; "8,6. None. Anton. Plac. It. None. 184,3; ^88,14; 19; 190,20; 15; (ow. C.); 180,8; ; 163,7. Adamanus 224,11; 228,1; 229, 5 , tie . Faustus n. Hoc est dicere 5. Plane. Fulg. Often. Fulg. Episc. Sup. Theb. p. 182,3: 5; 10; p. 183,9; "• Alcimus Avit. etc., 28 times in all. The passages from the De Condic. Agr. are: pp. 114,8; 115,18 centuriae, id est plinthides, hoc est later- 1 Epist u lac 1-46. •n indict. 60 The Latin Pronouns. culi; 116,13; 25; 117,3; 120,8; 18; 122,16; of the De Gen.Contr: pp. 125,14; 132,17; 133,1; [133,4]; 134.10- In the case of the De Lim. Const, the evidence con- firms the view of a separate authorship for this work and for the De Contr. Agr. and the De Gen. Contr. The references to Siculus Flaccus are: pp. 146,8; 154, 20; 155,22; 161,19; !63,25. Kalb, Roms Juristen p. 75 writes concerning Gaius ' ' Wohl von keinem Juristen annahrend so haufig wie bei G." Et hoc est quod uulgo dicitur occurs often, but hoc est as a parenthet- ical explanative seems to be foreign to him. In Sue- tonius id est occurs: Jul. 19; 56^); Oct. 26; 32; 88; Galb. 3; Domit. 17; frag. p. 293; 305; and hoc est: Tib. 24; Galb. 8; Vesp. u. In Acro's commentary in Uerr. there are at least five further instances. For the Decretum Comm. see Bruns, Fontes p. 229,26. Hoc est is found in Censorinus, De Die Nat. 1,2; 8,6; 13,3; 14,10; 22,14. The figures for Porphyrio are based on Holder's index (1893). On Cassiodorius see Bayr. Gymn. = Blatt. 1898 (XXXIV),559. The fig- ures for the Schol. Gronov. were privately communi- cated by H. Stangl of Munich. This collection of examples shows that from Pliny the Elder on down to the seventh century both for- mulae were current. The only prominent writers to avoid hoc est are: Tacitus, Florus, Gaius, Macrobius and Jordanes. Id est always remained the normal form and with a few exceptions the one more fre- quently employed. One might at first glance be led to suppose that these conditions are reflected in or confirmed by the definition "id est • hoc est" in Gotz, Corp. Glos. IV, p. 350,27, in which id est serves as Id est and Hoc est. 6 1 lemma, and might therefore be supposed to be the more frequent expression. Yet the examination of a number of glosses of the same collection shows that the writer (or compiler) did not necessarily make this distinction. Many definitions appear in double form. Thus "ob • propter" and "propter • ob" are found, each in its alphabetical order. The translator of Jus- tinian's Novellae felt id est to be the normal form, since in translating ruur&m he uses hoc est, but writes id est when not under such influence, e. g., in trans- lating dij (47,2^^.) and in interpolating an explanation of a Greek word (29,5/>r. = p. 222,30 Schtfll) biocolytas (id est uiolentiarum inhibitores). (On the contrary Ignatius, Epist. ad Phil. 12 interpolates an explana- tion of dvTiQeoz by means of hoc est. Here the codex Petavianus reads id). The final triumph of hoc est is testified by the Ital- ian cioe (< ecce + hoc -f- est). To show how very close the words approach each other in meaning and usage, it is only necessary to cite a few parallel passages. For Cicero reference may be made to Klussmann, Tulliana (Progr., Gera, 1887) p. 6 if., who cites numerous instances without calling attention to any difference in meaning. The distinction with Cicero is, as we have seen above, in the main chronological and not semasiological. Pliny the Elder. 2,84. . . .quam diapason 26,103 .... phrcos tna~ harmoniam uocant , hoc lassion, id est fucus uniuersitatem con- niarinus. ceir 62 The Latin Pronouns. 1 1 , 266 . . . . nisi quae pul- 2,218.. . . pulsum uena- monem et arterias ha- rum, id est spiritus, beant, hoc est nisi quae magis sentiunt. Spirent. 14,98 .... labrusca, hoc 8,174. . . .^innum, id est est uite siluestri. paruum mulum. Numerous similar parallels might be adduced from Pliny. Quintilian. 8,2,20 d&avoiyra, hoc est 3,5,4....de iure....de quae uerbis aperta oc- re; illud rationale, hoc cultos sensus habent. legale genus Herma- 3,7,1 .. . .quod genus ui- goras atque eum secuti detur Aristoteles atque uocant, id est wpuxov et eum secutus Theophra- stus a parte negotiali, hoc est icpaytiaTixy, re- mouisse. Aulus Gellius. 19,1,18 ra- Totavrat; Qavrafftas, id est uisa istaec animi sui terrifica, non adrobat, hoc est ou ffu^xarartderac . . . . ; 5,12,5 'Marspater,' hoc enim est (cf. 17,8,2 id enim est) 'Marspiter,' itemque louis 'Diespiter' appellatus, id est diei et lucis pater. Cyprian. De Domenica Oratione 17 quomodo in caelo, id est in nobis per fidem nostram uoluntas Dei facta est ut esse- inus e caelo, ita et in terra, hoc est in illis credere ?*0/intibus fiat uoluntas Dei. Id est and Hoc est. 63 Ambrosius, Exameron. i,i,i(B) artificem ad ex- i,7,25(i3F) materia, id emplar, hoc est ideam est 8^, sicut philoso- intendentem. phi dicunt. Censorinus, De Die Nat. i ,2 rutv fj.ifftavy hoc est . . . . 18, 12 pentaeteridas .... media. id est IV annorum cir- cuitus. Macrobius, Som. Scip. i, Ennius, Sac. Hist, apud 3,7 <pd»TaaiJLa uero, hoc Lactant. Inst. 1,11,46 est uisum. ZAN KPONOTid est La- tine luppiter Saturni. Priscillian. 6,107 = p. 79,8 ex agnis et haedis, idest ex duobus in unum hominem nouum corporis et spiritus castifica- tione suscepta pascha domini et pascha nostrum, hoc est Christus in homine et homo inueniatur in Christo; p. 102,9 (tf- Psalm 59,11) circumuersa mundi || Greek, /TJ; I'aria lectio circumstantia || idest perfidiae terra uincatur ut calciamento pedum domini, hoc est Euan- gelio pacis ostenso distruatur Dagon. Macrobius. Sat. 1,23,7 s^ue ""^ Tu^ SatHfilvHUj id est xatoplvou^ seu d?T() T<>r> ftfK.utJ.ivou, hoc est /j-spi^ofjii^ou. Som. Scip. 1,5,17 in numeros pariter pares, hoc est in bis quaterna, ut . . . . in numeros aeque pariter pares diuisio qnoqne ipsa soluatur, id est bis bina bis. Lex Romana Visigothorum. Inst. Tit. 8,3), p. 332 (Haenel) agnati sunt per uirilem scxuin . . . .coniuncti, id t>i roii-an^uiiR'i fra- 64 The Latin Pronouns. tres, hoc est, de uno patre nati. item patruus, id est, f rater patris, fratris sui filio agnatus est. ipso modo sunt fratres patrueles, hoc est, qui etc. Similar parallels are of frequent occurrence and it is apparent that in many instances the writer has aimed only to secure variety of expression. The chief uses of id (hoc) est are the following: 1. To translate a foreign word. Examples above. Add Tac. Ger. 40. 2. To give the application of a metaphorical expression. Varro, Res Rust. 3,4,1. 3. To explain a L,atin expression by a) giving a more familiar syno- nym. Varro, Res. Rust. 2,4,17 f rendere . . . . id est frangere. b) i) stating all its component parts. Auct. ad Keren. //. a. Cic. De Re Pub. 3,6 quare qui utrumque uoluit et potuit, id est ut cum maiorum institutis turn doctrina se instrueret .... 2) vice versa stating a com- mon characteristic of a number of particulars men- tioned. Cic. Laelius 65 simplicem praeterea et communem et consentieutem, id est, qui rebus isdem moveatur, eligi par est. c) stating one or more of the component parts either i) any chance one cited to illustrate the general expression: Varro, De Ling. L,at. 5,93 artificibus maxima causa (sc. nominandi) ars, id est, ab arte medicina ut sit medicus dictus; so 10,40, where the formula approaches exempli gratia in mean- ing, or 2) that element which is Id est and Hoc est. 65 especially appropriate to the context, and to which the writer directs particular attention: Tac. Dial. 3,21; qcxtr\ 22, 8.. . .orationibus, quas iam senior et iuxta finem uitae composuit, id est, postquam magis profe- cerat, usuque et experimentis didicerat quod optimum dicendi genus esset. 3) This often takes the form of a correction of a general statement: Plin. Nat. Hist. 2,131; Cic. Ad Fam. 14,2,3 quod de domo scri- bis, hoc est de area. . . . d) combining with a synony- mous expression a statement of the ground (Cic. De Leg. 2,27) or purpose (object to be attained) for an action: Varro, Res Rust. 3,9,2. .. .ornithoboscion instituere uolt, id est adhibita scientia ac cura ut capi- ant rnagnos fructus. e) correcting a false application (intended to deceive) of a word by some other person. The implication is usually "A or B call it so and so, but if we should strip it of its fair appellation, we should find it in reality to be so and so ' ' (cf. Kluss- mann, Tulliana): Cic. Verr. 3,67 cum appari- toribus, id est cum ui ac minis (Mu'ller reads eo for id est); Milo. 24.... ad praeturam gerendam, hoc est ad euertendam rem publicam, plenum annum et inte- grum. In the reverse order in Verr. 5,114. It seems desirable at this point to call attention to the difference between id est and idque. They are not discriminated with sufficient care in Gudemaifs note on Tac. Dial. 3,21 (in his larger edition p. 78). "In Germ. 40 id est = 'that is to sa\ •'. In other pas- sage Ique': Ann. IV,n; 39; XIII, 45." essential 'lifference between Germ. 40 and the 66 The Latin Pronouns. passages Dial. 3,21; gextr\ 22,8 is clear from the preceding analysis. Idque in the passages cited introduces (like xai raora) words which describe the circumstances under which an action takes place. These are usually quite surprising or contrary to expectation (hence not usually implied in the term preceding idque, while with id est, etc., the definition is rarely, if ever, contrary to what would be expected), and to them especial importance is attached. They are in no wise to be regarded as a definition or a trans- lation of the first term, such as are introduced by id est, hoc est, quod est (Z iff-tv). 4. Ad id and ad hoc. In each of these phrases two meanings are to be distinguished. They are used to express purpose and as an equivalent to praeterea. In the latter sense ad hoc is used to the almost entire exclusion of ad id. Sallust, in whose works it makes its first appearance, was especially fond of it (Constans, De Serm. Sail, p. 132 "Peculiar! amore dilexit ac saepissime usurpa- vit, quam locutionem Lawsius parum recte contendit antiquorum imitationem redolere"). Certain pecul- iarities of Sallust' s usage are possibly due to the development of his style. In his Bellum Catulinae, his earliest work, it is in five cases (A) correlated with other adverbial expressions: 37 primum omnium — deinde — praeterea — praeterea — ad hoc — ; 14,3 prae- terea— ad hoc — postremo — ; 17,4 praeterea — ad hoc — praeterea — ; 21,4 praeterea — ad hoc — ; 30,6 ad hoc — itemque — . (B) Not thus correlated it stands four times: 26,4; 31,3; 44,6; 53,3. In the Bellum Jugur- Ad id and Ad Jwc. 67 thinum the latter, more independent usage predomi- nates (6, i; 67,1; 85,4; 89,5; 96,2; 102,6), there being only three instances of the former: 6,3; 75,5; 111,2 primo — praeterea — ad hoc — denique — ; the first two having praeterea — ad hoc — , while ad hoc — ad hoc — is used in 31,28. In his maturest work, the Histories, only (B) occurs. In group (A) it is used either to in- troduce a substantive or an entire sentence, the former invariably extended by an adjectival modifier, which is usually a relative clause. In group (B) it is not until the Bellurn Jugurthinum that Sallust uses the phrase to introduce a substantive. So 2,2 igitur prae- clara facies, magnae diuitiae, ad hoc uis corporis et alia omnia huiuscemodi breui dilabuntur, at . . . . ; cf. 17,6. This is the only usage which occurs in the His- tories (Orat. Phil. 21; Fr. Hist. 3,77,7 < ad hoc > a generally accepted conjecture of Kreysig, entirely con- forms to the Sallustian usage). A transitional type is Jug. 91,5- Nepos does not use the phrase, but it again finds favor with Livy, and was extensively used by later writers, especially by the historians Velleius Pater- culus, Curtius (at least eight cases), Tacitus (eight oc- currences), Suetonius and Florus (twelve times), as also by Pliny the Younger. The phrase is especially appropriate to narration and description. In books i-io, 21-40 of Livy's History (thirty- eight instances in all) it is in no single instance (40,25, 4 is not to the point) correlated with praeterea or an- • adverbial expression. It occurs both as intro- ducing entire sentences (2,23,4; 6,12,6; 20,8; 9,24,6; 21,54,3; 55.7; 23,32,9; 28,35,2; 44,2; 5; 29,26,8; 30, 68 The Latin Pronouns. 17,14; 32,17,15; 33,4,4; 9,n; 35,i2,n; 38,5,5; 39, 53,4; 40,25,4) and substantives (2,59,11; 5,16,2; 8,12' 4; 23,22,3; 28,14,17; 29,4,6; 31,40,10; 33,i9,io; 34, 52,6; 36,40,12; 37,23,2; 38,17,4; 39,5,!6). Rather loosely connected with the preceding words and form- ing a kind of after-thought attached to the completed sentence are 7,12,2 and particularly 30,34,1, in which the added element may be regarded as a distinct sen- tence with its verb suppressed for rhetorical effect. Our Paduan historian somewhat extends the func- tions of the phrase. He uses it to introduce an adjective (21,52,10 sparsos et incompositos, ad hoc grain's praeda plerosque . . . . ) and a participle (21,31,11 .... amnis .... pluribus .... alueis fluens, .... ad hoc saxa glareosa uoluens nihil .... tutum .... praebet; 40, 9 ... .debilitati . . . . ; ad hoc praeusti artus . . . . ; cf. 6, 11,6; 32,17,15.) With him the substantive is rarely modified by a relative clause, and in one passage (an extremely rare case) the substantive stands entirely alone (28,14,17). In Sallust the grammatical form of the member introduced by ad hoc corresponds to that of the preceding member. L,ivy boldly varies the con- struction: 6, 1 1 ,6 . . . . inflate animo, ad hoc uitio quoque ingenii uehemens et inpotens. . . . ; 5,16,2 multis simul bellis, Uolscorum .... Aequorum .... ad hoc Ueientique et Falisco. . . .bello occupatos; 33,19,10 cum classe .... ad hoc leuioribus nauigii In certain pas- sages L,ivy seemed to feel that this formula was not sufficiently strong to meet his needs and has supported it by etiam (33,9,11) and quoque (supra). In 23,22,3 it seems to be scarcely stronger than simple et. The formula itself, however, serves as conjunction and is Ad id and Ad hoc. 69 not, like praeterea (in Bell. Afr. 19,1; 25,2; 50,2; Afra- nius 72), supported by et or que (as Caes. Bell. Gall. 3, 17,3; Bell. Civ. 2,35,5; 3,96,i) or used with the cor- relatives cum . . . .turn (as in Cicero). In the letters and Panegyricus of Pliny (fifteen cases) we find a return to the Sallustian usage praete- rea— ad hoc. He has further 9,2 6,8 f. et rursus — et statim — .... ex eadem nota — simile his — et ibidem — et — et deinceps — ad hoc — et mille talia .... New is the order: ad hoc — praeterea (2,11,10). He employs pre- dominantly the substantive, and was particularly fond of the sentences like L,ivy 30,34,1. So: 2,14,1 raro incidit (sc. causa).. . .insignis. ad hoc pauci (sc. nunc causas agunt) cum quibus iuuet dicere; 2,11,10 con- spectus augustissimus fuit. princeps praesidebat: erat enim consul, ad hoc lanuarius mensis . . . . celeberri- mus; Pan. 77^ ad hoc tarn adsiduus. . . .ut; i, 22,4 ad hoc quam parcus (sc. fuit). . . . ; 6,33,4. The Tacitean examples are with a single exception found in the Annals. The only peculiarity he shows in his usage of the phrase lies in the order of the words in Hist. 1,6,10 multi ad hoc numeri e Ger- mania ac Britannia et Illyrico, quos. . . . , which, with Ann. 12,20,5, offers the type of Livy 30,34,1. Ad hoc postpositive, of which I can cite only the two further examples Florus 1,24(2,8),! 6 elephantis ad hoc inmensae magnitudinis . . . . ; Suetonius, Nero 46, i terrebatur ad hoc euidentibus portends .... is quite possibly due to the influence of the analogous use of •erea. The main verb precedes it in Cic. Sex. Rose. loo Audio praeterea. . . . ; De Leg. Agr. 2,32 dat praeterea . . . . ; Chient. 81 accusatus est praeterea. . . . yo The Latin Pronouns. Praeterea in Cicero and Caesar is, in fact, as often postpositive as it is initial. The order Adjective- praeterea-Substantive (as above) was an especial favor- ite (so Cic. Verr. 2,170 multarum praeterea ciuitatum Numerous examples in Merguet's Lexica): so also Verr. 5,34 cuiusquam pr. dedecus; Sex. Rose. 133 quid pr. caelati argenti and even Verr. 2,120 quod enim iste pr. genus. In all other cases Tacitus uses ad hoc to introduce an entire sentence 12,34,1; 13,34,14; 14,24,3; 31,15; 15,4,5; 38,13- Florus like Livy, is fond of breaking the monotony of the exact grammatical conformity of the expres- sions preceding and following ad hoc. Examples are: i, 45(3,10), 25 ciuitatem, uallo sudibus et fossa induc- toque fossae flumine, ad hoc XVIII castellis . . . . cir- cumdatam. . . .domuit; 2, 21(4,11), 5 quippe a senis in nouenos remorum ordines, ad hoc turribus atque tabu- latis adleuatae .... ferebantur. The two following correlations are new: 2,13(4,2), 40 nunc — nunc — ad hoc — iam uero; 2, 13(4, 2), 91 ad hoc — nouissime — , to which may be added from Pau- linus of Nola, Epist. 5,4(p. 27,13-17) praeterea — ad hoc — postea denique .... The other instances from Florus (he does not use ad id = praeterea nor ad hoc to express purpose) are ij(i3),4; 24(2, 8), 3; (2,8),i6 (postpositive); 34(2,18X10; (2, 19), 3; 38(3,3),i3; 2,21 (4,n),6. Of the synonymous expressions, hoc amplius was the most extensively used. Super haec found favor with both Plinys (see Nat. Hist. 3,138; 7,98 and Epist. 8,4,2; 4,26,2). Ad haec occurs from Curtius to Boe- thius. Ad hue (with which adde hue could easily be Ad id and Ad hoc. 7 1 confused, especially when the following words were neuters) is very close to ad hoc in Sen. Nat. Quaest. 4,8 (other examples in Goelzer, Grammaticae in Sulp. Sev. Quaest. p. 92, Anm. 4), but ultimately became so weakened that Cyprian, Ad Dem. 12 could write adhuc insuper, and Alcimus Avitus, Contr. Eut. Her. I, p. 25,15. .. .habemus hie adhuc amplius, quod mirari oportet. Ad hoc accedere (cf. Bell. Hisp. 41 turn praeterea accedebat) and the like do not, strictly speaking, belong here. When ad id is used in this sense, it is followed, so far as I know, by the relative quod, so that ad id quod = praeter id quod. To express purpose both phrases are extensively employed. The rivalry between them had not appar- ently begun in Cicero. In Verr. 3,188; De Re Pub. 1,58 hoc retains its full force as -puirurpirov, while ad id is used by him normally with the relative quod. Neither Caesar nor Varro have ad hoc, although ir. Bell. Civ. 1,81 has ad id expeditiores (cor- rected by Faern to ad iter), and Varro, Res Rust. 2/>r,5 ad id (i. e., ad agrum stercoranclum) pecus adpositum. Nepos has neither. So the rivalry between the two phrases begins with L,ivy. Aside from 1,8,4 ad id hoinimim and 2,3,6; 4,54,5, in which cases it is fol- lowed by the relative quod, ad id occurs in L,ivy (books i-io) about sixteen times. Ad id regularly completes the meaning of a past passive participle, f. g., 1,10,5 fabricate ad id apte ferctilo; 4,37,4 ad id 72 The Latin Pronouns. missi; 7,39,14 qui ad id missi erant; 5,24,4 trium- uirique ad id creati; 7,12,9 ad id accitus; 9,13,2 dato ad id signo; 9, 26, 16 ad id parum potentes. The intru- sion of hoc in such contexts is seen by comparing any of the above passages with 1,47,9 an^ iam ante ad hoc praeparati. Parallel are also 5,52,11 collegium ad id (i. <?., for celebrating newly introduced religious ser- vices) nouum .... condidimus and 4,34,6 nee. . . .lato satis ad hoc (/. e., ut classi pugnari possit) amne. In 2,42,5 and 40,48,4 id and hoc respectively are strength- ened by ipsum. Contrary to what might be expected, if hoc retained its full force, ad hoc does not in Livy look forward, as does ad id (see 6,42,1; 7,30,4 ad id ualere, ut....), to a following clause. This usage occurs, however, in Pliny the Elder, books 9,13,23-30, and it finds application not only as in Livy in conjunc- tion with the participium passivum (9,122 ad hoc products; 29,34 detonsam) or activum (9,77 ad hoc sufficientibus) and adjectiva (28,42 efficaciorem ad hoc), but also (with the indicative as well as the participle) prepares the way for a following ut or ne (9,182 ad hoc prodest, ne....; 27,146 ad hoc parens, ut....). In 10,1 ad hoc.. ..datis pinnis, ad hoc = praeterea. In these books ad id occurs but three times (12,63 porta ad id una paten te; 15,26 optima laurus ad id latifolia siluestris; 28,193 efficacior ad id), always refering to what precedes (cf. 9,86 ad ea). Pliny's preference for ad hoc may be compared with his preference for hoc est noted above. Conversely he uses ob id more freely than ob hoc (see below). Curtius appears not to have used ad id, but resem- bles Pliny in the use of ad hoc, e. g., 4,8,4 ad hoc Ob id nnd Ob hoc. 73 (sc. ut claustra Nili fluminis tueatur Polemon) XXX triremes datae; 5,5,22 C ad hoc elect! sunt; 8,1,12 spatiosas ad hoc (/. e., ad feras uenandas) eligunt siluas. Tacitus shows a decided preference for ad id to express purpose. It occurs Ann. 1,81,7 suam ad id curam; Hist. 2,22,9 contra praetoriani dispositos ad id ipsum molares. . . .prouoluunt. Agr. 38,15 datae ad id uires. Florus has no instance of ad id expressing pur- pose (neither does he use ad id = praeterea) . In 2 , 1 7 (4, 7), 13 he uses in id missus for ad id missus. Later writers use both forms. In general ad hoc is more common in the patristic literature. Ad hoc looking forward to a following clause (con- secutive) takes on the meaning of tarn (ita), as in Lucifer Caralitanus, De Reg. Apost. j(= p. 51,22) ad hoc sis post tanta funera tua superbus, ut aut audiens nos Dei sacerdotes temet conuertas ad Deum. 5. Ob id and ob hoc. According to Reissinger, Ueber Bedeutung und Verwendung der Priipositionen ob und propter in iilteren Latein p. 42 these two expressions occur for the first time in Cicero; in the orations only ob hoc (Caecin. 73 o rem praeclarum uobisque ob hoc reti- ncndum, recuperatores || hoc omit. Tegernseensis || ), in the philosophical writings only ob id (always strength- ened by ipsum, and in De Fin. 3,63; Tusc. Disp. I* Hi '3: 5>95 looking forward to quia or quod). In De Leg. 2,12 id is a conjecture of Lambin. In Ad 1,9,16 ob id ipsum is taken up by in quo.. .. ct. Sallu^t has c-t ob id Kr. Hist. 1,77,18 74, The Latin Pronouns. (— Oral. Phil. 18) and in no other instance. No other prose writer earlier than I/ivy uses the phrases. Ovid, Met. 12,91 has ob hoc, and Horace, Ars Poet. 393 ob hoc. As in the case of ad id and ad hoc, so with the present formulae, the frequent use begins with L,ivy. In books i-io, 21-40 ob id occurs thirteen times (+ob ea three times), ob hoc five times (+ ob haec eighteen times). Livy, however, distinguishes care- fully in usage between these two words. In all but two instances (25,16,3, where ob rests on conjecture \cf. Fleckeisens Jahrb. 1881, 683], and 34,42,6 et cum ob id se pro ciuibus Romanis ferrent) ob id is used to modify an adjective (including participles): 5,29,3 se- gnius ob id ipsum; 21,47,1 et ob id aptos; 25,13,7 cas- tigatus; 23,13 ob id ipsum intentius; 35,7 quietis; 26, 13,6 diminuto; 28,2,2 occulta; 31,31,16 plures ob id ipsum; 34,55,1 indictarum; 37,24,5 celerius; 39, 19, 5 f r audi esset . Ob ea is similarly used 8,15,5; 4°, I » 5 • Ea, however, in 40,45,7 has a definite antecedent, pro- digia. Ob hoc on the contrary is used only with the non-adjectival forms of the verb: 25,37,17 ob hoc cum omnia neglecta apud hostes essent; 30,30,28 non nihil etiam ob hoc, quia. . . . ; 34,4,15 ne ob hoc ipsum con- temnantur; 50,4 acclamarunt gratias se inter cetera etiam ob hoc agere, quod; 39,4,7 donee consuli ob hoc (proleptic) ipsum moranti Romam redire libitum esset. Ob haec stands almost invariably at the beginning of a sentence, and refers to the content of the preceding sentence: 1,40,5 after three reasons are stated they are summed up by ob haec ipsi regi insidiae parantur. 3,53,2 ob haec iis aduenientibus gratiae actae. 21, Ob id and Ob hoc. 75 53,11 cum ob haec taliaque speraret (cf. 8,23,3 ob haec cum); 9,45,8 ob haec uolgo in conciliis iactata; 37,48, 4 ob haec Aetolos sustulisse animos et adnuisse impe- rata facere; 5,51,1 et ob eadem haec; 9,38,9; 10,21, 13; 21,50,11; 63,5; 27,30,1; 28,39,13 gratias actum legatos misit; 32,22,12; 35,13,10; 37,34,8. The only exception seems to be 28,39,15 non grates tantum ob haec agere iussi sumus, sed. . . ., since in 10,31,8 libri ob haec aditi, the word haec refers to a definite antecedent. Seneca the Rhetorician in his use of ob id has kept closer to the correlative use of id by employing it only (he reads elsewhere id ipsum) when followed by a causal or substantive quia- or quod-clause (twelve cases: Contr. 1,1,13; J4i 4,6; 8,7; 2,1,20; 2,3,11; \\bis\ 9,1,9; 10,5,15; Exc. Contr. 1,1). Ob hoc (ob hoc ipsum four times) is always used with a verbal form, nine times with damnare, accusare and petere (Contr. i,i/>r. 1,8,15 II ob noc MSS. ab hoc corr. W. Miiller || ; 2,1,34; 2,6,4; 5^; 7,6,13^; 9,5.8; io,3,io<ob> hoc || ob suppl. W. Miiller || ; n ob < hoc >. Exc. Contr. 4,3 ob hoc quod; 4,5 ob hoc maxime quia; 14 ob hoc ipsum quod; 7,2,12 ob hoc ipsum quod; 10,2,17 ob hoc ipsum, without quod; 9,1,6 ob hoc uidelicet ipsum ut . . . .). Valerius Maximus (4,1,7 ne ob id; 8,1,12 cum ob id; et ob id occurs: 2,10,7 (tne codices Laur. and Bern, omit the et in this passage); 5,9,3; 6,1,7; I^Exter, 10; 8,14/^A ; . i ; 9,££*fer,3) and Veil. Paterc. 2,112,2 show only oh id. Curtius agrees with Livy in using ob id with Adjectives and Participles, and ob hoc with the non-adjectival forms of the verb: 4,16,7 niaiore et 76 TJie Latin Pronouns. ob id tutiore circuitu; 8,14,19 humo lubrica et ob id itnpediente; 4,16,23 auidum certaminis et ob id ipsum incautius; 4,10,22 nepos paruulus, ob id ipsum misera- bilis, quod. . . . ; 4,14,4 ob id ipsum, quod ignoti essent, ignobiles esse; 7,2,2 horum ob id ipsum melior est causa, quod ego .... suspectus sum; 3,5,9 laxataque uis morbi ob hoc solum uidebatur, quia magiiitudinem mali sentiebat; 6,3,13.. ..Dareum ob hoc uicimus, ut seruo eius traderemus imperium; 4,10,31 ob haec ipsa (i. e. conditions just described) amantis animus in sollicitudinem suspicionemque reuolutus est; 9,8,24ob haec. In 10,5,5 id is adjectival. The single instance of ob ea is 6,8,3, a very unusual passage. Pliny, Nat. Hist., books 2, 3, 6-15, 23-30, has ob id over fifty times, ob hoc fifteen times. Typical illus- trations of his usage are: Ob id: i) with Adjectives: 7,104 ob id. . . .utilis; 11,41 ob id. .. .simile; 11,249 ob id. . . .pernicibus; 9,9 Tiberio principi nuntiauit Olisiponensium legatio ob id (proleptic) missa uisum auditumque in quodam specu concha canentem Tri- tonem; 2) with Verbs: 2,43 captus. . . .traditus; espe- cially with verbs of naming: uocare (9,38; 109; 12,54), appellare (11,244), cognominare (7,68; 8,33 ob idque); 15,13. Ob hoc: 9,89 consectantibus; 8,42 magna his libido (sc. est). . . .et ob hoc. . . .ira; 11,99 appella- tus; 2,146 quae ob hoc fingitur. Ob hoc occurs also 8,109; 122; 10,17; 212; 11,198; 13,28 <tf <z/.; et ob hoc: 12,45; ob hoc ipsum: 9,75. Both ob id and ob hoc are used by decided preference with the non- adjectival forms of the verb. Frontinus has nothing new to tell us. Pliny the Younger uses ob hoc exclusively, once Ob id and Ob hoc. 77 looking backward (5,19,6 sanguinem reiecit adque ob hoc in Aegyptum missus a me. . . .), m all other in- stances pointing to a following quod (causal), ne or ut. The instances are 4,8,4 te quidem, ut scribis, ob hoc maxime delectat auguratus meus, quod....; 6,1,2 reuertar, uel ob hoc solum, ut experiar an. . . . ; 7,3,3 tempus est te reuisere molestias nostras, uel ob hoc solum, ne....; 7,7,2 te negotiis distinere ob hoc moleste fero, quod. . . -non potes; Ad Traian. 29(38), 2 ipse enim dubito ob hoc maxime, quod. . . . ; 75(79), 2 quod in notitiam tuam perferendum existimaui ob hoc maxime, ut....; 49(53),! est aedes uetustissima Matris Magnae aut reficienda aut transferenda; ob hoc praecipue, quod. . . . Tacitus has only ob id (since he writes ob haec instead of ob hoc) and this only in the Annals (cf. Wulfflin, Phil. XXV,XXVI,XXVII): 3,42,9 lulius Indus .... discors Floro et ob id nouandae operae aui- dior; 3,75,9 sed Labeo mcorrupta libertate, et ob id fama celebratior; 6,9,8 seu composer at quaedam in Gaium Caesarem ut impudicum, siue ficto habita fides, atque ob id conuictu principis prohibitus cum . . . . ; 6,8,2 ausus est. . . .M. Terentius, ob id reus, amplecti (sc. Seiani amicitiam); 6,25,12 actae ob id grates de- cretumque (sc. est); 14,60,7 actae ob id de ancillis quaestiones . . . . ; 2,35,4 Piso- . . .ob id magis agendas (sc. res) censebat, ut....; 2,66,9 Caesar .... Pompo- nium Flaccum, ueterem stipendiis et arta cum rege amicitia eoque acoommodatiorem ad fallendum, ob id iine Mocsiae praefecit. Ob ea occurs Ann. 2, 87,3; 11,25,17. Ob haec occurs 12,65,3; 13,41,18; 14,64,10. 78 The Latin Pronouns. Suetonius has both phrases. He felt id to be so weak a word that he reinforces it with ipsum. Otho i quamuis ob id ipsum (quod praepositos suos occide- rant) promotes (sc. milites) in ampliorem gradum .... sciret; Julius 8 colonias Latinas ad audendum aliquid concitasset, nisi consules . . . . legiones paulisper ob id ipsum retinuisset; Tib. 65 collegam sibi adsumpsit. . . . quern longo interuallo absens ob id ipsum susceperat; Galba 10. . . .adstante nobili puero, quern.... ob id ipsum acciuerat, deplorauit temporum statum; Vitel. 