Page images

are warranted in concluding that the synizesis forms are as well attested in such hemistich-closes and even in such verse-closes as we have a right to expect in view of the difficulties attending the identification of anap. verse. Whether the gen. sing. rei in Men. 764 (siet r(e)ừ, bacch. tetr.) should be considered a case of synizesis in the close is very doubtful; the gen. sing. form is elsewhere always dissyllabic in Pl. (Maurenbrecher, Hiat. 156, n. 2; Leo, Forsch. 323 f.), but, in view of its monosyllabic use by Terence, it is by no means certain that it is an absolute dissyllable.2

(7) Specimen Verses. — I may quote finally several verse's which will serve to illustrate the various usages discussed in this paper.

It will be observed that in general only metrical necessity or convenience leads to the employment of měí, měó within the verse :

Cap. 740: Períc[u]lum vitae m(e)aé t(u)o stát perícủló.
St. 540: Dúae) èrant, quási nunc m(e)aé sunt. é (ae) èrant

d(u)óbus núptae frátribús. Poe. 366: Méus ocellus, m(e)úm labéllum, méa salús, m(e)um

sáviúm (i.e. s(u)áviúm). Tri. 329: Dé-měó: nam quod-tủómst m(e)umst, omne m(e)úmst

autém tūóm. Cas. 614: M(e)am istúc transire uxorem ad úxorém tủám. Cap. 628: F(u)istin liber? | Fúsi). | Enim vero non-fuit, nugás agít.

Summary. — The results of the present study may be summed up as follows: Precisely that sequence of syllables and that position of the accent which produces iambic shortening in the case of vowels separated by a consonant has

1 Skutsch (l'épas, 131) needlessly rejects sc(i)o in the hemistich-close quoted above. On the other hand, it does not seem quite certain that 0. Lat. synizesis can occur in a full anap. verse-close, such as that of the anap. oct., where it would be due entirely to the metrical accent. In the close of a full sentence we do not expect mos f(u) it, but rather f(u)it mos.

2 Acc. to Seyffert, Stud. Pl., 25 f., only twice does gen. rĕi fill any other foot than the last, viz. Ru. 487; Ad. 644. It is therefore somewhat similar to nihil, which never fills a whole foot in Pl., and never fills any foot except the last in Ter. and the metrical inscrr. Both these examples are instructive in their bearing upon the free admission of měó in the verse-close, and its rare use elsewhere.

given rise to 0. Lat. synizesis in the case of vowels which stand in hiatus. This synizesis does not occur in versecloses, since it is excluded from some closes by the conventions of the verse, and from others by the accentual conditions. Definite metrical proof of the extent of synizesis is afforded by word-groups like t(1)ám-rem, which show almost invariably a species of pretonic syncope. Finally, synizesis occurs most frequently in proclitic and enclitic words like the possessive pronouns or the substantive verb, which usually have little appreciable accent of their own, but it is also freely admitted in the case of those words which possess the ordinary intensity of tone, because these latter are themselves often subordinated in the sentence and placed beside words of still greater force and weight. From such beginnings as these, synizesis is free to develop even in the case of strongly accented words.2

1 For a fuller discussion of this point, see the supplement to the present article in Classical Philology, II, No. 5.

2 Addenda :

P. 168. — While synizesis is distinct from the hardening of i and u into full consonants, yet it is often the preliminary stage to such hardening and to the consequent loss of these sounds, cf. Corssen, 11%, 754 ; Stolz, Müller's Handb. 11%, 2, 32.

P. 194, n. 2. – See also especially Skutsch, Forsch. 136, n. 1.
P. 204, n. 2 (end). -- Compare also 0. Lat. hibus for his, ibus for is.

IX. — The Title of Caesar's Work on the Gallic and Civil




It is noteworthy that the two editors, Nipperdey and Meusel, who in the last century contributed most to the criticism of the text of Caesar, adopted forms of the title of the Gallic War which are not only unlike but inconsistent with each other; and a third form is presented by Du Pontet, the editor of Caesar's text in the Oxford Bibliotheca, who combines elements that appear in the title as printed by the other two.

Nipperdey considers that the correct designation of Caesar's Civil and Gallic Wars taken together is commentarii, each separate book being a commentarius, with the characterizing part of the title in the ablative; the title-page of his large edition has C. Iulii Caesaris commentarii cum supplementis A. Hirtii et aliorum, while at the beginning of the Gallic War we find C. Iulii Caesaris de bello Gallico commentarius primus. Meusel discards the word commentarius, plural as well as singular, adopting as the general title of the Gallic War C. Iulii Caesaris belli Gallici libri VII, and as the title of the first book C. Iulii Caesaris belli Gallici liber primus; he substitutes liber for commentarius, and has the genitive of bellum Gallicum in place of the ablative with de. Du Pontet uses commentarii as a common designation of the Gallic and Civil Wars, but liber of the individual books; at the beginning of the first book he has C. Iuli Caesaris commentariorum de bello Gallico liber primus.

To trace the variant forms of the title down from the editio princeps to the present time might be of interest in another connection, but no light would thus be shed on the question what title Caesar himself gave to these works. The cause of the diversity lies farther back; the manuscript transmission of the title is hopelessly corrupt.

To begin with the codices of the a class, in the Moissac manuscript which, as the other good codices of the same class (with possibly a single exception), contains only the eight books of the Gallic War, this work is ascribed to Suetonius. The text of the Gallic War is preceded by a Latin version of a part of the Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus; the title of the Caesarian work immediately follows the subscription of the other, thus:





All this occupies a little less than a quarter of a page of the manuscript, which is written in a characteristic hand assigned by Châtelain (Paléographie des Classiques lat. I, p. 13) to the eleventh century; it fills out the greater part of the space left in the second column (each page being written in two columns) after the last sentence of the text of Josephus, and a new page is begun with the first word of Caesar's text, Gallia, which is provided with an elaborate initial letter. There is, however, no good reason to doubt that the title is of the same age as the rest of the manuscript.

The Amsterdam codex (Bongarsianus) has a double title : INCIPIT LIBER GAII CESARIS BELLI GALLICI IVLIANI DE NARRATIONE TEMPORVM; then, in red, INCIPIT LIBER SVETONII. The text of this manuscript in general agrees with that of the Moissac codex; the second part of the title, Incipit liber Suetonii, is probably derived from the common ancestor of the two codices, which is designated by Meusel as X: The parent codex very likely had the fuller form which we find in the Moissac manuscript, which was abbreviated in the Amsterdam codex to make room for the long first part of the title ascribing the work to Caesar, this being borrowed, as we shall see, from a manuscript of the other group of the a class, and inserted as a correction.

The other group of a manuscripts, best represented by Cod. Paris. Lat. 5763 (designated as B by the editors) and Cod. Vatic. 3864, assign the Gallic War to Caesar; the parent codex from which they were derived, designated by Meusel as $, evidently had as title INCIPIUNT LIBRI GAII CAESARIS BELLI GALLICI IVLIANI DE NARRATIONE TEMPORVM. From this form evidently came the first part of the title in the Amsterdam codex, Incipiunt libri being changed to Incipit liber to accord with the second part of the title, Incipit liber Suetonii, derived from x.

The manuscripts of the B class show less variation in the form of the title; the lost codex to which their origin is traced apparently had INCIPIUNT LIBRI GAII IVLII CAESARIS BELLI GALLICI DE NARRATIONE TEMPORVM.

With this last form before us it is possible to understand how the awkward Iuliani may have found its way into the title as it appears in the second group of manuscripts in the a class. Without entering into the question of the relative value of the a and ß readings in constituting Caesar's text, we may suppose that a scribe or reader of a manuscript in the line of transmission between the archetype and the $ group had before him, either in his own manuscript or in another to which he had access, the title libri Gaii Iulii Caesaris belli Gallici de narratione temporum ; that this seemed to him ambiguous or defective, because it does not necessarily assign the war as well as the literary work to Caesar ; that he was familiar with the use of the adjective Iulianus with definite reference to Julius Caesar, as, for example, de Bello Afr. 15 equites Iuliani, ibid. 78 turmas Iulianas, Cic. Phil. xiii, 31 vectigalia Iuliana; that he

« PreviousContinue »