« PreviousContinue »
Trajan. In this connection it is not amiss to recall the fact that by the Code of Theodosius a prefect who omitted the inscription of an emperor on a restored building was liable to prosecution. Thus what was a fault when the offender was an emperor became lèse majesté in the case of a presumptuous official. The will of the emperor was supreme and could be controlled neither by legal bar nor constitutional hindrance. Nevertheless, his course could not escape judgment in terms of the unwritten code based upon the universal recognition of the priority of claim which founders had established to their monuments. Consciousness of this fact may well have affected the policies of those emperors who held sincerely the belief with which Velleius credits Tiberius: quidquid enim umquam claritudine eminuit, id veluti cognatum censet tuendum.
The motives which controlled the practice of the emperors were, therefore, human and are intelligible in themselves. Those who followed the first method by preference chose it deliberately because it represented the ultragenerous policy. Although, as we have seen, the second method was approved in practice, it nevertheless fell short in popular estimate of the ideal procedure which involved self-effacement on the part of the restorer in favor of the founder. The emperors whose adherence to this latter policy was marked and constant, received favorable comment from the historians, as our citations have shown. There is a passage in the Life of Septimius Severus, chapter 23, which well illustrates the ordinary view of the two methods of inscription, although as a description of the emperor's policy it does not square with extant inscriptions 2 and doubtless harks back to a partisan source: magnum vero illud in vita eius quod Romae omnes aedes publicas quae vitio temporum labebantur instauravit, nusquam prope suo nomine adscripto, servatis tamen ubique
1 Liebenam, Städteverwaltung im römischen Kaiserreiche, p. 164.
2 As I have remarked previously (p. 55), the inscriptions from the City show that Severus and the members of his family usually added their names to the founder's inscription. The biographer would have us believe that this was the exception, not the rule.
titulis conditorum. The biographer's eulogy hinges on the fact that it was the well-nigh invariable habit of Severus to let his restorations go unrecorded. This was the height of magnanimity. The occasions on which the emperor did attach his name to the buildings of the City were lapses from a perfection of behavior which were rendered excusable only by the care which he took to preserve everywhere the name of the founder.
IV. The Ablative of Association.1
BY PROF. CHARLES E. BENNETT,
PRACTICALLY all recent investigators in the field of IndoEuropean case syntax agree in attributing to the Indo-European instrumental a sociative force, and in regarding the idea of means, which is so frequent a use of this case in most Indo-European languages, as developed from the idea of association. Those who reject these conclusions differ not in attributing another primitive 'Grundbegriff' to the IndoEuropean instrumental, but rather in refusing to attach to it any 'Grundbegriff' whatever.
The object of this paper cannot be to discuss the relative merits of these two views. Any such consideration, involving, as it does, fundamental principles of method in syntactical investigation, would, of necessity, take us far beyond the field of our present topic. I must therefore content myself with stating that my own conviction is at present firm that we are justified in attaching 'Grundbegriffe' to the chief inflectional forms of Indo-European, and that I am further in agreement with those who regard the Indo-European instrumental as having primarily a sociative force. My present purpose is to show that the range and frequency of the primitive sociative functions of the instrumental are much more extensive in Latin than is at present recognized. According to my observations it appears with verbs of joining, entangling, mixing, sharing, being attended, keeping company with, being accustomed, wedding, mating, piling, playing, changing and interchanging, agreeing, wrestling; also with adjectives of equality. Several, in fact most, of these categories, as will be indicated
1 This investigation has had regard to the literature down to the time of Apuleius. While the lists of examples are quite full, it is not claimed that they are absolutely complete for all authors.
more fully later, unquestionably go back to the 'Ursprache.' I take the different categories up in order:
I. VERBS OF JOINING AND BEING JOINED.
These appear construed with the instrumental in Vedic (see Delbrück, Altindische Syntax, p. 131) and in Avestan (Hübschmann, Casuslehre, p. 255). The material in Latin is as follows:
iungo: Leg. xii Tab., tignum iunctum aedibus vineave e concapi ne solvito; Cic. de Or. i. 243, dicendi vis egregia summa festivitate et venustate coniuncta; ibid. ii. 237, improbitas scelere iuncta; ibid. iii. 55, quae vis est probitate iungenda summaque prudentia; id. Brut. 162, defensione iuncta laudatio; id. ad Att. ix. 10. 4, bellum iunctum miserrima fuga; Vell. Pat. ii. 65. 3, consularem praetextam iungentem praetoria. In Cicero, Tusc. Disp. v. 96, the Mss. read exspectatio speratarum voluptatum perceptarum memoria iungeretur. Madvig inserted cum before perceptarum, and most-possibly all-subsequent editors have followed him. The change seems to be unnecessary. Ebrard, de Ablativi Locativi Instrumentali etc. Usu, p. 618, cites Lex. Iul. Munic., plostra bubus iumentisve iuncta, as an instance of this ablative, but bubus here may be dative. The dative is authenticated for Lucretius i. 713, iungentes terram liquori. The ablative with cum is also an alternative construction found as early as Lucretius, e.g. v. 438; vi. 1075.