14 quosdam. . . .ob id ipsum ("simply on the charge") quod. . . . , interemit. The only exception is Dom. 10 impudicos probauerant et ob id (n)ullius momenti esse potuisse. In the Lives of the Caesars there are three instances of ob hoc (always et ob hoc): Aug. 94 Au- gustum natum mense decimo, et ob hoc Apollinis filium existimatum; Dom. 17 prof essus . . . . conspira- tionis indicium et ob hoc admissus; Tib. 70 imitatus (sc. Tiberius est) Euphorionem et Rhianum. . . .et ob hoc plerique. . . .multa de his ediderunt; Frag. Gram. 3 et ob hoc repudiatus; 16 suspectus . . . . et ob hoc remotus; Frag. Rhet. 5 uel magis ob hoc. Of the later writers the following show only ob hoc (or ob haec) : Justin — in every case at the beginning of a sen- tence— (ob hoc: 12,3,7 diebus natis; 16,1,5 gesturus; obhaec: 12,6,15; 13.4,* 17,2,15; 20,2,5). Script. Hist. Aug. (ob hoc: Hadr. 3,3; 10; M. Ant. 7,3; 14,5; Verus 3,6; Hel. 3,8; Commod. 4,8; Pert. 7,2; Did. Jul. 3,7; Sev. 9,10; Pesc. 2,3; Car. 3,3; 4,5; 8,3; Geta 2,2; 4; Heliog. 9,2; Alex. Sev. 63,5; Maximini 11,8; Gord. 28,5; Gall. 2,2; XXX Tyran. 22,3; and The Correlation hie — ille. 79 one further passage; ob haec: Alex. Sev. 50,2). In this work atque ob hoc and et ob hoc are favorite phrases, and ob hoc tends to gravitate toward the fol- lowing ut or quod, etc,, in some instances standing at the very end of its clause just before these conjunc- tions. De Viris Illustrious (ob hoc: 11,2; 26,3; ob haec: 33,10; 48,5; 56,5). Aur. Viet. Hist. Abbr. (20, 17 ob haec tanta; 39,41 ob ea). Thus we see that within a period of four genera- tions from their first appearance in the literature, these two phrases, probably following the analogy of the older phrases ob earn rem (eas res), ob earn causam, and of eo, ideo, propterea, etc., developed a great variety of usages. The present sketch is of course only an out- line. Their history can be written only by viewing them in connection with the other causal adverbs and adverbial phrases. By the time of Pliny the Younger both phrases had come to be so freely used that the individual writers show great variety in their employ- ment. B. THE CORRELATIONS HIC — ILLE, HIC — HIC, ILLE — ILLE, etc. In these correlations we likewise find clear indica- tions of a weakening of meaning of the pronoun hie (as also of ille). For iste — ille see below pp. 132-137. We begin with the correlation — 1. Hie — ille, since it was the normal form by which contrasts were expressed, and was doubt less developed as early as the other two phrases, since it is as old as the words themselves. Such natural con- 8o The Latin Pronouns. trasts occur not infrequently in Plautus and Terence and call for no special comment. A word may not be amiss, however, on the relative position of the ele- ments introduced by these words. With the Auctor ad Herennium it had become a matter of indifference which of the two pronouns preceded, as is shown by 4, 19,26 membrum .... articulus .... inter huius generis et illius superioris uehementiam hoc interest: illud (the former, membrum) tardius. . . .uenit, hoc. . . .cre- brius peruenit .... itaque in illo genere . . . . , in hoc autem .... While it is true that the three sets of contrasts huius — illius, illud — hoc, illo — hoc are not strictly coordinate, yet illud — hoc and illo — hoc stand in the same relation to huius — illius, as that in which this last correlation stands to mem. — art. The order huius — illius is readily accounted for by the widely extended Roman practice of employing hie at the beginning of a new thought to refer to an immediately preceding idea, a usage similar to the normal usage of is. Various reasons could be suggested that might have motivated the change to the order illud — hoc. Livy makes the same change 39,53,3 (Demetrius) .... Perseus . . . . , hunc .... ilium . . . . ; ilium .... hunc (cf. 22,39,4 Terentio .... Hannibale .... hie .... ille . . . . , illo .... hoc . . . .). Cicero and Velleius Paterculus seemed to find nothing objectionable in a sustained series of these alternatives recurring in the same order: Orat. in Cat. 2,25 ex hac parte . . . . illinc, hinc.... illinc, hinc .... illinc, hinc .... illinc, hinc .... illinc, hinc .... illinc, hinc .... illinc, .... denique . . . . ; Veil. Pat. 2,84,1 in hac parte. . . .in ilia, hinc. . . .illinc, haec .... ilia, hinc .... illinc, .... denique .... Velleius has The Correlation hie — ille. 81 clearly modeled his sentence on Cicero's, but has improved upon it by introducing the agreeable change from Adverb to Adjective. Pliny the Younger 9,7,3 f . varies it still more: duae (sc. uillae). altera altera; illam .... hanc, haec .... ilia: haec .... ilia; illic. . . . hie: ilia .... haec: ex ilia .... ex hac .... The correla- tion is rare in Cicero, notwithstanding the general acceptance of Raschig's conclusion that it is common in the orators and rhetorical writers. The Ciceronian example is paralleled by Cyprian, De Cath. Eccl. Unit. 19 hie (sc. in lapso) . . . .illic, hie. . . .illic, hie. . . .illic, hie .... illic, hie .... illic, lapsus .... ille, lapsus .... ille .... The order ille. . . .hie recurs in Sallust, Cat. 11,2; 54,2; Jug. 85,2 (cf. Cat. 12,4 f; 58,14; Jug- 85,22), who also has in Jug. 94,5 Romanis hostibusque . . . . his, illis.... Both orders occur in Curtius, e.g., 3,1,17 ilia .... haec 3,11,24 mater coniunxque Darei : ilia haec....; 6,1,8 illi. . . .hi. . . . ; 4,17 illos. . . . hos. . . . ; 10,2,16 illos. . . .hos. . . . ; 4,1,40 has aut illas partes secuti. His natural order is thus seen to be ille .... hie, since in the last passage he had no choice but to follow custom, which had already established the invariable order hie .... ille in the brief phrases hie — illic, hie et (atque, aut, uel) illic, et (aut, uel) hie et (aut, uel) illic for the adverbial forms as well as for the substantive and adjectival forms of the pro- nouns. In Tacitus the instances of the correlation are about equally divided between tlie two orders. By the later writers both orders are freely used. In our di-rn^ion of the meaning of this correla- we shall find it desirable to distinguish between the adverbial forms on the one hand and the suhstan- 82 The Latin Pronouns. tive and adjectival forms on the other. We take up first the latter class. In the examples thus far cited each demonstrative retains its full and normal meaning. This is also true to a certain extent of the so-called rhetorical usage of this correlation, in accordance with which the two pronouns are employed to refer to two antecedents mentioned in the context immediately preceding, so that they take on the meaning ' ' the former — the lat- ter." The earliest extant example is, as is well known, that found in a fragment of Accius (frag. 4 p. 137 Ribb.). Tu pertinaciam esse, Antiloche, hanc praedicas, Ego peruicaciam aio et ea me uti uolo: Haec (sc. peruicacia) fortis sequitur, illam in- docti possident. From the semasiological standpoint this usage scarcely differs from the normal usage of the pronouns, since haec refers to the quality that the speaker wishes to possess, while illam refers to that in which he would have no interest. We may the more confidently assume that, although for the most part, Accius gave in his tragedies a fairly close translation of the Greek original, he was not influenced in the present instance by the Greek ouro? and 2xe?vo?, or even by 6 !*.&.... 6 di to use haec — illam to express the contrast, since the above passage bears on its face clear indications of being an original contribution of the Roman poet. If we now turn to Cicero's De Nat. Deor. 1,47 we shall find for the first time in a Roman prose writer a usage which implies an important change in the mean- The Correlation hie — illc. 83 ing of the word: nam Cotta meus modo hoc modo illud (sc. facit). In this passage neither pronoun has a definite antecedent. The vague antecedent of hoc does not stand any closer to the speaker's sympa- thies, nor is it locally or temporally closer to him than that of illud. In other words all deictic force of the two pronouns is lost and they serve only to indicate that the objects referred to are of different characters, ' 'one thing — another. ' ' They thus become synonymous with alius — alius, (not alter — alter, which refer to two, usually definite, antecedents), and like alius — alius, do not imply that only two alternatives are possible (as would aut hoc aut illud), but rather indicate that an indefinite number of possibilities exists. This is per- haps true likewise of Ciceros's L,aelius 13 qui (i.e., Socrates) non turn hoc turn illud ("not now one view, now another"), ut in plerisque, sed idem semper (sc. dicebat); although it must be admitted that in view of Cato Maior 66, where speaking of the same question, "is the soul immortal?" Cicero says atqui tertium certe nihil inueniri potest, the choice seems rather to be limited to the affirmation and denial of immortal- ity. No such limitation can be assumed in Sallust, Hist. (Orat. Phil.) haec atque ilia temptans. Yet the phrase does not necessarily imply a large number. Quite to the contrary in Yerr. 1,53 non dicam illinc hoc signum ablatum esse et illud, hoc dico, nullum te Aspendi signum, Verres, reliquisse; and in De Leg. Agr. 2,55 uectigalia locare nusquam licet, nisi in hac urbe hoc aut illo ex loco hac uestrtim freqiientia it implies that although three or even more alternatives are possible, yet the possibilities are few 84 The Latin Pronouns. in number. In the former passage Cicero was not, of course, thinking of any particular statue; that is to say, the antecendents of hoc and illud are not definite. Still the implication is "I do not mention this particu- lar statue or that particular statue, though able to refer to special instances." (Compare the use of qui- dam refering to an antecedent, which, though definite in the mind of the speaker — <?. g., quendam nomi- nare possum "I might mention a certain individual" — remains, through the intention of the speaker, indefi- nite in the mind of the person addressed). In the lat- ter instance the audience was familiar with the loca ubi uectigalia locare licet, but it still remains a matter of uncertainty and of unimportance to which locus each pronoun refers. The phrase thus approaches unus atque alter in meaning. De Inuent. 2,99 si hoc atit illud fecisset aut ni sic fecisset implies neither that the alternatives are few or many. A curious and rare usage is Virgil, Eel. 7,21 in which hos (sc. uersus) and illos (sc. versus) look forward to the remainder of the amoebean poem. From the patristic literature we may cite Cyprian, Ad Don. 3^; Arnobius i,np; 1 ,59, 23V; 24^; 2,i3/>; Augustine, Epist. 11,3 natura .... in se habeat haec tria . . . . : primo ut sit, deinde ut hoc uel illud sit (i. e., qualitatem habeat), tertio ut . . . . ; then follow hoc uel illud, aut hoc quidem aut illud, hoc uel illud, hoc uel illud, used as a single word (like the Greek philosophical categories ~/><k T«, etc.). Even when the number of alternatives is limited to two, it may occasionally remain uncertain to which antecedent each pronoun refers. For example, in Livy 2,51,9 his atque illis refer to two Roman armies. It The Correlation hie — illc. 85 is impossible to determine from the context to which each pronoun refers, and indeed it does not matter, because neither army is nearer to the speaker in time, place or interest, and hence neither should be definitely specified by hie or ille. That is to say, we have now reached a stage at which these pronouns have lost all their demonstrative force and mean simply ' ' one — the other" with no reference at all to a definite anteced- ent. The same interpretation must be put on L,ivy 5,40,3; cf. 10,14,2. The usage was not frequently employed by prose writers. Florus offers an example 2, 1 3(4, 2), 7 7 inter hos (sc. Caesarianos uel Pompeianos) atque illos duces, if we are not to assume in the light of section 5 hinc "on Caesar's side ".... hide "on Pompey's side", section 14 ille ( Pompey ) . . . . hie (Caesar) and section 48 illi (Pompey's cavalry).. ..hi (Caesar's German infantry) that Florus' sympathies were more with Caesar, and that in consequence of this hos means Caesarianos. Hinc uel illinc (§ 44), like the passage in question, remains uncertain. Com- pare further Anon. Decl. in Catil. 121; Dictys Cre- 2 his aut illis; Placitus 3,3 aut hoc aut illo modo; Arnobius, Ad Nationes 4,4^. When the antecedent still remains indefinite, but the number of alternatives is unlimited, each pronoun serving simply to suggest one example out of any number that might indifferently be chosen, we have the weakest stage of meaning to which this corrella- tion sank. Of the original elements of its meaning there remains only the implication of a contrast, but : here the contract is often not between the two antecedents themselves, but l>et\vcen the activities they 86 The Latin Pronouns. exhibit or certain qualities they possess. Even this contrast has no emphasis laid upon it, but assumes the form "two different objects exist" rather than the form "the two objects are different." This usage is largely confined to poetry, particularly to the epic (in its widest sense), though not unknown to prose writers. A typical example is Virgil's Aeneid 7,637^ Classica iamque sonant; it bello tessera signum. Hie gladium tectis trepidus rapit, ille frementis Ad iuga cogit equos clipeumque . . . . ; </• 4,157 Gaudet equo, iamque hos cursu, iam praeterit illos; 5.441 Nunc hos nunc illos aditus, omnemque pererrat Arte locum. Further examples are: Manil. 1,191 nunc his nunc illis regionibus; Sil. Ital. 5,150 nunc hos nunc illos; Stat. Thebais 2,589 hos. .. .illos; Orestis Tragoedia 852. Lucan, though a careful imitator of Virgil, offers no instances, unless we may so interpret 6,277, which perhaps falls under the preceding type. The usage is found in the lyrics of Horace, e. g., 1,1,7-8; et al. From the prose literature we may cite Florus i, 1 8(2, 2), 35 in hos uel illos ictus mobilia rostra speci- men uiuentium praebebant; Plin. Epist. 6,20,14 hi. . . illi with preceding alii .... alii .... alii .... and follow- ing multi. The indifferent character of this antece- dent is clearly made manifest in such a passage as the following: Virgil, Aen. 6,315 The Correlation hie — illc. 87 Nauita (sc. Charon) set tristis nunc hos nunc accipit illos, Ast alios longo submotos arcet harena; Macrobius, Sat. 1,24,1 laudare hie memoriam, ille doctrinam, cuncti religionem. It was this absolute indifference of the antecedent that made it possible for Horace to write in Sat. 1,1,112 neque se maiori pauperionum Turbae comparat, hunc atque hunc superare laboret in precisely the same sense with Virgil, Aen. 4,157. Finally a passage in which the words no longer stand in parallel syntactical relation, Juv. io,i96f. .... pulchrior ille Hoc, atque ille alio, multum hie robustior illo. As soon as it became possible thus to use these two pronouns to refer to entirely vague and indefinite antecedents, it became possible to extend the series indefinitely by repeating either pronoun. Thus multi- membral contrasts or series originated. Such a series is found in Ennius (see below) and Lucretius 3,311 (the discussion is on the character of man as depend- ing on the prominence in his nature of one or another of the three elements) . . . .procliuius hie iras decurrit ad acris Ille iiK-tu cilitis paulo tcmptc-lur, at ille TVrtitis accipiat quaedam cleineiitius aequo; cf. Virg. Geor. 2,505-8 hie. . . .hie. . . .hunc. . . . ; Hor. li-45 "ic. . . .illc. . . .hie. . . .hie. . . .hunc. . . . quin ftiam illud aecidit ut cuidam . . . . ; cf. 1,4,276*. hie 88 The Latin Pronouns. .... hie .... hunc .... Albius .... hie . . . . ; Ode 3,1,9- 1 3 Kst ut uiro uir .... hie .... hie .... ille . . . . ; L,ucan 7,774-776 ille. .. .ille. .. .hunc. .. .in hoc.... in Caes- are. . . .; Stat. Sil. 2,1,213-17 hos. . . .hos. . . .his. . . . his .... hos .... illos .... hos . . . . ; 2, 2,45-50 haec .... ilia. . . .haec. . . .haec. . . . ; 4,3,50 hi. . . .hi. . . .illi. . . . hi....; Theb. 4,2995. hi. . . .hi. . . .his. . . .his. . . . his. . . .ille. . . .ille. . . .hos. . . .; Juv. 3,69f. Hie alta Sicyone, ast hie Amy done relicta, Hie Andro, ille Samo, hie Trallibus aut Ala-' bandis, Esquilias .... petunt .... 10,225 ille. . . .hie. . . .hie. . . .ille. . . .huius. . . . ; Clau- dian 5,410!!. hi. .. .alii. .. .ille ille. .. .ille. .. .hie . . . .hie. . . .hie. . . .hie. . . . The use of the pronouns as indefinites in an ex- tended series naturally admits varietatis causa other indefinite nouns or pronouns into the series. So cui- dam and uiro uir above. Similarly used are alius (Lucan 2,183 *• hie. . . .alius. . . .ille. . . .), alter (Calp. Eel. io,48f. hie alter ille ; Statius, Sil. 5, 3,1855. alter. . . .alter. . . .alter. . . .hi. . . .hi. . . .hi. . . . illi. . . .), pars (Ovid. Met. n,29f. hae. . . .illae. . . .pars . . . . ; ii ,486 pars .... pars .... hie .... hie . . . . ; Lucan 10,128-131 hos. .. .alios. .. .haec (sc. pars) .... pars altera. . . .pars. . . . ; Stat. Sil. 3,1,118-125 his....illis . . . .pars. . . .pater ipse ). Theb. 2,551 offers hos .... illos .... nee paucos .... So also the prose writers: Plin. N. H. 13,40 aliis .... aliis, his .... aliis, .... quibusdam aliud .... aliud .... (hi pairs) ita fiunt IXL, genera; Plin. Panegyr. The Correlation hie — illc. 89 25<? aliqtiis .... alius .... hie .... ille . . . . ; Epist. 4,24,3 quidam .... alii .... huic .... hie .... alius .... ilium . . . . ; Gellius, N. A. 1,9,9 alius. . . .item alius. . . .hie . . . .ille. . . . ; Apul. Met. 2,29 (p. 66). The possibili- ties of such a series are illustrated by Gellius, N. A. Praef . 6-7 alii .... alii .... ille .... hie .... alius .... par- tim .... quidam .... alius .... atque alius . . . . et item alius .... sunt etiam qui .... sunt item qui .... sunt adeo qui . . . . et . . . . et . . . . et . . . . (with nouns omitted) est qui . . . . est qui .... et .... et .... est item qui . . . . est . . . . est praeterea qui .... est itidem qui ... est qui .... sunt item multi qui .... neque item non sunt qui .... aut .... aut . . . aut . . . . et quaedam alia .... mul- tasque .... nos uero Instances of the insertion of a proper name in such a series are very uncommon, the only ones known to me being those from Horace and Lucan cited above, while Plin. Epist. 4,24,3 concludes a series with nos ipsos. In Horace, Epist. 2,2,59f. we read tu.. ..hie .. ..ille; 91 ego (understood) is contrasted with hie. Statius, Sil. 5,3,185 concludes a series with tu; 3,1,118 with pater ipse. The attentive reader has doubtless already ob- served that in this category no passage from a prose writer has been cited in which hie and ille are unac- companied by some other indefinite word, as well as that the larger part of the indefinite bimembral alterna- tives is made up of the brief expressions mine h. mine il., iam h. iain il. The corrcs]x>ii(lin^ adverbial correlations are of much more frequent occurrence than the substantive and adjectival. In Hand. Turs. s. w. hac, hue, 90 The Latin Pronouns. is found a good collection of instances of these correla- tions. They were used from Plautus on down to the latest period. We distinguish: i) hie — illic, 2) hinc — illinc, 3) hue — illuc, 4) hac — iliac. These phrases, like those discussed above, show both the stronger and the weaker meaning. Hue — illuc and hinc — illinc are by far the more frequent forms; hac — iliac rarely occurs, hie — illic only occasionally. Hie — illic is first found in Plautus, Most 605, where the slave in reply to the usurer's repeated de- mands for his interest exclaims faenus illic, faenus hie (that is, "faenus everywhere"). The phrase is already used of entirely indefinite antecedents. Catullus 6,9 Puluinusque peraeque et hezc et ill^'c || sic Baehr.|| Attritus testifies to the substantive usage exemplified by L,ivy 2,51,9 (cited above), which is found in the adverbial form in Livy 8,37,6 nee hie nee illic. So Catullus 10, 21 n&que hie neque illic. Ovid. Met. 7,581 Hie, illic, ubi mors deprenderat, exhalantes is like Most. 605 (see also Virgil, Geor. 1,54; 69 f.) In Varro, Res Rustica 3,5,6 aut hie aut illic is definite. 2) Hinc — illinc is also first met in Plautus, Atnph. 229, in the form hinc et illinc, a superfluous epexege- sis on uterque. Both adverbs here retain their normal force, hinc meaning "on our side," illinc "on the enemy's side," whereas in Most. 565 et hinc et illinc means "on both sides" (indefinite). a) Hinc .... illinc with asyndeton and not juxta- posed: Lucr. 2,521 hinc flammis, illinc .... pruinis; Virgil, Geor. 1,509; Petron. 83; 108; Curtius 6,11,16 The Correlation hie — illc. 91 hinc ignis illinc uerbera. . . . ingerebantur (sc. Philotae); cf. 8,14,32 and Juvenal 10,44 illinc cornicines, hinc . . . .agminis officia (observe the order). b) With asyndeton and juxtaposed: Catullus 68a,i33(= 68b,93) hinc illinc (circumcursans); Lucre- tius (of an indefinite antecedent); Ovid, Met. i,6i9f. illinc | Hinc (chiastic sentence); Seneca, Medea 108 h. i. mittite carmina. c) With copula: Hinc rex et illinc Sen. Medea 516. Hinc illincgue \\ illinc cod. A || Cic. Tim. 49. Hinc atque illinc: L,iv. 3,5,1 (impetus facti); 26,39,19 (transferentes uela); 32,10,12 (uulneribus acceptis); Petron. 48 (secuit); 32 (fimbriis h. a. i. pen- dentibus). Hinc ucl illinc: Tac. Annal. 2,6,7 adpelle- rent naues); Hist. 3,47,19 (adpellere naues); Germ. 44,11 (mutabile h. u. i. remigio). Hinc aut illinc: Liv. 7,8,1 (aufert); 9,32,6 (telum h. a. i. emissum). d) With correlating adverbs or conjunctions: Nunc hinc nunc illinc: Lucr. 2,2i4f. (nubibtis ignes | concursant); 6,199 (fremitus — "thunder" — per nubilu inittunt); Virg. Aen. 4,442 (n. h. n. fiati- 1ms illinc | .. . .certant) with the interlocked order. Atquc hinc atquc illinc iiineros ad uolnera durat Yirg. Geor. 3,257. .; Hue — illuc. The two adverbs bear their full original demonstrative force in Plant. Capt. 370 Ad te atque ad ilium: pro rota me uti licet. Uel ego hue uel illuc nor tar quo imperabitis. 92 The Latin Pronouns. With the weakened force it occurs Aul. 607 Hinc ego et hue et illuc potero quid agant arbi- trarier. The formulae in which it occurs are of about the same range with those of the two adverbial correlations just discussed, and may be grouped under the same gen- eral heads: a) Asyndeton — not juxtaposed: b) Asyndeton — juxtaposed: Cic. Ad Att. 9,9,2^ cursem hue illuc uia teterrima; Sail. Jug. 60,4 (agitare corpora); Ovid, Met. 2 (feror); Virg. Geor. 2,297 (aescu- lus sustinet umbram); Aen. 4,363 (uoluens oculos); 5,408 (uersat); Manil. 1,199 (reflectat); Petron. 114 (uentus conuertebat ratem); Ilias Lat. 393 (coruscat); Lucan 8,699 (truncus iactatur aquis); Stat. Achil. 200 (uolutat); Siluae 1,3,72 (prosternat); Theb. 2,602 (clipeum obiectans); 4,366 (uersans lumina); 733 (im- pellat); 9,172 (frustra ruit auius); Sil. Ital. 17,137 (iactans — sc. equus membra); Plin. Epist. 2,i7,9(dige- ret); Quint. 10,7,6 (salientes). c) With copula: Hue et illuc: Ad Herenn. 4,11^ (fluctuat); Cic. Gael. 13 (torquere et flectere suum ingenium); De Nat. Deor. 2,115 (casu et temere cursantibus); 101 (aer effluens uentos efficit); De Off. 1,101 (rapit); Acad. 2,116 (trahuntur rationes); De Div. 2,80 (uolucris pas- sim uagantes); De Nat. Deor. 3,68 (uersat); De Fin 2,99 (uersetis); Hor. 4,11,9 (cursitant); Celsus 2,15,8 (lectus manu impellendus); 8,1,35 (se inclinans); Sen. De Ben. 5,5^ (hoc et illo — sic! — diducit); Med. 862 (h. fert pedes et illuc); Stat. Theb. 4,380 (h. tristis et The Correlation hie — ille. 93 illuc. . . .pinum deiectat); 9,849 (h. fessus et i. | Muta- bat turmas); 10,168 (acies h. errat et i.). Hue atquc illuc. Cic. Quint. Rose. 37 (tergi- uersantem); De Oratore 1,40 (intuens); 184 (uagare); De Fiu. 5,86 (uerses); Bell. Afr. 73 (rapsaret); Sail. Hist. 3, 48, 26 (M) (hue ire a. i. — order!); Livy 7,34,16 (sigua moueri); 5,8,8 (signa transf errent) ; Valer. Max. 6,8,7 (errantia); Petron. 37 (discurreret); 101 (uecta- tur); Celsus 4,1,29 (ab utraque parte h. a. i. uolutum intestiuum colon); Stat. Theb. 2,545 (h- ferus a- i- ani- mum. . . .ferens); Gellius 2,6,5 (distrahitur — of the hu- man mind); Dictys 3,3 (oberrans); Script. Hist. Aug. Maximini 5,1 (discurrens, "the whole world over"); Jordanes, Get. 182. Hue illuc^?: Celsus 5,26,14 (oculi mouen- tur). In Plin. N. H. 37,83 the phrase is not well authenticated. Hue uel illuc: Ter. And. 266 Dum in dubiost animus, paulo momento h. u. i. inpellitur; Hue illuc?^: Celsus 6,6,36 (moueatur); 7,3,8 (discernit); 7,18,14 (conuersum — sc. fuit); 8,16,8 (se dederunt). d) With correlating words: Et hue et illuc: Petron. 39 (quadrat). 6Whuc ncl illuc imjxjlluntur Celsus 7,7,3. Nunc hue nunc illuc: Lucr. 2,131 (reuerti | N. h. n. i. in cunctas undique partis); Virgil, Aen. 4,285 (n. h. celercm n. diuidit illuc); 5,701 (N. h. indent is n. i. pectore curas Mutabat u« • 94 The Latin Pronouns. Manil. 2,904 (N. h. n. i. mutantis); 3,167 (mota); Sen. Med. 938 (N. h. ira n. i. amor | Diducit); Sil. Ital. 4,323 N. h. alterno, n. i., flamine gestant (sc. uenti). Turn hue turn illuc: Cic. De Div. 1,120 (uolant alites); cf. Lael. 13 supra cit. lam hue iam illuc: Florus 1,33(2,17)8 (missi duces). Dum hue dum illuc: Plaut. True. 38 (rete or impedit) in its present condition is corrupt, if not interpolated. Modo hue modo illuc: Catullus 3,9 (circum- siliens); 15,7 (praetereunt, — sc. in platea homines); Cic. De Div. 2,145 (ducentium); Par. 14 (transferun- tur); Tim. 48 (verb lost — lacuna in text). 4) Hac — iliac. Plaut. Rud. 213 hac an iliac earn incerta (definite?); Ter. Haut. 512 Hac iliac circum- cursa (indefinite); Eun. 105 Plenus rimarum sum, hac atque iliac perfluo; Petron. 57^ (pedem opponerent); Tac. Agr. 28 hac atque ilia rapti. Multimernbral adverbial series are very rare yet not entirely wanting. Stat. Silu. 1,6,67-74 hie.... hic....illic illic.. ..hie.. ..; Sil. Ital. 10,312 f. hie .... hie .... illic || illuc codd. LFOV || . . . . hie .... passim. . . . ; 403 f. hie. . . .hie. . . .illic || v. I. ibi || . . . . It will be recalled that the earliest bimembral series cited above in which the pronouns are used indefinitely is found in Cicero, while the earliest pas- sage in which the words mean "the former, the latter" is in Accius, Joseph Bach (op. cit. p. 309) being fully The Correlation hie — ille. 95 justified in regarding with Brachmann Plaut. Bacch. 395 as spurious. However, a trimembral series con- siderably antedating Accius occurs in Knnius, Fab- ulae 330 (M) His erat in ore Bromius, his Bacchus pater, illis L,yaeus ( ' 'some — some — others' ' ) . Since the semasiological change undergone by hie and ille in passing from a definite to an indefinite antecedent is the same in the multimembral as in the bimembral series, there is no reason for assuming that the process was accomplished sooner in the one case than in the other, unless it be that the repetition of the same pronoun (made necessary in the multimem- bral sentence) refering to different antecedents in the same sentence (so his — his above) facilitated the change in meaning. As a matter of fact, we find that in the bimembral correlations hie — hie and ille — ille, the first step toward this change is apparent in Plautus and Terence (see below). On the other hand in the case of the hie — ille type it is only in the short adverbial expressions hie — illic, hinc — illinc, hue — illuc, etc., that we find in these two comedians the process of the weakening of the meaning under discussion an accomplished fact. That neither series (non- adverbial) appears in Plautus or Terence is due simply to the fact that these correlations are appropriate only to description and narration, which are rarely found in comedy. In view of this we shall probably not be much in error, if we assume that the indefinite use of the bimembral series wa> also possible to Kmiius, and only the scantiness of the extant remains of his works deprive^ Us of examples. 96 The Latin Pronouns. As has already been suggested, the adverbial forms appeared earlier in the literature and obtained much greater currency than did the others. They may actu- ally have developed earlier. Unlike the adjectival and substantive forms, which stand for a material ante- cedent the individuality of which is likely to be clearly felt, they represent only more or less vague local or temporal conceptions. In the great majority of in- stances the locutions hinc — illinc, etc., serve to point out that certain acts take place in two different places, it being unimportant whether one is near and one far away. The important thought is that the two points where the action takes place are separate and distant from each other. The distinctive meaning of each word is thus easily lost, and the meaning of the locu- tion as a whole becomes the important thing. Further- more those adjectival and substantive locutions that give indication of having been modeled on the adver- bial forms, e. g., modo hoc modo illud, turn hoc turn illud, hoc aut illo, his atque illis, hoc uel illud, hoc aut illud, make up by far the larger number of in- stances in which the correlation bears the indefinite sense. 2. Hie — hie. The weakening of hie to an in- definite pronoun is seen with equal clearness in this correlation. There is, however, one important differ- ence between the two locutions. In the case of hie — ille the contrast is largely expressed by the difference in the meaning of the words. In the present case the contrast is not expressed by the words themselves, they being identical in meaning, but either by gesture, etc., or by the predicates affirmed of their antecedents. The Correlation hie — hie. 97 Cicero's citation from Servius (Ad Fam. 9,16,4) hie uersus Plauti non est, hie est has been made a locus classicus by Wolfflin's discussion of it in his "Gemma- tion im Lateinischen" (Miinchener Sitzungsber. 1882). He characterises it as an imitation of the Conversa- tionsstil comparing Horace, Ars Poet. 439 "Corrige, sodes, Hoc," aiebat, "et hoc." (on which Lucian Miiller, ad loc., misunderstanding the classical usage, says "fur et illud"), and Sat. i,i,ii2 hunc atque hunc (Miiller, "fur atque ilium"). The usage is further exemplified by Ars Poet. 45 hoc amet, hoc spernat, and two such pairs Ars Poet. 363 and 365 Haec amat obscurum; uolet haec sub luce uideri; Haec placuit semel, haec decies repetita placebit. In Ad Fam. /. c. and similar passages there is really no weakening in the force of the pronoun, since one object after another is laid before the critic, and each one, as it is examined, becomes "this verse" (cf. Plaut. Capt. ion Pater hie est, hie seruos — see also 1018 Pater hie est. Hie fur est). Closely connected with this last type is Virg. Eel. 4,55-57 Non me carminibus uincat nee Thracius Or- pheus, Nee Linus, huic mater qiinmuis atque huic pater adsit. Orphei Caliopea, Lino formonsus Apollo; and Aen. 8,357 «s 98 The Latin Pronouns. Hanc lanus pater, hanc Saturnus condidit arcem: laniculum huic, illi fuerat Saturnia nomen. This passage exemplifies the close contact in meaning between hie — hie and hie — ille. Compare Tacitus, Hist. 4,55,7 Tutor .... Sabinus ...., hie Treuir, hie Lingonus, Tutor. . . .Sab The usage is rare in late Latin, but is found in Script. Hist. Aug. Avid. Cass. 2,8; Min. Fel. 40,4; Alcimus Avitus 5 (p. 33,2) quidquid hie || illic Mommsen || nocuit, hie profecit; quidquid tune fleuimus, nunc amamus. Very instructive for the interpretation of Ad Fam. /. c. are Ter. Ad. 417 f. Hoc facito .... Hoc fugito. Hoc laudist .... Hoc uitio datur, where, as in Ars Poet. 363 and 365, two pairs of alternatives are found, and Ter. Ad. 425 f . Hoc salsumst, hoc adustumst, hoc lautumst parum; Illud recte. where we likewise have two alternatives. The second is il. recte; the first is trimembral, the three alterna- tives as a whole being contrasted with illud recte, and being logically equivalent to haec praue. This pas- sage testifies to the existence of the usage at a time long antedating Servius. It is paralleled by the famil- iar passage Hor. Sat. 1,4,134-7 rectius hoc est. . . .hoc .... sic .... hoc . . . . , where sic is introduced varie- iatis causa. In the last two passages, in which the number of The Correlation hie — hie. 99 alternatives exceeds two, the antecedents have already lost their individuality, and, as in the case of hie — ille discussed on p. 85, the stress lies entirely on the contrast between the predicates that are assigned to them. The pronouns pass still further into the realm of indefiniteness, when brought in such rapid suc- cession before the mind that no time is allowed for the mind to dwell upon each one. In many passages even the contrast between the predicates, which is often very slight, is left unstated, and the reader or list- ener is left to infer from the mere presence of a copula et, aut, etc.,} or from the general context, that two distinct antecedents are referred to. Thus to be inter- preted are: Ad Keren. 2,40 hoc aut hoc fecissem, and Cic. De Invent. 1,99 hoc et hoc sit demonstratum; 100 uobis hoc et hoc plane factum est (cited by Krebs- Schmalz, Antibarbarus I6, 593); Quint. 6,1,4 cum sciret haec et haec; id. 3 responsurus sit aduersarius his et his. [Hac et hac] in 9,4,129 is a gloss on fluit. Cf. 4,4,8 ego hoc dico, aduersarius hoc, in which the contrast is expressed by the two grammatical subjects. In these passages, except possibly the last, it seems unnecessary to assume that the speaker is thinking of a definite object when he utters each "hoc", nor is he on the other hand using them exactly as indefinites. They seem rather to approach in meaning the familiar legal formula illucl — illud "such and such". Further- more there is no implication, except in 4,4,8 that only two alternatives are referred to, so that we mi^ht translate "for example, this or that." Of the same type witli Livy 2,51,9 cited p. 84, is Virgil, A en. io,9f ioo T/ie Latin Pronouns. Quis metus aut hos Aut hos arma sequi ferrumque lacessere suasit, in which it is a matter of indifference which hos re- fers to Rutuli and which to Troiani; Persius 5,155 Huncine an hunc sequeris? (cf. Sil. Ital. 4,353^. I/astly we may refer to the cases in which the choice is not limited to two objects, the words coming to mean ' ' one — another ' ' , plural ' ' some — others ' ' . This usage is found chiefly in the hexameter poetry. See Virgil, Aen. 6,773 f. Hi tibi Nomentum et Gabios urbemque Fide- nam, Hi Collatinas imponent montibus arces; cf. 7,5o6ff. Olli . . • .adsunt, hie torre armatus obusto, Stipitis hie grauidi nodis: quod cuique repertum Rimanti, telum ira facit; and 1,106 Hi. . . .his. . . . ; Geor. 4,84 f. aut hos aut hos; Hor. Epist. i,i7,39ff. hie.... | .... |Hic....; Lucan2,3ohae hae ; 252 f. Hos | Hos ; 3,687 | Hie | Hi ; 6,198-200 | Hunc | Hunc... ; 7,375 f. haec. ... |Haec....; 8,196 | Hos . . . .hos. . . . ; 10,489 hos. . . .hos. . . . ; Sil. Ital. is not less fond of the correlation. For Statius see Thebais 2,246; 7iof. The usage admits naturally of extension to three or more members, as in Virgil, Geor. 2,505-8 hie. . . . hie. . . .hunc. . . . ; Aen. 7,473f. hunc. . . .hunc. . . .hunc ....; Hor. Epist. 2,2,67 hie. . . .hie. . . .hie. . . .hie . . . . ; L,ucan 2, 154-7 hie • • • • n^c • • • • hie • • • • ; Stat. Sil. 4,4,i5f. hos. . . .hos. . . .hi. . . . The Correlation hie — hie. 101 From the prose writers: Florus 2, 33(4, 12), 52 hos . . . .hos. . . .hos. . . . In New Test. Matth. 13,22 . . . . 6 niv.. ..6 di .... 6 di .... is rendered in the codex Bobbianus (now Taurinensis k) hoc .... hoc au- tem. . . .hoc autem. . . . , in all other existing MSS. (the Palatinus e, an African translation, has a lacuna at this point) aliud quidem .... aliud autem .... aliud autem (or uero).... In the parallel passage 13,8 even k and e read aliut .... aliut .... aliut .... In Matth. 8,9 the Vulgate huic .... alio .... represents Like hie .... hie .... ille . . ..etc., this series also admits indefinite nouns and pronouns. Curtius 9,9, 12 hi. . . .hi. . . .quidam. . . . ; Stat. Theb. 3,129-31 hae .... hae .... pars .... pars . . . . ; Lucan 10, 1 28 if . hos .... alios .... pars .... pars .... inuentus .... fortior aetas. Tacitus has a variety of such expressions, especially in the Annals, e. g., 14,8,2 hi. . . .hi. . . -alii ....quidam....; 1,18,1 hi. . . .hi . . . .plurimi. . . . ; 2, 13,4 hie. .. .alius. .. .plurimi. ...; 4,50,2 his. .. .aliis ..-.et erant qui . . . . ; 13,39,14 hos. .. .alios. .. . mul- tos. . .. ; Hist. 3,55,9 his. . . .alios ---- (cf. Ann. 6,1,9); Sat. i,4,2yff. hie . . . .hie. . . .hunc. . . . Albius ---- hie ....; Sil. Ital. 17,482-5 hie. .. .hie. .. .hos. .. .horum . . . .ipse Rhoeteius; Juvenal 1,46-49 hie. . . .hie. . . . Marius. . . . The corresponding adverbial forms hie — hie, etc., in the sense of alibi — alibi, iV0a ;L{V — svOa dl, like the adverbial forms hie — illic, have a much wider range of usage than the adjectival and substantive forms, but are far less frequently employed than the hie — illic 102 TJie Latin Pronouns. type, and seem to be a later development. At least they appear considerably later in the extant litera- ture. i) Hie — hicy etc., is rarely met, hinc — hinc being used in its stead. Examples are Sil. Ital. 8,395^ 2) Hinc — hie. See Hor. O. 1,34,14-16. 3) Hinc — hinc. Type a), hinc hinc juxtaposed and used asyndetically, seems never to occur, except as refering to one and the same antecedent. b) Asyndetic and not juxtaposed: The two adverbs may both modify the same verb or may be used with separate verbs. The correlation appears earlier in the former construction. The first examples in prose literature, as is well known, are found in Livy. Earlier than the first decade of Livy is Horace, Sat. i, i, 1 8 hinc uos uos hinc discedite, which, so far as I am aware, has always been interpreted in the general sense: "Go ye each his own different way." I am not inclined, however, to follow the traditional render- ing, which takes hinc. . . .hinc in the sense of hinc. . . . illinc, or more exactly either hac — iliac or illuc.. .. illuc, but would for several reasons make hinc in both instances refer to the speaker, Jupiter, and retain its normal meaning "hence, hence, both of you." Livy is therefore antedated in this usage not even by a poet. Livy uses the words in most cases to bal- ance a pair of nouns that stand in the same construc- tion. The passage 1,13,2 hinc patres hinc uiros or antes, is the earliest instance of the usage in Latin literature. This same passage stands in Aurel. Viet. 1,2,9 hinc patres inde coniuges deprecatae. Either The Correlation hie — hie. 103 Victor or the maker of the Epitome Liuiana1 felt hinc — hinc as an unusual expression and altered it to the more familiar and more prosaic hinc — hide. The same type of construction is found 3,23,7 h. Uolscos h. Aequos. 6,15,3; 8,35,8; 21,8,8; 22,47,2; 25,15,14; 25,29,3; 26,48,12; 28,9,13; 29,33,5; 30,19,8. In two cases we have instead of single substantives a phrase of two or more words correlated by hinc — hinc: 26, 37,2 hinc in Hispania aduersae res, hinc prospera in Sicilia; 10,39,16 hinc foederum cum Romanis ictorum testes deos, hinc iurisiurandi aduersus foedera sus- cepti execrationes horrens. Later examples of such an extended phrase are: Stat. Theb. 1,383^ Sil. Ital. 10,530-2; 2,273-5. The brief expressions in which two substantives are correlated reappear in Curt. 9,4, 10 bis\ 5,10,9; 5,4,28; 8,13,11 (in the second and third instances the substantive stands in the Ablative); Lucan 7,533; 9,861; Sen. Dial. 2,2,1 (two proper names); Stat. Sil. 1,2,235; Theb. 1,193 (two proper names, each with an adjectival modifier); 3,564^ Sil. Ital. 1,522; 4,38of; 550; 562; 5,44; 7,526; Juvenal i, 119 hinc toga, calceus hinc est. Slightly varied are Sil. Ital. 1,561. Hinc puer inualdique senes, hinc femina; and 4,414 Hinc laeua frenos, hinc dextra corripit arma. The phrase is very seldom employed to correlate •iry A. Sander*, w:. .1 study of tin- Kpi- .nn to speak with authority on the sulijeet. has been unable to find any evidi-nre ritlu-r t<> prove or to disprove the assumption that the writer of tin- Kpiloine made the change. The balance of probability would ] it to Victor. IO4 The Latin Pronouns. two verbs: Manil. 2,4i9f; Lucan 10,5375.; Stat. Sil. 2,2,n6f.; Sil. Ital. i,222f.; 2,273-275. c) With copula: Hinc et hinc, widely separated: Lucr. 6,88f. hinc....et hinc; in juxtaposition: Hor. Epod. 2,31 (trudit); 5,97 (saxis petens); Petron. 79^; Stat. Sil. 4,3,47 (coactis). Hinc atque hinc stands almost invariably at the beginning of a verse: Virg. Aen. 1,162 (rupes minantur); 4,447 (heros tunditur); 12,431 (suras inclu- serat); Germanicus, Arat. Phaen. 49 (torquet); Stat. Sil. 2,2,14 (perrumpunt); Theb. 7,479 (natae); 12,759 (natauit); Sil. Ital. 4,274 (dederunt); 1,375 (instent). Hinc. . . .at hinc (widely separated): Stat. Sil. 3.5.74*- Hinc . . . . atque hinc (widely separated); Sil. Ital. 17,251. It is easy to see how hinc — hinc took on its indefi- nite meaning. In the passage from Horace's Satires cited above, both groups of persons are bidden to depart from the speaker. Perhaps there is no notion in the speaker's mind of the direction which each person addressed is about to take. On the other hand it may be an essential part of the speaker's thought that they depart in different directions. In proportion as this second thought is more or less prominent, in just so marked a degree does the phrase take on the meaning "to one place — to an (the) other." As a rule, however, in the examples cited above, the word hinc has entirely lost its special implication of movement in a direction away from the speaker, and is already synonymous with an indefinite hie. The Correlation ille — illc. 105 3) Hue — hue. The two words imply, of course, motion toward the speaker. This meaning offers a serious bar to the process of development just out- lined, that takes place in the case of hinc — hinc. Nevertheless the phrase did take on an indefinite force, and although our earliest example (Catullus 61,34 Ut tenax edera hue et hue Arborem implicat errans) considerably antedates Livy's hinc — hinc, it is paral- leled by Lucretius hinc et hinc (6,88 f.), which phrase may have exercised no weak influence toward hasten- ing its development. Examples of the usage are very rare. I know of only six: Hor. Epod. 4,9 . . . .ora uertat h. et h. euntium; Sen. Med. 385 (recursat); Stat. Sil. 1,3,38 (hue oculis, hue mente trahor); Sil. Ital. 9,360 (it seges nutans); 614 (iactas). 4) Hoc — hoc, like hue — hue is a poetical usage, and very rarely met. Naevius, Astiologa; Propert. 1,3,14; Horace, Epist. 2,2,75; Virgil, Aen. 1,467^; Stat. Theb. 9,762. I know of only one instance in prose lit- erature, Pompeius, Comment, in Donat. p. 105,31 (K). Adverbial series of three members are found: Luc. i , 176-181 hinc. . . .hinc. . . .hinc. . . . ; Sil. Ital. 1,185- 187 do\ 5,198 do. •1. Ille — ille. As our discussion of the two cor- relations just dismissed has been rather full, we he present one very briefly, the more so because it shows about the same range of meaning with the others awl is of quite infrequent occurrence. 16 io6 The Latin Pronouns. Parallel to the construction hie uersus Plauti non est, hie est is Terence, Phor. 332 Quia enim in illis fructus est, in illis opera ludi- tur. The same usage is found in Cicero, Rose. Amer. 59 (cited in Miihlmann's Thesaurus) quaesisse, num ille aut ille defensurus esset; De Inuent. 1,98 [illud docuimus, illud plane fecimus]. Suetonius (Jul. 41) quotes from Julius Caesar, commendo uobis ilium et ilium. Martial 7,10,1 f. offers ille uel ille; while Ma- nilius 2,185 Ille senescentis ueris, subeuntis et ille, in which a definite antecedent is referred to, is paral- leled by Quint. 2,8,11 in illo....in illo....; 3,6,93 ille. .. .ille. ...; 11,3,168; Lucan 4,636^; ille (An- taeus) ---- | Ille (Heracles); cf. 612; Plin. Epist. 1,23, 3 uel ille cui adessem uel ille quern contra; cf. 6,29,15 Miseni illud ruisse. . . .illud ardere; Juv. 10,91 illi. . . . | Ilium.... The type represented by Virg. Aen. 10,9 (hie. . . . hie) is closely paralleled by Sil. Ital. 4,3175. Itali ---- Tyrias ---- alas. | Aut illi ---- | Aut illi. With entirely indefinite series it occurs in Manil. Audire ut cupiant alios, aliosque uidere, Horum odio, nunc horum idem ducantur amore, Illis insidias tendant, captentur ab illis, an important passage, as showing ille — ille entirely synonymous with hie — hie and alius — alius. Further examples are: Sen. Sent. 9,2,16 nemo paene sine uitio est: ille iracundus est, ille libidinosus; Petron. The Correlation illc — illc. 107 123,226. In the light of these passages Wolfflin's proposal to read in Tac. Ger. 14,11 f. ille. . . .ille in- stead of illam .... ilium can meet with no objections on the score of the meaning of the phrase ille .... ille. Pompeius, Commentum in Donat. has on p. 204, y(K) et ilia breuis est et ilia; p. 205,16 et illud et illud. Trimembral series occur in Petron. 115 and Juv. 2,93; 95-99- NOTE TO CHAPTER II. — The rivalry between hie, is and ille is also apparent in the usage of these words in legal formulae of the types: a. Ilia die, ilia hora ab urbe sum exiturus (in imi- tation of the style of imperial edicts), Script. Hist. Aug. Alex. Sev. 45,2; cf. Arnob. 4,i9/> cum legitis ex illo patre atque ex ilia matre deus ille est proditus. b. Earn alitem, ea regione caeli et eius dei nuntiam uenisse, L,ivy 1,34,9. c. Ex hac familia in hanc familiam. The writer finds it necessary to postpone the dis- cussion of these usages to a later date, when he shall have a fuller collection of data at his disposal. They are, of course, intimately connected with the formulae hie — hie and ille — ille just discussed. Another correlation hinc — inde should not be over- looked in this connection. The writer hopes in the near future to publish a history of this phrase and throw new light upon the development of the other correlations discussed in this section, both by compar- ing them with hinc — inde and by continuing the study of their development down to the seventh century. CHAPTER III. ISTE. CHAPTER III. ISTE. The weakening in the meaning of hie, necessarily brought about by its frequent use as a substitute for is, resulted in an effort, unconscious of course, on the part of the users of the language, to find another word to take its place. Ille, with its strong demon- strative force, was too remote in meaning from hie to serve this purpose. So recourse was had to iste. Since this last pronoun was very extensively used as a substitute for hie (which it eventually almost entirely displaced), it may very properly be discussed immedi- ately after hie. The usage iste = hie forms the main subject of the remarks of the present chapter, at the conclusion of which, however, it will be necessary to call attention to two other peculiarities in the usage of the word. While no general agreement has been reached as to the etymology of this pronoun, there can be no doubt that there is much fuller consensus of opinion on the point than existed a few years ago. In 1870 Johann Kvicala in his Untersuchungen auf dem Ge- biete der Pronomina, ( = Sit/un^sber. d. Wien. Akad. 1870, p. 137), induced by the extensive use of the word as a deuTCfwr/nTn-,, urged the identity of the -te in i*te with the ablative of the personal pronoun tu. He seems to have found no supj)orters to his view, although Nettisil in Archiv f. lat. Lexikogr. u. ii2 The Latin Pronouns. Gramm. VII, 579 ff. argues for ti, dative. It is not necessary, as von Planta following Danielsson has pointed out (Grammatik der oskisch-umbrischen Dia- lecte II, 423), to assume this etymology, in order to explain the peculiar character of iste. Spanish esso (from ipse) is used as a deurepoTpirov implying contempt. (Cf. also pp. 1565. below.) No more satisfactory is the proposal cited in the third edition of Neue's Formen- lehre, 11,396, from Stolz, Lateinische Grammatik, p. 216, that the second element of iste is the suffix -pte. In the second and third editions of his grammar Stolz returns to the view concerning the last element of the pronoun advanced by Corssen, who (Ueber Aussprache, Vocalismus und Betonung der lateinishen Sprache II, 843, 2d edition) writes: "Das dem. Pron. -tu-s, -ta-, -tu-d, von dem selbstandig die Accusative-formen turn, tarn mit adverbialer Bedeutung erhalten sind, ist enklitisch an die Nominative Form i-s des Pro- nominal-stammes i- gefiigt in i-s-tu-s, iste." This element, according to Danielsson, Pauli's Altitalische Studien, III,i58ff., represents in the Nom. sg., masc. and fern, an original -so-, -sa- (cf. Brugmann's Grun- driss, 1,426, Anni. 2 — this note does not appear in the second edition). The first two letters of iste are resolved by Schweizer-Sidler, Gram, der lat. Sprache 1,122, 2ded., into i-, pronominal root and so-, sa-, pro- nominal stem, and the final syllable, is explained as representing original -se, -so "nach dem Neutrum und den iibrigen Casus ins Masc. und Fern, des Nom. sg. eingedrungen." This last derivation, which connotes a later origin for iste, is the most satisfactory from a semasiological standpoint; and best accounts for the Iste OS tisurepOTptrov. 113 strong demonstrative force of iste, that has enabled it to maintain until today (cf. Spanish este) its distinct deictic character. It may now be regarded as beyond dispute that one of the most important elements of the meaning of iste, in the ante-Augustan periods at least, is its dis- tinct reference to the second person, i. e., to something having a direct connection with the person addressed, or (which for our present purposes is practically the same thing) conceived by the subject to have such a relation. Joseph Bach, whose examination of the usage of the demonstrative pronouns in the archaic period is very thorough, maintains that the word occurs in no passage in this period without bearing a distinct reference to the second person. It is further claimed that in Cicero the word always has this force. On this point see Landgraf's note 366 c on Reisig's Yorlesungen iiber die Lateinische Sprachwissenschaft I II ,97 f., where Kvicala, op. tit. — particularly p. 133 —is cited with approval. One of the most palpable bits of evidence that seems to prove the correctness of this view, is the atti- tude of the Roman historians toward the pronoun. In Caesar, for example, the word occurs only once (B. G. 7,77), and then in an oration inserted in his narra- tive. Similarly it occurs only in direct address in Sallust, since in Frag. Ili-t. 1,49 (Maurenbr.) the i m istam urbem seem to be a portion of tlie address of a Samnite to his fellows. The same is true of Nepos, Curtius and Livv i at least in books 1-40). In the Helium His]). 9.1. i>ia is a conjecture for t 'ional ita, and ha-, been changed to ilia in '7 114 The Latin Pronou?is. the best modern editions. In contrast with the histo- rians, we find that Cicero in his orations, letters and dialogues and Varro in his dialogue on Agriculture make very extensive use of iste. This goes to show that the writers of historical narrative had little occa- sion to employ the word. That the same is true of ordinary exposition, is clearly proved by the use of iste in the Rhetorica ad Herennium. In this anony- mous treatise iste occurs upward of ninety times. Of these instances only four fall to the first three books, while the other eighty odd are found in the fourth book. The explanation is simple. The fourth book, which treats of elocutio, is largely made up of illus- trations of various figures of rhetoric, and these ex- amples, with few exceptions, are drawn from orations or are imitations of the oratorical style. We must not forget that at the beginning of the fourth book the Auctor ad Herennium lays great stress on the fact that he employs his own illustrations and not those cited by others, counting, apparently, as his own those which he translated from the Greek (cf. 4,7,10, where he especially takes credit for translating the Greek technical expressions used in rhetoric) . In this con- nection I cannot refrain from making the suggestion, that the Roman teachers of rhetoric are to some ex- tent, and perhaps largely, responsible for the very extensive use made of this word by the orators. Any one who reads attentively the large number of made- up examples of figures of rhetoric in the Auctor, can scarcely fail to be convinced of this. Iste becomes inseparable from them and recurs with a mechanical monotony. Compare also the frequent repetition of htc as Ssursporptrov. 115 iste in the first ten chapters of book 4 of this work, where it refers in each instance with disparaging force, to those whose views are combatted by the Auctor. In view of these facts, and of the pedagogical convenience of the ordinary rule of grammar which makes hie, iste and ille correspond to the first, second and third persons respectively of the verb, it is not surprising to find the statement repeated in all our school grammars. It remains on the whole true, but I shall propose below, page 158, an important modifica- tion of the rule, and shall call attention to the neces- sity of discriminating between the use of the word in direct address on the one hand, and its use as a dsurpo- -<>'-<>•; on the other. Still, notwithstanding the truth of the general statement in so far as it refers to the "Golden," or, at least, to the Ciceronian Latinity, but it is misleading, and in fact censurable to imply by one's silence that the usage of the so-called Silver Latin is identical with that of the Ciceronian period. Schmalz forms the only exception to the general prac- tice and his modifications of the rule, — depending as he was obliged to do on second-hand information, — are far from exact. The only and the earliest exam- ple of iste = hie cited by the erudite Kiihner in his Grammatik der Latein. Sprache II a, 454, is from St. istine! — a striking commentary on the state of the historical grammar of the Latin language in 1878. An examination of the whole subject is therefore neces>ary, the more so, since an appreciation of the meanings of this word is essential to a proper understanding of the works of several of the "Silver" writers, especially Celstis, Seneca the Younger and n6 The Latin Pronouns. the poets. In the following discussion of the subject, the evidence for the meanings of iste is adduced in several distinct groups, within which the citations are arranged so far as possible in chronological order. A. ISTE = HIC. The earliest evidence of a weakening of the force of iste as a deurepurptrov is found in the collocation iste tuns, ista tua (cf. Koziol, Stil des Apuleius p. 78), iste uester, etc., which occurs as early as Plautus. In Amphitruo 285 Mercury says to Sosia Ego pol te istis tuis pro dictis et male factis, furcifer, Accipiam. Thirty-one similar instances are mentioned by Bach, op. cit. pp. 2i6ff. The usage once established, we find it in Accius' Telephus 8; in Varro, Res Rust. 3,2,5; in Cicero (in the orations iste tuus twenty-seven times, iste uester seven times; in the philosophical writings iste tuus nine times, iste uester nine times; see Merguet's Lexicon), in Catullus 71,3; 81,3; 116,7; in Livy 4,4,7 nobilitatem istam uestram; in M. Aurel. {apud Fronto, Epist. 1,3) Frontonem istum tuum and in the Christian writers Firmicus Maternus 21,2 deus iste uester; Cyprian, Epist. 31, iw ista tua caritate; Arnobius 2,51*?; Planciades Fulgentius, Mitol. i, pr. 22(M) (= p. 12,14!!) ne tu istarn tuam satyram.. .. credas; Gord. Fulgentius 8(= p. 156,14!!) quae sunt ista tua, Deus, secreta mister ia. At a later period the Romans found it necessary to juxtapose the form tibi to the word iste, in some in- stances at least, in order to secure a more distinct reference to the second person. Such, at least, is the Iste — hie. 117 explanation of the Italian codesto ( = ecc[um] -f- tibi > ti -histu[m]). As long as iste was used for emphatic reference to the second person, its usual usage would naturally be confined to cases of direct address, to conversation, for example, to orations and letters, or in general to passages written when the interest of the author was fixed upon the person addressed, or at least when the latter occupied a position in the author's consciousness. The appearance of the word in other connections than these must be taken as an indication that there is absent from the consciousness of the user any such element in the idea group that is associated with the phonetic symbol iste; in other words, that iste is no longer There is possibly such an instance in Catullus 41,3 Ameana puella .... Tota milia me decem poposcit, Ista turpiculo puella naso. There seems to be no reference to the second person in this passage, for, although in line five the poet addresses the friends of the young lady, he turns abruptly to them and apparently has no thought of them in the first four lines. If there is no reference to the friends, we should then have to assume that it is the reader to whom he appeals. If this is the case, tilt usage would illustrate the argument set forth on p. 156 below. Horace in Sat. 1,4,130!!. uses istinc in the sense of a meis uitiis. The passage runs . . . . mediocribus et quis <>scas uitiis teneor; fortassis et islinc -tulerit longn aetns, liber ninicus. n8 The Latin Projwuns. We may not, however, in this passage regard the word as used with the absence of all reference to the second person, since the phrase quis ignoscas containing the indefinite second person may be taken as an indication that Horace feels himself in close touch with his reader. There is in Virgil only one passage in which the word occurs outside of direct address, namely, 10, 504- Turno tempus erit, magno cum optauerit emp- tum Intactum Pallanta et cum spolia ista diemque Oderit. The passage is a comment of the poet himself on the ruthless slaughter of Pallas (cf. verse 502 nescia mens hominuin . . . . seruare modum). The dark prophecy gives coloring to the entire sentence, and while the main cause for it is the death of Pallas, yet the taking of the balteus, referred to by the words spolia ista, is inseparable from the whole, and in my opinion ista decidedly heightens the effect that the poet, rising to a lofty dignity of tone characteristic of the orator, is desirous of producing. This may be regarded as an almost certain case of the use of the word outside of direct address, since little weight can be attached to the reading jpJA of the Mediceus. There is likewise but a single passage in Manilius in which iste is used in this way, namely, 1,492-4. Quis credat tantas operum sine numine moles Ex minimis caecoque creatum foedere mundum ? Si fors ista dedit nobis, fors ipsa gubernet. As the indefinite second person excuses the use of the word in Horace, so may the rhetorical question and hte = Hie. 1 1 9 the subjunctive gubernet justify its use here. These are the only passages of this kind that I have found in the poets up to the time of Tiberius (I have omitted to examine some of Ovid's writings, e. g., Ars Ama- toria, Medicamina Faciei, Halieutica). Velleius Paterculus 2,7,3 cannot be made use of, since istius is here a conjecture of Cludius for Amer- bach's ipsius. Illius would be more in accordance with the classical usage. As iste occurs no where else in Velleius, I prefer not to accept the reading. This being the case, the earliest prose writer to employ the word outside of direct address is Valerius Maximus, who offers no less than ten instances: 4,3/>r. (in a pas- page expressing contempt); 4,3,6 (contempt); 2,8,7 (regret); 7,1,2 (censure); 7,8,6 (falsehood); 8,1,3 (un- desirability); g,i$pr. (disapproval); 5,1,11 (praise); 6,$Ext. i (praise); 2,2,8 (high praise). There are in addition four passages in Velleius in which the use of iste may be regarded as justified by its occurrence in rhetorical questions. They are 5,3,2^; 5,6/>r. ; $£Ext. 4; 9,1,5. Celsus has followed in the foot-prints of Velleius, but has gone farther. Particularly striking is 8,12 (= p. 354,16 Dar.) reposito osse, si cum dolore oculorum et ceruicis iste casus incidit, ex brachio san- mittendus est. Cf. also i,pr. (pp. 2,1; 3,1; 5,23; 6,6; 12; 9,29; 11,16; 17; 20 isti . . . . ipsi). Instances of tliis usage from Seneca the Younger are cited by Hoppe, Program, Lauban, p. 8, with the words: "Her- vomiheben ist bei Seneca der h-itifige Gebrauch von iste, ohi. lessen besondere Bedetitmitf bewahrt \vird." Pliny the Elder does not differ essentially from his predecessor in polyhistory, u may be seen by I2O The Latin Pronouns. reference to the following passages: Praef. 28; 2,85; 139; 141; 7,132; 9,129; 10,137; 13,23; 125; i4>9;9i; 115 || ita cod d ||; 27,8; 28,6; 8; 229; 29,11; 24; 30, 10; 13; and is followed by Martial (1,84,3), Quintilian (see: 9,4,32; 2,40; 10,3,24), Tacitus (Agr. 40,10; Ann. 16,16,7 — the only instances in Tacitus) and Florus (2, 13(4,2), 13). We may now proceed to establish its usage as a TCftwTOTptTov, i. e., as a synonym of hie, and then dis- cuss the chronological and geographical limits of the usage and consider the semasiological character of the changes in meaning involved. There are at least ten further lines of evidence, that make the existence of an iste npwrorptTov certain. In the first place we find as early as Catullus (see Schmalz on Reisig's Vorlesungen III, Anm. 366 bb) some pronoun of the first person (usually a possessive) modifying the same word with iste. Examples are: Catullus 17,21 Talis iste meus stupor ni/ uidet, nihil audit, Ipse, qui sit. . . ., nescit; Virg. Aen. 11,165 Nee uos arguerim, Teucri, nee foedera nee quas lunximus hospitio dextras: sors ista (i. e., the death of Pallas) senectae Debita erat nostrae. Euander is here speaking, and addresses the Trojans. This practice is quite common in the correspondence of Pronto and in Apuleius. From the former may be cited: 1,2 ista mea fortuna . . . . istam necessitatem meam.. ..ista mea uerecundia (the words of Marcus hie = Hie. 121 Aurelius); 1,7 orationem istam meam (in a letter of Fron to himself ). Apuleius offers us: Met. 1,11 sermo- nes istos nostros; 2,3 meis istis manibus; 6,22 (cited by Goelzer, Gramm. in Sulp. Sev. Quaest. p. 90, Anm. i) istud pectus meum. In a letter of the em- peror Aurelian to Probus, apud Script. Hist. August. Prob. 6,6, the soldiery spoken of as decimani mei are shortly afterwards referred to by isti. Further exam- ples are: Cyprian, De Oper. et Eleem. 20 £ in istis muneribus meis; and Sulp. Sev. D. 176,3 regio ista nostrorum. This usage is rare during the pre- Au- gustan period and is there confined to the poets. There are other cases in which the reference of this pronoun to the first person is equally clear, although no possessive pronoun is added to it. It often refers to something in the vicinity or even in the possession of the writer or the speaker, or to something in which the speaker has a special interest. This application of the word is found in Seneca the Younger, Lucan, Pliny the Elder and his nephew, Juvenal and Pronto, not to mention the later writers. The elder Pliny in his dedication to Vespasian (sec. 18) refers to his work by the neuter plural substantive ista. His nephew in a letter to Caninius from the author's country home (2,8,1 ) writes, stadia ultissimus isle successus adfatim erunt, where iste sucessus means "this, my retired villa." RuuschniiiK, De Latinitate L. Ann. Sen. Phil. p. 70, cite^ instances of this usa^c from Seneca. Juve- 1,67 writes iste dies "today" for hie dies or hodie, and 6,295 (perhaps in order to avoid confusion with hinc immediately preceding and following i istos colles = the seven hills of Rome, /'. c., "our seven hills", 18 122 The Latin Pronouns. in 9,131 called his collibus. In 14,179, where we read "Uiuite contends casulis et collibus istis, O pueri !' ' Marsus dicebat .... senex, istis is of course capable of being interpreted in its normal sense. In the correspondence between Marcus Aurelius and Fronto this usage becomes quite com- mon. Fronto writes p. 183 (N) dum istius doloris expers uitam degerem, meaning the pain which he himself suffers in his sickness. In the letter De Ne- pote Amisso (p. 236*?) he writes casibus miserrimis adflictus sum .... Plura scribere non possem isto in tempore. Probably no writer of the second century went so far in this particular as did Apuleius. Espe- cially clear are Met. 1,18 iugulum istum dolui, "my neck ached"; 2,14 f rater meus sub istis oculis miser iugulatus est, "before my eyes". An interesting par- allel is afforded by Met. 2,5 omnem istam lucem mundi and Plautus' lucescit iam hoc. It is here desirable to cite a passage from Ober- meier, op. cit. p. 15, since it stands in need of some little correction. "Iste hat bei Lucan die iibrigen Demonstrativa geradezu verdrangt. Denn es steht sogar regelmiissig statt hie bei Verhaltnissen, welche die redende Person betreffen; z. B., 3,126... .mit ista potestas bezeichnet der Volkstribun Metellus die eigene Wiirde, 5,287 Nil actum est bellis, si nondum comperit istas Omnia posse manus die Aufriihrer meinen die eigenen Hande, 5,588 . . . .proderit undis | Ista ratis, Iste = Hie. 123 der Kahn, auf dem sich der also sprechende Caesar befindet, 6,242 . . . .gladio. . . .isto der Caesarianer weist auf sein eigenes Schwert, 8,122.... 6,158 ...328 bello.. ..in isto, d. i. in dem gegenwiirtigen Kriege, und so findet sich eine Menge Beispiele. Da noch Ver- gil iste nur in Beziehung auf die 2te Person gebraucht (Reisig, Vorlesungen, S. 361)," (Should read 'Haase zu Reisig' . Landgraf also seems not to know of the passage Aen. X, 504 cited above), "in der Prose aber dieser Gebrauch von iste statt hie nicht vor dem Phi- losophen Seneca erscheint' ' (See on the contrary the passages quoted below from Celsus, Valerius Maxi- mus and C. I. L., I, ist ed. No. 818), "so muss Lucan einer der ersten gewesen sein, welche iste statt hie anwendeten." Further, p. 18 "Mit iste — ille be- dient er sich des Ausdruckes einer viel spateren Zeit." To this last statement Weymann in Archiv III, 575 enters no objection. The expression is as old as Vale- rius Maximus (see below). Touching the first two sentences of Obermeier's statement it maybe remarked that iste is not so common in Lucan as it is in Virgil, and is far less frequent than hie. Concerning the fact that iste stands only four times in Lucan outside of direct address see below. The later pagan writers do not make such exten- sive u>e of iste as do Apuleius, Pronto and Gellius, who is discussed below. Instances, however, of the use of iste as Wfmtrpvrw are not uncommon. We may cite as illustrations the anonymous Declamatio in Cati- linam S6, where cursinn istuin niolentae orationis means "the rushing course of my eloquence" ; Balbus Gromaticus p. 91,10 iste liber, "my book"; p. 94,5 124 The Latin Pronouns. mensura ista. . . .de qua loquimur. In a letter of Pro- bus apud Script. Hist. Aug. Probus 16,5 ab istis locis means "from Isauria, where I am" — this passage could in Cicero mean nothing but "from the place where you are" — ; Script. Hist. Aug. Firmus 1,2 istam descrip- tionem, "a narration like mine"; Tacitus 13,4 (isto = Tacito); Macrobius, Sat. 1,7,19 regionem istam — "this land' ' , i. e. , where we live — quae nunc uocatur Italia, regno Faunus obtinuit. Similarly in Sat. 5,13,3 and 6 iste refers to the Roman poet Virgil, Macrobius' coun- tryman, and may be translated "our poet", while in the second paragraph preceding, Homer is referred to by ille, and a few pages before, the two are contrasted by the words hunc — ilium. The so-called Gronovian scholiast on Cicero's oration for Roscius Amer. 17 uses usque ad istam narrationis partem in the sense "up to the present point in my address." The patristic literature, like Fronto and Apuleius, makes rather more extensive use of the word in this meaning: Min. Felix 18,11 iste sermo, "this expression"; 19,15 ista quae nostra sunt, ' 'our persuasion' ' ; 40, i dum istaec igitur apud me tacitus euoluo; Cyprian, De Hab. Virg. i$p isto in loco, "at this point in my address' ' ; Tertullian, De Idol. 19^ in isto capitulo, "in this chapter' ' ; Commodian 1,25,19 isto libello, "my book"; Ambrose i,8,32F nobis excursus iste processit, ut probaremus . . . . ; Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 1,2,1 uoluminis istius, "my volumen"; Iste — Hie. 125 M. 25,3 ista {— mea) laudatio; 27,6 opusculum istud (= meum); D. 1,18,2; 2(3), 16; E. 2,Setsaep. al. In this connection consult Lonnergren, De Syntaxi S. S. p. 10: "pronomen quod est iste celeberrime adhibet, ut ad agentem personam referatur, quod genus loquendi apud infimae aetatis scriptores uiguisse constat." S. Silv. Peregrinatio p. 87,27 hie omnes conuenire in isto loco; 85,29 hodie nocte ista; Cassian. Inst. 5,1 quintus nobis iste liber produci- tur; Hilarian in his Tractatus in Psalmos often refers to the particular psalm under discussion by the pro- noun iste, e. g.y 2,2m. On the other hand in Int. Psalm. 10 he writes hie psalmus. To these citations we may add those having the ad- verbial forms istic and istinc. The earliest instance, to omit Horace, /. r., is Juvenal 3,29, where istic means ' 'here in Rome' ' . He is followed by Marcus Aurelius, Ad Frontonem p. 34w(N) istic noctibus studeo; Pronto p. 2i2(N) in orationibus . . . . sedulo curamus .... sed contra istic (i. e. , in the branch of literature with which I am now occupied); Apuleius, Met. 2,20 Immo uero istic ("in this city") nee uirtuti- 1ms ullis parcitur. Instances from Cyprian may be found by consulting Hartel's index. From the con- servative juristic Latin, Heiiiiuinn, in his Handlexi- con s. v. iste cites istic from Dig. 29,2,71,9 (a quota- tion from Ulpian). le from this group of instances, there exists a large number of passages, in which iste appears in inrmully reserved for hie. Vakiriu< Mnxi 126 The Latin Pronouns. mus, for example, in passing from one group of anec- dotes to another regularly refers to those just related by the plural haec, and to those which follow by the form ilia. This usage occurs, for example, in books five and six, and is exactly paralleled by Cic. Ad Fam. 12,2,2. In two instances, however, he departs from his usual custom and writes ista instead of haec. In 3,8,2 we read ista (i. e., the anecdotes just related) quidem seueritatis, ilia (the following) uero pietatis constantia admirabilis; in 5,4,3 auribus ista tarn prae- clara exempla Romana ciuitas accepit, ilia uidit oculis. Lucifer Caralitanus writes interchangeably in De Reg. Apost. 2,3-5 hunc Hieroboam (p. 43,26), istius.... Hieroboae (p. 44,3), istum H. (44,18), isti H. (45,25). In the B class of the Scholia Terentiana published by Schlee we find frequently recurring ista secum loquitur and haec secum loquitur. Jordanes, in Romana 23 reads sub istius regni tempore, although more often he writes huius regis tempore (so 18). Com- pare also 26 hoc regnante with 46 sub isto rege. The frequently recurring phrase <>ur»s 6 x «*//»? has its counterpart (chiefly, of course, in the patristic literature) in iste mundus. Although hie mundus was the classical and usual form, yet even in Manilius (cited above) we find the neuter plural ista used as a synonym of it. Iste mundus occurs first in Cyprian, Ad Dem. 19011 isto adhuc mundo et hac carne con- stituti, with which we may compare, 25 in isto adhuc mundo. Other examples are: Ambrosius, Ex. i,4,i4F. Pharao principem istius mundi (A) omnium nationum primum est Amaleck .... Uide ne principem huius mundi accipere debea- hie = Hie. 127 mus; cf. i, 8,3 i E in iudicio istius mundi || istis (mundi am. N) || ; Paulinus Nolan. Epist. 5,7(p. 29,29) istum mun- dum; Filastrius, Heres. Liber 31, (3)2, etc.; Hilarius Pictav. Tractatus in Psalm. 118, Lamed, 8 mundi istius; Cassianus, Institutes 4,14 istius mundi. "saepis- sime hie mundus", Petschenig in indice. Further examples may easily be found by consulting the indices to the various volumes of the Vienna Cor- pus Script. Eccl. Roman. From the pagan literature we may cite Censorinus, De Die Natali 4,4 sempiterno isto mundo. Similar to this phrase are: Min. Fel. 1 1 , i moles ista, "this heaven we behold' ' ; 34,5 ista moles = hie mundus; Commodian i,3,if. Cum Deus omnipotens exornasset mundi na- turam Uisitare uoluit terram ab angelis istam; Min. Fel. 2i,n ista generatio; Commodian 1,26,25 istius saeculi; Augustine. Epist. 25,3^ uitae istius; Cyprian, De Mortal. 8 mortal itas ista communis; s istic in hoc mundo; 19 istinc de hoc mundo; In tl. - no distinction between iste and hie based on the presence of any idea of depreciation or contempt in the former can be established. Indeed >< infrequently found referring to the Savior himself. See the ancient Latin version of the inter 128 The Latin Pronouns. polated epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians 5. No objection can therefore be raised on this ground to Plasberg's interpretation of me isto nomine ditans in Anth. L,at. 664 (Riese), "the name of Christian" (cf. Khein. Mus. 54,149); nor to Thomas' "nomen Christi" or "discipuli tui" (op. cit. p. 316). Sentences of the type of Nepos, Them. 1,1 Themi- stocles, Neocli filius, Atheniensis. huius . . . . (cf. Alcib. 1,1; Chab. 1,1 Chabrias Atheniensis. hie quoque in ; Sallust, Bell. Cat. 5,1 Catulina, nobili genere natus, fuit magna ui et animi et corporis, sed ingenio malo prauoque. huic ab adulescentia .... ; Nepos, Epam. 4,1; Eum. 12,3; 4) occur as early as the epi- taphs of the Scipios (see C. I. L. Vol. I, Nos. 31 f. L • CORNELIO • L • F • SCIPIO AIDILES • COSOL • CESOR HONC OINO • PLOIRVME • COSENTIONT R(omae)..\ cf. C. I. L., I,ioi i. 1012. Wilm. 573) and continued to be a favorite of the writers of history and biography (see Sallust, op. cit. 6,1; 18,4; 23,1-2; 25,1; 2; Bell, lug. 35,2; and 65,1-3; Veil. Pat. 2,41,1; cf. 1,2,2 and Fritsch, Der Sprachgebrauch des Velleius, Arn- stadt, 1876, p. 18; Valer. Max. i, 8 Ext., 8, etc.\ Florus i,i(3)>i; (5), 2; (7), 2; i, 4(10), 2; i, 25(2, 9), 2; 28(2, 12), 3; 2, 2(14), 2; 10(22), 6(hi); Sueton. Rhet. 2; Gram. 18; Trebellius Pollio, saepe\ De Uiris Illustr. 32,3; Victor, Hist. Abbr. 15,1; 18,1; 31,1). For our present pur- poses it is a matter of comparative indifference whether, as has been suggested by an eminent German L,atinist, this usage developed under the influence of the style of the Laudationes Funebres, in which hie would natur- Iste = Hie. 129 ally and normally be used to refer to the person of the deceased over whom the discourse was pronounced, or whether it is to be regarded simply as the use, in a special type of context, of this pronoun to refer to an antecedent not actually present, but present only in the thought or imagination (cf. Priscian III, pp. 142 f. (K) hie. . . .etiam de absente possumus dicere, ad intel- lectum referentes demonstrationem). OUT<>S was used in precisely the same way by the Greeks, in the shorter biographical notices of prominent writers (it seems not to occur in Plutarch's Biot UapdMyXoi}, e. g., in the Bios Io<fuxllot>s printed with Dindorf's Scholia, and in Suidas' Lexicon, s. vv. 6ooh<; and Owpuxiw* et al. The thorough establishment of the usage in Latin litera- ture is testified to by its occurance as late as Isidore, De Ortu et Obitu Patrum §§5; 9; 10; 12; 18; ig(tris); 22; 35; 36; 40 et alias. In spite of its extensive use, however, it was obliged to share its position with iste, which Isidore wrote instead of hie not infrequently, e.g., §§8; n; 52. Isidore also writes indifferently Distat autem hie locus and § 5 Distat autem locus iste. Possibly the influence of his sources here plays some part, as he quotes them extensively ad littcmm. Instead of the usual hoc modo and huius modi St. Augustine, Epist. 7,2,3/> writes isto modo, "as fol- lows", and Hilar. Tractat. in Psalm. 2,2^ istius modi. Aulus Gellius employs istius modi more than twenty times and in connections implying praise as often as in those which indicate contempt. In many cases one niitfht write for it hums modi apparently without mar- ring the sense. Claudius MniiKTtus writer, for "de ea re hie am- »9 130 The Latin Pronouns. plius non dicam" now (V. g.y p. 123,19^) hinc alias and now (seep. 31,6) istinc alias (cf. Vogel's index s. v. istinc). Precisely so also Ennodius: istinc alias p. 5,23; hinc alias pp. 52,7; 128,13; 140,14; 224,16; 297.29; 3i7»7- Further compare Plautus, Men. 799 hinc stas, illim causam dicis with Claud. Mamert. p. 134, 15 E illinc stare et istinc dicere. In Valerius Maximus 3,2,3 we read hactenus istud instead of the usual hactenus hoc. Lastly we may call attention to the appearance in Celsus i,pr. (p. 9,29 D) of the phrase post ista instead of post haec, which occurs as early as Cicero, Fr. A, III,22(Bait. and K.), and later in Cyprian, De Domin. Oratione 27^; Arnobius 4,36; Commodian 1,29,3. The falling of all essential lines of demarcation between the two words is attested by the passage in Pompeius, Comment, in Donatum p. 122,34!?. de dua- bus syllabis quattuor hi sunt: pyrrhicius, spondaeus, trochaeus, et iambus, de tribus VII isti sunt: tribra- chus, molossus, ^/r....de quattuor XVI isti sunt: proceleumaticus There are similar passages in Filastrius, Heres. Lib. 33,3 dicunt et dogma ponentes ista, "the following", and Jordanes, Get. (33)170 quo- rum ordo iste ac successus fuit: primum Gyzericus, sequens In Macrob. Sat. 6,7,1 ista = "the preceding." It is of interest to note that estu is used in this way in the Iguvian Tablets lib, 23 estu iuku habetu, "hanc inuocationem habeto", Breal, Les Ta- bles Eugebines p. 274; "istam orationem habeto", Biicheler, Umbrica p. 148. Filastrius in transitions repeatedly interchanges the two, thus, 30 post hunc; Iste = Hie. 131 31 post istum; 32 post istos; 35 post istum; 36 Cerin- thus successit huius error! ; 38 post istum; 40 post hunc; 41 post hunc; 42 post istum; 44 post hos, etc. Of not less interest are those passages in which iste and hie stand in one and the same sentence refer- ring to the same antecedent. Examples are not infre- quent. The earliest are in Celsus 2,2^ ille solicitari debet, cui haec noua sunt; aut qui ista numquam sine custodia tuta habuit; 5,28(p. 215, 12 f. D) sed ut haec maximi effectus sunt, si cui ista non adsunt. . . . ; 3,6 should not have been cited by Matthias, Index 5. v.t since the his may here represent an original iis or eis. So also Valer. Max. <3,\\Ext.^. The same correlation occurs in Pliny's Nat. Hist. 2,85 incomperta haec et inextricabilia .... si cui libet ista altius persequi (though we should not fail to observe that ista is here u^L-d of a depreciated antecedent and seems almost to be equivalent to talis). The order of iste and hie is reversed in Lactantius, De Ira Dei 5,8 speciose ista po- pulariterque dicta et multos inliciunt ad credendum, si qui haec sentiunt (it may here be questioned whether haec does not stand for ea); and Hilarius, Tractat. in m. 2,i3/> iste irae sermo et haec indignationis perturbatio. A return to the other order is found in Calpurnius, Eel. 1,9 f. Hoc. . . . , Corydon, nemus, antra petamus Nta patris Fauni; and the anonymous Declam. in L. Serg. Catilinam 85 exciu-nttir hi ]X)]mli isc. Cartha^inienses, Xumanlini, •ui>uin diuinitiis, ritqm- istac urlK-s re<k-ant in statnm m-tusti^siniai.- dignitatis; //. Aug. Epist. 108,11. Of the various formulae used by the Romans to 132 The Latin Promuns. express contrasts, perhaps none were better suited to their purposes or obtained more general currency, than the familiar hie — ille (cf. supra, pp. 79-96). We should therefore expect it to resist strongly the en- croachment of a rival on its sphere. Nevertheless, as early as Valerius Maximus, we find that iste — ille is beginning to make headway against it, as was seen above. We must, however, be on our guard against taking the mere presence of iste in contrast with ille as in itself sufficient evidence of its coincidence in meaning with hie. This error has not infrequently been com- mitted; yet a contrast between ille and iste in its class- ical sense is, of course, quite as possible as one between tu and ille or iste and hie; and such contrasts are occasionally found. Iste — ille occurs, for example, in L,ivy 3,47,7; 22,60,27, and iste — hie in Plautus, Rud. 808 alter istinc, alter hinc; Cic. Ad Fam. 2,11,1 ista uestra haec nostratia (cf. 3, 10,3; 6, 18,5 and De Re Pub. 1,31). Again it is equally conceivable that a contrast be drawn between these two words, in which iste has neither its normal classical meaning nor its later meaning "this." Such an instance we believe to be afforded by Seneca, Epist. 47,4(= 5,6,4), although at the same time conceding that there is room here for considerable diversity of opinion as to the exact mean- ing of iste (cf. istos qui in § 2 of this same letter). For the period of the "Silver Latin," at least, we should not interpret iste in the correlation iste — ille as *pw- TOTpi-rov, if there is not colateral evidence sufficient to prove that iste approaches the meaning of hie. In the passages cited above from Valerius Maximus, there hie = Hie. 133 is colateral evidence enough to establish this usage. The earliest example after this known to me is from Lucan 9,417!!. .... Nam cum communiter istae Effundant zephyrum, boreae latus ilia sinistrum Contingens dextrumque noti, discedit in ortus, Eurum sola tenens. Here istae approaches hie in meaning, since it refers to Africa and Europe, the continents nearer to Rome, whereas ilia refers to Asia, the more remote. Simi- larly Martial 4,49,10 says of his reading public, lau- dant ilia (Greek literature) sed ista, "my epigrams", legunt, and Quintilian 8,5,24 in drawing a contrast between the earlier, ruder attempts of the Romans at oratory and the elaborate speeches of his own time refers to the former by ilium horrorem dicendi and the latter by istam nouam licentiam. I can cite no exam- ple from any prose writer between Valerius Maximus and Quintilian, though some cases may exist in Celsus or in Pliny's Natural History, books 4,5,16-22,31-37. Later writers are not so chary: Gellius 20,1,4 non enim minus cupide tabulas istas XII legi quam illos XII libros Platonis de legibus. Macrobius. From the Saturnalia, compare 5,2,15 illic (in the Iliad). .. .hie (in the Aeneid); 17 ille , Homer) hie (Virgil) with 5, 13,3 Homerus. . . .sig- nauit. . . .at isle (/. *., Virgil); 21 ille cum marine motu ct littoreos fluctus.. . .dcscribit, hoc iste praeteruolat. Script. Hist. Aug. Balb. 7,7 (a comparison between Balbu> and Maximus) alterum seuerum, clementein altcruni, 1x>mim ilium, istuin o>n>tantem, ilium nihil largifiiteni, huiic amiu-iik-m o>]>iU omnibus; an i 134 The Latin Pronouns. cially interesting passage as showing iste .... ille in correlation with alterum. . . .alterum, although both refer to definite antecedents. Itin. Antonini Plac. p. 174,1 in ista uel ilia ripa. Ammianus Marcellinus 16,12,47 Alamanni robusti et celsiores milites. . . .dociles: illi feri....hi quieti . . . . ; animis isti fidentes, grandissimis illi corporibus freti. Observe the chiastic order. Codex Parisinus of Placidus Glosses (apud GOtz, Corpus Gloss. V, p. 113,26) longe distat • ab illo sapi- ente • iste indoctus. Jordanes, Get. 10(66). This correlation is especially frequent in the patris- tic literature. It occurs as follows: A. Parallel with hie. . . .ille: Orosius, Adv. Pag. 2,2,10 Babylon Roma ilia (the former — the more remote in space) ... .ista, ilia. . . .haec. . . . ; 7,2,2 illud (sc. Assyriorum — the more remote in space) primum, hoc (sc. Romanum) ultimum imperium; illud .... istud . . . . ; illi . . . . , isti . . . . ; illam . . . . , istam .... Alcimus Avitus, Contr. Eutych. Haeres. i (p. 19, 33 Peiper) illic . . . . , hie . . . . ; illic . . . . , istas .... Fulgentius, De Aetat. Mundi 2, p. i36f. illic (more remote in time and interest) , hie (nearer in time and interest) . . . . : illic . . . . , hie : illic, hie : illic , hie Ille legem accipit, ne comedat car- nem in sanguine, iste legem suscipit, quo. . . .carne saturetur et sanguine (cf. p. 137 below). Ilium , istum .... Ambrosius, Ex. 6,i,iE neque enim eadem dicendi condicio, quae canendi et luctandi; cum in illis (the hte = Hie. 135 latter) ludus offensionis, in isto lapsus mortis sit. illic si pecces, spectantum fastidium est, hie damnum est audientum. In this type of sentence there is no con- nection of importance between the writer and the ante- cedent of iste, so that the correlation under discus- sion approaches in meaning alterum .... alterum Other examples of it are: Optatus 6,6 (p. 154,21 ff.); Faustus, De Gratia 2, 3 (p. 63,11 ff.) ilia ("the former") .... haec .... ilia .... ista .... ilia .... haec; Ale. Avit. p. 26,28 illi (the latter — Bonosiaci). . . .isti (the former — Entychiani) .... Photinus . . . .hie. ...(/". Fulgentius, De Aetat. Mundi 8, p. 156,18. These passages show that ille iste .... and iste .... ille .... underwent the same course of development as hie ille dis- cussed above (see pp. 79-96). A particularly clear example of iste refering to an indefinite antecedent is found in the description of St. Martin exorcising evil spirits, inserted in Snip. Sev. Dial. 2(3^6,4 turn uero cerneres miseros diuerso exitu perurgueri : hos .... quasi de nube pendere....: at in parte alia uideres . . . .uexatos et sua crimina confitentes. nomina etiam prodebant: ille se louem, iste Mercurium fate- bantur. postremo cunctos .... cerneres .... cruciari. It will l>e further observed that in the passages here cited it seems not to be a matter of importance whether the correlation ille — iste or ille — hie precedes. In Oros. 2 the former ]< in 7 the latter. In Ale. Avit. ]>. 19 the order illic — hie illic — istos is employed, on page 26 the : order; while in :ti< AT. supra cit. ilia — haec ilia — ista ilia — haec occu When tlie correlation ille — iste occurs unacconi- 136 The Latin Pronouns. panied by a coordinated ille — hie, the order ille — iste is about twice as frequent as iste — ille, if the examples cited in this paper (twenty-six of the former, thirteen of the latter) may be taken as a fair representation of his average usage. B. In the following there is no such correlation with hie — ille: Ale. Avit. Epist. XXIX(2y), p. 59,21 (letter of King Sigismund to Pope Symmachus) istic (here in Gaul) . . . . illic (there in Italy). The classical usage would have been hie. . . .istic. ... So p. 94,12 illam plebem refecistis gaudio, istam ditate rescripto. Ennodiusp. 55,31 ille praesto fuit indicibus (locally more remote) iste .... ille .... iste .... Note the order ille — iste. Stilp. Sev. Dial. 1(2), 6, 7 ilia (the Queen of Sheba— the more remote in time) .... ista (the wife of the Em- peror Maximus, who served St. Martin). Filastrius §67,18 non isti (the present nation of Jews) sed ueteres et periti illi. Ale. Avit. Contr. Eut. Haer. i(p. 21,12) in illo (the former — the Old Testament) . . . . , in isto (the New Test.) .... The two words are used in the same sense but in the chiastic order in op. tit. p. 25,27 obeuntem (sc. Christum) ille (the crucified thief) contremuit, regnantem iste (Eutyches) fastidit. iste ille. . . . Ale. Avit. ex Horn. Lib. p. 115,8 iste (Christus) . . . . , ille (diabolus) — the nearer and the more remote in interest. In Sulp. Sev. Dial. 1,24,2 illi refers to the saints lauded by Postumianus — the more remote in the inter- est and sympathies of the writer, while iste refers to Iste — Hie. 137 St. Martin, whose cause Sulpicius is advocating. Cic- ero would certainly have written here isti. . . .hie. Ennodius LI (= Epist. 2,14, p. 68,14) ad ilia (the latter — temporal honors) .... ista (the latter — confes- sionis praeruia) .... In the following cases ille and iste bear the same meaning as in Ambrosius, Ex. 6,1,1 E, etc.: a) Order iste— ille: Lactantius 1,11,26 sed finxerint ista quae fabulosa creduntur: num etiam ilia quae de diis feminis deo- rumque conubiis dicta sunt ? In this passage there is less disparagement of the antecedent of iste than of the antecedent of ilia. Cf. Hilar. Tractat. in Psalm. 2,9^; Ale. Avit. ex Horn. Lib. p. 114,3 iste (the lat- ter). . . .ille (the former). The closer external resem- blance of isti to illi may have led Fulgentius Plancia- des to prefer it to hi in a passage (Mitol. 2,70), in which he strives to attain the greatest possible pho- netic correspondence between the two clauses: Epi- curei . . . . , Stoici . . . . ; isti libidinem colunt, illi libi- dinem nolunt. Cf. De Aetat. Mundi 2, cited on p. 134 abov b) Order ille— iste: Firm. Mat. 2,3 Osiris iustus (sc fuit) Tyfon furio- . . . . ; ideo ille (the former) colitur, iste uitatur. Ambrosius, op. cit. i,8,3oF illae (the former). (the latter) .... So Augustine, Epist. 4,2 m and Ale. Avit. ex. Horn. Lib. p. 145,14. In Knnod. CCCXCVII (= Epist. 8,20), p. 282,30 iste refers to the la^t mentioned antecedent, ille to the former. Still more tangible evidence- of the linage iste = hie is found in the old Latin translations of Greek 138 The Latin Pro-nouns. writings. Of chief importance are the Epistles of Ignatius, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Novellae of Justinian and the Bible. Of these the second and the last are doubly valuable, because of the existence of at least two distinct Latin translations of portions of of each of them. In the Greek text of the Pastor Hermae forms of OUTOS occur about three hundred times. In about three-fourths of these instances both of our Latin translations render the Greek pronoun by some form of hie. In forty-five instances one translation has iste and the other hie. In five instances both have iste. Only three of these last cases, however, have come down to us without variae lectiones in the manu- scripts: Visiones 3,3,2, where both translations read isti and istae, and Mandata 10,1,3, where the Pala- tine has similitudines istas and the Vulgata quaesti- ones istas. In the three other instances the editio princeps of the Vulgate has forms of hie. Aside from these passages iste occurs in the Vulgate only six times as a translation of OUTO?. (cf. the following page.) 139 M HP I 1 o g ^ a » a -a -a . s g 3 '•" 1-8 2 § = 9 '3 * S Q 4) V «Ci _H *** r« ti ±J '*S 00 H W ^^ fl J-t 9 S ' Si r-\ ^ -g d .2 w -g « ^ a c s ^ 9 -M cd t/i — ^) ^_i ^_i -^ . _ 0> 140 The Latin Pwnouns. In the Palatina iste occurs more frequently (forty-two times + Sim. 9,22,3, where Gebhardt and Harnack print suam instead of istam). Next in chronological order follow the examples from the New Testament. Iste is frequently used in the four Gospels and almost exclusively to represent OUTOS. In Matthew all the manuscripts of the ante- Hieronymian translations, so far as they are preserved to us, agree in eleven instances with the Vulgate in rendering OUTOC by iste. In other instances one ren- ders by iste the other by hie. In many cases both show hie. The following illustrations will give an idea of the relations of the manuscripts to each other : Matth. 7,28 T0t>C M^OUS TOUTOUS. uerba haec Vulg. sermones istos k. The symbols here used are those regularly employed to designate the MSS of the ante- Hieronymian translations of the New Testament: a = Vercellensis (saec. IV-V), a2 frag. Curiensia (saec. V), c Colbertinus (saec. XI), d Bezae Cant. (saec. VI), e Palatinus-Vindobonensis 1185 and Dublinensis (saec. IV-V), f Brixianus (saec. VI), f1 Corbiensis I (saec. VIII), f2 Corbiensis II (saec. V-VI), h Vaticanus Claromontanus (saec. IV-V), i Vindobonensis 1235 (saec. VII), k Taurinensis, olim Bobiensis (saec. IV-V), 1 Reh(not Rhe)digerianus (saec. VII), q. Monacensis (saec. VII), r Dublinensis Usserianus I. See N. T. Graeceed. Tischendorf, 8th edition, Vol. Ill, prolego- mena, by Caspar Gregory and N. T. rec. Wordsworth and White I, p. xxxi. hie = Hie. 141 Matth. 18,10 cvoc rutv fjitxptiv rourwv. Unum ex his pusillis Vulg. pJeriquc. istis E, Q, f , e, q. 19,20 r«vra raDra. omnia haec or haec omnia Vulg. omnia ista e, q, 1. 25.45 'v' TVUTWV ribv lka%iffru>v. unum de minoribus his Vulg. istis f ', f 2. 25.46 iiteleuffovrat ourot. ibunt hi Vulg. isti h. To these must be added six other passages in which only d reads hie (10,23; 12,41; 42; 13,56; 18,14; 19, i), the hie being due probably to a corrector's hand. Luc. 13,16 rourou isto Vulg. caet. c, e, f, f2, i, 1, q, r. hoc a, a2, d. In Ignatius' letters the following cases occur: Epist. ad Magn. (interpolata) 3 ov yap rourov} rov j3A.£7:6/j.evov irkava rec, aXXa. rov adparov xapa- ^o^t'Ceraf, rov ^ dovo^vov .... non enim istum uisibilem quis spernit, sed ilium imiisibilem in eo contemnit, qui non po- test ____ ad Trail, (interpol.) 7^ rourwv. istis (=dia- coni). ad Phil, (interpol.) 5 T«W? fa xa} ILO.?^ OUTOC, <>.... quomodo igitur magus est iste (sc . Christtis) || Usser and his predecessors ille ||, qui. cj. ad Phil, (interpol.) 6 TTCWC. . . .«WTO? ffeus 6. . . . ; quomodo .... deu^ iMr j| Tsscr and his predecessors ille || qui. In Justinian's Xovellae i^to is occasionally, but not frequently, u-c-d to translate ' 142 The Latin Pronouns. We may also compare the Vocative o isti (= o uos) in Arnobius 4,8^ (p. 147,10) (cf. also 1,41^; 2,13; 36; 4,iy/>) with Aristophanes, Nubes 1502 OVTOS, ~i TTOCSI?; Finally Planciades Fulgentius, Mitol. i,7(= p. 21,2) translates tuton phone by istarum uox. As his pur- pose is only to give a Latin equivalent of the Greek words per se, without reference to any special context, the citation gains greatly in value. Similarly the grammarian Dositheus, apud Keil ¥11,376-436, in his parallel paradigms of Greek and Latin pronouns, gives both hie and iste as equivalents for ouroq. See especially p. 402,21 ff. I am not aware of any semasiological changes un- dergone by OVTOS in the course of the post-classical period, that could seriously detract from the value of the citations here made to establish the prototritonic character of iste. Side by side with these translations stand the glosses, which for the most part are now conveniently accessible in Gotz's Corpus. The following defini- tions are taken from them: Vol. II, p. 390,32 (cod. Laudensis) ouro? hie iste is p. 390,33 " OUTOI hi isti ei p. 457,49 " rouro id • hoc istud p. 452,6 " TavTi] hac istac p. 92,57 (cod. Parisin. 7651, pp. 1-212) iste IS ouroq Vol. IV, p. 87,13 (cod. Vat. 3321 saec. VII) histic hie p. 87,26 " " " hicste (for hie ste = hie iste) hicine istum p. 88,17 (fod. Vat. 3321 saec. VII) huiusce- modi huius modi istius modi Iste = Hie. 143 p. 88, 18 (cod. Vat. 3321 saec. VII) hunine (for huncine?) istum uero Vol. V, p. 109,23 (cod. Par. 1298 saec. XI) his - istis p. 108,7 " " " hec - ste p. 110,12 " " " huncine - istum uero p. 110,13 " " " huius modi • istius modi p. 300,23 (Glos. Amplonianum II saec. IX) hie iste p. 305,21 (Glos. Amplonianum II saec. IX) istic hie The variant readings h istud and hoc istud of C and F in L,ivy 3,52,6 doubtless owe their origin to glosses. The last certain line of evidence which we have to cite is afforded by the Romance languages, several of which have preserved modified forms of iste with the meaning "here" and kindred meanings (cf. Korting, Worterbuch, Nos. 2770,2771,4438). este Spanish, Catalanian, Portuguese. ist Rumanian, Old French (only in oaths). est Provenyal. ecce + iste = acest Rumanian. cist Proven9al. icist Old French. cet, ce Mod. French. ecc [um] -f istu [m] = questo Italian. = kt^l Rhctian. = aquest Proven val. = aqueste Spanish, Portuguese. Italian: cn-tni. costei, costoro, cotesti (from eccu 144 The Latin Pronouns. [m] + ti < tibi -f isti), cotestui, -ei. The last three are applied only to the second person (see p. 117 supra), stamattina, stasera, stanotte. To one who reflects that the Romans of the later empire were thoroughly familiar with this usage of iste, the well known definition of Priscian (Keil III, 142 f .) can offer no difficulties: demonstratiua uero ut 'hie', 'iste' uel 'ille.' sed interest, quod 'ille' spatio longiore intellegitur, 'iste' uero propinquiore, 'hie' autem non solum de praesente, uerum etiam de absente possumus dicere, ad intellectum referentes demonstra- tionem. This shows that the native grammarians felt that hie and iste had a very close resemblance in meaning. In fact they so far confused them, as actu- ally to use in paradigms the forms of iste instead of hie as a substitute for the Greek definite article. See below p. 205, and cf. Servius, Commentum in Dona- turn p. 410, i6(K). Possibly some inferences affecting the present dis- cussion might be drawn from the incorrect orthogra- phy isthic. Was this introduced by the ancient Ro- mans themselves under the erroneous supposition that istic was a compound of iste and hie ? Such a suppo- sition might easily be founded on the close resemblance that they felt to exist between the two pronouns. As for the geographical extension of the usage iste = hie, we find it in Rome and in other parts of Italy (in the works of Palinus in Milan, Cassiodorius, Knno- dius and Jordanes), 'in Sardinia (in those of Lucifer Caralitanus), Sicily (in Firmicus Maternus), Africa (in Cyprian, Tertullian, Arnobius, L,actantius, Ambro- sius, Augustine, Fulgentius), Mauretania? (in Pompe- Iste = Hie. 145 ius [Maurus] ), Spain (in Prudentius, Orosius, Isidore), Aquitania (in Ausonius?, S. Silv. Peregr., Prudentius, Sulpicius Severus, Itinerarium Burdigalense) , South- ern France (in Cassianus, Hilarius, Salvianus?, Alci- mus Avitus), Dalmatia (in the inscriptions: C. I. L. Ill, i, Xo. 2628; Suppl. No. 9259 — Saloni) and Pan- nonia (inscriptions C. I. L. III,i, 3351 — Alba Re- gia — ; 4185 — Savaria?). This general survey reveals the inexactness of the current notion that the usage iste = hie is peculiarly African Latinity. The fre- quency of its use in Africa (cf. Schmalz, Lateinische S y n tax 3d ed. p. 444) is in my opinion to be accounted for simply by the close approach of the style of the African writers to the conversational tone. We know that their literature was mainly addressed to the less highly educated. Chronological limits of the usage. Since the Ro- mance words quoted above stand as living testimony of the usage iste = hie in the latest period of the Latin language, it remains only for us to determine the date of its first appearance. Valerius Maximus is the earliest author cited in this chapter as having the usage iste = hie, to whose writings we can assign a definite date post quern non. Five of the ten instan- he offers us occur in books 2-5, and as the pro- emiuni of book 6 was written l>efore the death of Julia, they fall before the year 29 A. D. There is no reason for doubting that the dates of the composition and pub'. .,f the different books followed each t in the present numerical order of the books. The passage 9,11 was written immediately after the fall of Sejanus. The instances in books 7 and S would 146 The Latin Pronouns. therefore probably fall between the dates 29 and 31 A. D. The date of Celsus is not definitely known. If he was born about 2 A. D., he could have written the De Medicina before 29 A. D., in which case he would be a slightly earlier witness to the usage than is Valerius Maximus. As the extant works of these two authors were written some eighty years after Caesar, and as their rhetorical training was entirely different from his, it is somewhat surprising to note that several editors of Caesar, among them Dinter (p. 127) and Kiibler (p. 142), print as an ad liter am citation from Caesar's De Analogia the words found in Pompeius, Com- mentum in Donatum p. 144,20: duae sunt Albae, alia ista quam nouimus in Aricia, et alia hie in Italia, uolentes Romani discretionem facere, istos Albanos dixerunt, illos Albenses. The words discretionem and dixerunt (for nominauerunt), as well as the position of the participle arouse suspicion as to the genuineness of the fragment, but the introductory words of Pom- peius, ait sic Caesar, would lead one to assume, as Dinter does, a word for word citation. Yet an exam- ination of Pompeius' manner of introducing his cita- tions shows us that we must not take his formal state- ment too exactly. To illustrate, on p. 188,38 he cites with the words sic ait Probus' words that do not at all agree with the corresponding passage of Probus (p. 82, i6K), and similarly p. 102,9 and 165,18 he assigns words to Terentianus and Donatus which differ greatly from the extant passages of these authors. The edit- ors are therefore certainly wrong in assigning the words to Caesar, and the lexicographers Menge-Preuss, Iste = Hie. 147 Meusel and Merguet are equally in error for including the word in their respective lexica. I'n fortunately we are not able to reach so definite a conclusion as the foregoing in the case of a fragment of Accius' Annals preserved in Macrob. Sat. 1,7,37 Eumque diem (sc. Saturni) celebrant: per agros urbesque fere omnes Exercent epulis laeti famulosque procurant Quisque suos; nostris itidemst mos traditus illinc Iste, ut cum dominis famuli epulentur ibidem. There are no clear indications that this passage is indirect discourse. The general tone is entirely con- sistent with a descriptive passage forming a part of Accius' own narrative. Furthermore, iste refers to a Roman custom which is contrasted with a Greek one (illinc), and to which the pronoun hie would natu- rally be applied. I would gladly prove here, were it ible, that Accius used iste in the present passage as a substitute for hie, that his readers might not be confused by instinctively feeling hie, so close after illinc, as an adverb and perhaps think it an error for line. Two passages antedating that in Caesar remain to be discussed. Both are inscriptions. The first is found in the C. I. L., Vol. I, ist. ed. p. 208, No. 818. It is said to date from the last years of the republic or the first years of the empire. It is a curse pronounced iil*m a person named Rhodine, and engraved upon a tablet, which was thrown ujxm a grave. The expressions that bear on our discussion are: quomodo 148 The Latin Pronouns. mortuus qui istic sepultus est, nee loqui nee sermonare potest, seic Rhodine apud M. Licinium Faustum mor- tua sit, nee loqui nee sermonare possit seic R. accepta sit et tantum ualeat, quantum ille mortuus qui istic sepultus est. All are familiar with the usual forms, hie sepultus est, hie iacet, hie situs est, etc. We might then be inclined to assume that iste here stands for hie, an assumption that would be con- firmed by the occurrence of hoc in a similar dira (C. I. L. No. 819) and by the fact that in a corresponding Greek inscription '/» )T^i'(=T«6rwo?) is used (see Rhein. Museum IX, 367, — Lenormant). In addition to this, iste also occurs in a number of epitaphs of the imperial period in the expressions iste lapis (C. I. L,. 111,3351; 2628), titulus iste (VI, 1 7505) and the like. We may further observe, that the formula hoc monu- mentuni heredem non sequitur, so often inscribed on tombs, has a close parallel in Martial 1,116,3-6 Hoc tegitur cito rapta suis Antulla sepulcro, Si cupit hunc aliquis, moneo, ne speret agellum: Perpetuo dominis seruiet iste suis. Yet it must not be overlooked that the document under discussion, while a curse, is yet in form a prayer to some divinity, who stands to the speaker in the re- lation of second person. From this point of view the istic of our inscription might be regarded as normal. Be the case as it may with the present inscription, iste never succeeded in wholly displacing hie in this form- ula. This maybe inferred, not only from the presence of the latter adverb in the Romance languages, but also from the fact that iste occurs almost exclusively hte = Hie. 149 in metrical inscriptions, where its use may have been occasioned by the exigencies of the verse. The other inscription referred to is found in C. I. L,. i, No. 820. It contains the phrase IN ITVSM ANNUM, which Gamurrini, the finder of the inscription, ex- plains as an error of the stone-cutter for ISTVM. The phrase would therefore represent in hunc annum. If iste = hie occurs in carefully written literature in or about the year 30 A. D., there is nothing unreason- able in the assumption that it occurred in conversation, and hence might occur in non-public inscriptions, fifty or sixty years earlier. We cannot accordingly ap- prove of Mommsen's condemnation "aus sprachlichen Griinden" of Gamurrini' s correction. See Hermes IV,282. The length to which this usage has been dwelt upon in the present chapter might leave on the reader an impression that iste in the later periods of Roman literature had quite usurped the place of hie. Here, however, as is often the case in language development, the birth of the new does not imply the death of the old. Although weakened in meaning, hie maintained its position; and even down to the eighth century, we find it numerically stronger than iste. That the re- was true of the sermo cotidiauus may be inferred with some degree of certainty from the very frequent use of iste in documents, the tone of which approaches that of cnnvei>ation. One striking instance strongly confirms this inference. Pompeius, the grammarian, probably a native of Matiretania, wrote in the latter half of the fifth(?) century his commentary on P ,i U>ok which contains numerous reminders of the 150 The Latin Pronouns. conversation in the school room, and the style of which undoubtedly stands very near to that of the spoken language. He alone of Latin writers reverses the relative standing of hie and iste. On one hundred and eight pages (Keil, pp. 95-203) the nominative hie is not found at all. This and the other peculiarities in the use of these two pronouns can be best exhibited by means of a comparative table: hie iste Masc. sg. Nom. (hie — iste) o 24 Fern. sg. Nom. (haec — ista) ca. 7 39 Neut. sg. Nom and Ace. (hoc — istud) 235 i Neut. pi. Nom. and Ace. (haec — ista) 33 80 All other cases 28 192 Adverb (hie — istic) 15 o In this table there are of course included only those cases of iste and hie in which the words are used as free elements, i. e., not in stereotyped formulae, in which words often continue a formal existence, al- though really obsolete. What has taken place appears to be entirely nor- mal. Differentiation has led to the rejection of hie substantive and adjective, and the retention of its pho- netic equivalent exclusively in the adverbial function, while iste has come into use for the former noun func- tions of hie. In the fern. sing, also ista has notably encroached upon haec, (possibly following the analogy of the masc. sg.), and in the other cases, with the exception of the Nom. and Ace. neut, sg. and pi., the encroachment is still greater. The plural haec, which in all periods was used very largely, has made a much stronger resistence, while hoc (Nom. and Ace.) has hie — Hie. 151 kept the field to itself. The only instance of the neu- ter (it is not spelled istum, but istud, after the anal- ogy7 of illud) is found on page 185, line 28. This last result is just what we should have expected, for even in Cicero the forms hoc and haec as substantives exceed in number all other cases combined. That the phe- nomena exhibited in the above table are no passing phase nor a peculiarity of a particular writer, is shown by the evidence of the Romance languages, in which the forms hoc and hie (Adverb) always remained in use, as the Italian words qui, "here", and ci6, "it", from eccum-f-hic and ecce-f-hoc respectively, amply testify. It is true that modern Italian also possesses questo, which, although grammatically masculine, is applied to neuter objects. It must have come into use after hoc and ecce+hoc lost the character of a -'irptTw. The same rejection of istudfc] in favor of hoc, attended by a decided preference for Noni. iste over Nom. hie is found in the A and B classes of Scholia Terentiana published by Schlee, particularly in the "explanationes praeambulas" to each scene. Istud, p. 102,23, is perhaps due to the source from which the compiler drew his scholia, just as istuc, p. 160,22, is due to the influence of Terence. The form ista for haec frequently occurs, just as in Pom- In the preceding discussion there have been cited in tlu- main only ; - in which iste occurs outside of direct discourse, yet from those authors who wrote later than Suetonius occasional - have been cited of the opposite character. In justification of this it maybe said, that, although the occurrence of iste 152 The Latin Pronouns. outside of direct address is evidence that it does not serve as dzuTzpurp'.Tov, the converse is not true. Indis- putable instances of iste = hie in direct discourse are cited from Lucan on p. 123 above. There are two cases of iste in Cicero's dialogue De Senectute which seem to me to bear no reference to the second person. In section 29 etsi ipsa ista defectio uirium (the words of Cato) the words defectio uirium contain a sentiment which is in no sense to be connected with Scipio or Laelius, to whom Cato directs his remarks, since in sect. 15 the idea is distinctly attributed to some third parties, vaguely suggested by the subjunctive uidea- tur. These same indefinite persons are likewise con- ceived as the authors of the cibi et potionis auiditas implied in ista in section 46. It is true, that they are the advocates of ideas and arguments combated by Cato, and hence they are, in a certain sense, in the position of opponents to him. Nevertheless it is only Scipio and Laelius who, strictly speaking, can be re- garded as standing to Cato in the relation of persons addressed; for, although the Aristotelian dialogue gives the two collocutors but little opportunity to speak, Cicero never for a moment allows his reader to lose sight of the conversational character of the composition (cf. De Amicitia 4 ipse mea legens sic afficior interdum, ut Catonem, non me, loqui existi- mem). It would not be difficult to find other instances of this class in Cicero's dialogues. We can see no reference to the second person in Terence And. 215 Ad haec mala hoc rnihi accidit etiam: haec Andria, htc = Hie. 153 Si ista uxor siue amicast, grauida e Pamphilost; Haut. 530 Istuuc seruolum Dico adulescentis; Eun. 823,4 Iste Chaerea. QuiChaerea? Iste ephebus frater Phaedriae; nor in Plaut. Curculio 465, where there is no good reason for associating the sychophant with the audi- ence, whom the choragus is addressing. This is also true of iste in True. 340; 349; Aul. 702; Pseud. 1053; Mil. 128 and other passages. In these cases, there is usually some degree of contempt implied either in iste or in the context. We should hesitate, nevertheless, to affirm, that in all the cases cited iste approaches hie in meaning. Some of these passages, with over fifty others, are mentioned or discussed by Bach, op. tit. pp. 257-226. It must be admitted that Bach's explana- tions are often ingenious, but he deduces little positive evidence to prove his points. He shows how iste may in each case be interpreted as a deurepdrptrov, but not that it must be interpreted as such. In the absence of more conclusive proofs the matter must remain uncertain. As iste is a very strong demonstrative, it usually refers to or modifies words upon which for some rea- son especial stress is laid. It is therefore not surpris- ing to find it normally refering, particularly in the ,ver" Latinity, to the main object under discussion. By no writer is it more frequently so used than by Auhi> ("iellius, who is esjKrcially important to us for the li.^ht he throws uix>n the meaning of the word (cf. also G.iiuv i ,50). We now approach t! interesting and most 154 The Latin Protwuns. important, though at the same time the most difficult, and in a sense the most unsatisfactory section in the discussion of this pronoun, namely, that which treats of the semasiological nature of the change iste > hie. The difficulties that face us here arise partly from the non-existence in the present case of several lines of evidence which are usually of the greatest assist- ance in tracing changes of meaning. First and fore- most, we do not know the etymology of the word with sufficient certainty to base an argument upon it. Secondly, we possess no exact definitions of the word by the earlier Romans. Furthermore, we can receive but little light from the analogous pronouns in other languages. The suggestion that ouro? contains in its second syllable the same element that forms the second syllable of iste, is debatable; and even if iste is identical with Umbrian estu, — which is highly proba- ble, if not certain, — the scanty remains of the Umbrian dialect do not supply us with enough data to deter- mine the exact meaning of the Umbrian word. We cannot therefore be certain whether the classical mean- ing of iste is a primary or a secondary meaning; and if secondary, we cannot know how far it stands re- moved from the primary. Under these circumstances we can scarcely attempt more than to suggest what seems to be a plausible explanation of the nature of the change from the classical meaning to the later one. Even this may seem overbold. Since the classical writers use the word almost exclusively as a deureporptrov, we will suppose that its use as a demonstrative of the first person is developed out of its classical usage, and is not concentric with it. hte — Hie. 155 The relation of the antecedent of iste to the second person may vary greatly in character and degree of intimacy. It may be either very close or very loose. It may, for example, be one of ownership or of posses- sion or of mere proximity. It may be simply one of interestedness, more or less keen, or of mere attention. Furthermore this relation may have no existence out- side of the mind of the speaker. Such an object has in almost every instance a more or less intimate local relation with the first person also. This springs from the circumstance that, iste being confined for the most part to conversational use, the persons communicating are usually in each other's presence. Since moreover the object is the mutual object of conversation, it occupies also a large place in the speaker's interest; and this interest is the more likely to be very keen, because, as stated above, the strong demonstrative force of iste leads, for the most part, to its use in refering to antecedents upon which particular stress is laid, (see p. 153). Hor. Epist. 1,6,67 and Sat. 1,4,13 cited above seem to me to exemplify this usage, and to them we may perhaps add Cic. Ad Fam. 2,7,4 cum te tribunum plebis isto anno fore non putarem. By a very slight change (unconscious, of course) in the attitude of the speaker, iste may be employed not to refer to something actually related to the second person, but to bring some object into relation to the second person. This use of iste awakenes in the per- •• >sed an interest in the object. This chunge could arise from a slight anticipation on the part of the s]>eaker. He has before his mind an object, in h he desires to interest another, and conceive 156 The Latin Pronouns. already accomplished the effect which in reality will immediately follow his mention of that object. Noth- ing is more common than such an attribution of our own feelings and sentiments to others. In this case the interest of the speaker in the object is at least as great as that of the person addressed, and iste in this way gradually loses its character as deursporptrov^ and comes to mean approximately "ecce hie." If this explanation is true, we may also add that the fre- quency with which secondary subordinate ideas were associated with iste facilitated this change. But there is another point of view, from which we may regard this change, and by which an explana- tion of the meaning of iste is offered that often appeals to me more strongly than the foregoing. Let us assume for iste the etymology of Schweizer-Sidler (see above, p. 112), which involves the further assumption of a very strong meaning for iste. Let us also bring the meaning of iste into connection with that of OOTOS and ouro<n, with which it will probably also contain common etymological elements. In this way we shall be led to posit for iste, in the classical period, a very strong deictic force. Its function will then be, to direct sharply and pointedly the attention of the person addressed to some object, upon which the speaker's mind dwells with keen interest, and either to communicate to the second person the knowl- edge of the existence of this interest or to awaken in him a similar interest. If we were to seek for a par- allel in a modern language, we should find the German locutions dies da and das da to correspond roughly to iste, although with considerably weaker deictic force. Istc — Hie. 157 On the assumption of this etymology and meaning for iste, it is not difficult to explain the classical and post classical usages. In the first place we shall not be constrained to assume a necessary association of iste with the person addressed; nor shall we be forced, in consequence of this, to distort and misinterpret such passages as those from Cicero's De Senectute cited above (p. 152). Delicate "Nuancen" of meaning no longer need to be called in to eliminate such examples of iste as seem to disprove its universal character as fteurepoTptrov. Furthermore a keen interest of the subject1 in the object (the antecedent of iste) implies that the sub- ject has determined, or is in the process of determin- ing, the relation of that object to itself, i. e., to its life process. It follows as a corollary to this, that iste with its context asserts (directly or by connotation) a predicate of the object. This predicate varies with the varying relation of object to subject. It may be disparagement or commendation, contempt or praise, etc. , or wonder, arising from an undetermined atti- tude. The great numerical excess in classical prose of instances in which iste implies contempt, is easily accounted for. The only forms of literature extant in this period, in which it is frequently used, are oration^ and philosophical dialogues, in which iste, refering illy to something connected with the person ad- sed, is, of course, used of an antecedent held in omtcmpt, scorn, disparagement, etc. in, on this hypothesis we can easily account 1 The wor t" here means the person from •houvjht precedes. 158 The Latin Pronouns. for the extensive use of iste as deurepoTptrov. Iste as a strong deictic pronoun can be used only in cases of direct address, when the speaker and the listener stand face to face. Hie is still a strong demonstrative, and sometimes is itself used with deictic force (cf. Cic. De Sen. 4 saepe ---- admirari soleo cum hoc C. L,aelio). The same is true of ille. But ille is a remote demon- strative and hie a near demonstrative, while iste (as deictic pronoun) is neither.1 Accordingly hie and ille, so long as they retained their respective forces un- weakened, sufficed to designate objects either near to or remote from the speaker, while iste tended to asso- ciate itself with objects that fell under neither of these two categories; and, chiefly in the language of the orators and of the disputants in sharply conducted dialogues of an argumentative character, it proved itself highly valuable as an instrument for expressing the contempt of the speaker for all that was associated with his opponent. I am not inclined to think that in conversation iste was applied as exclusively to the second person as it is in our extant literature of the "Golden" age. In fact, I have no doubt, that could we enjoy the boon of listening for a day to the con- versation of an ancient Roman family in their every- day life, our notions respecting the restriction of the application of this word to contexts in which it con- notes contempt or refers to the second person, would undergo remarkable changes. Lastly, on this hypothesis the development of iste into a npoiTOTptrov is simply explained. When hie lost 1 See, however, the limitation of this statement toward the end of the following paragraph. Istc = Hie or Is. 159 it protritonic force, just as in English the word "this" is losing its reference to the first person, the Romans unconsciously began to employ new means for point- ing out the nearness of objects to the speaker, just as I felt it desirable to write on page v above the words "the present work" instead of "this work", which would mean id opus or is liber, not hoc opus or hie liber. Two of these new means maintained them- selves many centuries side by side; namely, ecce hie, ecce haec, etc., and iste (later ecce iste or eccum istum; see below p. 214 f. For the relation between them see below p. 205. The pronoun iste with its strong deictic force, being used in cases of direct address, was applied to objects which, like those referred to by the German da, were in plain sight or in the presence of the speaker. It was therefore used for the most part of objects that would have been referred to by hie, had this last still retained its stronger demonstrative force; and so naturally fell into the place of hie, just as ille naturally succeeded to is (see below, p. 194). B. ISTE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR ILLE AND IS AND FOR THE DEFINITE ARTICLE. During the period of the "Silver" Latinity, the pronoun iste is occasionally found referring to objects -te from the speaker and from the person ad-' -ed. As has teen suggested above, the strict * by no means precludes its use to designate such objects, and this usai^c must have increased in rani^e when istc began to lose its or when it connoted a strongly char- acterised predicate, such as the idea of contempt. 160 The Latin Pronouns. When the word began to lose the character of a pro- noun of the second person, the use referred to became still more natural. Many difficulties in the way of explaining the usage are done away with, when we assume that the classical meaning of iste is not its original one. Down to at least as late as the second century of our era, the word retained a strong demon- strative force and was used, as suggested above, in call- ing attention to objects in which for some reason much interest centered. As it came in this way to connote a predicate, the particular character of which depended upon the context and varied with the attitude of the subject toward the antecedent of iste, it was not infre- quently used in the sense of talis. So closely did it approach this word in meaning, that we find it prepar- ing the way for a following result clause (like is — see p. 3 supra — and hie); while Aulus Gellius (19,1,18) goes so far as actually to translate rctr rotaora-: <pavraffia- by uisa istaec (observe the deitic -ce appended). While this implication of a predicate greatly facilitated the application of iste to objects remote from the sub- ject and the person addressed, it at the same time sharply distinguishes iste from ille, which only ex- ceptionally connotes such a predicate. It is therefore inaccurate to identify iste in meaning with ille. The first century A. D. marks the most radical and rapid changes in the meaning of iste, and it is to the literature of this period, especially to Seneca the Younger and the poets, as also to Aulus Gellius, that we must primarily look for the evidence on the sub- ject. Pending my further study of the subject I may refer to the scattered remarks to be found in the fol- Iste = Hie or Is. 161 lowing books: Goelzer, op. tit. p. 89; Ebert in the Acta Sem. Erlangensis 11,327; Obermeier, op. tit. p. 16; Rauschning, De L,atinitate L. Ann. Sen. Phil. p. 70. As a consequence of the frequent use of iste as a substitute for hie, it followed the same path of deteri- oration in meaning with that pronoun, and sank to the mere function of a determinative (this does not imply, of course, that it did not retain also in some connections a strong demonstrative force until late in the history of the language — cf. the strong demonstra- tive force retained by is; see supra pp. 3f). A close approach to such a usage is found in Celsus 8,i2(= p. 354,16), cited supra, p. 119. Such passages are fre- quent from Celsus on. In fact the word so far deteri- orated that in the later periods, as will be pointed out in the last chapter, it was used as a substitute for the definite article. See p. 205 for further remarks on the subject. CHAPTER IV. IPSE. CHAPTER IV. IPSE. For the classical usage of the intensive pronoun, I may refer to the excellent discussion of Niigels- bach-Miiller, Lateinische Stilistic § 91. The main features of the classical meaning and construction are preserved at least as late as the seventh century of our era. At the same time there were developed certain usages quite distinct from these. The later meanings of the pronoun may be roughly indicated by the equa- tions: ipse = idem, ipse = ille or is, ipse = Definite Article. A. IPSE = IDEM. The narrow limit which defines the spheres of the ideas represented by these two adjectives, is exempli- fied in the following early English citations: Till she was slayn right in the selve place. —Chaucer, Frankl. Tale i6i7o(= nyoGT). Than hit semet, for-sothe, that the selfe woman Wold haue faryn liym fro. —Destruction of Troy 13828 (E. E. T. S.) To shoot another arrow that self way Which you did shoot the first . —Shakespeare, Merch. of Venice, 1,1,148. In English we say, "the same object," "the very object," "the self-same object," "the very self-same In the Latin language also these two words 1 66 The Latin Pronouns. approach each other very closely in certain construc- tions, even in the classical period. A remarkably instructive parallel may be drawn between the two passages: Enn. Ann. 8 (M) terra- Cic. De Sen. 72 sic que corpus quae dedit hominem eadem optime, ipsa capit. quae conglutinauit, natura dissoluit. In the immediately preceding lines Cicero had said, opus ipsa suum eadem, quae coagmentauit, natura dissoluit. Ennius means, "that very (same) terra"; there is here no contrast between terra and something else; we have rather the statement, that two acts pro- cede from one and the same agent. "It is the earth that both builds up and destroys the human body." Compare the conditions presented in this sentence with Kiihner, Ausfiihrl. Gramm. 11,457 "Das Demonstra- tiv idem . . . . wird oft gebraucht, wenn einem und demselben Gegenstande, von dem schon eine Bestim- mung ausgesagt ist, eine andere neue Bestimmung er- theilt wird." It is true that the relative clause con- tributes here in no small degree to the expression of the conception of identity; yet it is equally true that the relative clause receives no slight support from ipse. The difference between the function of the relative clause here and in such a sentence as legionarii per nonnullas horasuim hostium soli sustinuerunt; tandem aduenit ipse imperator, qui sese adhuc in tabernaculo continuerat, is that in the latter instance, it adds a new predicate to a grammatical subject already clearly characterised or described; in the former case, the clause adds a predicate that is essential to the under- Ipsc — Idem. 167 ding of the antecedent. Sentences of this type are not common in classical Latin. One example is found in the Lex Quinctia de Aqueductibus quoted by Frontinus (printed in Bruns' Fontes luris Romani Antiqui, 6th edition, p. 114,47) ipsorum qui permisis- sent curatorum nomina (cf. the passage above from Ennius) means "the very ones," i. e., "the same ones who had granted permission" . This law dates from 9 B. C. During the second century, however, the usage is more frequent and from Tertullian on occur numerous instances of the construction ipse qui = idem qui. The relative clause sometimes precedes, but it more often follows ipse. In addition to the passages cited under sect, i, we may quote De Pudicit. 13 (p. 246,1) ipsam stibstantiam damnans, per quam excide- rat; cf. De Resurr. Cam. i ipsos. . . .exurit, quos. . . . nutrit iisdem ignibus et promerens; Serv. ad Geor. 1,39 Proserpina ipsa est quae et Luna; S. Siluiae Pere- grinatio 4,5 (p. 42,7) montes ipsos, quos ingressi fueramus pridie sera; sed non ipsa parte exire habe- bamus, qua intraueramus, ct al. ; Cassian. Conl. 18,16, 8 ipsa. . . .lues est, de qua dicitur per prophet am: •anus, De Gub. Dei 4,11 ipsi in nobis mores sunt, qui in seruolis nostris; so also 5,6; Epist. 9,18; 19; all of which passages are to be found cited in Pauli's index. In Salvian. Ad Eccl. 2,8 with licet ipsum vords quod alius accipit must be supplied. In the index to Petschcni^'s edition of the Passio VII Monachoruni is cited sect. \2 ( ucrba iufauiuli cnins- datu } cum ip^is sum in timore Dei comiersatu^ cr.m idero passioncin su^cipere, cum quilm^ credo me et futuram gloriam imicnirc; and Helm in his 1 68 TJie Latin Pronouns. index to Plane. Fulg. cites Mitol. 2,pr,65(M) ipsum (sc. Deum) proferat qui ista contribuit. In this in- stance the use of ipse may, however, be justified by the character of its antecedent. From the last half of the sixth century (570) we read in Antonin. Plac. 15 (p. 170,1) stat in ipso statu in quo fuit. At least four passages may be cited in which the relative clause precedes ipse. They are, besides Tert. De Spectac. 21, Commodian, Apol. 322. Per quod prius hominem prostrauerat morti malign us, Ex ipso deuictus; Schol. Gronov. ad Cic. Rose. Amer. 117 apud quern . . . .praemium .... ipsum potuisse occidere Roscium (cited by Landgraf ad loc.} cf. Greek -<*/>' w. . . .aurov- Augustine, De Civ. Dei 5,21 qui Mario (sc. regnum dedit) , ipse Gaio Caesari .... Lastly under this head we may refer to Symma- chus, Epist. (p. 267,12), although this passage is sus- ceptible of a different interpretation (ipsorum = ? eorum) . Among the pagans Macrobius also shows the usage (cf. Somn. Scip. 1,10,9 ipsa corpora, quibus). Of more frequent occurrence than either of these constructions are the collocations is ipse, hie ipse, ille ipse, iste ipse, expressing identity, all of which are known to Plautus and Terence, and are found in all periods of the Latin language. (See Niemftller, De pron. ipse et idem apud Plaut. et Ter., Halle, 1887, p. 3 if.) Clear examples are: Cic. Lael. 16 id ipsum cum tecum agere conarer, Fannius anteuertit. Phil. Ipsc — Idem. 169 2,74 quin his || "iis malim" — Orelli || ipsis temporibus domi Caesaris percussor ab isto missus || inmissus Wulfflin || deprehensus dicebatur, "at the same time"; Lucr. 1,433 Nain quodcumque erit, esse aliquid debebit id ipsum ; Caesar, Bell. Gall. 6,37,1 hoc ipso tempore et casu; Bell. Alex. 52 eoque ipso die; Veil. Pat. 2,125,4 in id ipsum. . . . incendium ; for Tacitus see Ger. und Gr. p. 693, col. i; Florus 1,8(13), 19 illam ipsam; Hilarius Pict. Tract, in Psalm. n8Iod,6 eo ipso in tempore. Of these phrases the neuter singular id ipsum gained the greatest currency. At a later period it was often used as a translation of rd auro, e. g.y i Cor. 1,10 Tra/oaxaAai tie U/JLOLS .... fva TO auro /t^re 7rdvre£ obsecro .... uos .... ut .... id ipsum dicatis omnes (new ver- sion "that ye all speak the same thing"). In Matth. 5,47 ru iwro — id ipsum, whereas in 46 TO aur6 is ren- dered sic. The above Latin translations are taken from the ante-Hieronymian texts. The Vulgate reads hoc in both the passages from Matthew. Other New Testament examples are to be found in Ronsch, Itala und Yulgata pp. 424 f. This mode of translation is not confined to the New Testament, being found also in Ignatius. Kpist. ad Philad. (interpol.) 10 in id ipsinn < so also Sec. 6; Ad Philip, i; Ad Magn. 7 (interpol.). It found a rival in hoc ipsum, which occurs in Ignatius. Kpist. Ad Smyrn. ( inter- pol.) 5; Ad Trallianos (interpol. 9, where mMv is 1 by hoc ipsum. In Ad Philip, i in hoc ipso canone repre <«><Jn. In the Authenti- c-inn of Justinian. \ovcl. 22,1 I ; 22,29/>r. rou a-<r,.' .tlhl 1 70 The Latin Pronouns. are represented by hoc ipso and hoc ipsum. The usage was doubtless encouraged by the Greek collo- cation abTo TOUTO (cf. Novell. 22,14 noc ipsum; $8pr., 2 de hoc ipso; et a/.) and rauro TOUTO (pp. cit. 22, 47,2; in 22,30, however, rauroD TOUTOU is correctly rendered by hoc idem). The Greek phrase TO iv was frequently used as synonymous with TO auT6 in such passages as Ignatius, Epist. ad Philip. 2,2, where TO ?v ypovouvTes is rendered by unum sentientes (with TO Zv expressing identity compare the Latin expressions unum atqtie idem, unum idemque, in use from Cicero on — cf. Lael. 92 — and especially common after Sue- tonius and Apuleius) . Even as early as the time of Aulius Gellius id ipsum had come to be so completely identified in meaning with idem, that it was able to take the place of idem in a phrase so widely used and hence so stereotyped as unum atque idem. (See Aul. Gell. 6 (7), 2 1, 2 unum atque id ipsum tamen in utro- que uerbo ostenditur.) This usage is paralleled by the Greek lv xai TO aur<5, which occurs at least as early as Aristotle (see Bonitz, Index Aristot.) It would be equally justifiable to assume, that the Greek 6 auT6q was the main influence that led to the origin of the usage. The thoroughgoing adoption of this word by nearly all, if not by all the Latin writers, precludes us from assuming that <f aoT6^ had any greater influence than that of encouraging the usage. That o CLUTOS did exer- cise a strong influence in this latter direction, par- ticularly on the Patristic literature, cannot be doubted. We have noted the phrase in Arnobius, Lactantius, Ambrosius, Augustine, Cassianus, Hilarius of Poitiers, Alcimus Avitus and others. Ipse = Idem. 171 Parallels to these phrases in other languages will readily suggest themselves, as the German derselbe. In all of these collocations the demonstrative pro- nouns, like the definite article in 6 aMs, derselbe and "the same," aid materially in the expression of the idea of identity, which is frequently still more defi- nitely set forth by the addition of a relative clause. Good examples of this form of construction are Bell. Alex. 73 eum ipsum locum cepit, in quo Mithridates secundum proelium aduersus Triarium fecerat; 70 id ipsum commemorarent ofHcium; in which both the relative clause and the correlative pronoun contribute to the expression of identity (cf. Veil. Pat. 1,14,3 eo ipso anno quo; 2,125,4 his ipsis . . . . gladiis, quibus; Yal. Max. 4,5,6 inter ipsum illud tempus, quo; Celsus 7,4,4(p. 268 D); Sen. Contr. 1,2,12 (Gallionis uerba}\ Quint. 10,2,3). On the use of ipse alone in the sense of idem, there is but scanty information to be found in the standard text books. Neither Kiihner nor Drager mention it. Schmalz in Reisig's Vorlesungen, III, Anni. 369 (p. 102) makes only one brief statement: "Manchmal muss es" in der spiiteren Latinitat "die Stelle von idem vertreten, c/'r. Koffmane, Geschichte Kirchenlateinsp. 137, wodieser Gebrauch fur Com- modian festgestellt wird." In his Histor. Stilistik (in Miiller's Handbuch II, i8, 1900), which was published twelve years later, he cites no earlier example than ^•tfnr 1.125 ipso anno = eodein anno. According to Sittl and \Volfflin the n African. Tlie earliest instance I know of a passage in which an unsupported ipse approaches idem in meaning is 172 The Latin Pronouns. Varro, De Ling. Lat. 9,84f. sic as et unum est et multitudinis habet scnsum infinitum ("the plural asses does not indicate a definite number, as does duo, decem, etc"}\ dicimus enim asses (indef. pi.), quos cum finimus, dicimus dupondius et tressis et sic porro. sic uidetur mihi, quoniam finitum et infinitum habeat dissimilitudinem, non debere utrumque item ( = eodem modo) dici, eo magis quod in ipsis uocabulis ("in the same words " ) , ubi additur certus numerus in miliariz's || militaris Florentinus || aliter atque in reliquis dici- tur; nam sic loquontur: hoc mille denarium, non hoc mille denari0nMN || sic L,. Spengel; denarii F. || et haec duo milia denari;/*; || sic uolg.', denaria F || , non haec d. m. denariwu/M || sic Christ et L,. Spengel; denarii F 1 1 . We may thus paraphrase this passage : ' The word as is singular and has an indefinite plural' — i. e. , the plural asses in and of itself gives no indication of the number of asses meant. 'Now when we make the number of asses definite, we use the words du- pondius, tressis, etc. Accordingly, since there is a dif- ference between the definite and the indefinite plural in this word, the two should not be expressed by the same form. A. justification for making such a distinc- tion is found in the usage which dictates that, when in the same words a numeral is added to the word milia, making the number of the thousands definite, a special form of the Genitive plural, not analogous to the regu- lar forms, should be employed. That is to say, usage demands hoc mille denarium, not denariorum; haec duo m. denarium, not denariorum.' If the emenda- tions of Christ and Spengel are correct, Varro implies that we should say multa milia denariorum, but decem Ipse = Idem. 173 milia denarium . This same distinction should apply on the principle of analogy to sestertium and sestertiorum, nummum and nummorum, talentum and talentorum, medininum and medimnorum, etc.\ and, as Varro him- self points out, the distinction was normally made in the words treuirum, duumuirum, etc., in which expres- - the shorter form of the Genitive plural was em- ployed, although the longer form was elsewhere em- ployed. We may not translate, ' 'even in these words' ' , a force often carried by ipse, for Varro is not compar- ing the compounds of as, with any other words. His only point is either ' ' It is precisely in these words I am discussing, that a distinction is observed," or "in one and the same word the distinction is observed." In either case Varro is asserting that two facts are true of the same thing, that is, according to the first alternative we are dealing with two distinctions of the plural forms of compounds of as, which distinctions may be set forth in the proportion: asses : dupondius, tressis, etc. :: denariorum mult a milia : denarium haec duo milia In this case in ipsis uerbis "in the same words" means "in compounds of as." According to the sec- ond assumption, we are dealing with a discrimination in the Genitive plural that is met with in one and the word, /. *., denarium; or in the same words re- spective' , denarius, sestertius, etc. In both these cases the word uocabulis causes some difficulties, perhaps only apparent, which are not removed even by the interpretation >ni;Kr^ted above "even in tlu --e Is". If in this passage the word Ins stood before holar would find anything abnormal in 174 The Latin Pronouns. the passage. However there is no documentary evi- dence that a word has been lost. The passage is important as being the earliest instance in Latin litera- ture of the encroachment of ipse on the sphere of idem. A close parallel to the second interpretation pro- posed above is found in Pompeius, Comm. p. n8,7(K) nee dicas mihi, positione fit longa (sc. the last sylla- ble of cano before Troiae in Virg. Aen. 1,1). non : nam liquida non iuuat nisi in ipsa parte orationis ("in the same pars orationis," i. e., with the lengthened syllable). Compare p. I26,25(K) in eadem parte orationis. In a passage in Manilius (i ,698) , mentioned by Sittl, Locale Verschiedenheiten der latein. Sprache p. 115, Orbemque ex ilia coeptum concludit in ipsa. Ipsa in this passage rests on the authority of the best MSS., while ilia (adopted by Scaliger — Paris 1579, Heidelberg 1590, Leyden 1609 — from the older edi- tions) is found only in the poorer MSS., among them Leidensis 3 (= Voss. 2). I am unable to cite instances of this usage from writers between Manilius and Suetonius. A clear instance is found in the latter, Oct. 94 Augusto uiso .... affirmauit ipsum esse cuius imago secundum qui- etem sibi obseruata sit. Possibly the use of ipse is here justified by its reference to Augustus, the auros. Compare Nero 24 aurigauit .... etiam decemiugem, quamuis id ipsum in rege Mithridate reprehendisset. From Minucius Felix Sittl, /. c., cites 11,4?; 7 and Landgraf on Cicero's Roscius Amer. 132 cites 4,4 ipsius sectae homo, where Halm proposes superfluously Ipse = Idem. 175 to read istius. We may add in this connection the instructive passage 30,4 Romanis (sc. ritus fuit) Grae- cum et Graecam, Gallum et Gallam uiuentes ob- ruere, hodieque ab ipsis. . . . luppiter homicidio colitur. At least six distinct lines of evidence may be distinguished, in which the character of ipse as a pro- noun of identity is clearly demonstrated by the context, i. Ipse appears parallel with idem and unus either a) in one and the same sentence, or b) In the same type of context, but in distinct sentences. For type i a) Tertullian opens the series with the passage, De Spectac. 21 sic ergo euenit, ut qui in publico uix necessitate uesicae tunicam leuet, idem in circo .... exuet; ut et qui . . . . , ipse ; et qui . . . . , idem . . . . , in which ipse is parallel with idem. He is followed by the versio vulgata of the Pastor Hermae, praef. pastoris uisionum numero quinque, mandata eiusdem numero XII, similitudines ipsius numero X; Arnob. 4,22/> eodem .... eodem .... eodem . . . . , ipso .... ipso ....; and Pomp. Comm. i2y,32(K) ergo eadem erit ratio in illis pluribus, quae in tribus syllabis, ipsa in VI syllabis, ipsa etiam in VIII. I}^t- ^lands parallel with unus in Optatus 2, 15(p. 50,8) etenim cum Africanos populos et orientales et ceteros . . . . pax una coniungeret et ipsa unitas....; cf. 5, i (p. 121,17) denique et apud uos et apud nos una est ecclesiastica conver^atio, communes lectiones, !ii fides, ipsa fidci instruments, eadem mysU in which sentence it is apparent, that no more serious influence than the desire for variety, has led the writer 176 The Latin Pronouns. to employ four different words to express the idea of identity. Nor are the resources of the Romans ex- hausted with these four words idem, ipse, unus, com- munis, as Optat. 5, 4 (p. 126,23) shows: permanent (sc. Trinitas et fides credentis) semper immutabUes et immotae-, trinitas enim semper ipsa1 est, fides in sin- gulis una est. This passage has also an especial value as illustrating another point of contact in the general meanings of ipse and idem. We might here translate the last phrase: ' The trinity is always precisely itself ' , in the same way in which we may speak of a man being himself under all circumstances. We mean, of course, not that the trinity is itself in contradis- tinction from some other thing, but that it, under all circumstances, displays the same fundamental charac- teristics, as is shown by the words that immediately follow: uim suam semper retinent ambae. i b) For the use of ipse parallel to idem but in different sentences we may note the following types of construction: in quoting a second or third citation from the same writer the usual form of expression employed was idem dicit (Varro, De Ling. Lat. 7,98 apud Plautum .... (99) apud eundem. So Gellius, Macrobius, Au- gustine, Speculum passim. Instead of this we find ipse in Optatus 3,3 (p. 80,21); 3,5 (p. 85,23)— although these two passages admit of a different inter- pretation— in Filastrius, Heres. Lib. 121 (= 149), 8 ideo et Dauid de ludaeis dicit: "deleantur " et 1 Cf. Ant. Plac. Itiner. 42(p. 188,10) ipsam uirtutem semper operaretur, cited by Geyer in his index under the rubric ipse = idem. Ipse — Idem. 177 ipse iterum: "et in...." Compare with these the titles of the poems of Ennodius (ed. Vogel) 190 a ALITER DE EODEM; i9ob ALITER DE IPSO; 190 c ALITER DE IPSO. In the above citations the words idem, unus, etc., almost without exception precede ipse. It seems hardly probable that this is pure accident. I should rather be inclined to regard it as a justification for the use of ipse in a sense which it does not usually bear. In this way the reader is prepared in advance for the unusual meaning of the word. 2. In other cases the identification of ipse with idem is made clear by a contrast in varying forms with alius. This group of passages is opened by Minucius Felix 11,7 (words of Caecilius) uellem tamen sciscitare (the discussion is about the resurrection), utrumne cum corporibus || an sine corporibus add. Halm || , et corporibus quibus, ipsisne an renouatis resurgatur? sine corpore? hoc, quod sciam, neque mens neque anima nee uita est. ipso corpore? sed iam ante dilap- sum est. alio corpore? ergo homo nouus nascitur, non prior ille reparatur. Similarly Ambrosius, Exam. 2,2,5(24d) (section 4) et dixit deus: fiat firmamentum . . . .prius consideremus quid sit firmamentum, utrum ::n sit quod in superioribus caelum appellatiit an ali ud. Ipse is contrasted with alter in Ennodius 212, 6(= cann. 2,94) Alter te doininus, sed manet ipse labor. Alius mu>t be read between the lines in Serv. ad Virg. Geor. 1,45* lux? ad fulurae serenitatis pertinet si^nuin: 11:1111 M de i]>M> die dicas, stiilti>siiiiiiiii 3o completely did ipse take on the mean' 178 The Latin Pronouns. idem, that it has even crept into certain local, temporal and other adverbial phrases and formulae, although such combinations are usually the last to allow any encroachment on their spheres. We may mention from S. Silv. Peregrin, in ipso loco (2,2), in ipso itinere (7,6), in ipsa ecclesia (25,11). Commodian, Apol. 823 gives us Exurgit interea sub ipso tempore Cyrus; Ale. Avit. Poem. 4,86 tempore sub ipso; Jordanes, Get. (60)307 in ipso tempore; while ipso tempore without a preposition appears in Optatus 2,2 (p. 39, 6); Viet. Vitensis, Hist. Persecut. Afr. Prov. 1,43 (= 1,14) ipso enim Geisericus praeceperat tempore (observe the separation of ipso from its substantive, also noticeable in sect. i9(= 1,6) ipso gestum est tem- pore); and in Jordanes, Rom. 38. Ipsa autem die occurs in S. Silv. Peregrin. 25,11 (p. 76,29) and in ipsis diebus, in Cassianus, Inst. 3, 12 and Conl. 21,20,3. Instead of the normal eiusdem modi or eodem modo we find in Filastrius, Heres. Lib. 122,1 (= p. 87,24) ipso modo. 4. There are numerous other passages in which the general context shows that ipse is used as a pronoun of identity, although there is no clear parallelism with special words such as idem and alius. Such are Com- modian 2,16,9 In ipsis uersaris iterum; Apol. 829 Ipse redit iterum sub ipso saeculi fine, and, with an accompaning similiter, in Ps-Hyginus, Ipsc = Idem. 179 De Limit. Constit. p. 207,10 prime lapide inscribe- mus DM KM. ab hoc deinde singulis actuariis limiti- bus similiter per ipsos inscribemus DM limes II, KM limes II. Other examples are Commodian 1,6,1 louis tonat, fulminat ipse, (here ipse may be justified by its reference to Jupiter) ; Script. Hist. Aug. Firmus 3,3f. idem (sc. Firmus) et cum Blemmyis societatem .... tenuit .... naues quoque ad Indos. . . .misit. ipse quoque dicitur habuisse duos dentes elephanti. Yet in this last case there may pos- sibly be implied in ipse a contrast between the general traffic carried on by Firmus' boats and some of his private acquirements through commerce. Ipse is found twice in succession in Pompeius, Comment, in Donat. p. 1 99, 24 (K) Uirgilius scripsit bucolica, ipse scripsit georgica, ipse scripsit Aeneida. It is not unlikely that Pompeius found this citation (for the words are probably not Pompeius' own) in Donatus. Similarly in Commodian we read 2,29,17 Cum ipsis et epulas capitis et pascitis ipsos. In the following four instances the context proves the usage ipse = idem with especial clearness: Optatus i,27(p. 29,3) in ipsa causa .... duorum laborare; Au- Kii^tine, De Civ. Dei 2,— (p. 103,19 D) III • IV et IV III ipsum faciunt (cited by Landgraf, ad Schol. Gronov. ad Cic. Rose. Amer. 132, p. 76); Car. De Reg. Ap. i,9(p. 18,9) Sabellius. . . .fuerit ausus dicere ipsum sibi et Patreni L-SSC et Kiliuin et Spiritum Sanctum (For various reasons I would here i direct Greek influence); Pompeitis, op. n'/. p. 205,1' K • ipse e^t casus in istis: et cuias noiiiinatiuus 180 The Latin Pronouns. est et cuiatis nominatiuus est; Placidus, Lib. Glos- sarum ed. Gotz V, p. 133,17 pinus ipse plurari (sic!) singular! que numero; Placitus, De Medicinis ex Ani- malibus, 24,5 uolturis iecur totum cum sanguine ipsius tritum .... caducos emendat might be taken to mean "of the same vulture", (exactly the same usage 30,4), did not the phrase strongly remind us of the frequency with which Pliny the Elder employs ipse to mark an entirely superfluous contrast between an animal or a plant itself and some part of the same animal or plant or with some thing connected with them. Further citations are: Optatus 3,5(p. 85,23); 6,4 (p. 151,4); in both of which passages ipse should per- haps be interpreted as an equivalent of is, although Ziwza in his index cites them as ipse = idem; Filas- trius 6,1; 60,2; Cassianus, Inst. 5,40,1; Contr. Nest. 3,7,4; 4,6,7; 13,3; Jordanes, Getica (35)182; Rom. 32. The conservative style of the jurisconsult! did not, as it seems, admit the usage. Kalb, Roms Juristen p. 140 knows only one instance from the Digest, a citation from Marcian (D. 49,1,5,4), and we cannot be certain that even this is not the result of the liber- ties which the compilers of the Digest took with their sources. 5. The old Latin translations of Greek writings are as useful to us in writing the history of ipse as they were in discussing iste. Idem appears in them as the regular translation of & aur6s, yet the confusion be- tween ipse and idem led frequently to the employment of the former as a translation of rf auros; and in the process the correspondence in meaning between 6 <zu- TOC and ipse may have been an important factor of Ipse — Idem. 181 influence. The painstaking literal character of the old translations may still further have encouraged the tendency. The rendering of TO abro by id ipsum has already been mentioned. To the instances cited on p. 119, we may add Pastor Hermae, Mand. 10,3,3 f^^fifva iit\ TO aoro Versio Palatina: commixtum in id ipsurn (notice that id has lost all reference to any particular antecedent). Versio Vulgata: writes simply mixtum. The usage is also found in the Vetus Interpretatio Latina of the Epistle of Barnabas (5th century A. D.). Ignatius, Epist. ad Magnes. (interpolata) 6 renders 6 auras dia/j.ivet by ipse permanet, and Ad Trail, (inter- pol.) 6 translates raoruv. . . .ilvat (sc. Myoufftv) i:aripa xa\ ulov xai TrveD/ia dftov by ipsum dicunt esse Patrem, ipsum Filium, ipsumque Spiritum Sanctum. The words cited above from Lucifer Car. 1,9 are a literal transla- tion of this passage. From the Pastor Hermae, Vis. 3,1,2 is gleaned also OUT^ T|? VUXT} (observe the order of the words), Versio Palatina: ipsa nocte. Vers. Vul- gata: eadem nocte (cf. 3,10,7). A single example from the New Testament will suffice, L,uke 10,21 £v av7% Tij wpa in ipsa hora, Vulgate, caet. b, c, d, e, f, fa, i, 1, q, r; eadem a, a2; ilia E, P m(f , R. The Authen- tica of Justinian do not stand on the same high level of purism with the Digest. In the former ipsa ap- pea: Novella 22,l8(p. 158,30 Sch.) tx rtiv aurwv alriwv =ex ipsis causis; 4O(p. 175,25) TOUT anrat': xuivais . . .6x010.$ = ipsis poenis. . . .<p <</• P- !75.33) Tii» ™Tiv ?tv™P = eaiuk-in cjnam and p. 176,7 iisdem poenis); 1 82 The Latin Pronouns. 25pr.(p. 196,4) t* Tc = ex ipsis occasionibus; 29, 1 (p. 219,34) iifi rr^ avrr^ rd£e<w? = in ipso or dine. On the contrary, apparently under no special condi- tions that do not hold as well in the cases just cited, 6 aMs is rendered by idem 24,1 (p. 190,38) in idem; 25, i (p. 197,17) in idem; 26,1 (p. 203,29) in idem; 30,n,/>r.(p. 234,16) idem; 28,4,2(p. 216,6) subeodem; 29,5,/>r.(p. 222,35) eandem; 49,/>r.(p. 288,15) in idem. A more careful examination of the usage of the Au- thentica would doubtless reveal some interesting facts. Along with these translations should be mentioned the two passages cited by Kalb, op. cit. p. 140 from the Lex Romana Uisigothorum. These passages are translated from Gaius into Spanish Latin: Gaius, Inst. 3,151 donee in eodem consensu perseuerant = Lex Rom. Uis. 2,9,17 ipso; Gaius 3,10 = Lex Rom. Uis. 2,8,3; Gaius 3,90 = L. R. U. 2,9,1. 6. Lastly comes the definition of the glossary Cod. Vat. 33210*:. Vll}apud Gotz, C. G. L. IV, p. 89,1: idem • ipse. On the geographical extension of the usage the range of authors cited above throws some interesting and valuable light. We note first that the usage occurs in the works of the following African writers: Minucius Felix, Tertullian, Arnobius, Lactantius (?), Ps-Cyprian, Commodian, Optatus, Augustine, Passio VII Monachorum, Victor Vitensis, Cerealis, Fulgen- tius Planciades, and in Mauritania(?) (Pompeius [Mau- rus]). It is surprising that Apuleius is missing from this list. Koziol does not find the usage in his works. Ipsc = Idem. 183 Florus, the historian, was also doubtless an African. Although he uses ipse more extensively than any other Latin writer, he does not know it in the sense of idem. So great is the frequency of this usage in Africa that some scholars have been led to regard it as of African origin and as particularly characteristic of the African Latinity. Next after Africa stands southern Gaul. To the extreme west belong the Peregrinatio ad Loca Sancta assigned to Saint Silvia, (also perhaps Antonini Pla- centini Itinerarium) and the Lex Romana Uisigotho- rum, 506 A. D. Still farther to the north is Hilary of Poitiers, and eastwards are Cassianus, Salvianus and Alcimus Avitus. From Sardinia conies Lucifer Cara- litamis with one single instance. In northern Italy we have Ambrosius, Filastrius, Ennodius and Jordanes; in central Italy Varro the Lex Quinct. de Aqueduct., Marcian (?), Ps-Hyginus, De Limit. Constituendis, Servius, Placitus (perhaps influenced by a Greek source, perhaps by Pliny), and Macrobius. To these should be added the Scholia Gronoviana ad Cic. and the glossary Cod. Parisinus 3321. In other words the usage is thoroughly established in the western Mediterranean basin. A careful study of Prudent ins, Orosius, Merobaudes, Idacius, Euge- nius, r.raulius and Isidore would perhaps establish it for Spain. foe the chronology, the earliest indications have- been discussed above. It appears in Africa certainly between 217 and 222 (Tertullian, De Pud.), possibly shortly after 203 ( De Resurrectione Cam.) or even .ty to t" m earlier, if those scholars are 184 The Latin Pronouns. right who assign to Minucius Felix a date prior to Tertullian's Apologeticus (published in the year 197 or shortly after.) In Aquitania, south eastern Gaul and Sardinia, the fourth century marks the begin- ing. An anonymous manuscript in Einsiedeln, dating from the end of the eighth or the first half of the ninth century and containing a collection of inscrip- tions, may be cited as a late instance of this usage (C. I. L., VI, i, No. 1199 a. b.) In the compound istum -f- ipsum the usage has yielded the regular Italian pronoun of identity stesso. We would naturally expect ipse, after it became so fully identified with idem, to show the same weaken- ing that idem shows in its adverbial use in classical Latin. Such a passage is Minutius Felix 1,4 sic solus in amoribus conscius, ipse socius in erroribus (ipse = item). B. IPSE = ILLE OR IS. The essential character of ipse in classical Latin is found in the fact that it almost invariably connotes a contrast (cf. Nagelsbach-Miiller, /. c.) In the classi- cal Latinity this contrast is usually strong and the antecedent of ipse is consequently brought very promi- nently before the reader, while the object with which it is contrasted sinks into the background. Driiger, Histor. Syntax I2,8i, however, remarks: "erst seit Curtius, der das Pronomen mit besonderer Vorliebe anwendet, finden sich Stellen, wo dasselbe das Subject ohne besondere Hervorhebung bezeichnet, zum Bei- spiel, 3,1,8 nisi intra eos (sc. dies) auxilium Dareus ipsis misisset." Similar in purport is a statement of Lonnergren, De syntaxi Sulp. Sev. (Upsala, 1882, p. Ipse = Hie or Is. 185 10). Krebs, Antibarbarus (5. v. ipse) defines the time limit of this usage by the extremely vague word hfiesstich." At the very outset we must realise the danger of confusing this usage with that discussed in the previ- ous section. There are many passages in which it is very difficult, or even impossible, to decide whether ipse stands nearer to idem, to ille or to is. For exam- ple Frontinus, De Limit. 2 (p. 33,20) si fuerit.... tiallis quae conspectum agentis exuperet, per ipsam metis ad ferramentum adpositis erit descendendum, one would be rather inclined to assume, that ipse bears the meaning of is. Possibly some of the passages cited on pp. 167, 168 should be transferred to this section. A most perplexing case is Acta Apost. 16,33. Runsch, Collectanea Philol. p. 186 cites this passage from the Gigas Bibliorum Holmiensis sumens eos ipsa hora noctis with the explanation ''ipse fur is und ille." On p. 101, however (= Vollmollers Roman. Forsch. II, 287 he explains this ipse as equal to idem and compares 22,13, where the above mentioned text and the Canta- brigensis offer ipsa hora, the Vulgate, however, eadem hora. Since the Greek text here reads aurjy rjj &pat while in 16,33 tne Greek text has ixeby rj £/>«, and the Cod. Cantabrigensis correspondingly reads ilia, and Laudianus has ea and Lucifer Caralitanus, De non Parcendis in Deum Delictis p. 268 has eadem, one cer- tainly cannot fail to be bewildered. The passage illustrates witli remarkable clearness the freedom that prevailed in the usa^e of the pronouns in the third and fourth centuries of our era. Even earlier than Ctirtiu* there are passai;e^ in 1 86 The Latin Pronouns. which ipse implies no strong contrast, as in Catullus 64,66 f. Omni a quae to to dilaps# e corpore passim Ipsius ante pedes fluctus salis adludebant. Moreover there is no sufficient reason for interpreting ipse in the sense of "the mistress,'' the Pythagorean auras. The epic poets in general, who could not make free use of is, showed a decided preference for ipse, and by their frequent employment of the word, doubt- less paved the way to its depreciation in meaning. There is a second passage in Varro, Res. Rust. 3, 10,7 quotienscumque sumpserunt (sc. anseres ad sagi- nandum), locus solet purgari, quod ipsae || ipsi Ju- cundus || amant locum purum, neque ipsae ullum, ubi fuerunt, relincunt purum. The context does not admit of the translation 'not even these,' for there is no contrast here. The only possibilities are either to take ipse as an equivalent of idem, or as a some- what strong personal pronoun. To the above mentioned passage from Curtius should be added 4,3,12 where the much discussed MSS. reading ipsas may be defended as a strong per- sonal pronoun: tris (naues) ante ipsa moenia oppo- suerunt (sc. Tyrii), quibus rex inuectus ipsas dem- ersit. Pliny's Nat. Hist, offers several peculiarities. Very weak indeed is the contrast between dies earum (sc. halcyonum) partus and auis in 10,89: dies earurn partus maria qui nauigant nouere. ipsa auis paulo amplior passere. Very similar are the passages 28, 48; 25,74 (ipsius duo genera); 29,101 fimum gal- linacium .... inpositum et wur/s aranei caudae cinis Ipse — nie or Is. 187 ita, ut ipse, cui abscissa sit, uiuus dimittatur. In Pliny's Epist. 8,20,4 mihi ostenditur subiacens lacus nomine Uadimonis: simul quaedam incredibilia narran- tur. perueni ad ipsum, the contrast between incredi- bilia and lacus is weak and unnecessary. Gerber and Greef cite eight passages from Tacitus under the rubric "ui quadam imminuta" : Hist. 4,11,11; 84,25; Ann. 1,1,12; 3,46,5; 68,6; 4,16,17; 68, 10; 12,47,11. Six are from the Annals, which show Tacitus' freest style. In view of the extensive use of ipse = idem in Africa, it is not surprising that we should find ipse — is in Apuleius, Met. 2,11 (p. 47,18) quod dictum ipsius ('of his wife') Milo risu secutus, "grandem", inquit ....; and Florus 1,22(2, 6), 58 ille Italiae, hie Hispa- niae uictor sed et colloquium f uit inter ipsos de legibus pads. Possibly ipse in this passage is justified by its reference to the leaders of the two armies. The usage is found in the earliest of the patristic writers. Minucius Felix 3,1 minorem ad te quam ad ipsum infamiam redundare. There is, to be sure, a contrast here, but not between two objects that are closely associated. We should, however, usually hesi- tate to interpret the word in this way when its ante- cedent is Christus or deus. From this point on examples may be easily found by reference to the excellent indices in the volumes of Vienna Corpus of Ecclesiastical Writers and the Monu- menta Hist. Germaniae. See also Ronsch, Collect- I Philol. p. 186. There can be no doubt that anr»z in the sense which Millie eases often bear, contributed not a little to the development of this usa^e of ipse, not only in the 1 88 The Latin Pronouns. Latin translations of Greek writings, but also in the entire Patristic literature, which was subjected to a very strong influence of the Greek. From the numer- ous instances of ipse = awr<J<: that these writings offer, we select the following: Ipse — Ille or Is. 189 es sedere 8 .2 •4-1 I .2 a t/2 5 1 negotiis. 1 a i graphical t/5 ^ ( ^ A •M V o s~^ rt 3 <U rt D — A .£ *-> T3 t/J T3 rri i » •*-> *i-t rt be 1 *a g g a> — ^ '53 a 0 c § S •§ (U s 1 ^ Q .§> ^ a § 0> S </) <D a 2 • 8 = £° .2 - H| 0 c3 s S — • C "55 & I ^ 3 'S .2 S 8 .§•> :-i ' i^ ^. •3- ^ >j « o> ,n, *^* u> 1 3k '3 i 1 B k .^> 1 I ^i i z *s « 3f> .*-* X a> — - 1 i 4 t i i 1 'i § si >0 /•-N *" ^'5 1 •M ^ 1 '1 w •s, (S 4P. «o tn xafftffat . . . tn } £ M CO 1 jo a «1 o" — •§ cd S 2 ^p > ^S "^ •c =» =; ^ '3 »3 ^^ ^ •^ « « ^ (£ oo =»* a'"§ > > S ^ S a a u 1 rt .&• S 3 8 •d a o> .2 .5 rj a <L> c a a rt 1 '^ s *4- .2 C *C 53 rt i> "5 '^- <L> ^ a | 2 •S g P, , § | « o i a; ffi ^ 1 i g eorum. 05 6 "3 1 a •£ S g S '55 </> 1 a ! 8 •3 &« t; c a) 5 "3 190 The Latin Pronouns. rt PM §1 •8 i » i 8 rt G , G .2 Q £ J 8 ^ & bJO i a = s o s . rt ^3 U. ~ w ^ *5^« g -d ^ '53 ^ . be O sr « 'I C ^ ^ 4? 1 § 2 *r C W rr i§ •jf ^a £ * a £ ! ^ o-o|.|o i "Vo o I 8 85 8—5 8 **i w t3 8 = < S a 3 8-B *j ** S '8- I I s- I I r i w 3 • 3 rt a cj i M * I § rt ^J. rt CHAPTER V. CHAPTER V. HIC, ISTE, ILLE, IS, IDEM, IPSE, IN THE FUNCTION OF THE DETERMINATIVE AND OF THE DEFINITE ARTICLE. — SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. In this chapter I shall discuss briefly from another point of view the subjects treated in the preceding chapters, showing how the Romans made the pronouns serve the functions of the definite article and the de- terminative, and in conclusion shall add a few general statements necessary to the proper appreciation of the arguments set forth in this book. The six pronouns is, ille, idem, ipse, hie and iste are so closely inter-related in meaning and usage, that a full understanding of the development of each of them must be based upon a due consideration of all the rest. In order to present each pronoun in its proper perspective and to set forth, at least in broad outline, its relationship to the others, I shall be ^ed in the following paragraphs to state some of the results obtained in my study of the pronouns ille and idem. The details, however, of the arguments vhich these roulN are based, must necessarily be omitted (see Preface, p. \ Probably none of the ^ix pronouns mentioned ap- proach each oilier so closely in meaning as do the determinative and the remote demonstrative. They 37 194 The Latin Pronouns. are both used mainly to refer to definite antecedents, both are rptrorptra^ and both may be used, and are fre- quently used, in referring to an object remote from the speaker, in space, time or interest. Accordingly it is not surprising that, as the pronoun is gradually lost its force and sank to a syntactical element which car- ried but little independent meaning, and as the need was felt for some other means of expressing the mean- ing formerly carried by is, recourse was first had to ille. It needs no arguments to prove that in Plautus' time ille had in general a much stronger force than the pronoun is. The legal literature, the language of which is always conservative, and Cato's De Agri- cultura ((/. supra p. 28 f.) supplies us with an approxi- mate standard for estimating the average prose usage of a period considerably antedating the years in which they were actually written, e. g. , of the time of Plautus.1 Nevertheless, conspicuous indications in Plautus' lan- guage point to the beginings of later and weakened meanings of ille. On this point see Bach, op. cit. p. 296. The deterioration of ille was in large part a consequence of its use as a substitute for is, but was doubtless materially hastened by the extensive use which the orators made of it, and by the tide of rhetorical influences that set in from Greece with the end of the third century B. C. and rose to so strong a flood in the "silver" age. In the period last men- tioned the proportionate increase in the use of ille over 1 Provided, of course, a later recension has not materially affected the usage of ille and is. Since such a recension must have been made before Pliny the Elder wrote, I hold it for im- probable that the pronouns were much changed. file = Is and Idem = fs. 195 - very conspicuous, as may be seen from the tables on pp. 30 and 31 above; and this numerical predomi- nance of ille implies a corresponding weakening in its meaning. In the form ille qui particularly it made headway against is; but there are other phrases, in which ille would have been impossible or at least inappropriate as a substitute for is. Hence recourse was not had exclusively to it. Next after ille the pronoun earliest called into requisition was hie (see chap. II). Not that the two demonstratives were synonymous. It was their very difference in meaning that made possi- ble the use of both of them as substitutes for is at the same time, while vice versa, the actual use of the two in contexts formerly reserved for is tended to reduce to a minimum this difference in their meaning. For ex- ample, as soon as hie came to be used of objects that had no closer relation to the subject than that of occu- pying a place in his sympathies or interest, it could be used of objects remote in space and time, to which at an earlier stage in the development of the pronoun, only ille could have been applied. The above statements apply, mutatis mutandis, to idem, which was used as early as Nepos (see Lupus, op. tit. p. no) in connections in which the idea of identity is clearly implied in the context and where the use of a special word to point it out is superfluous. a sentence i> well illustrated by the German (especially Swi» i usage: Er nahcrte sich dein Hanse uiul ginj; an deniselhen vorbei; and the English: 'We lined the system, and found the same to be. . . . ,' or the- Latin of N'epus. Kpam. 10,4 Thebus et ante 196 The Latin Proiwuns. Epaminoudam natum et post eiusdem interitum, cited by L,upus; cf. Dion 2,3. The types of context in which idem could replace is are, of course, less numer- ous than in the case of ille. Idem qui for is qui was common. Idem as a substitute for is, found especial favor with the historians, chiefly during the period of the "silver" Latin, and to some extent even later. Idem, like is, became entirely obsolete in time, and ille and ipse took its place. The use of ipse as a determinative has been touched upon above (see pp. i85f.). The nature of the change in meaning is analogous in all the fore- going cases. The meaning becomes less specific, and consequently the range of the application of the word continually widens. Just as ille gradually lost the character of a remote demonstrative, and came to be used, not to call attention to the remoteness of an object, but to refer to the given object simply because it was remote; and just as hie and idem similarly lost the character of a near demonstrative and pronoun of identity respectively; so the implication of a contrast gradually passed out of the complex of ideas repre- sented by ipse. This change begins to make itself apparent in our extant literature about the same time as the corresponding changes in hie and idem, but the substitution of ipse for is does not become common until comparatively late. F'or iste = is see pp. 158 f. Of these five competitors for the position of is, idem seems entirely to have disappeared from use (unless it exists in the Ital. desso), hie has succeeded in maintaining itself only in the neuter reinforced form ecce-hoc (French ce, Ital. ci6). Ipse succeeded in TJie Definite Article. 197 establishing itself over a large territory, yet, even ipse either shares its domain with ille, as in ancient times, or takes on the special meaning of the Spanish eso1, Ille therefore, which was the first pronoun to claim the place of the determinative, maintained its pre- dominence from first to last. In the cases just discussed the substantive use of the pronouns prevailed. The peculiarities they show in their development as adjectives are not less inter- esting. They all, with the possible exception of iste, tend to deteriorate to mere definite articles. The fol- lowing paragraphs are nothing more than a few notes on the various aspects of the problem. A full discus- sion would necessitate an extensive study of the his- tory of the definite article in other branches of the Indo-European languages; and I have not time at present to undertake such a study. 'Since writing this, I have received the Arcliivio Glottologico Italiano XV,;,, on pp. 303-316 of which Ascoli discusses the rela- tion of the modern derivatives from ipse to their classical proto- type. On p. 306 he affirms that the expression 'kku-epso (he thus writes it to avoid committing himself either to original eccnm-ipsnin or atque-ipsum), not only in the Spanish eso, but in I the Romance territory in which it occurs, is used as a pronoun of the second person ("ha .seinpre quella fun/ioiie die ii set-undo persona', cioe di codesto"). • this affirmation, which is of far reach- without more specific proof than Ascoli brings : of the literature that makes up our : mation on these jmpular idioms, is such that one great danger of being misled in forming conclusions ou such a point as this. 0 note with much r incut on p. 314 : I,n •Cars. W e pure nel sen so. bench."- attenuato. ::ie d'ides:1 198 The Latin Pronoims. The use of ille as a definite article has long been recognized and attention has frequently been called to such constructions as Medea ilia (= y Mijdeta), which is also extended to appellatives (cf. Nepos, Arist. 1,2 testula ilia and the accepted reading of Tac. Germ. 14,1 if. cited above, p. 107), ille alter (as old as Plau- tus), ille octauus, etc., ille + a substantivized partici- ple (cf. Hor. Sat. 1,1,115 — a passage that offers a clearer instance of ille = article than illis quaesitis in Hor. Sat. i,i,37f.)i a"d citations by the score, begin- ning with the locus classicus Cic. Aratea, apud De Nat. Deor. 2,114, might be adduced in which ille, in Latin translations of Greek writings, stands as an equivalent of the Greek article. As was stated in chapter I, is was the weakest in meaning of the six pronouns under discussion, and in fact differed in many instances but very slightly from the use of the definite article in the modern English and German languages. This is true in particular of such sentences as Cic. Lael. 2 memini .... in eum sermonem ilium (sc. Scaeuolam) incidere, qui turn fere multis erat in ore, ' I remember that Scaevola men- tioned the subject that was. . . .on the lips of every- one.' The demonstrative force here retained by eum can be no stronger than would be expressed by an attenuated English "that," should we substitute it for "the" in the above translation. It particularizes the substantive and points it out as one that is to be further defined immediately. By doing so it serves the function of a definite article. The construction is not so common as one might at first be inclined to sup- pose. There are only about half a dozen instances in Hie and the Definite Article. 199 Cicero's Laelius. The examples in Tacitus are mostly found in the Dialogue on Oratory1. It naturally follows from the above, that when ille began to take the place of is, it also took on the func- tion of the article in such sentences as the above. The change was going on in the first century of the empire, as the works of Seneca the Younger testify. Hie seems not to have been very extensively used in this weakened sense. Expressions like L,upercal hoc .... ludicrum L,iv. 1,5,1, and nuptialem hanc uocem Liv. 1,9,12 correspond to the type Medea ilia, but are of comparatively infrequent occurrence. In the two examples just cited, there is no particular contrast implied in hoc, and I should be disinclined to assume a strong demonstrative force for the word, although it unquestionably retains clear traces of its normal meaning. Two further questions concerning the use of hie as an article must be mentioned here. They both have their origin in the use of hie as a substitute for or, ^, TO, etc. In the one case hie is found in Latin transla- tions of Greek writings, where the Greek text shows Article; in the other case hie is used by Roman ::marians in paradigms, where in the Greek para- - the definite article is employed. •:ce the publication of Kaulen's Handbuch der Vul^ata, Main/., iSjoU/ the attention of -:ially been called to the use of forms of hie, representing irtide, in various 'For is- '.rtich- sc" .iK«> k<mM-li, It.ila und Vul- gata: das Sprarhidiom drr I 'rrhristliclu-n It.ila und drr k.itho- tdition, M.iihurtf, 1075, p. 423. 2oo The Latin Pronouns. early Latin translations of the Scriptures. Hermann Ronsch has shown himself more industrious than others in the collection of such examples. In his Itala und Vulgata, pp. 420-422, under the rubric "Artikelgebrauch von hie,'" he has printed a long list; and in his Semasiologische Beitrage zum lateinischen Worterbuch, zweites Heft, Leipzig, 1888, p. 17, under the lemma "hie = Artikel," he supplements the earlier list by twelve further examples. The form of the rubric he employs certainly implies that he supposes hie not to be simply a Latin substitute for the Greek article, but its equivalent in meaning. Kaulen /. c. plainly says, hie und is haben in manchen Stellen schon ihren deiktischen Charakter verloren und sind zu blossen Artikelbezeichnungen geworden .... Fur- thermore, since Rttnsch in his later book uses the sign of equality in the sense of "means" (cf. p. 16 "haben- tia = ea quae habentur" and "gracilis = fein, diinn"), we must conclude that he had not changed his views on the subject in the interim between the publication of the two books. I must confess, however, to grave doubts of the correctness of his judgment on this point, for the following reasons: Rttnsch has himself so arranged his citations that a moment's examination of them reveals the fact that sixty-eight out of his ninety- three examples, i. e., about three-fourths of the entire number, present, under one form or another, the locution hie mundus (corresponding to the Greek 6 *off/i«s) . Now no one who has read the Latin Patristic literature extensively can have failed to note the very frequent occurrence of this expression. The contrast between the present Hie and the Definite Article. 201 world and the future life had become a part and parcel of the religious experience of the early Christian. The Church Fathers continually dwell upon this con- trast, and hie mundus, or still stronger iste mundus (cf. supra, p. 125), which clearly expresses this con- trast, was as familiar to their ears as is "this world" to those of the modern divine. In fact, hie had be- come a standing epithet of mundus, and while not so inseparably bound up with its substantive as hoc was in the word hodie, and as hanc afterward came to be in the expression ad hanc horam, from which the Ital- ian ancora is derived, hie was nevertheless intimately associated with it. We shall accordingly be justified in assuming that in translating 6 x6ffjjLo<; the ancients were influenced rather by a natural tendency to reduce every mention of the word mundus to the traditional form hie mundus, rather than by any desire to give an exact semasiological equivalent of the Greek article. In short, the mere existence of hie in this expression, in which it implies a contrast, removes it in meaning from the sphere of the article. Let u> now examine the remaining twenty-five instances cited by R<"nseh. Tlie citations 2 Cor. 7,10 huius saeculi (cod. h), 2 Cor. 5,1 huius habitations (codd. h. IWrn. Amia- timis. Toletanusj and 2 Mace. 7,9 apud. Cyprian, Ad iinatum 11 liac prae^enti uita. fall into the same jury with hie muiulus, although it must frankly be admitted that the addition of praesenti in the last case i^ indicative of some weakening in the force of hie as a near demonstrative. Yet it lia> not become sim- : tide, In If it had, we should 28 202 The Latin Pronouns. expect now and then to meet ouroq 6 x6ff/j.os in the un- heard of Latin garb iste hie mundus.1 In Luc. 17,17 hi decem (cod. e, according to Ronsch; — he should have added: a,b, c, d, f 2, i,q, s; cod. D reads owrwf, for «5r«i). The occurence of hi in so many different versions forces the conclusion that it is due to the existence of a «5r«« in the Greek text, although only cod. D cum man. sec. and codd. All show it now, and although it may have arisen from a mis- understanding of ou% <>t in the original text. In the citation from Apoc. 20,6, apud Primasius, Commentum in Apoc., in hac prima resurrectione, it is clear that the Greek phrase awny y dvaVra/rt? y it/>wTij in § 5 immediately preceding the Latin phrase cited, led to the insertion of the pronoun hac. Whether it was intentional on the part of the translator, or was due to a confusion of the two phrases either in his mind or that of a later copyist, is a matter of indifference. It was likewise no desire to give an exact render- ing of the Greek article, that influenced the makers of the translations of Phil. 3,16 contained in codd. Boern. and h and the translator of Barnabas, Kpist. 4,5 to use forms of hie in translating forms of TO aoro by hoc ipsum. This phrase, running side by side with id ipsum, and bearing the meaning of idem, was a stereo- typed expression like hie mundus (cf. supra p. 167). Certainly the uetus interpretator of the letter of Bar- nabas did not intend hoc to stand as an equivalent for TO in the passage cited, as is shown by the circum- 1 This statement may be venturesome, since our manuscripts would in such cases probably show istic or isthic (cf. supra p. Hie and the Definite Article. 203 stance that no where else in his translation does hie represent o, rly TO, etc. To be sure the phrase hi qui occurs twice in chap. 8, where it must be regarded, however, as an orthographical variant for ii qui1, and in a few cases, e.g., 1,5; 2,1; 2,4; 5,5; 9,5 (hoc est); 10,4; 10,7 (hoc est); 10,11 (hoc est); 12,3; 13,2; 15,6; it is inserted in the Latin translation2, where the Latin idiom requires it, although there is no corre- sponding expression in the Greek text. Yet it nor- mally3 translates «wr«?* or rd^s6. Hie certainly retains in this work some traces of its classical force. Other- we should not find huius temporis6, instead of htiius nunc temporis, representing r«D vov xatpou in 4,1; nor would haec sabbata in 15,8 represent rd vov ffdft- ". In view of all this it is extremely improbable, that, while scores of opportunities for translating the article by hie occur in the letter, the translator should have availed himself of only one of these. Four further passages mentioned by Ronsch (Mich. 1,13; 7,20 huic lacob; Hos. 2,8; Psalm 96,1) show hie t>efore an indeclinable proper name, where it serves to indicate the grammatical case and gender of the substantive: while in 7,20 huic Abrahae follows the analogy of huic lacob that immediately prececl> hoc nunc (Greek, dno rou vDv) occurs four times 1 Nir rallels iiii^ht he cited (cf. su/>ra pp. 23-25). lally tlu- forms hoc or haec. 'There are forty-five instances. }>y istr in only one passage, 10,4. oils from the Scrip: *t/. I. ivy i.?C>.2 nona haec ina^nificentia. •rr^]x>n«N o(l<H- to Kt'imirni (i.e. Im*fo, 2O4 The Latin Pronouns. in the Verona Psalter.1 The hoc is here the result of an attempt to get around the difficulty that the Rom- ans found in using an adverb as the object of a prepo- sition. The phrase principes huius populi (for a^/ovre? TOO Aaou) in Act. 4,8 seems to be a Biblical reminiscence (cf. Isaiah 1,10 apud Barnabas, Epist. 9,3 principes p. h. = ap%. r. A. r.; Dent. 4,1 in op. cit. 10,2; Jer. 2,12 in op. cit. 11,2 p. hie = & -*. OUT«?. Of the remaining nine out of the ninety-three cases, four show some form of hie applied to an actu- ally existing, material object, which is in the presence of the speaker and to which he directs the attention of his listeners. All four passages are direct discourse; and in all, the context permits the interpretation of hie in its classical sense, or even with deictic force. The remaining five passages are Mich. 1,13 huic filiae(?) (cod. Fuldensis), in which the text is doubt- ful; 3 Ksdr. 8,15 (should be 33?); Act. 4,37, in which there seems to be most justification for taking hie as an article; 11,22, where hie maybe interpreted as a resumptive "this," and is closely paralleled by Livy 1,21,4 ad id sacrarium, for ad eius or huius sacraritim; and Act. 19,23. So RUnsch's ninety- three examples of "hie ~ Ar- tikel" reduce themselves to at most five, and even these are not beyond question. I have gone into this detailed discussion of the sub- ject, in order to point out, first that we must not lThe references are 113,18; 120,8; 124,2; 130,3. In the Vulgate also it represents the same Greek phrase in Psalm. 112, 2, a passage overlooked by Ronsch. Iste aud the Definite Article. ' 205 only be very careful in our use of the evidence afforded by these early translations, but that we must accu- rately distinguish between the use of a Latin word as a substitute for a Greek word and as a semasiological equivalent of it; and secondly that in the present case the evidence that the translations offer for the use of hie as an article is very scanty. As to the second question mentioned above, we cannot regard the technical use of hie in paradigms, as in any sense indicative of a weakening in the force of hie, much less as proving it to be synony- mous with the definite article. If any arguments were necessary to establish so patent a truth, we might refer to the fact that its occurrence in Varro, De Ling. Lat. 8,22 and 9,52 implies its use at an earlier date, when hie certainly retained its full force as a near demonstrative. It is in no sense a definite arti- cle, but merely a convenient device for indicating the gender and case of a word. If hie was seldom used as a definite article, it natu- rally follows that iste was even more rarely so used; because-, as we have seen above (see chap. Ill), iste had a much stronger demonstrative force than did hie, and naturally came to take the place of the latter. Consequently the use of iste as an article, if it was so used, must have occurred long after hie sank to that stage. We find this view fully confirmed by the evidence of the texts. I have found only three instances of the use of iste in Latin translations rep- •iting the Or. i first is found in tlie \\TMO Palatina of the Pastor Hennae. Sim. 0,14,2 r in Luthan: 'hr. f. kirch. vtuv 206 The Latin Pronouns. Wiss. 1885, p. 98) where the Greek reads TWV yuvatxcov aTtoftdMwffi rd £pYa, T^v $? TtapOiv TTJV 8uva/jLtvt the Versio Palatina reads si abiecerint omnia opera mulierum illarum, et istarum uirginum resumpserint potentiam; the Versio Vulgata, however, reads just the same, except that it substitutes potesta- tem for potentiam, and harum for istarum. Plainly both these translators were led to use the near demon- stratives harum and istarum1 by a desire to contrast mulierum, the women who personify pleasure and sin, with uirginum, who personify the potestates filii Dei. He refers to the former by illarum, since they are remote from his sympathies. The second passage is Pastor Hermae, Vis. 3,3,1 ri iffrtv rd Tr/od^aro/ Pala- tina, quae sint res istae ? ; Vulgata, quae sunt hae res ? Hae and istae were written here under the influence of the preceding haec, and refer to objects near the speaker. But they were certainly very weak, even though they retain traces of a stronger meaning. In Ignatius, Epist. ad Tarsenses ex Philippis i iniquo- rum istorum^roiv detvwv; but istorum implies contempt. These three passages cannot justify us in assuming that iste was very largely used as an article. Its use in modern Spanish with the meaning "this," also makes this view improbable. We now turn to the consideration of idem as a definite article. It was .pointed out above (pp. 196, 193) that is served sometimes as a definite article and that idem was weakened in meaning until it became practically synonymous with is. The use of both is and idem an article is shown by the nineteen cases 1 Istarum is, of course, used here in the sense of harum. Idem as Definite Article, 207 in which they represent the Greek article in the Latin translations of the Pastor Hennae. All but four of these passages are found in the ninth Parable; two are in the eighth and two in the fifth. Both the Palatine and the Vulgate translation of the Pastor show the usage, eleven cases falling to the former. The in- stance in Sim. 5,6,5 is especially noteworthy. The Greek text reads O.UTTJ y 0"«/>^, & % xaTtaxTjffs TO TrveD/za TO 6. xoXireoffaiJ.ivrfV oZv ouv auri^v xaA&t; xdl dyvws xai cdffaffav rw TTVE (j[j.art. The Versio Palatina translates: hoc ergo corpus, in quo deductus est spi- ritus sanctus, paruit eidem spiritui ..... nee omnino eundem spiritum maculauit. 6. unde cum idem cor- pus recte atque caste eidem spiritui paruisset .... The Versio Vulgata has : hoc ergo corpus, in quo deductus est spiritus sanctus, seruiuit ei || sic cod. V; illi ed. pr. Cott. Dress. || spiritui.. .., neque omnino maculauit spiritum ilium, cum igitur corpus hoc paruisset omni tempore recte atque caste .... Note the alternation of forms of is and ille with eundem. In this way idem in the Palatina corresponds to : ille of the Vulgata in 8,1,2; 9,6,3; 9,9,4; while this relation of Palatina and Vulgata is reversed in 9,7,7 and 9,n/> <in this section, ilia was printed in ed. pr. of the Vulgata). In only one passage (9,9,4 in eodem campo that quoted above do both tran^lati' v idem. In six passages, 8,2,8; 9,1,6; 9,2,3; 9,4,3; 9,10,2; 9,10,3; the Palatina has idem, while ti; ! no attempt to render the 'her cases, 9,4,4; 9,7,4; 9,8,5; 9,11,6; the • '! the two translations is reversed in this 208 The Latin Pronouns. particular. In most of these passages it is clear that idem not merely stands as a substitute for the definite article, but is synonymous with it. It is a well known fact that ipse developed into a definite article in some parts of the territory of the Romance languages (cf. Meyer-L,iibke, Gramm. der roman. Sprachen II, 129 f). The earliest positive evidence of the usage is found in the translations of the Pastor Hermae: (See following page.} Ipsc = Definite Article. 209 '~J 11 i a 2 1 1 i efl PH t/) "~" € 1 « 1 i a turris. d 3 G 'a § ft & a *j rt ^ (y g 1 3k • <A» g b 3- P- V/i 15 - fe I tr g | o -x" II o *g 1 Ol *o ^> % ? o a J -4-> •£ 4- . * 210 The Latin Pronouns. 3 .s I d •" ai8g| <V t/l <U -^ rt 2 3 5 l!.s §3* Ssl lll'Kl 'o a « c in §« s.a g^^ a s. s a » •-• 5 -3 ud l * ta a 2 •" « S B rt r^ ,0 .^ - & rt •/. — 3 is a ^^ (/) py^ 3 | g I §'s S % 3 rt £li 'S Ipse = Definite Article. 211 Hieronymus seems to have kept his translation free from this remarkable construction. It is found, how- ever, in the earlier translations both of the Septuagint and of the New Testament. There are citations in Ronsch, Itala und Vulgata p. 423 from 3 Esdras 8,15; 45>* 5°; 71; 92- In the Collectanea Philol., p. 186 (= Z. f. 0. Gymn. 1877), the same scholar cites a passage from the Acta S. Timothei p. 12,57 (ed- Usener, 1887) ipsis quae diximus superportis (roFc ixtyepo pivots) palis et lapidibus. I am convinced that in passages of this kind, in which the Greek definite article followed by a participle is rendered into Latin, the Romans must have felt the ipse as rather nearer in meaning to is than to the article. It was their almost invariable practice to render 6 -f- participle by is .... qui .... or by ille. . . .qui. . . . In Ignatius, Epist. ad Phil, (inter- polate) 4 ipse omnia euocans et mouens, representing 6 Trdvra xalwv xtvtiv, the use of ipse is justified by its antecedent. In the interpretatio uetus of the Epistle of Barnabas there is no example. Commodian, Apol. 657 reads In nuptiis fucrat inuitatus matre cum ipsa. IK ix- Dombart <;•/</. Index, s. v.) takes ipse "pro articulo." Yet we may well doubt whether ipsa is not here justified by the frequency with which it is used by children to designate their parents. In like manner, Arnobius, Ad Nat. 1,2, f. ib reruin ipsa quae dicitur apj>ellaturqiie natura, seems to be an equivalent to y • <s'>«'.;. and may perhaps be explained like the passage from the Acta S. Timothei. In Lactantius' De Opificio Dei i]»i- i^ repeatedly used in describing the stnu-tuiv of the- human body 212 The Latin Pronouns. with an extremely weak force, and seems closely to approximate the definite article in meaning. Pompeius, the Grammarian, who shows so many peculiarities in the use of the pronouns, offers us a curious passage p. i33,27(K) si dicas, "Tityre maxi- me," T. m. duo sunt dactyli, ecce nihil superest. sed ipsi pedes finiunt ipsam elocutionem. Similarly Plan- ciades Fulgentius, Mitol. 3,9 (p. 76,8) uox uero habet gradus symphoniarum innumeros, quantum natura donauerit ipsam uocem ut habeat arsis et thesis quas nos Latine. Further see Placitus, De Medicinis ex Animal. 2,5; 17,14. Meyer- Liibke finds traces of the use of ipse as an article not only in Sardinia (cf. Beger, L,atein. und Roman. Berlin, 1863, pp. 51. 54), but also in the Balearic Islands (Mallorca) and on both sides of the Pyrenees (Ampurdan and Gascogne). We may con- clude, by viewing Meyer-L,iibke' s statement in con- nection with the occurrence of the usage in the west- Aquitanian Itinerarium Burdigalense and the Pere- grinatio Sanctae Siluiae from southern Gaul, that ipse = ^ obtained a fairly firm footing in southern Gaul, quite a little further to the eastward. Furthermore two documents in the Bibliotheque Nationale (one from the year 679-80 and the other a document of Pepin's time from Aubin, district of Telle, dated 750) bear witness to the existence of the usage farther north. Hilary of Poitiers, although having ipse = idem, does not seem to know the usage, perhaps be- cause he made efforts to keep his style closer to the classical usage, which his early training in Rhetoric would naturally lead him to do. Summary. 213 If now we put together all the changes here treated, and such others as I myself or others have noted, but which are for various reasons not discussed fully in this book, we obtain the following general view: is (demonstrative) > talis > is (determinative) > definite article > obsolete1 Is was replaced by ille, hie and ipse; also, but less extensively, by idem, and occasionally by iste. ille > talis > is (determinative) > definite article As a demonstrative ille was replaced by the com- pounds eccum-illum ( — Italian quello) , ecce-ille (— French eel), which were themselves further rein- forced by [il]la[c]; cf. Engl. "that there." idem > item > is (determinative) > obsolete Idem was reinforced or replaced by the expressions hie idem (which for phonetic reasons could not long have maintained itself in the nom. pi. masc and fem.), idem, ille idem; is ipse (especially in the form id :m), hie ipse, iste ipse (and later istuin ipstim, which yielded the Italian stesso), idem ipse (which, according to Dietz yielded Italian desso, also explained 1 This means that as a free and independent word it passed out of use. 214 ^^ Latin Pronouns. as id ipsum), ille ipse; ipsissimus, met-ipsismus (= French meme). hie > talis > is (determinative) > definite article > obsolete Hie in its pronominal use was replaced mainly by iste, which still remains in Spanish; ecce-hoc (= French ce, which has itself so far depreciated in meaning that it is reinforced by both ci < ecce-hic and la < iliac) and eccum istum, from which is derived Italian questo, which is itself sometimes reinforced by qui < ecce hie. iste > talis > ille > hie (demonstrative) > hie (determinative) = is (determinative) > (?) definite article Iste as deuTEpdrptrov was replaced by eccum-ti(for tibi)- istum, Italian codesto; and, if the statement of Ascoli cited above, is correct, by ipsa, ipso (for ipsum). As •Kpotrdrptrov it was replaced by ecce-iste (French cette) and eccum-istum (Italian questo). ipse > idem (expressing identity) > ille or is (determinative) > definite article > obsolete (in some localities) Ipse was replaced by the compounds id ipsum, etc., met-ipsimus. The changes discussed in this book are frequently, if not usually, designated in scientific works by such expressions as "confusions of meaning," "barbar- Conclusion. 215 isms" and " Verwilderung," terms which are mislead- ing, inexact and obscure. Such terms imply, more- over, that the person who uses them has either con- sciously or unconsciously assumed that there is a fixed standard of usage in language. It may seem to some scholars that a protest against this careless use of words, is a work of supererogation. Not at all so; because the very use of such expressions implies that the classical consciousness is not yet entirely emanci- pated from false notions respecting the superiority of Ciceronian Latin and the "corruptions" of later Latin, notions that have been rife since the days of Lauren- tius Valla's De Linguae Latinae Elegantiis, and even earlier. Many are still seeking for a "standard of usage" suited, for example, to students of Latin prose composition. I must protest against the use of the phrases ' 'con- fusion of meaning," "Verwilderung," etc., to desig- nate such changes as ille > is, iste > hie > is, and others; and I may make my position clear by one or two illustrations. Take the sentence from Tertul- lian, De Spectac. 21 sic ergo euenit, ut qui in publico nix. . . .tunicam leuet, idem in circo. . . .exuet; ut et qui <• . . . . , et qui . . . . , idem .... No reason- able person would suppose that, when Tertullian com- posed these lines, there- existed in his mind any confu- to the respective meanings of ipse and idem, :ii would arise in the mind of an English kin^ person on reading the paraphrase: 'The man who on the street would scarcely remove his would do so without hesitation in the circus; and t h e v e r y \ while h e who . . . . ' 2i 6 The Latin Pronouns. Tertullian had occasion to express the idea of identity in three successive coordinate and symmetrical sen- tences, and he chose to employ two different words to express that idea. Their very difference, as he appre- ciated their meanings, was doubtless the factor that determined his choice. The other parallel sentences cited on p. 173 supra should be explained in the same way. On the contrary, cases in which a foreigner, with only an imperfect acquaintance with the Latin tongue, employs a word a la Mrs. Partington, must, of course, be viewed in an entirely different light. Yet even such instances have usually a very great scientific value. Accordingly it is to be understood, that when the expressions "synonymous," "of the same meaning," etc., are employed, in this volume, they are used in the sense of the preceding paragraph; and that due allow- ance must always be made for chronological, local and individual peculiarities. In addition to these, possible influences of a writer's sources must be weighed. In the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh centuries in par- ticular, when originality of thought was so rare in the Roman empire, the writers of books were much given to making ad I it t cram excerpts from earlier works, and have frequently incorporated into their own produc- tions idioms of extraneous origin. Where such an influence has not been operative, that is to say, where an author uses two words as does Tertullian in the passage cited, there invariably exist differences in the elements composing the groups of ideas to which the words respectively correspond, although, at the same time they have important elements in common. Conclusion . 217 In conclusion I must make one further point clear. The shifting in meaning that we observe words to have undergone is, as we know, in every case the result of a cumulative series of unconscious and im- perceptible deviations from a former meaning; or to speak more exactly, each time a word is employed it becomes really a new word, the old disappearing in the new. Accordingly it becomes a matter of prime importance in studying the nature of changes in mean- ing, that we should direct our attention especially to the minutest perceptible gradations of meaning, citing such passages as illustrate them most clearly. Such stages form, so to speak, "connecting links" between the earlier and the later meanings.1 From this point of view, it is more important that we should study these minute gradations attentively than that we should emphasize unduly the differences that exist between two widely separated stages. Yet, since it has been my purpose, throughout this book to prove the existence of distinctly marked new meanings of the pronouns, rather than to show how such meanings have come into existence, my method of presentation has often more closely resembled the lexicographical, which aims to show that certain distinctly differing mea- dst, rather than the semasiological, which to show how such meanings arise. *C/. Stockk-in. ncclciitiuitfswuiKk-l der Worter, Munclu-n, 1898. SOURCES. The following Greek and Latin texts have been used in the preparation of this work. The editions followed in making citations are for the most part those used in the preparation of the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, a complete list of which is printed in Vol. I,i of that work (Leipzig, 1900). The excep- tions are indicated in the following list by the addition of the editor's name. If the author's name is followed by no mention of his works, it is to be understood that his entire extant works are represented. Thoroughly reliable complete indices and lexica have been largely depended upon for those authors (indi- cated by an asterisk1) where such exist; but even in such cases larger or smaller parts of the given author's writings have been read in addition. Plautus ( cf. supra p. 36). Terence, ed. Fleckeisen, 1897. *Scaenicae Romanorum Poesis Fragmenta. *Ennius. *Uete- rum Historicorum Romanoruni Fragmenta, 1870 and 1883 .*Cato, De Agricultura, ed. Keil, 1882. *Rhetorica ad Herennium. Cicero, *orations, ed. Miiller, 1894, 1896, 1898; *philosophical works, ed. Miiller, 1889, 1898, 1898; Brutus and De Oratore I, ed. Friedrich, 1893; and the letters, ed. Miiller- Wesenburg, 1896, 1895. *Caesar. * Pseudo-Caesar. Nepos, ed. Halm, 1871. Sallust, ed. Jordan, 1887. Varro, Res Rusticae, ed. Keil, 1884. Catullus. Lucretius, B'ks. 1,2,3,6, ed. Munro, 1893. Livy, ed. Weissenborn-Muller, 1888-1892. *Vitruvius. Seneca. Vale- rius Maximus, Velleius Paterculus, ed. Ellis, 1898. Celsus, 1-2,1. *Tibullus. Propertius, ed. Rothstein, 1898. *Horace, ed. Keller and Holder. Virgil, ed. Ribbeck, 1894, 1895. Ovid, Ibis, ed. Ellis, 1881; other works ed. Merkel-Ehwald, 2d edi- tion. Manilius, ed. lacob, 1846. Frontinus, Strategemata, lAll other indices, e. g., FriedlSnder to Juvenal and Martial, and Korn to Ex. Ponto, etc., have been found incomplete. Sources. 219 . i and 3. Frontinus Gromaticus. Curtius, ed. 1897. Persius, ed. Conington-Nettleship, 3d ed., 1893. Seneca, Dial. i-io. Pliny, Nat. Hist. 2,3,6-15, 23-30. Pliny the Younger, ed. Keil, 1886. Tacitus, ed. Miiller, 1890. Fronto, • , 1867. Apuleius, Metamorphoses, i-io; Apologia, in part, ed. Van dor Vliet. Florus. Suetonius. Aulus Gellius. Justin. Lucan, ed. Francken, 1897. Statius, Siluae, ed. Voll- inor. 1898; Theb. and Achil. as in Thesaurus, L,. L. Silius, 1-10,17. Martial, 1-7 read, ed. Friedliinder, 1886. Juvenal, es 2,6,9 ed. Biicheler, lS93'» Sat. 1,3-5,7,8,10-16, ed. Mayor, 1888,1893. Censorinus, De Die Natali. Scriptores Historiae Au trustee. Eutropius. Auctor De Uiris Illustrious, Tauchnitz. '.ins \"ictor, Origo, ed. Sepp. Declaraatio in Catilinam. nus I'rbicus. Balbus. Hyginus. Siculus Flaccus. Dares. •s, 1-3. Pompeius Grammaticus, 108 pages. Ammianus Marcellinus, 1-6. Macrobius, Saturnalia 1-5; Soraniura Scipio- nis pp. 476-526. Boethius, De Consolatione Philosophiae. His- toria Apollonii Regis Tyri. Scholia Terentiana, ed. Schlee, 1893. Poetee Latini Minores Vols. 111,1V. Of the Patristic writers the following, (all1 in the Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Romanorum Vindobonense) : Mi- nucius Felix. Tertullian. Cyprian, 1,2,4-13; Epistulae 1-43. prian pp. 283-325. Commodian. Arnobius 1-4. Lucius Caecilius, De Mortibus Persecutorum. Finnicus Mater- istine, Kpistulae 1-31. Sulpicius Severus. Priscil- Fulgenti: Helm. Alcimus Avitus, ed. Peiper, 1883 (= Mon. Germ. Histor., Auct. Ant. VI, 2) opera 2 32, and fr. VI, ; >mil. Libris. Itinera Hierosolyinitana Vol. I. Kugippus, rini. Translations of Greek writings: Barnabas and Ilarnack Zabn, 1^75, 1876. demons bOC Ilonnao (Vulgata ed. Hil- ; -73, and Palatin a r-1. C,i -l)har.lt Ilarnack, 1877). Ire- 3, 1 1 ion my mi (all of Matthew and parts of the other Gospels h ully compaivd with tin- < . Mial and the texts of the Ante-IIieronymian tnnslatif Colhertinus (c), Sangalle- 172 and bib. Vadiana 70 (n, o, p), Ambi Bernen -pt at otherwise noted. 220 The Latin Pronouns. Vindobonensis 502 (v) . This list of versions is concluded on p. 139. I have used the following versions only in so far as they are incompletely accessible in Sabbatier's citations: Cor- beienses (f1, f2), Sangermanenses (g1, g2), Augustine's Speculum has also been made use of to some extent. The Uersio Authen- tica of Justinian's Novellae Constitutiones I-XX has also been compared with the Greek original. The following writers have been read in larger or smaller selections: Varro, De Lingua Latina. Petronius. Valerius Flac- cus, ed. Langen, 1896. Gaius, ed. Huschke, 1886. Porphyrio in Horatium. Boethius, De Musica; [De Arithmetica] . The fol- lowing Patristic writers in the C. S. E. R.1: Lactantius, Institu- tiones. Novation. Ambrosius. Hieronymus (Migne). Rufinus. Prudentius. Paulinus of Nola. Optatus. Filastrius. Ruricus. Faustus. Corippus, ed. ParLsch, 1879 (— Mon. Ger. Hist., Auc. Ant. III). Augustine, uaria. Hilarian, Tractatus in Psalmos. Pelagius. Orosius. Vicentius. Prosper. Merobaudes (Migne). Salvianus. Claudian, ed. Birt., 1892 (= Mon. Ger. Hist., Auc. Ant. X) Victor Vitensis. Fortunatus. Idacius (Migne). En- nodius, ed. Vogel, 1885 (= Mon. Ger. Hist., Auc. Ant. VII). Isidore (Migne). I trust that I have overlooked no modern authority of importance. I have been greatly helped in the collection of my material by the citations illustrating the use of the pronouns to be found in the appropriate sections of various monographs on the Latinity of particular writers. No list of these is here given, since they may be found in Schmalz's Lateinische Syn- tax, especially pp. 202-213. The more important receive par- ticular mention in their appropriate connection in the body of this work. Except as otherwise noted. ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA. p. 24, 1. 30. Cicero, Tusc. Dis. 3,28, quotes Enn. Fab. 204 ei rei sustuli; but Seneca, De Consol. 9,30, following the natural tendencies of his period, alters it to huic rei sustuli. p. 38, 1. 6. The position of hoc in L,ucr. 3,531 does not favor Munro's conjecture. p. 41, 1. 26. In Gellius 11,9,1 cod. B omits the explanatory sentence in which eo stands. p. 44, 1. 17. Read-. Non eo || ego cod. C || haec. p. 45, 1. 12. Read-. 3,4,7/> || nos eo cod. E-, non eo modocodd. H P H C; non in eo modo cod. B || ; in p. 45, 1. 13. In Nepos, Chab. 1,2 Fleckeisen, keep- ing the MSS. reading ducem, supplies eo frustratus est quod after cateruis. p. 57, 1. 16. Read-, instances besides 101 and 102, where Biicheler does not adopt it, (see p. 65, 1. 3. Read-. 9 extr. (This passage is by some regarded as spurious); 22,8; p. 68, 1. 2. Read-. 5,16,2 ad hoc Veientique || :iti quoque codd. recc. ct cdd . pleraequc ||. So also in 1. 25. p. 71, 1. 21. Read-, expeditions (Kami's correc- tion to ad iter expeditiores is accepted by Kiibler), and pp. 74/. To the instances of obid in L,ivy add: 42,5,4; 45,16,6; 23,19; 24,3; to those of ob haec add: 10,15. Hyginus, 222 Addenda and Corrigenda. Fab., has ob id 21 times, ob hoc 4 times. To the in- stances of ob hoc from Pliny, Kpist. add 1,10,11 and 8,22,3. See Reissinger, op. tit., part II. p. 81, 1. 5. Read\ hanc; illam.. ..hanc: haec, 92, 1. 10. Read-, teterrima; L,ivy 7,34,9 (signa uertunt); Sail. p. 122, 1. 28. Read-, istas || ista ami. Guyetus || p. 128, 1. 20. Read: 23,1-2 huic homini; 25,1 huius uiri; 2; p. 183, 1. 8. Read: stands Spain (Isidore) and p. 1 88, 1. 6. Read: O to O •H § w *I 3§ O Q) •8 0 s - o D U- O ui : University of Toronto Library DO NOT REMOVE THE CARD FROM THIS POCKET Al'MU- 1 li l -MAKTIN CO. 1 (Mini)