« PreviousContinue »
ánimo, and hence had no occasion to seek a special relief. Nevertheless a few apparently well-attested cases (cf. Hauler, Einl. zu Phor. 56, n. 6) before a short vowel are found in the whole drama, viz. St. 39 pól m(eo) animo ómnis (anap. dim.); 275 núnc meae) erše núntiábo; Tri. 724; Mi. 262; Poe. 1070; Cap. 666; Cas. 542 (?); Titin. tog. 40; Hec. 238
' . (Umpf. and Dz., following A). These examples may either be rejected entirely in view of their extreme rarity (Skutsch, Sat. Viadr. 143; Ahlberg, De procel. I, 91),' or they may be considered as evidences of the close approach of meo to a genuine monosyllabic pronunciation, or — the most probable solution in my judgment — they may be interpreted, like Lucretius's or(i)undi, simply as cases of the total suppression of a weak semivowel in hiatus; cf. p. 169 above.
(4) Doubtful Existence of Monosyllabic Stem *S0-. - The statement is commonly made on the authority of Festus that, in addition to the usual forms of the possessive, there existed in O. Lat. the forms sām, sās, sās, sīs, etc., and that these latter were freely used by Ennius. Comparative grammarians have been dubious about identifying these O. Lat. forms with the synizesis-results s(u)ām, s(u)òs, and have preferred to connect them with the I.-Eur. monosyllabic stem *syo-, Skt. svá-s, Gk. Ofó-s, etc.; cf. Stolz, Müller's Handb. 113, 2, 137; Lindsay, L.L. 426; Sommer, Lat. Lautlehre, 445, § 279. They have thus been led tacitly to assume the existence in historical Latin of *sðs and *să in the nom. sing. as well as of sām, sās, sõs in the oblique cases. Unfortunately for this hypothesis, we find only the latter forms ascribed to Ennius, and certainly there is no trace whatever of the forms *sos, să in the dramatists; for had they been in colloquial use, the Plautine plays would have been filled with examples like the following: út sós-ămicus dicerét, ut sós erus auferát, út marepóscam múnerá, út sa-děpéndit, cf. út (eă dixit, etc. In other words, at the very point where the monosyllabic possessive stem might demonstrate its independent existence, no traces of it are found either in Ennius or in Pl. I am led, however, to the conclusion that if the alleged literary (not vulgar) forms sām, sās were used by Ennius, they cannot be certainly identified with the synizesis-forms súām, suās, which are not absolute monosyllables, nor can they be certainly referred to Ennius's well-known attempt to introduce phonetic or quasi-phonetic principles in the writing of Latin words, as Édon, Écriture du lat. populaire, 82, would refer them. Yet, with the exception of the abl. pl. sīs 2 — an undoubted synizesis form — which is itself probably only quasiphonetic, but is warranted by the analogy of dis, īs, mieis, miis, mis, tis (vulgar), these alleged forms are very poorly attested and seem likely to have arisen from a palpable misinterpretation by Festus (repeated later by Sch. on Per. i, 108) of Enn. A. 102 M: Virginės nam sibi quisque domi Romanus habet sas. In commenting on this passage, Verrius Flaccus had expressly explained O. Lat. sās (from the demonstrative stem *s0- *sā) as used in place of eas,3 as indeed the sense requires, but Festus evidently misunderstood the meaning of the verse, and was thus led to ascribe to Ennius false possessive forms sas, sos, sam, etc.; for a similar view, see L. Müller's note ad loc.
1 Cf. also Skutsch, répas, i11.
2 Very many scholars, however, as L. Müller, R.M.2 322, 297, and Neue, 113, 366, 369, 371, are content to accept the explanation sīs (Enn., Lucr.) = suis, sī CIL. V, 2007) = suo; mieis (CIL. I, 38), i.e. mīs = meis; tīs (Inscr. Or. 4847)= tuis; cf. also Lindsay, l.1., 268, and Sommer, l.l., 446. The particular identifications just named are, in my judgment, undoubtedly correct. The Plautus Mss also sometimes indicate the monosyllabic pronunciation of the dat.-abl. pl. meis by the orthography mieis, miis, or mis; for examples, cf. Neue, II, 366, and Sturtevant, l.l., 35. In addition, we find in the vulgar language not only the barbarous form suobus (dat.-abl. pl.), but also sybus (CII. VI, 26896). The latter is probably not formed after sibi, as Stolz (Müller's Handb. 113, 2, 134) suggests, but after sis; cf. dibus (CIL, VI, 214), formed after dis.
1 The above statement should be put more strongly; for the only monosyl. labic forms which would come directly from the I.-Eur. stem *sųð-, viz. the forms sòs and sõm, are the missing ones. Cf. Sommer, l.l., 445: “*Syð. musste nach $ 94, 2, lateinisch in allen Formen, wo ŏ auf 1 folgte, zu sõ- werden; diese Gestalt wurde dann durchs ganze Paradigma durchgeführt.”
2 Enn. A. 141 M.: Postquam lumina sis oculis bonus Ancus reliquit ; cf. Lucr.
8 Fest. 476, 17 Th.: sas Verrius putat significare eas teste Ennio qui dicit, etc., . . ., cum suas magis significare videatur. With the exception of this misinterpreted passage, Festus quotes no actual verses of Ennius for the alleged monosyllabic possessives sam, sas, sos, but we find the quasi-monosyllabic form spelled suos, in the Mss of Festus, 324, 17 Th., Paulus, 325, 6, and Nonius, 158, 20: (Dis) Poeni soliti suos sacrificare puellos (A. 233 M.); cf. also Lindsay, L.L. 429. – Verrius's interpretation of sas as eas in the passage quoted above is accepted also
(5) Retention of a pair of Shorts through Logical Analogy. - I have already spoken of the absence of slurring in anapaestic groups like sěd-či, ab-eis, in-eisdem (p. 183). It should be further noted that the monosyllabic forms i and is had apparently not established themselves in all uses in the time of Pl., e.g. they were not in use after a short monosyllable, and there are no well-attested cases in the drama of sed 7 (dicunt), ab řs (véniunt), with iambic shortening. At a later period, however — probably first in the Ciceronian agethe simple forms and the group-forms of is and idem became more fully assimilated; thus compare Pl. Mi. 758, se'd (e)idém, with Hor. C. iii, 2, 27, sůb ísdem, and Manil., Astron. iii, 73, sémper ut (e)ídem (dat. sing.). Owing to a tendency, which is not consistently carried out, to interpret Ms iis as īs, the ed. min. gives here at times un-Plautine forms, but quíd-iis (Mss), or quid-eis is necessary Poe. 167, and ut-iís (Mss), or ut-eís, should be read Am. 68 ; Men. 972; Ru. 647, etc., as well as in hís (CD), Ps. 1109 (ed. min.: in is); of very doubtful scansion are Mo. 862, Ps. IIII, and the scansions of the ed. min., sed i, neque is, could only be defended as a license of anap. verse. In short, at this period all the group-forms of is were trisyllabic like sěd-ěö, and the intrusion of a dissyl
by Lachmann (on Lucr. vi, 1067) and hy Vahlen in his second edition of Ennius (Leipzig, 1903), who explains : “virgines, nam sibi quisque eas domi Romanus habet, reddi non possunt.” Skutsch (répas, 144; Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopäd. VI, 2625) attempts to explain sas as the possessive pronoun in this passage, but characterizes this use of the word as an arbitrary and tasteless invention of Ennius in imitation of Homeric ős (“eine Erfindung des Ennius ... willkürlich ... krass '). This supposition, which confessedly does little honor to Ennius, is also quite unnecessary; it had been put forward before by L. Müller (R.M.2 322), but was afterwards definitely abandoned by him. On the other hand, L. Müller explains sis as a genuine synizesis form.
1 On the other hand, of the seven necessary cases (inclusive of Men. 972) in the drama of dissyllabic nom. pl. m. and abl. pl. of is, which are cited by Sturtevant, 1.1 , 24, one is the fourth foot of the senarius, two are verse-closes, and four are trisyllabic groups.
labic form like ab-is was not permitted ; similarly all the group-forms of idem were tetrasyllabic like sěd-čõdem, and a trisyllabic form was not allowed. In the same way we must explain the striking fact pointed out by Engelbrecht (Wien. Stud. VI, 236 ff.), that, while the simple verb eo and the compounds of eo with a long preposition show only the contract forms before s, c.g. isti (Tri. 939), isse (ib. 944), exīssem (Ru. 534), yet, in the case of the compounds with a short preposition, the verse of the dramatists often requires and always admits the full forms with double i, e.g. åbiisti, abiisse, abiissem, obiisti, subiisti, adiisti, rediisti, periisti, intěriisti ; cf. adiese and adiesent (CIL. I, 196, 7 f.) in the S. C. de Bacchanalibus of 186 B.C. This is the special peculiarity in the early treatment of these forms which Brock (l.l., 78) seems to regard as inexplicable, and it is evident that in the second century B.C. the short i in hiatus of these forms was preserved from contraction by a psychological cause, that is, by the sense of logical analogy. The perfect of the simple verb is inflected ii, īsti, iit, and thus a single short is lost by contraction before s; a pair of shorts, however, has become closely associated in the Roman mind with the perfect forms ăbii, ăbiisti, ăbiit, etc., and, in view of this strong association, the loss of one of the pair, as in the contract form abisti, would make the form seem incongruous, and would seriously obscure its connection with the remaining forms of the perfect. Therefore logical analogy forbids the usual contraction to take place, or, to speak more accurately and to adopt the language which is suggested by Exon's admirable discussion of similar linguistic processes (Hermathena, XIII, 145 ff.), the contraction actually takes place, and the incongruous form interīsti is produced, but the sense of analogy immediately awakes, and a 'special sound-law' arises, in virtue of which i is retained before is, after a short prefix, as in interiīsti (interieisti, CIL. I, 1202).2 ‘Special sound-laws,' however, often find special difficulty in maintaining themselves
1 The only exception is vēniisse (St. 232; Ps. 1090), which should perhaps be written venivisse.
2 Cf. also, for the quantity of the second i, Marx, Hülfsbüchlein f. Ausspr.: 10.
fully, and forms like abiīsti, abiissem, which were doubtless in exclusive use in the second century B.C., were compelled, in the following century, to yield a portion of their territory. It should be added that this rhythmical epenthesis, this tendency to retain i, exists in a less degree in all verbs beginning with a short syllable, notably in petiisti (cf. Verg. Aen. ii, 25 nos abiisse rati et vento petiisse Mycenas), but the great number of the compounds of ire with short prefix caused analogy to be most strongly felt, and uniformity to be longest maintained, within this single group.
(6) Question of Synizesis in Verse-Closes. — As we have already seen (pp. 165,195, n. 1), the principle of metrical regularity excludes a contract form like m(e)ó from the close of all verses which conclude with an iambus. Similarly the contract dative mi, which, unlike m(e)o; is a perfect monosyllable, and occurs as such in all periods of the language (L. Müller, R.M.2 296), is allowed, so far as I am aware, only in verses which close with a trochee, e.g. Mo. 175 (troch. oct.); ib. 871 (bacch. tetr.). The exclusion of synizesis forms also from the close of verses which end with a trochee (4 v) is easily understood (p. 179). Synizesis is not, however, necessarily excluded from verse-closes of the form 4, and some certain examples are cited by Audouin (1.1., 69, 121, 228) from the diaereses of anapaestic verse, in which a resolved thesis such as túom would be extremely unusual, e.g. Ba. 1153 (p. 179, n. 2); ib. 1157 nilí sum. istúc iam prídem sc(i)ộ (cf. Klotz, Grunds. 210, n.); ib. 1086; etc. Several possible cases (uncritically arranged) are also cited by Audouin from full anap. verse-closes, the best supported of which is Ci. 700 híc concilium f(u)st (marked corrupt in ed. min.). We
1 Cf. Neue, 1113, 435 ff., 465 ff., 472.
2 I reach at this point the same conclusions as Ahlberg, Procel. I, 92, but on wholly different grounds. It should be noted also that Pl. does not allow the shortened forms potin(e), viden(e) at the end of verses which close with an iambus (Seyffert, Berl. phil. Wochenschr. XVIII, 1577), and Dz. in his critical note suspects the one case of this kind in Terence (And. 476); we find the shortened form, however, in verses which conclude with a trochee, e.g. And. 299 atque aúdin?