coniungo: Lucr. ii. 743, nullo coniuncta colore; Cic. pro Cluentio, 12, libido non solum dedecore verum etiam scelere coniuncta; id. pro Sest. 132, civis coniunxit eodem periculo et crimine; id. Phil. iii. 35, summa miseria est summo dedecore coniuncta; ps.-Virg. Ciris, 40, coniunctum carmine nomen; Virg. Aen. x. 653, ratis coniuncta crepidine saxi; Vitruv. de Arch. x. 20. 2, tignum quo capreoli coniungantur. Besides the simple ablative, we find also the ablative with cum, e.g. Lucr. iii. 159; iv. 493. The dative also occurs, e.g. Cic. de Off. ii. 34, intellegentiae iustitia coniuncta. Hence numerous examples are ambiguous. Doubtless some of them are ablatives.
confundo Cic. de Div. i. 118, quae (vis sentiens) est toto confusa mundo; ibid. ii. 35, quae (vis divina) toto confusa mundo sit; Col. de Re Rustica, x. 260, ingenuo confusa rubore rosa. The construction with cum appears as early as Cicero, e.g. Timaeus, 49, cum ignis
oculorum cum eo igni se confudit. The dative occurs in Ovid, de Med. Fac. 61, cornua pulvereae confusa farinae, and elsewhere. Hence passages like Horace, Sat. ii. 4. 67, Ep. ii. 1. 195, and others are ambiguous.
contineo: Lex. Iul. Munic. 53, semitam eo aedificio perpetuo continentem. I should also bring under this head Cic. pro Marcelio, 22, tua salute contineri, is bound up with your safety.' But Cic. pro Caecina, 11, huic fundo continentia praedia, shows the dative, and assures the character of pro Caec. 15, fundo antiquo continens, and of in Pis. II, continentis his funeribus dies.
haereo Virg. Aen. x. 361, haeret pede pes; Hor. Sat. ii. 3. 205, haerentes litore; Ovid, Met. vi. 236, haeret cervice summa sagitta ; 290, haerentia viscere tela; ibid. ix. 351, haerent radice pedes; ibid. xii. 184, haereat pectore res; Lucan, i. 507, limine haesit; id. vi. 210, haerentis cute hastas; 567, haerentem gutture; Sen. Thy. 548, haerere fratris aspectu; id. Phaedra, 1101, haesere biiuges vulnere; id. Oct. 744, haerens amplexu mariti. But the dative also occurs, e.g. in Virg. Aen. iv. 73, haeret lateri letalis harundo; so often in poetry.
cohaereo: Ovid, Am. i. 4. 43, nec crure cohaere. The construction with cum also occurs as early as Cic. Top. 53, id cohaeret cum re; also the dative, e.g. Quint. iv. 2. 89, verae alicui rei cohaereat. Hence many passages are ambiguous, including those cited in Harper's Dict., s.v. II. A. 1, as datives, all of which may be ablatives.
apto: Stat. Theb. x. 309, aptatam cava testudine dextram percutit, gives us a sure instance of the ablative. Horace also has three examples which, though ambiguous, may belong here, viz. Epodes, 7. 1, cur dexteris aptantur enses conditi? Odes, ii. 12. 4, aptari citharae modis; Epp. i. 3. 12, fidibusne Latinis Thebanos aptare modos; and Propertius one, iii. 3. 35, haec carmina nervis aptat. The Thes. Ling. Lat. classifies all these as datives, but in view of the Statius passage they may possibly be ablatives.
inhaereo Virg. Aen. x. 845, corpore inhaeret; Cic. Tusc. Disp. ii. 20, latere inhaerens, a poetical translation by Cicero himself of Soph. Trach. 1046 ff. So also in the same paragraph just before the beginning of the poetical translation we have, inhaesisset ea visceribus.
The case in the following examples of verbs of joining is more or less doubtful: