The Text and Language of A Vulgar Latin Chronicle (Anonymus Valesianus Ii)

THE TEXT AND LANGUAGE OF A VULGAR LATIN CHRONICLE (ANONYMUS VALESIANUS
II)
Author(s): J. N. ADAMS
Source: Bulletin Supplement (University of London. Institute of Classical Studies), No. 36,
THE TEXT AND LANGUAGE OF A VULGAR LATIN CHRONICLE (ANONYMUS VALESIANUS
II) (1976), pp. iii, v, vii, ix-xxiii, xxv, 1, 3-15, 17-35, 37, 39-141, 143-177, 179-183, 185-189
Published by: Wiley
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43768336
Accessed: 22-05-2017 11:55 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin Supplement
(University of London. Institute of Classical Studies)
This content downloaded from 128.122.230.148 on Mon, 22 May 2017 11:55:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE TEXT AND LANGUAGE OF A VULGAR LATIN CHRONICLE
(ANONYMUS VALEŠI ANUS II)
by
J. N. ADAMS
University of London
INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES
Bulletin Supplement No. 36
1976
CONTENTS
Preface
List of Abbreviations
Symbols
Chapter I Introduction
Chapter II The Text
Chapter III Phonology and Orthography
Chapter IV Morphology and Syntax
Chapter V Vocabulary
Chapter VI Word Order
Notes to Chapter 1
Notes to Chapter II
Notes to Chapter III
Notes to Chapter IV
Notes to Chapter V
Notes to Chapter VI
Addenda and Corrigenda
General Index
Index to Latin Words
Index to Romance Words
PREFACE
The Anonymus Valesianus is of value both linguistically and as a historical source. Fro
points of view it is desirable that a satisfactory text should be established. I have dealt
ing pages with almost every textual issue, advocating a conservative approach. Since the
standard in every way, it is not justified to regularize the spelling according to classi
while leaving syntactic and lexical vulgarisms in the text. Spellings which had either
or some other motivation in late Latin have been defended, as has the retention of ot
vulgarisms which editors have eliminated.
Many late Latin texts remain which have not been exploited in the handbooks
development of the language. A definitive description of the varieties of late and
made from a Latin rather than a Romance point of view, has still to be written.
work is intended as a full presentation of the data furnished by one of these neg
Where appropriate I have gone beyond the Anonymus , notably in the chapter on wor
which may serve as an introduction to some of the problems of word order in th
Word order has scarcely been mentioned in works on Vulgar Latin.
I have attempted to stress throughout that writing differs from speech, and hence t
text' and Vulgar Latin are not one and the same thing. A system of brackets has
indicate the difference between graphemes, phonemes and morphs (see the symbols g
Sometimes, however, a spelling can be considered from more than one viewpoint. I ha
for instance, to deal with accusative singulars in -ay ~e and -o under morphology rather
ology, though they have at least an equal claim to belong under the latter rubric.
Quotations from the Anonymus have not been made from any of the editions of the
in a few specified places. I have given the text which I would myself print.
Modern works are referred to by abbreviations only, except in the footnotes to Ch

where the works concerned are mainly to do with the Romance languages rathe
Elsewhere a few other titles of articles dealing with modern languages have been give
in the footnotes instead of in the list of abbreviations.
It is a pleasure finally to express gratitude to Professor H.D. Jocelyn, Dr M. Winterbottom

and Professor R.G.M. Nisbet, who read an earlier draft and suggested numerous corrections
and improvements. I am also grateful to the Institute of Classical Studies for accepting the
work for publication and to Miss Margaret Packer for her skilful typesetting.
January 1976 J.N.Adams
vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1 Modern Works and Texts etc. cited by name of Editor
Adams, 'Hyperbaton' J.N. Adams, 'A type of hyperbaton in Latin

prose', PCPhS n.s. 17 (1971) 1 ff.
Adams, 'Present participle' J.N. Adams, The substantival present participle in

Latin, Giotta 51 (1973) 116 ff.
Adams, 'Put-throw' J.N. Adams, 'On the semantic field "put-throw" in

Latin', CQ n.s. 24(1974) 142 ff.
Adams, 'Speeches' J.N. Adams, 'The language of the speeches in Tacitus'

historical works', BICS 20 (1973) 124 ff.
Ahlquist H. Ahlquist, Studien zur spätlateinischen Mulomedicina

Chironis( Uppsala 1909)
Alexander L.H. Alexander, Participial Substantives of the -ata

Type in the Romance Languages (New York 1912
Allen W.S. Allen, Vox Latina (Cambridge 1965)
Anderson J.M. Anderson, 'Neutralization of phonemic opposition

in Vulgar Latin', Romance Notes 6 (1964-5) 86 ff
Audollent, Defix. A. Audollent, Defixionum tabellae quotquot innotu-

erunt tarn in Graecis orientis quam in totius occiden
partibus (Paris 1904)
Baehrens W.A. Baehrens, Sprachlicher Kommentar zur vulgär-

lateinischen Appendix Probi (Halle 1922)
Bambeck M. Bambeck, Lateinisch-romanische Wortstudien i

(Wiesbaden 1959)
Bastardas Parera J. Bastardas Parera, Particularidades sintácticas del

latin medieval (Barcelona 1953)
Battisti C. Battisti, Avviamento allo studio del latino volgare

(Bari 1949)
ix
Bauer W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament ,
trans, by W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich (Cambridge 19
Bendz G. Bendz, 'Sprachliche Bemerkungen zu Petron ' Eranos

39(1941)27 ff.
Benveniste, Noms d'agent E. Benveniste, Noms d'agent et noms d'action en Indo -

Européen (Paris 1 948)
Bieter F. A. Bieter, The Syntax of the Cases and Prepositions

in Cassiodorus 1 Historia Ecclesiastica Tripertita
(Washington 1938)
Blaise A. Blaise, Le vocabulaire latin des principaux thèmes

liturgiques (Turnhout 1960)
Blase H. Blase, Tempora und Modi; Genera Verbi in G. Landgraf

(ed.), Historische Grammatik der lateinischen Sprach
1 (Leipzig 1903)
Bloch and Wartburg O. Bloch and W. von Wartburg, Dictionnaire étymologique

de la langue française^ (Paris 1968)
Bonnet M. Bonnet, Le latin de Grégoire de Tours (Paris 1 890)
Bourciez E. Bourciez, éléments de linguistique romane ^ (Paris

1946)
Buck, Selected Synonyms C.D. Buck, ,4 Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the

Principal Indo-European Languages (Chicago 1 949)
Bury, J.B. Bury , History of the Later Roman Empire from the
death of Theodosius I. to the death of Justinian (Lo
1923)
Cameron A. Cameron, 'Demes and factions', ByzZeitschr 67

(1974) 74 ff.
du Cange C.D. du Cange, Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis ,

revised by D.P. Carpenter, G.A.L. Henschel and L. Favre
(Paris 1883-7)
Carlton C.M. Carlton, A Linguistic Analysis of a Collection of

Late Latin Documents composed in Ravenna betwe
A. D. 445-700 (The Hague 1973)
Carlton, 'Lexicology' C.M. Carlton, Studies in Romance Lexicology , based

on a Collection of Late Latin Documents from Ravenna
(A.D. 445-700) (University of North Carolina Studies
in the Romance Languages and Literatures 54, Chapel
Hill 1966)
Carnoy A. Carnoy, Le latin d'Espagne d'après les inscriptions 2

(Brussels 1906)
Cessi R. Cessi, Fragmenta histórica ab Henrico et Hadriano
Valesio primum edita [Anonymus Valesianus], i
Muratori (ed.), Rerum Italicarum Scriptores , xx
(Città di Castello 1913)
Cessi, 'Miscellanee storiche' R. Cessi, 'Di due miscellanee storiche medioevali',

Archivio Muratoriano 1 3 ( 1 9 1 3) 7 1 ff.
Cipolla, 'Frasario officiale' C. Cipolla, 'Le vestigia del frasario officiale presso
T'Anonymus Valesianus II" ', Miscellanea in onore
di A. Hortis (Trieste 1910), 919 ff.
Cipolla, 'Ricerche intorno' C. Cipolla, 'Ricerche intorno all'"Anonymus Valesianus

II" ', Bullettino delVIstituto Storico Italiano 1 1 (1892)
7 ff.
Coleman, ' Habeo ' R.G.G. Coleman, The origin and development of Latin
habeo + infinitive", CQ n.s. 21 (1971) 215 ff.
Coleman, 'Vowel system' R.G.G. Coleman, The monophthongization of /ae/

and the Vulgar Latin vowel system', TPS 1971, 175 ff.
Collin C. Collin, 'Zur Geschichte der Nomina actionis im

Romanischen', ALL 13 (1904) 453 ff.
Cooper F.T. Cooper, Word Formation in the Roman Sermo

Plebeius (New York 1895)
Cramer F. Cramer, 'Was heisst "Leute"? 'ALL 6 (1899) 341 ff.
Dahlen E. Dahlen, Etudes syntaxiques sur les pronoms réfléchis

pléonastiques en latin (Göteborg 1 964)
Daube D. Daube, Forms of Roman Legislation (Oxford 1956)
Diez F. Diez, Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen ^ (Bonn

1882)
Eklund S. Eklund, The Periphrastic , Completive and Finite Use

of the Present Participle in Latin (Uppsala 1970)
Elcock W.D. El cock, The Romance Languages (London 1960)
Ernout , Aspects A. Ernou X, Aspects du vocabulaire latin (Paris 1954)

o
Ernout, Morphologie A. Ernout, Morphologie historique du latin (Paris 1 953)
Ernout, Philologica A. Ernout, Philologica (Paris 1946-65)
E-M A. Ernout and A. Meillet, Dictionnaire étymologique

de la langue latine * (Paris 1959)
E-T A. Ernout and F. Thomas, Syn taxe latine ^ (Paris 1953)
xi
Eyssenhardt F. Eyssenhardt (ed.), Ammiani Marcellini rerum
gestarum libri qui supersunt (Berlin 1871)
Fraen kel, Horace E. Fraenkel .Horace (Oxford 1957)
Frick C. Frick, 'Zur Textkritik und Sprache des Anonymus

Valesianus', Commentationes Woelfflinianae (Leipzig
1891), 339 ff.
Funaioli G. Funaioli, 'Der Lokativ und seine Auflösung',

ALL 13(1904)301 ff.
Gaeng P.A. Gaeng, An Enquiry into Local Variations in

Vulgar Latin (University of North Carolina Stud
in the Romance Languages and Literatures 77, C
Hill 1968)
Gardthausen V. Gardthausen (ed.), Ammiani Marcellini rerum

gestarum libri qui supersunt ii (Leipzig 1875)
Garey H.B. Garey , The Historical Development of Tenses

from Late Latin to Old French (Language Disser
no. 51, Linguistic Society of America, 1955)
Geyer, 'Per/ P. Geyer, 'Zur Peregrinatio ad loca sancta 'ALL 4

(1887)611 ff.
Goelzer, 'Saint Aviť H. Goelzer, 'Remarques lexicographiques sur le latin

de Saint Aviť, ALMA 4 (1928) 5 ff.
Corres F. Gòrres, 'Zur Kritik einiger Quellenschriftsteller der

spät.röm. Kaiserzeiť, Jahrb. f class. Philo 1. 111 (187
201 ff.
Gradenwitz O. Gradenwitz, Laterculi Vocum Latinorum (Leipzig

1904)
Grandgent C.H. Grandgent, An Introduction to Vulgar Latin

(Boston 1907)
Grandgent, Italian From Latin to Italian ^ (Cambridge, Mass. 1933)
Grassi C. Grassi, 'Sul cosiddetto criterio del Meyer', A nnali

della Scuola Normale Superiore di ñsa. Lettere , St
e Filoso fiay ser. ii 33 (1964) 135 ff., transi, into G
by R. Schmitt in Strunk, Probleme, 368 ff.
Haag O. Haag, 'Die Latinität Fredegars ' RomForsch 10(1899)

835 ff.
Haida R. Haida, Die Wortstellung in der Peregrinatio ad loca

sancta (Breslau 1928)
xii
Hartmann L.M. Hartmann, 'Anonymus Valesianus',/?/? i 2, 2334
Hayes C.H. Hayes, An Introduction to the Sources relating

to the Germanic Invasions (Columbia University S
in History, Economics and Public Law 33:3, New
1909)
Heraeus W. Heraeus, Die Sprache des Petronius und die Glossen

(Leipzig 1899) = Kleine Schriften (Heidelberg 193
52 ff.
Heraeus, 'Memor' W. Heraeus, 'Der Accusativus nach memor, nescius u.a.',

ALL 15 (1908) 560 ff.
Heraeus, 'Soldatensprache' W. Heraeus, 'Die römische Soldatensprache', >1/,/, 12

(1902) 255 ff. = Kleine Schriften (Heidelberg 1937),
151 ff.
Herman, 'Cur, quare, quomodo" J. Herman, ' Cur , quare , quomodo. Remarques sur
1'evolution des particules d'interrogation en latin
vulgaire', Acta An tiqua A cad. Scient. Hung. 5 (1957)
369 ff.
Herman, 'Diff.' J. Herman, 'Aspects de la différenciation territoriale

du latin sous l'empire, BSL 60 (1965) 53 ff.
Herman, 'Evolution' J. Herman, 'Statistique et diachronie: essai sur l'évolution

du vocalisme dans la latinité tardive', Word 24 (1968)
242 ff.
Herman, Lat. vulg. J. Herman, Le latin vulgaire- (Paris 1970)
Herman, Subord. J. Herman, La formation du système roman des

conjonctions de subordination (Berlin 1963)
Hofmann, 'Beiträge' J.B. Hofmann, 'Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Vulgär-

lateins', IF 43 (1 926) 80 ff.
Hofmann, Umgangs. J.B.Hofmann , Lateinische Umgangssprache^

(Heidelberg 1951)
H-S J.B. Hofmann and A. Szantyr, Lateinische Syntax und

Stilistik (Munich 1965)
Holder-Egger O. Holder-Egger, 'Die Ravennater Annalen', Neues

Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichts
kunde 1 (1876) 215 ff.
Hoogterp, 'Pères du Jura' P.-W. Hoogterp, 'Les vies des pères du Jura. E
sur la langue', ALMA 9 (1934) 129 ff.
Hoppe H. Hoppe, Syntax und Stil des Tertullian (Leipzig

1903)
xiii
Humbert J. Humbert, Syntaxe grecque^ (Paris 1960)
Josephson A Josephson, Casae Litterarum. Studien zum Corpus
Agrimensorum Romanorum (Uppsala 1950)
Krebs-Schmalz J. P. Krebs and J.H. Schmalz, Antibarbarus der

lateinischen Sprache ^ (Basel 1905)
K-S R. Kühner and C. Stegmann, A usführliche

Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache : Satzleh
rev. by A. Thierfelder (Leverkusen 1955)
Kurylòwicz J. Kurytowicz, The Inflectional Categories of Indo-

European (Heidelberg 1964)
Lessing C. Lessing, Scriptorum historiae Augustae Lexicon

(Leipzig 1901-6)
Leumann M. Leumann, 'Part. perf. pass. m'' fui im späteren

Latein', Giotta 1 1 (1921) 192 ff.
Lewis and Short C.T. Lewis and C. Short, A Latin Dictionary (Oxford
1879)
Linde P. Linde, 'Die Stellung des Verbs in der lateinischen

Prosa', Giotta 12 (1923) 153 ff.
Lodge G. Lodg g, Lexicon Piau tinum (Leipzig 1924-33)
B. Löfstedt B. Löfstedt, Studien uber die Sprache der lango bardischen

Gesetze (Uppsala 1961)
Löfstedt, Late Latin E. LÖfstedt, Late Latin (Oslo 1959)
Löfstedt, Per. E. Löfstedt, Philologischer Kommentar zur Peregrinado

Aetheriae (Uppsala 1911)
Löfstedt, Spätlat. Stud. E. Löfstedt, Spät lateinische Studien (Uppsala 1908)
Löfstedt, Synt. E. Löfstedt, Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur

historischen Syntax des Lateins (Lund; vol. ř*, 1942,
vol. ii, 1933)
Löfstedt, Tert. E. Löfstedt, Zur Sprache Tertullians( Lund 1920)
Löfstedt, Verm. Stud. E. Löfstedt, Vermischte Studien zur lateinischen

Sprachkunde und Syntax (Lund 1936)
Lundström S. Lundström, Neue Studien zur lateinischen

Ire näusüber setzung (Lund 1948)
Lyons J. Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics

(Cambridge 1971)
xiv
Marouzeau, L ' ordre I. Marouzeau, L 'ordre des mots dans la phrase latine
(Paris 1922- 53)
Martinet A. Martinet, 'Neutralization', transi, by E.C. Fudge,

in E.C. Fudge (ed.), Phonology: Selected Reading
(Penguin 1973), 74 ff.
Mayen G. Mayen, De particulis quod quia quoniam quomodo

ut pro acc. cum infinitivo post verba sentiendi et
clarandi positis (Kiel 1889)
Meister R. Meister, Die Orakelsprüche im St. Galler Palimpsest-

codex 908 (die sogenannten ' Sortes Sangallenses ')
(Wien 1951)
Meyer-Lübke W. Meyer-Lübke, Grammaire des langues romanes ,

trans, by A. Doutrepont and G. Doutreponi (Paris
1890-1906)
Michel L. Michel, Etude du son "s" en latin et en roman

(Paris 1954)
Moignet G. Moignet, Essai sur le mode subjonctif en latin

postclassique et en ancien français (Paris 1959)
Momigliano, 'Cassiodorus' A. Momigliano, 'Cassiodorus and the Italian culture

of his time', repr. in Secondo Contributo alla Storia
degli Studi Gassici (Rome 1960), 191 ff.
Momigliano, 'Gli Anicif A. Momigliano, 'Gli Anicii e la storiografia latina del

VI sec. d.C.' repr. in Secondo Contributo (see above),
231 ff.
Mommsen T. Mommsen (ed.), Chronica Minora, saec. IV. V. VI.

VII. ' (MGH, Auct. Antiq. ix, Berlin 1892)
M^rland FI. M^rland, lateinischen Oribasiusubersetzungen

( Symb . Osi. Fase. Supplet. 5, Oslo 1932)
Moreau J. Moreau (ed.), Excerpta Valesiana, rev. by V. Velkov

(Leipzig 1968)
Mras K. Mras, 'Assibilierung und Palatalisierung im spateren

Latein', WS 63 (1948) 86 ff.
Müller C.F.W. Müller, Syntax des Nominatīvus und Akkusativus

im Lateinischen (Leipzig and Berlin 1908)
Muller H.F. Muller, A Chronology of Vulgar Latin (Halle 1929)
Musurillo H. Musurillo (ed.), The Acts of the Christian Martyrs

(Oxford 1972)
xv
Nettleship, Contributions H. Nettleship, Contributions to Latin Lexicography
(Oxford 1889)
Neue-Wagener F. Neue and C. Wagener, Formenlehre der lateinischen

Sprache ^ (Leipzig and Berlin 1892-1905)
Nisbet R.G.M. Nisbet (ed.), M. Tulli Ciceronis in L. Calpurnium

Pisonem oratio (Oxford 1961)
Norberg, Adnot. D. Norberg, 'Ad epistulas varias Merovingici aevi ad-

notationes', Eranos 35 (1937) 105 ff.
Norberg, Beiträge D. Norberg, Beiträge zur spät lateinischen Syntax

(Uppsala 1944)
Norberg, Synt. Forsch. D. Norberg, Syntaktische Forschungen auf dem

Gebiete des Spätlateins und des frühen Mittellateins
(Uppsala 1943)
OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford 1968- )
van Oorde W. van Oorde, Lexicon Aetherianum (Amsterdam 1929)
Packard D.W. Packard, A Concordance to Livy (Cambridge,

Mass. 1968)
Palmer L.R. Palmer, The Latin Language (London 1954)
Paucker, 'Hieron.' C. Paucker, 'De particularum quarundam in latinitate

Hieronymi usu observatiohes',^/zAf 37 (1882) 556 ff.
Paucker, SHA C. Paucker, De latinitate Scriptorum Historiae Augustae

meletemata ad apparatum vocabulorum spectantia
(Dorpat 1870)
Paucker, 'Wörterbildungsgeschichte' C. Paucker, 'Materialen zur lateinischen Wö

geschichte, '''-W' ZVSpr 26 (1883) 243 ff.
Pinkster H. Pinkster, On Latin Adverbs (Amsterdam 1972)
Pirson J. Pirson, La langue des inscriptions latines de la

Gaule (Brussels 1901)
Politzer, 'Correctness' R.L. Politzer, 'The interpretation of correctness in

late Latin texts ' Language 37 (1961) 209 ff.
Politzer, 'Emergence' R.L. Politzer, 'On the emergence of Romance from

Latin', Word 5 (1949) 126 ff.
Politzer, 'Final -s' R.L. Politzer, 'Final -s in the Romania', Romanic

Review 38 (1947) 159 ff.
xvi
Politzer, 'Italian plurals' R.L. Politzer, 'On the origin of the Italian plurals',
Romanic Review 43 (1952) 272 ff.
Politzer and Politzer F.N. and R.L. Politzer, Romance Trends in 7 th and
8th Century Latin Documents (University of North
Carolina Studies in the Romance Languages and
Literatures 21 , Chapel Hill 1953)
Posner R. Posner, The Romance Languages: a Linguistic

Introduction (New York 1966)
Pulgram E. Pulgram, The Tongues of Italy (New York 1958)
Ramsden H. Ramsden, Weak-Pronoun Position in the Early

Romance Languages (Manchester 1963)
REW W. Meyer-Lübke, Romanisches etymologisches

Wörterbuch ^ (Heidelberg 1935)
Riemann 0. Riemann, Etudes sur la langue et la grammaire de

Tite-Live (Paris 1885)
Rolfe J.C. Rolfe (ed.), Ammianus Marcellinus (Cambridge,

Mass. 1943-4)
Rönsch H. Rönsch, 'Lexikalische Excerpte aus weniger

bekannten lateinischen Schriften U', RomFor
2 (1 886) 449 ff. = Collectanea Philologica (Bre
1891), 117 ff.
Rönsch, Itala H. Rönsch, Itala und Vulgata (Lobenstein 1874)
Rönsch, Sem. Beitr. H. Rönsch, Semasio logische Beiträge zum lateinischen

Wörterbuch (Leipzig 1887--9)
Rühl F. Rūhl, 'Ueber den Codex Meermannianus des

Anonymus Valesianus', Acta Soc. Phil
(1875) 368 ff.
Safarewicz J. Safarewicz, 'Sur le développement des consonnes

occlusives finales en latin', Eos 54 (1964) 97 ff.
Salonius A.H. Salonius, Vitae Patrum: Kritische Untersuchungen

über Text , Syntax und Wortschatz der spätla
Vitae Patrum (B.III, V, VI VII) (Lund 1920
Samuels M.L. Samuels, Linguistic Evolution, with special

reference to English (Cambridge 1972)
Sas L.F. Sas, The Noun Declension System in Merovingian

Latin (Paris 1937)
xvii
Schön I. Schön, Neutrum und Kollektivum. Das Morphem -a
im Lateinischen und Romanischen (Innsbruck 1971)
Schuchardt H. Schuchardt, Der Vokalismus des Vulgärlateins

(Leipzig 1866-8)
Seelmann E. Seelmann, Die Aussprache des Latein (Heilbronn

1885)
Skahill B.H. Skahill, The Syntax of the Variae of Cassiodorus

(Washington 1934)
Sofer J. Sofer, Lateinisches und Romanisches aus den

Etymologiae des Isidorus von Sevilla (Götting
Solmsen F. Solmsen, Indogermanische Eigennamen als Spiegel

der Kulturgeschichte , rev. by E. Fraenkel (Heidelberg
1922)
Sommer F. Sommer, Handbuch der lateinischen Laut- und

Formenlehre (Heidelberg 1914)
Souter A. Souter, A Glossary of Later Latin (Oxford 1949)
Spence N.C.W. Spence, 'Quantity and quality in the vowel

system of Vulgar Latin', Word 21 (1965) 1 ff.
Stefenelli A. Stefenelli, Die Volkssprache im Werk desPetron im

Hinblick auf die romanischen Sprachen (Wien 1 963)
Stein E.Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire ii (Paris-Brussels-

Amsterdam 1949)
Strunk, Probleme K. Strunk (ed.), Probleme der lateinischen Grammatik

(Darmstadt 1973)
Sturtevant E.H. Sturtevant, 'Some unfamiliar uses of idem and

isdem in Latin inscriptions', CPh 2 (1907) 313 f
Svennung, Comp. Luc. J. Svennung, Compositiones Lucenses. Studien zum

Inhalt , zur Textkritik und Sprache (Uppsala 1941)
Svennung, 'Nebensätze' J. Svennung, 'Lateinische Nebensätze ohne

Subordinationswort', Giotta 22 (1934) 163 ff.
Svennung, Oros. J. Svennung, Syntaktische semasiologische und kritische

Studien zu Orosius (Uppsala 1922)
Svennung, Pall. J. Svennung, Untersuchungen zu Palladius und zur

lateinischen Fach- und Volkssprache (Lund 1935)
Tamassia N. Tamassia, 'Sulla seconda parte dell'Anonimo Valesiano',

Archivio Storico Italiano 7 1 : 2 ( 1 9 1 3) 3 ff.
xviii
Tardif J. Tardif, Monuments historiques , cartons des rois
(Archives de l'Empire) (Paris 1866)
Taylor P. Taylor, The Latinity of the Liber Historiae Francorum

(New York 1924)
Thielmann P. Thielmann, 'Habere mit dem Infinitiv und die Entstehung

des romanischen Futurums', ALL 2 (1885) 48 ff., 157 ff.
Thielmann, Tacere' P. Thielmann, Tacere mit dem Infinitiv', ALL 3 (1886)

177 ff.
Thielmann, 'Usque' P. Thielmann, 'Usque mit Konjunktionen und Adverbien.

Usque ex, ab, de', ALL 6 (1889) 59 ff.
Thomas F. Thomas, Recherches sur le subjonctif latin , histoire

et valeur des formes (Paris 1938)
Thomas, Préverbe ad F. Thomas, Recherches sur le développem

latin ad (Paris 1938)
Tidner E. Tidner, Sprachlicher Kommentar zur lateinischen

Didascalia Apostolorum (Stockholm 1938)
Tidner, SHA E. Tidner, De particulis copulativis apud Scriptores

Historiae Augustae quaestiones selectae (Uppsala 1922)
Tjäder J.-O. Tjäder, Die nichtliterarischen lateinischen Papyri

Italiens aus der Zeit 445- 700 i (Lund 1955)
TLL Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (Leipzig 1900- )
Uddholm A. Uddholm, Formulae Marculfi. Etudes sur la langue

et le style (Uppsala 1953)
Vaananen, Inscript. Pomp. V. Vaananen, Le latin vulgaire des inscriptions

pompéiennes ^ (Berlin 1966)
Vaananen, Introduction V. Vaananen, Introduction au latin vulgaire ^ (Paris 1967)
Vielliard J. Vielliard, Le latin des diplômes royaux et chartes

privées de l'époque mérovingienne (Paris 1927)
Vossler K. Vossler, Geist und Kultur in der Sprache (Heidelberg

1925)
Wackernagel J. Wackernagel, Vorlesungen über Syntax^ (Basel 1926-8)
Waitz G. Waitz, 'Die Ravennatischen Annalen als Hauptquelle

für die Geschichte des Odovakar', Nachrichten v
kgl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der Geo
August's Universität zu Göttingen 1865, 81 ff..
xix
Watkins C. Watkins, 'Preliminaries to the reconstruction of
Indo-European sentence structure', Proc. of th
Internat. Congress ( 1962) of Linguists 1964, 1
repr. in F.W. Householder (ed.), Syntactic Th
(Penguin 1973), 124 ff.
Wõlfflin, 'Festus' E. Wölfflin, 'Das Breviarium des Festus', ALL 13

(1904) 69 ff., 173 ff.
Wölfflin, 'Quadrigarius' E. Wölfflin, 'Die Sprache des Claudius Quadrigarius',

ALL 15 (1908) 10 ff.
Wölfflin, 'Tempus' E. Wölfflin, 'Umschreibungen mit tempus. Frz. mitan',

ALL 8(1893) 595 f.
Wölfflin, 'Usque' E. Wölfflin, 'Usque mit Accusativ', ALL 4 (1887) 52 ff.
Woodcock E.C. Woodcock, A New Latin Syntax (London 1959)
Zangemeister K. Zangemeister, 'Zum Anonymus Valesianus', RhM

30(1875) 309 ff.
xx
2 Texts, etc.
The following list is not exhaustive. It includes texts which are not mentioned in the In
Librorum Scriptorum Inscriptionum to the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae and also a few works
which might not readily be recognized from the abbreviations used. When an abbreviation dif
from that used by the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae , it should be self-explanatory.
Acta Proconsularia Sancii Cypriani See Index 1 , s. v. Musurillo.
Ann. Regni Franc. G.H. Pertz and F. Kurze (edd.), Annales Regni Francorum
inde ab a. 741 usque ad a. 829 (Scriptores Rerum
Germanicarum in usum scho larum ex MGH separa tim editi ,
Hannover 1895)
Auct. Haun. T. Mommsen (ed.), Auctarium Hauniense <in Chronica

Minora i: see Index 1, s.v. Mommsen)
Caesar. Arel. Serm. G. Morin (ed.), Caesarii Arelatensis Opera, Pars I, Sermones -
(i Corpus Christianorum 103, 104, Turnhout 1953)
CGL G. Goetz (ed.), Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum (Leipzig

1888-1923)
Diosc. Lat. H. Stadler (ed.), Dioscorides Longobardus, RomForsch

10(1899) 369 ff.
Edict. Roth. G.H. Pertz (ed.), Edictus Rothari (MGH, Legům tom. iv,
Hannover 1868)
Form. Andec. K. Zeumer (ed.), Formulae Andecavenses (MGH, Formulae

Merowingici et Karolini Aevi, Hannover 1 886)
Fredegar B. Krusch (ed.), Chronicarum quae dicuntur Fredegarii

scholastici libri iv (MGH, Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum
ii, Hannover 1888)
GL H. Keil (ed.), Grammatici Latini (Leipzig 1857-78)
Inscript. Lat. Christ. Vet. E. Diehl (ed.), Inscriptiones Latinae Chr

(Berlin 1925-31)
Leges Liutprandi G.H. Pertz (ed.), Leges Liutprandi (MGH, Legum tom. iv)
xxi
Lex Alamann. K. Lehmann (ed.), Lex Alamannorum ( MGH , Legum
Sectio I: Leges Nationum Germanicarum v, 1, Hannover
1888)
Lex Ribuaria F. Beyerle and R. Buchner (edd.), Lex Ribuaria (MGH,

Legum Sectio 1 : Leg. Nat. German, iii, 2, Hannover 1954
Lib. Hist. Franc. B. Krusch (ed.), Liber Historiae Francorum (MGH,

Script. Rer. Merov. ii)
Marculf. Form. K. Zeumer (ed.), Marculfi Formulae (MGH, Form.

Merow. et Karol. Aevi)
Mart. Matth. M. Bonnet (ed.), Martyrium Matthaei(Acta Apostolorum

Apocrypha ii, 1, Leipzig 1898)
Pact. Leg. Alamann. Pactus Legis Alamannorum (see above, s.v. Lex Alamann.)
Pact. Leg. Sal. K.A. Eckhardt (ed.), Pactus Legis Salicae (65 Titel-Text)
(Göttingen 1955) '
Pass. Sanct. Mart. Fruct. Passio Sanctorum Martyrům Fructuosi Episcopi, Auguri
et Eulogi Diaconorum (see Index 1 , s.v. Musurillo)
Pass. Quir. Teg. B. Krusch (ed.), Passio Quirini Tegernseensis (MGH,

Script. Rer. Merov. iii, Hannover 1896)
Per. Peregrinado Aetheriae
Rav. Pap. Ravenna Papyri (see Index 1 , 5. y. Tjader)
Simp. Med. V. Rose (ed.), ps.-Theodorus Priscianus, De Simplici

Medicina, in Theodoři Prisciani Euporiston libri iii cum
physicorum fragmento et additamentis ps.-Theodoreis
(Leipzig 1894)
Tablettes Albertini C. Courtois, L. Leschi, C. Perrat, C. Saumagne (edd.),

Tablettes Albertini: actes privés de Vépoque vandale,
fin du Ve siècle (Paris 1952)
de Vesicae Vitiis V. Rose (ed.), ps.-Theodorus Priscianus, De Vesicae

Vitiis (see above, s.v. Simp. Med.)
Vita Aridii B. Krusch (ed.), Vita Aridii Abbatis Lemovicini (MGH,

Script. Rer. Merov. iii)
Vita Carileffi B. Krusch (ed.), Vita Carileffi Abbatis Anisolensis

(MGH, Script. Rer. Merov. iii)
Vita Galli Vetust. B. Krusch (ed.), Vitae Galli Vetustissimae Fragmentům

(MGH, Script. Rer. Merov. iv, Hannover and Leipzig
1902)
xxii
Vita Gaugerici B. Krusch (ed.), Vita Gaugerici Episcopi Camaracensis
(MGH, Script. Rer. Merov. iii)
Vita Genovefae B. Krusch (ed.), Vita Genovefae Virginis Parisiensis {MGH,

Vita Lucii Confessons B. Krusch (ed.), Vita Lucii Confessons Curiensis {MGH,
Vita Melan. B. Krusch (ed.), Vita Melanii Episcopi Redonici {MGH,

Vita Remigii B. Krusch (ed.), Vita Remigii Episcopi Remensis auctore

Hincmaro {MGH, Script. Rer. Merov. iii)
Vita Sanct. Arn. B. Krusch (ed.), Vita Sancii Arnulfi {MGH, Script. Rer.
Merov. ii)
Vita Sanct. Balthild. B. Krusch (ed.), Vita Sanctae Balthildis {MGH, Script.
Rer. Merov. ii)
Vita. Sanct. Chlod. B. Krusch (ed.), Vita Sancii Chlodovaldi {MGH, Script.
Rer. Merov. ii)
Vita Sanct. Radegund . B. Krusch (ed.), De Vita Sanctae Radegundis libri ii

{MGH, Script. Rer. Merov. ii)
Vita Servatii B. Krusch (ed.), Vita Servatii vel potius Aravatii Episcopi
Tungrensis {MGH, Script. Rer. Merov. iii)
Vita Sever. B. Krusch (ed.), Vita Severini Abbatis Acaunensis {MGH,

Vita Vedastis B. Krusch (ed.), Vita Vedastis Episcopi A trabatensis

duplex {MGH, Script. Rer. Merov. iii)
Vita et Virtutes Eparchii B. Krusch (ed.), Vita et Virtutes Eparchii Reclusi

Ecolismensis {MGH, Script. Rer. Merov. iii)
xxiii
SYMBOLS
N Noun
V Verb
A Adjective
P Personal Object Pronoun
S Subject
O Object
/ / Phoneme
[ ] Phonetic Transcription
< > Grapheme
{ } Morph
xxv
I
INTRODUCTION
The work known either as Anonymus Valesianus or as the Excerp

first of which, the Origo Constantini Imperatoris , deals with th
the Chronica Theodericiana } with events in Italy from 474 to t
two parts were first published in 1636 by Henri Valois. The only
they appear together in the same MS. (£).3 They were certainly c
can be seen at a glance. The first is written in classicizing Latin,
present work is exclusively concerned, is notable for its highly v
attention from Latinists,4 though it yields important evidence f
neglect may in part be put down to the practice of its editors,5 w
nature of its Latinity and have resorted in varying degrees to unj
text is still lacking, despite the appearance in 1968 of a revised T
which in some respects is inferior to some of the older editions (
After an introduction devoted to some general characteristics o

text and then with the language. I refer throughout to the Chro
1 The Author; Unity of Authorship
The author of II says nothing explicit about himself, the date of the work, or the place where he com-
posed it, though it has usually been assumed that he wrote at Ravenna.6 Despite his silence we can
piece together a good deal about him, for he was strongly opinionated.
The question of the provenance of the work and its date cannot be separated from that of its
unity. It was argued by Cessi ( cxix ff.) from certain inconsistencies that the first part of II (36 - 78) 7
and the second (79-96) were composed by different authors, and this view was accepted by Bury (i,
423 n. 1) and Moreau (vii f.), though not by Momigliano ('Gli Anicii', 235 f.).8 Its adherents point
out that the first part is favourable to Theodoric, while the second is markedly hostile.
There is certainly a change of tone at 79. As at 61 ('dum inlitteratus esset, tantae sapientiae
fuit, ut aliqua, quae locutus est, in vulgo usque nunc pro sententia habeantur') the illiteracy of
Theodoric is mentioned, but whereas at 61 it is seen to be counterbalanced by native wisdom, at 79
we are told that the king was also dull-witted: 'igitur rex Theodoricus inlitteratus erat et sic obruto
senso, ut in decem annos regni suiquattuor litteras subscriptionis edicti sui discere nullatenus potuisseť.
The eulogy delivered at 59-60 ('cuius temporibus felicitas est secuta Italiam per annos triginta ita ut
etiam pax pergentibus esset'), and particularly the words 'nihil etiam perpere gessiť (60), seem to tit
ill with the hostile tone of the later sections: 83 'ex eo enim invenit diabolus locum, quem ad modum
hominem bene rem publicam sine querela gubernantem subripereť; 85 'post hec coepit adversus
Romanos rex subinde fremere'; 86 'sed rex dolum Romanis tendebat et querebat quem ad modum
eos interficereť; 88 'tractans non ut dei amicus sed legi eius inimicus'; 94 'iubente non rege, sed
tyrranno'.
But it would be wrong to think that there are two independent halves, the one favourable and
the other hostile, without any interconnection. In the later sections we are told that the king changed:
the earlier part of his reign had been sine querela (83). Apart from this explicit statement of degen-
eration, there are two other places where degeneration is implied (85, 88).
Moreover a careful reading of the key passage of the first half shows that it is not stated that the
reign of Theodoric was uniformly good. It is misleading to quote the opening words of 60 ('nihil etiam
perpere gessiť) out of context. In the previous section the author asserts that the reign lasted for thirty-
three years, and then adds that 'felicitas est secuta Italiam' for thirty years. It was in these last years
that the change in the king occurred. Already in the first half the author had this period in mind.
It has also been pointed out by Momigliano Qoc.cit.) that a similar picture of degeneration in Theodoric
is given by Procopius.
If these arguments are not conclusive, the linguistic evidence certainly is. The work presents
such a clear linguistic unity that it could only have been written by a single author, though he may of
course have changed sources at 79. 10 The following is a brief summary of the linguistic evidence.
II is a work in which dum has largely replaced cum in all its functions, though it is complemented
by the reinforced cumque (pp. 77 f.). Dum occurs throughout the text. Ac si is always used for
quasi and tamquam , though this is not the standard practice in late texts (p. 78). There is uniformity
in the use of both at and sed , and a distinction of usage between them (pp. 75 f., 79). The particles
autem , vero , igitur, ergo and enim are all used consistently in non-classical ways (pp. 79 f.). De is
preferred throughout to ab and ex (p. 119). The same type of periphrasis for obliviscor and memini
occurs in both halves (pp. 1 14 f.).
The demonstratives (p. 72) provide useful evidence, for even in a short text they are bound to
be common. Iste , though it survives in Romance, is found nowhere in either half. On the other
hand is, which does not survive in Romance, is preferred to all other demonstratives in both halves.
Yet it is avoided throughout in monosyllabic forms, with the exception of two examples of
the formula id est , one in each half. Finally, ipse is always employed in the same way, though various
other uses of the word were current in late Latin. The uniformity in the use of the demonstratives is
undeniable, and it is of considerable significance. No two late texts are exactly alike in their demon-
stratives. The extent to which writers on the one hand are influenced by the spoken registers, and on
the other hand react against them, varies greatly.
Also numerous in II are personal object pronouns. The positioning of these is uniform (pp. 130 ff.).
When pronoun and verb are juxtaposed, the same principle determines the position of the pronoun in
both halves of the work. This principle does not operate in all late texts. On the other hand when
pronoun and verb are not juxtaposed, a literary order occurs with about the same incidence in the two
sections.
The use of coepi + infin. for the perfect (aoristic) occurs in both halves. In this construction the
infinitive always follows coepi (62 (twice), 75 (twice), 76, 85, 93). The pluperfect passive is formed
with fueram rather than eramt but the perfect with sum rather than fui (pp. 66 f.). Perhaps the most
striking syntactic feature of the text, a subliterate use of the present participle superficially function-
ing as a finite verb (pp. 60 ff.), is common to both parts, as Mommsen noted (261). Genitive comple-
ments are without mobility in both halves (p. 140). And in both there are examples of the indicative
used for the subjunctive in subordinate clauses in indirect speech (p. 98).
Little conflicting evidence can be cited. Of the few object clauses (introduced by quia, etc.) for
the acc. c. infin., most are in the later sections; but a special reason for their use will later be seen (p. 94).
Disjunction of the type NVA, where N and A belong together, occurs only in the second half, but it is
infrequent (p. 141). Finally, the ablative of quality (replaced in many late texts by the genitive of
quality) is used only in the second half. But as it occurs only once, its absence from the first part is
insignificant.
These latter phenomena establish nothing: the evidence for unity is overwhelming. The only
variations which can be proved to exist within II - variations of word order1 do not correspond to
the division argued by Cessi. These can be put down to the influence of the writer's sources. A
stylistically simple chronicle lies behind much of the first part down to 56 or 57 (see below, sect. 3)
but thereafter there are signs of a slight increase in stylistic elaboration.
We shall assume then that the whole of II was written by one man, and make what inferences we
can about him. It is especially important for our purposes to determine roughly where and when the
text was written.
12
The author writes as a fanatical Catholic rather than as an Arian, as an Italian rather than as
a Goth, and as a man who respected the authority of the Eastern Emperors.
His Catholicism is evident in both halves of the work. In the first part the strongest praise that
he can give Theodoric is that, though an Arian, he did nothing against the Catholics for most of his
reign: 60 'dum ipse quidem Arrianae secte esset, tarnen nihil contra religionem catholice temptans'.
So when Theodoric went to Rome he 'occurrit beato Petro devotissimus ac si catholicus' (65). 1 3
There is at least a hint that he was tolerant because his mother had been a Catholic, for praise of his
bona voluntas in omnibus (59) immediately follows mention of his mother (58 'mater Ereriliva dicta
Gothica catholica quidem erat, qui in baptismo Eusebia dicta').14
Earlier Odoacar seems to be praised along the same lines as Theodoric, though the Latin is un-
clear: 48 'nam dum ipse esset bonae voluntatis et Arriane secte favore praebereť. There is apparent-
ly a contrast here between the religious toleration of the king and his Arianism.15
In the second half the author not only dwells on Theodoric's alleged hostility to the Catholics,
but also makes generalizing statements of faith. God, he says, does not allow his faithful adherents
to be crushed by heretics (95 'non patitur fideles cultores suos ab alienigenis opprimi'), nor does he
desert the faithful (90). The change in Theodoric is foreshadowed at 80, where the appointment to
the consulship of Eutharicus, who was 'nimis asper ... et contra fidem catholicam inimicus', is
mentioned. Then we are told in a tone of indignation of the favour shown to the Jews as against the
Catholics (81-2), the destruction of the oratory of St Stephen (83), Theodoric's attempts to have
returned by Justin certain former Arians now reconciled to the Catholic faith (88, 91), and of a plan
to destroy Catholic churches (94).
Tamassia (18) suggests that the author may have been a cleric. This is not impossible, but the
evidence supporting the suggestion is inconclusive. Tamassia argues (8 ff.) that in the first part
Theodoric is portrayed as an ideal king in the Christian sense, in that he shows the characteristics of
Solomon. Numerous Biblical passages, to which a cleric would have had easier access than a layman,
are supposedly alluded to. But none of the alleged parallels between the Vulgate and II is convincing.
The Christian terminology which is definitely found in the text (see below, sect. 4) could have been
familiar to anyone.
The imperialistic standpoint of the author is also seen in both halves. Again our arguments con-
cerning unity of authorship are in no way damaged.
The acknowledgment of the authority of the East in the first part is muted rather than explicit.
As Bury (i, 389 n. 2) and Hayes (149) noted, the author had a liking for Zeno. Theodoric's failure
to await the order of Anastasius in having himself named king is duly noted (57 'non spectantes
.iussionem novi principis'). 16 This action can be seen by the reader to conflict in spirit with an earlier
promise to Zeno (49). On the other hand the author makes a point of recording, albeit without
comment, thę king's undertaking to honour decrees of earlier emperors (66).
The statement that Theodoric ruled Italy for thirty-three years (59) is also implicitly imperialistic.
If we date the reign from the battle of Adda in 490, it really lasted for thirty-six years.17 Clearly the
author did not concede to Theodoric the status of ruler in the early years before he was recognized by
Anastasius. It took Theodoric and Anastasius some six years to reach a settlement, but earlier, between
the years 492 and 494, there are signs that Anastasius accorded Theodoric partial recognition.18 It is
from this period that the author dates the reign.
In the second half there is a passage which is imperialistic in tone at 88, where Theodoric's scorn
of Justin is mentioned with obvious disapproval. The author hints that Theodoric's belief that Justin
feared him was foolish.
It may not be possible to prove that the author came from Ravenna, but it is justified to treat II
as the work of an Italian, composed in Italy. Tamassia's view (18) that the author may have been an
orthodox Gothic cleric has nothing to commend it. His standpoint is consistently Italian or Roman.
In the later sections he is indignant not only about measures against the Catholics, but also about
those against Romans (82, 83, 85, 86), and at 82 Catholics and Romans are virtually equated. His
praise of Theodoric at 61 reflects the patronizing attitude of Roman to barbarian: Theodoric is
illiterate, but has the native wisdom which barbarians may have. When at 95 he states that God does
not allow his worshippers to be oppressed by heretics, he uses the word alienigenis for 'heretics'.
This word must have acquired the sense 'heretic'19 because Romans associated heresy with foreigners.
It would appear to be more appropriate in the mouth of an Italian speaking of a Goth than of one
Goth speaking of another.20
Italian composition is also suggested by the author's retailing of popular anecdotes which he him-
self had heard about Theodoric, possibly in Ravenna and certainly in Italy.21 Note especially 61
'aliqua, quae locutus est, in vulgo usque nunc pro sententia habeantur: unde nos non piget aliqua de
multis eius in commemoratione posuisse'. There follows in the same chapter quotation of some of
Theodoric's maxims. Then in 62 comes an anecdote illustrating his wisdom which is disproportionate-
ly long and composed in an unpretentious style 22 without some of the marked linguistic features found
in certain sections taken from the chronicle source (see sect. 3), or in other sections where the author
gives rein to his literary aspirations. It looks like a genuine popular anecdote. At the end of the
chapter he professes knowledge of many other such anecdotes ('sunt eius et multa alia').
It has also been shown by Cipolla ('Frasario officiale') that the author was familiar with the
official phraseology and propaganda themes of the court of Theodoric.23 It can be added that
an obviously vogue usage of sanguis which appears three times in the work (38, 43, 55) can be
explained from Cassiodorus (see below, p. 102). It had undoubtedly found its way into the
official language of the day.
Finally, the author's attitude to the appointment of Symmachus as Pope is of interest. In 498
two Popes had been elected: Laurentius, supported by the party which favoured reconciliation with
the Eastern Church, and Symmachus, supported by the Orthodox who opposed compromise.24 In
499 Theodoric intervened in favour of Symmachus in an attempt to settle the continuing dissension,
and at 65 in our text Symmachus is pronounced the worthy victor in the dispute. This may be a
haphazard value-judgment to which no importance should be attached, but it does seem to stamp
the author as an orthodox Italian who, despite his acknowledgment of the supremacy of the Eastern
Emperors, would have opposed ecclesiastical union with the East.25
It will be assumed in the rest of this book that II is a vulgar text from Italy.
2 Date of Composition
Those who believe in dual authorship place the composition of 36-78 before the death of
Theodoric,26 but that of 79-96 after. The reasoning behind this dating of 36-78 is obscure.
Although Cessi (< clxv ) rightly rejects the expression ipsius tempore (73) as implying a time
of writing after Theodoric (the narrative is objective), there is some other evidence which, even
assuming duality of authorship, indicates that 36-78 was written after Theodoric. In the first
place, as has been pointed out above, it is stated at 59 that the reign of Theodoric lasted for thirty-
three years. Since a person writing before his death would obviously have not made such a state-
ment, the dualist would have to devise a complicated hypothesis to explain the item. Secondly,
at 61 we are told that the popular anecdotes related about Theodoric survived usque nunc. These
are the words of a man who collected anecdotes after the death of Theodoric.
How long after the time of Theodoric II was written it is impossible to determine on objective
grounds, though most scholars have agreed in dating it to about the middle of the sixth century or
slightly before.27 It is generally felt that such a work could not have been written long after the
events which it describes. There follows some speculation which is not claimed to be decisive.
The strength of the author's feelings, and in particular of his hostility to Theodoric once he
acted against Catholics and Romans, seems to indicate that he had experienced at first hand the
rule of the Goths. As we have seen, it was his view that the supremacy of the East must be acknow-
ledged, but under the right type of ruler Gothic rule in Italy was tolerable. But this concern about
the correct modus vivendi between East and West is more often implied than explicitly stated.
Such implied concern is more appropriate to a man who had lived under the Goths and actively
considered the Goth-Roman relationship than to one drawing exclusively on written sources at
a much later date. The reckoning of Theodoric's rule at thirty-three years is a particularly good
case of an implicitly imperialistic assertion which a later writer would surely have had to explain.
The favour shown at 65 to Symmachus is also suggestive. Since a reconciliation with the
Eastern church was effected in the third decade of the sixth century,28 we seem to have the
sentiments of a man who had reached adulthood between about 500 and 520, when the schism
was still alive. A writer with an imperialistic bias working at a remove from the events would be
less likely to pronounce for a Pope who had stood in opposition to the East, than would a writer
who himself had experienced the schism. Pro-Symmachan and imperialistic feelings were not at
the time inconsistent (see n. 25).
If the assumption is made that the author intended his work for publication, we cannot fail
to be struck by the freedom with which he expresses anti-Gothic feelings in the later sections.
When Cassiodorus published his Variae in 537 at a time when the issue of the struggle between
the Goths and the Emperor was in doubt, he was careful to cut out anything that could offend
either party.29 Since our author is not so careful, it is credible that he wrote at a time when
the Emperor was in the ascendancy. It is also tempting to see in the generalizing assertion at
95 that God does not allow his worshippers to be crushed by heretics a confidence in the superior
strength of the East. The most likely period of composition seems to be the middle of the century,
either immediately after the expedition of Narses, or when it was imminent.
It will be accepted here that the traditional date is the most plausible. A writer working in
the middle of the century might himself have lived under Theodoric, and formed the attitudes
which we have seen and acquired at first hand some of the information which he gives.
31
Linguistic evidence can establish nothing definite concerning the date of a late text. Even
a poorly educated writer aspires to a literary style, and rejects many usages which must have been
current in the spoken language. Each late text presents a different blending of fossilized formal
devices on the one hand with vulgarisms on the other (see below, sect. 4). The nature of the blend
depends on the learning of the author. Hence there is no regular progression of the literary language
which would enable us to date any text precisely (see further below, sect. 5).
3 Literary Character and Sources
Parts of II are written in the chronicle style represented elsewhere, for example, by Cassiodorus'
Chronica , Marcellinus' Chronicon and the Fasti Vindobonenses. It has been established by Waitz and
32
Holder-Egger that there existed an annalistic source, sometimes referred to as the Fasti Ravennates ,
which was extensively used by a large number of works dealing with Italian affairs of the fifth and
sixth centuries.33 Detailed verbal correspondences between II and other chronicles, notably parts of
Agnellus and the Fast. Vind show that sometimes II closely followed the lost source, and was stylistic-
ally influenced by it.
It will be shown in Chapter VI that sections 49-56 differ markedly in word order from the rest,
and particularly the later sections, of II. Now a glance at Mommsen's parallel texts shows that it is
precisely in these sections that II has most correspondences with various other chronicles. Clearly the
peculiarities of this part are due to the employment of the stylistically unpretentious Fast.Rav. as a
main source.34
The stylistic features of 49-56 are worthy of description, since they are determined by the genre
or the source.35 But first we may note the main verbal correspondences between this section and
other chronicles:
50 fugit et abiit in Veronám Fast . Vind. Prior. 639 et fugit Odoacar rex de
fossato et abiit in Beronam
54 hoc consule exiit Odoacar rex de Ravenna 640 eo anno ingressus est Odoacar rex in fossatum
nocte, cum Herulis ingressus in Pinetam , Erulis in pinita
in fossato patricii Theoderici
ib. et ceciderunt ab u traque parte exercitus ib. et occisus est Libila mag. mil. et ceciderunt
et fugiens Levila magister militum Odoacris populi ab utraque parte
occisus est in fluvio Bedente
55 sie ingressus est Theodericus 647 et ingressus est drîïïs Theodoricus in Ciassem36
ib. igitur coactus Odoacar dedit filium suum Agnellus p. 321 et dedit Odovacer Theodorico
Thelane obsidem Theoderico filium obsidem V Kai.37
56 cuius exercitus in eadem die iussu Theo- ib. postquam iubente Theodorico interfectus
derici omnes interfecti sunt est Odovacer38
One of the most remarkable characteristics of 49-56 and of some of the other chronicles is the
o û
frequency of subject-verb inversion. Compare the following passages:
53 tunc venerarti Wisigothae in adiutorium Theoderici et facta est pugna super fluvium
Adduam, et ceciderunt populi ab utraque parte, et occisus est Pierius comes domesticorum
III idus Augustas, et fugit Odoacar Ravennani, et mox subsecutus est eum patricius Theo -
dericus veniens in Pinetam et fixit fossatum, obsidens Odoacrem clausum per triennium
Ravenna, et factum est usque ad sex solidos modius tritici.
Fast. Vind. Prior. 640 eo anno ingressus est Odoacar rex in fossatum Erulis in pinita et
occisus est Libila mag. mil. et ceciderunt populi ab utraque parte et clausit se Ravenñ
Odoacar rex VI idus lul. et regressus est rex Theodericus in Ticino.
Agnellus pp. 319, 321 et factus est terrae motus magnus valde gallorum cantu VII Kal.
Ianuarii ... et dedit Odovacer Theodorico fìlium obsidem V Kal
occidit Odovacrem rex in palatio in Lauro cum comitibus

Theodorico interfectus est Odovacer.
Apart from similarities of word order, the chronicles show

the contexts do not correspond. The same expressions, clearly
ly. Not all of the formulae concerned in II are confined to 4
influence elsewhere in the work. Note e.g.
a 50 'ceciderunt populi ab utraque parte' (cf. 53); 54 'cec

cf. Fast. Vind. Prior. 640 'ceciderunt populi ab utraque parte
b 53 'facta est pugna' (cf. 50 'pugna facta'); cf. Fast. Vind.

'pugna facta est'; Auct. Haun . a. 493.2 'pugna facta est'.
c 53 'occisus est Pierius'; cf .Fast. Vind. Prior. 620 'occi

Bravila'; 640 'occisus est Libila'; 649 'occisus est Odoacar re
d 59 'qui regnavit annos XXXIII'; cf. Cass. Chron. 1035

regnavit annis XIIII'; 1251 'qui regnavit annis VII' (cf. e.g.
e 84 'duo (dracones) de occidente in orientem ferri in nub

Chron. 826 'ignis in cáelo ab occidente in orientem ferri visus
f 82 'quae incendio concremaverunt'; cf. Cass. Chron . 848
g 78 'extremam clausit diem'; cf. Iohann. Chron. a. 583

'diem clausit extremum'.
At 84 it is possible to solve a textual problem by reference to another formula which occurs in

two chronicles (see p. 34).
Finally, the repeated use of the title patricius with the proper name Theodericus in 49-56 (49,
51, 52, 53, 54)40 is a trait shared with the Fast. Vind., Auct. Haun. and Cass. Chron. 41
10
4 Latinity
II, along with various other late works, will be referred to for convenience as a 'vulgar text'. Since
this term is controversial and liable to misinterpretation, it must be explained briefly.
A 0
Scarcely any written text can bear much resemblance to the spoken language of its writer.
Any speaker, whether well or poorly educated, will have at least two registers, one colloquial, the
other formal. When he takes up his pen he will lapse into words and expressions which may not be
part of his everyday vocabulary and which he may not even understand, but which seem to him
appropriate to the formality of writing. The great majority of the late texts which will be called
'vulgar' were composed by writers aspiring to formality in this way. They are not a true record of
genuine Vulgar Latin, which in its strictest sense may be defined as the Latin which evolved at the
level of speech into the Romance languages. We are taken closest to Vulgar Latin by graffiti, glosses
and a few special texts such as Petronius' Cena Trimalchionis , in which a deliberate attempt is made
to record the speech of freedmen. But the value even of this work is open to doubt, 43 since it may
have an element of burlesque. Certain expressions, perhaps regarded as amusing by Petronius, recur
constantly. And there is hardly any evidence of the changes in the vowel system which are already
apparent at Pompeii.
By the sixth century, though the classicizing literary varieties of Latin were still successfully
cultivated by the educated, at the subliterate level forms of proto-Romance must have been develop-
ing.44 Indeed by this period there have appeared in the texts which we possess, if only sporadically,
many of the lexical, phonological, morphological and syntactic features of Romance. A vulgar text
is a text written by someone whose ordinary speech would have been one of the subliterate varieties
of Latin evolving into Romance. This we infer from the profusion of Romance features which it
contains. But in addition it will contain many classical or formal features, perfectly or imperfectly
understood. Since there is bound to be in any work written by a half-educated writer a certain
amount of misunderstood classical Latin, a vulgar text may to some extent consist of barbarized
classical Latin. Vulgar Latin in the strict sense, however, should not be regarded as a degenerate
form of classical Latin. The fossilized literary registers on the one hand, and the constantly changing
subliterate registers on the other, are in any language quite distinct: the latter do not evolve out of
the former.
It will be assumed that there are three types of 'vulgarism' in vulgar texts. In the first place, a
proto-Romance (but non-classical) usage may be called 'vulgar', for want of a better name. The term
implies that the usage had its main existence at the subliterate level: it rarely occurs in genuine literary
Latin. Secondly, I use the term of a classical usage, not surviving in Romance, which is misunderstood
and perverted by its user. The usages par excellence in II which fall into this category are the ablative
absolute and the present participle. Thirdly, there undoubtedly existed at any period many subliterate
usages which were eventually discarded by the spoken registers. If they find their way into writing
they can be seen to be subliterate or vulgar from their distribution. The student of late Latin soon
becomes aware of many usages restricted to vulgar texts yet not reflected in Romance.
11
Since most vulgar texts have literary or formal pretensions to a marked degree, they show little
sign of the regional differentiation which must surely have been occurring by the sixth century in the
Romania.45 The conservatism of writing was such that vulgarisms of the first type above are not
numerous enough to give more than a glimpse of dialectalization. In II there is little which could
be called 'proto-Italian' as distinct from proto-Romance in general (but see below, pp. 40, 47).
II is a perfect example of a vulgar text. It contains vulgarisms of all three types, yet it also has
formal features which the author must have felt suitable to a historical work. As a Catholic he uses
certain words and expressions from the language of the Church. Since he was apparently at home in
sixth-century Ravenna, he is able to employ current officialese. He also uses various traditional
literary words and expressions.
The vulgarisms in the work will not be summarized here, for they form the subject of most of
the rest of this book. I conclude with brief mention of some of the formal elements.
At 88 the expression confidens in brachio combines two Christian idioms. For confìdens in (a
Grecism) see TLL IV.208.39 ff., and for brachium in the sense 'strength', TLL 11.21 59.37 ff.
Devotissimus (65) was well domiciled in Christian Latin ( TLL V.l. 884.34 ff.). The construction
dignatus est + infin. (76 'coepit gratias deo referre, qui ei dignatus est revelare succesorem'), a
deferential formula for describing a concession made or favour shown by God or a Christian, was
also in common use among Christians (see e.g. van Oorde, 55Z>). On the combination of Christian
idioms at 75 ('coepit cogitare intra se et dicere'), see below, p. 28.
The most notable example of officialese not mentioned by Cipolla is the use of sanguis = 'life'
(p. 102). The archaism cunctus employed as an epithet of senātus (65, 85) can be paralleled in
some roughly contemporary official documents from Ravenna, the Rav. Pap.46 Finally, various
empty superlatives in the work probably belonged to the official language (p. 70).
Of the traditional literary Latin in II, we may mention the use of is (p. 70) and hie (p. 70),
of interficio for oeeido (56, 92), reperto for invenio (46), pergo for eo (pp. Ill f.), and perhibeo
(p. 1 13 f.). There are examples of disjunction of the type AVN (NVA), and of personal pronouns
placed in the traditional enclitic position (pp. 131, 141). The ablative absolute was undoubtedly
a literary construction at the time of writing (pp. 99 f.), as too was the introductory present
participle (pp. 60 ff.). The author sometimes attempted to improve on his source stylistically
by introducing the latter construction where it had apparently not been found in the source:
36 'mox veniens Ravennam, quem persequens Orestis patricius cum exercitu, metuens Nepus ad-
ventům Orestis, ascendens navem fugam petit ad Salonam et ibi mansit per annos quinqué'; cf.
Fast . Vind. Prior. 615 f. 'p.c. Leonis iun. Aug. his cons, introivit Ravennam patricius Orestes cum
exercitu et fugavit Nepos ad Dalmatias V kl. Septemb.'.
12
5 Did the Scribe of B Vulgarize the Text?
It might be argued that although II was written in the sixth century, its Latin was barbarized
in the ninth century by the scribe of B. But although copyists habitually introduce orthographic
vulgarisms (involving usually the change of single letters), it would be another matter to accept that
the scribe introduced syntactic and lexical vulgarisms (involving the change of words, phrases and
whole constructions) on an extensive scale. II is so permeated with vulgarisms that if originally it
had been composed in learned Latin, we should have to suppose that it had been not merely copied
in the ninth century, but rewritten. If on the other hand the Latin had originally been semi-literate
and the scribe then introduced a few additional vulgarisms (a far more likely possibility), then we
should still be dealing essentially with a sixth century vulgar text. However even if every vulgarism
in the text were due to the scribe, the value of the work would be undiminished: it would simply
be a ninth rather than a sixth century sample of non-learned Latin.
Although linguistic evidence tells us nothing very specific about the date of a late text (see above,
p. 8), the language of II does seem more appropriate to the sixth century than to the ninth. More-
over there is a consistency about the Latin which does not savour of sixth century composition follow-
ed by secondary vulgarization in the ninth century. I hold to the view that II is a sixth century vulgar
text with at most only occasional vulgarisms (lexical and syntactic) imported later. The following
linguistic evidence, though not decisive, is suggestive. Full details will be found later in the book.
The pluperfect passive (aoristic) is always formed with fueram (or fumem ) rather than eram , but
the aoristic perfect with sum rather than fui This situation prevails in texts of roughly the fourth to
the seventh century (e.g. the SHA , the Rav. Pap.). Later past participle + fui encroached on past parti-
ciple + sum and is reflected in Romance (see below, pp. 30 f., 67).
It is chiefly on the ablative and to a lesser extent the dative that prepositional expressions have
encroached in II. The genitive is intact. The same situation is found in Cassiodorus (sixth century),
but later expressions with de can be quoted not only with partitive but also with possessive function
(e.g. Edict Roth . 197) (see below, p. 51).
Mitto and iacto co-exist in II with the sense 'throw', I have shown elsewhere ('Put-throw' 160)
that such co-existence is typical of the sixth century. By the seventh century in Italy and Gaul iacto
had largely ousted mitto , which survives with the weakened sense 'put' (see below, p. 1 10).
The classical pluperfect subjunctive survives as the Romance imperfect. There are signs in II of
the encroachment of the pluperfect on the imperfect, but the latter still predominates. By contrast
in the first edition of the Armales Regni Francorum (which describes Frankish events in the second
half of the eighth century) the pluperfect has made dramatic inroads on the imperfect (see below,
p. 68).
Final /-s/ is intact in II, though it is lost in Italian. Evidence of its loss has been found in Italian
documents of the seventh and eighth centuries (see below, p. 46).
13
The opposition 'motion towards' - 'motion from' towns etc. is expressed by phrases of the type
Romam de Ravenna venit in II. But eventually 'motion towards' also came to be expressed by pre-
positions. There is no sign of this development in II, which exhibits exactly the same form of
opposition as that found in Cassiodorus (see below, pp. 55 f.).
Finally, the passive infinite structure past participle + esse has made no inroads on the synthetic
present passive infinitive (except as an aspectually motivated variant). By the eighth century, however,
the process of displacement was in evidence, as Muller (76 f.) shows (see below, pp. 65 f.).
See further on reperire = reperiri (p. 65), the oblique case (p. 52), and the use of the diphthongal
spelling< ae >(pp. 43 ff.).
14
II
THE TEXT
The earlier of the two MSS. of the Anon, . Val is now known as the Cod. Berolinensis Meermann-
Phillipps 1885 (designated B here). It belongs to the ninth century. The codex contains an
historical miscellany which includes extracts from Isidore, Jordanes, Paul the Deacon and others
and forms a type of universal history.2 Both parts of the Anon. Val are found in this codex.
The only other MS. is the Cod. Vaticanus Palatinus Latinus 927 (designated P). It too is an
historical miscellany, corresponding closely but not exactly to B in contents.3 It does not con
I, which in B is in a different hand from that of II and may have been a late addition to the co
In this chapter I discuss the relationship between B and P , and then deal with most of the
textual problems in II. It will be argued that, even if it is not possible to prove that P is derived
directly from B , P is the work of a regularizing scribe who changed the received text of II con-
siderably. Hence it is necessary to be circumspect in using P as a basis for regularizing. We shall
also see that where editors have regularized, they have sometimes done so in the face of agreem
between B and P. No modern text of II is much like that which the original author would hav
written. An adequate establishment of the text cannot be divorced from a consideration of its
Latinity. II is a typical vulgar text, even in the form in which it appears in modern editions,
and as such it must be compared in language with other vulgar texts from late antiquity.
A principle which has sometimes been disregarded must be laid down at the outset. It is
possible (though not likely) that II consists of excerpts from a larger work.5 Indeed this possi-
bility seems to have acquired the status of fact with the adoption by some editors of the title
Excerpta Valesiana. Now if it is assumed that the work is an epitome, it is the task of an editor
to establish the text as it was put together by the epitomator. Moreau sought to justify his
regularizing on the grounds that vulgarisms in the text were likely to be those of the epitomato
rather than of the original author.6 But if an epitomator has been at work, it must be accepted
that the Latin of the original author is irretrievably lost. Epitomators do not necessarily pre-
serve the language of the original. A case in point are the Excerpta Monacensia of ps.-Quintili
Declamationes Maiores , which are linguistically very different from the complete declamations
15
1 The Relationship between B and P
The question of the relationship between B and P has been much debated, and may well be incapable
of solution. However it is at least possible to demonstrate a feature of P which, though of crucial
importance in the editing of the text, has been disregarded. But first we may consider the main views
concerning the tradition.
Mommsen (260) thought that P was derived from B via an intermediary now lost: 'nihilominus
Palatinum mihi constitit derivátům esse ex Berolinensi, scilicet per interpositum exemplum hodie
deperditum ex Berolinensi c. a. 843 descriptum, fortasse ab ipso eo librario, qui Berolinensem exaravit
vel socio eius et collega'. Cipolla, after a long and careful discussion ('Ricerche intorno' 30 ff.),
inclined to the same opinion (50). But Mommsen and Cipolla did not prove their case. B and P do
have a large number of shared errors, as Cipolla showed; but these, while establishing that the two
MSS. are not genuinely independent, could mean rather that both are derived from the same corrupt
source.
An interesting contribution to the problem was made by Cessi, who argued that
descendant of B but was copied from a lost MS. (C) which itself was an independent
source of B. Cessi was followed by Moreau (ix f.). According to this hypothesis, (C
consulted by the second hand in B , for there are some 60-70 places in II where B ^
diverging from B Moreau's stemma (cf. Cessi, ix) is as follows (x):
B
I - - - - I - - - - P
In P a number
made from th
in P, the secon
scribe had fou
argument is in
notthat of a m
thereare place
them to their
same places. Qe
The most imp

Sontio, et ibi
find in the ma
sentence has al
17
at vero (which is nowhere used in II)9 implies. But Cessi (xii) noted that P omitted 'Zeno ... (50)
fugiť and inserted a passage from Jordanes before picking up our text again at abiit. After the sub-
stitution it was necessary to express the subject: hence P, like BČ, added at vero Odoachar abiit.
There can be no doubt that at this point both BČ and P used a MS. other than B.
But Cessi has not proved the existence of (C) as a MS. independent of B. It is equally plausible
that B itself was copied and modified in the ninth century,1 0 and that this copy was the source of P
and was consulted by BČ. Mommsen allowed for the possibility of an intermediary of this kind.
The only other evidence which could bear on the position of (C) in the tradition would of course
be provided by superior readings in P , and these have never been fully assembled or assessed. If they
are significant, they would obviously give good reason for accepting Cessi's stemma.
Most of them consist of the regularizing of non-classical spellings caused by the phonological
changes in late and Vulgar Latin, and of the elimination of morphological anomalies. 1 Such changes
could easily be made by a regularizing scribe with a grasp of classical Latin. Moreover some corrupt
passages where P has the correct reading are either not altered by B or, if altered, are not corrected.
In such cases there is a strong possibility that the scribe of P was emending himself rather than draw-
ing on an authority independent of B and accessible to B In the following discussion much evidence
will be given to show that this scribe frequently emended or regularized himself.
The places where P or B^ introduce something more than orthographic or morphological normali-
zation are as follows:
a 74 se conlocaverunt P : saeculi caverunt B P: saeclõ caverunt Z?e12
This is a case where P has a correct reading in a passage unsuccessfully emended in B. The reflexive
se collocare gives the required sense ('duo enim in alio amore fraterno se conlocaverunt' = 'lie down'),
and was also undergoing just such specialization as this in late Latin in anticipation of Fr. coucher: 1
cf. e.g. Ant. Brüx. 37 4sero qua hora se collocai'; ps.-Plin. Med. 2.14.7 'cum se collocai'. It looks as
if P itself was responsible for the change.
b 83 diabolus /?: malignusP
Phas simply substituted the most common of late Latin euphemisms for the devil.14
c 93 adeptus demonio 2?1 : adeptus daemonio B areptus a demonio P

P is undoubtedly right, as will be shown below (p. 25), though the two editors who assign independent
authority to P (Cessi, Moreau) retain adeptus .15 It is of note that though the second hand in B makes
a change,16 the corrupt adeptus is not altered. Again an emendation seems to have been made by P.
d 85 inventa (occansione) B : facta P
The multi-purpose term facio has replaced invenio. Such a change is not significant, for facio shows a
marked tendency in late Latin to encroach on the sphere of more specific verbs;17 ascribe could easily
commit a slip of this kind.
e 93 revertens igitur Iohannes B ^ P: igitur om. B 1
This passage lends more support to Cessi's view than any of those so far mentioned.18 Igitur could be
genuine, for the author elsewhere sometimes begins a sentence with the pattern present participle +
particle + noun, or its reverse: 88 rediens igitur <r>ex; 92 metuens vero rex ; 49 Zeno itaque recom-
pensam.
18
But it is at least equally possible that an observant scribe ( B ^ or its source) added igitur on
stylistic grounds (perhaps modelling himself on the structure of the phrase metuens vero rex in
the preceding sentence, or on the similar expression at 88 quoted above), for it is more common
for the author to juxtapose the noun with its present participle, even when an adverb is used
in the immediate context: 3 6 persequens Orestis; metuens Nepus; 42 Zeno confortam', 43
Basiliscus fitgiens; 54 fugiens Levila ; 62 veniens sponsus matm ; 82 mox Iudei currentes ; 86
tunc Cyprianus haesitans', 93 ergo euntes populi' 93 videntes populi Note that at 82, 86 and
93 the author has chosen not to insert an adverb between the noun and present participle.
With the possible insertion of igitur here, compare that of autem in the next passage.
f At 37 P has 'superveniens autem Odoachar . . . occidit Orestem', which makes

excellent sense and shows the same stylistic feature as that mentioned above (pres. part. +
adv. + noun). B has an accusative expression {supervenientem Oduvacrem ) without an
intervening autem But although Gardthausen, Cessi and Moreau follow P, it is better to
adopt, with Mommsen and Eyssenhardt, the simple emendation of Henri Valois {super-
veniente Odovacre ), for the second hand in B is in evidence in the passage and it makes
no attempt to remove the accusative {Odo + aerem B^). The nominative with the added
autem is therefore likely to be an emendation by P rather than a superior reading taken
from (C). Moreover the principle utrum in alterum abiturum erat can be applied here.
The corruption of the ablative absolute into an accusative is easily explicable, for <m>
in final position is both dropped often by scribes and added falsely where it does not
belong. On the other hand it is difficult to see how the reading of P could have been
corrupted into that of B .
The fact that the subject of the ablative absolute is the same as that of the main verb
in no way tells against the emendation to ablative absolute, depite Cessi's belief that it is 'un
evidente errore grammaticale' {xxii). Cf. 49 'ergo superveniente Theoderico patricio de
civitate Nova cum gente Gothica, missus ab imperatore Zenone de partibus Orientis ad
defendendam sibi Italiani', where the verb in the ablative absolute {supervenid) is the same
as that in our passage. Such ablative absolutes are found even in classical Latin, and are
common in late Latin.19
g At 62 B reads 'quidam defunctus est et reliquid uxorem et parvulum filium ne-

scientem matrem. ab aliquo sublatus est filius', which is retained by Eyssenhardt, Gard-
thausen, Mommsen, Rolfe and Moreau, despite its obvious absurdity. The circumstances
under which a man could die and leave a wife and a son who did not know his mother
would be very special indeed, and there is no indication that such is the case here. The
obvious correction is nesciente matre { P ^), with a stop after filium (so Cessi): 'without
the knowledge of the mother, the son was taken away'. Nesciente is almost formulaic
in ablative absolute constructions.20
Here we may have another emendation by P. That the scribe found an accusative
in his source is suggested by the reading of P 1 {nesciente matrem).
h 72 aliae gentes B>° 21 : alie gentes B^: om. P. : del B^
The crude repetition of gentes ('sic enim oblectavit vicinās gentes, ut se illi sub foedus
darent, aliae gentes sibi eum regem sperantes') is not impossible in a work such as this. The
stylistic improvement effected by the deletion was within the capabilities of a scribe of
moderate intelligence.
19
i 62 dicebat regressui : regressum se P
Elsewhere in II in acc. c. infin constructions the subject accusative is always either omitted or
placed before the infinitive, 22with one exception, and that perhaps significant: 90 'iubet ergo rex
iratus navem fabricari et superinpositum euiri. As in our passage, the infinitive consists of a perfect
participle with ellipse of esse . It may be no accident that there are only 2 instances in the work
of this type of infinitive in an acc . c. infin. , and that both have the same sort of ellipse and a post-
poned accusative.
j 87 ina++tor+etio B 1 : inaudito Boetio B ^ P
Another difficult restoration for a scribe without access to an independent source. However
Boethius is named in the preceding sentence, and the nature of the events was well known and is
also obvious from the context.
k At 47 in a quotation of Eugippius B reads 'ergo vir dei tantis itaque eius adloquiis per
litteras invitatur, Ambrosium quendam exulantem rogat absolvi'. P , however, has invitatus for
invitatur , and such is the reading found in the MSS. of Eugippius. This is the most impressive
correct reading which P provides. A scribe copying from B would have had no need to emend,
for invitatur gives a good sense and matches the following present verb. Nor did P know the
text of Eugippius, for it shares with B a number of corruptions in the quotations at 46 and 47.23
1 At 88, where B ^ reads 'die ei inter alia, ut reconciliatus in catholica restituât religione',
B^ adds hereticos after reconciliatus 24 and P retains hereticos but adds nequaquam after it.
It is obvious that B ^ has interpolated, and that P has further interpolated to remove an imagined
inconsistency.
m 47 litteras ad eum diligens B : dirigens P Eug.
Only a minimal change was required to correct the text of B. Litteras dirigo is a common
phrase.2
In the passages discussed here, P(ox B^) is probably wrong at 83 ( malignus ), 85 {facta ),
37 ( superveniens autem Odoacar) and 88 ( hereticos nequaquam ), and perhaps wrong at 93 (, igitur ).
The correct readings which either or both have are at 74 (se conlocaverunt ), 93 ( areptus ), 62 (ne-
sciente ma tre, regressum se ), 87 (inaudito Boetio) and 47 (i invitatus , dirigens ). Of these, those
at 62, 74 and 93 appear to be emendations made by the scribe of P. Dirigens (47) and alie gentes
(72) tell us nothing.
The items which may be significant are inaudito Boetio , regressum se and invitatus , but
estimation of the importance of these will vary. It may well be that Cessi's reconstruction of
the tradition is right, but the case is far from proven. The first emendation could conceivably
have been worked out from the context, and the second represents an easy enough change, even
if the correct position of se has been adopted. The value of invitatus is diminished by the fact
that it is confined to Ę a MS. written by a scribe with a penchant for emendation and with some
ability. The motivation for the slight alteration involved could have been the desire to remove
sentence-asyndeton.
The possibility must remain open that P is derived from B via an intermediary in which
certain substitutions were made.
20
2 Regularizaron in P
Cessi {xvii) treated P as of equal importance to B in the establishment of the text, and in this he was
followed by Moreau (x).26 But even if it is assumed that (C) was not a descendant of B , B ^ and P
have a characteristic, overlooked by Cessi and Moreau, which minimizes their value to an editor.
There is abundant evidence to show that they contain hyperurbane alterations or foolish emendations
which are impossible or at least unnatural to the language of the rest of the work. Some of these
alterations are shared by Bp- and P, and hence could derive from a common source, but most are con-
fined to P , whose emendations have already been touched on above. Once we have detected the
presence of unacceptable regularizaron in B^ and P - whether its source be the scribes themselves,
a MS. derived from B or a MS. independent of B - their reliability must be called in question. It is
always necessary to be wary of accepting a convenient classical usage in B ^ or P, especially where B
has a usage which is well attested in vulgar texts.
In P it is often possible to observe the scribe himself in the act of emending, for there are places
where he first produces the same reading as 2?, only to correct it at a later stage. These corrections,
though unacceptable, have sometimes found their way into the editions of Cessi and Moreau.
The following are the main examples of false corrections:
a A good example occurs in P at 84, where sunt is inserted after the perfect participle
praecipitati : 'duo de occidente in orientem ferri in nubibus a populo visi sunt et in mari precipitati3
(B). When two perfect passive verbs stand in co-ordination it is standard practice for one of the
auxiliaries to be omitted: 36 'et factus est episcopus et Nepus factus imperator Rome'; 52 'missi
sunt in ferro et adducti Rav'; 62 'ab aliquo sublatus est fìlius eius parvulus et ductus in aliam
provintiam'. There are no exceptions to this rule in II, though at 62 a perfect passive and a perfect
deponent both retain their auxiliaries, no doubt because they were felt to differ in kind. It is
noteworthy that in the three passages quoted the auxiliary is expressed with the first participle
rather than the second, as in B's version of our example.
The same scribe later altered to praecipitari , a fact which shows clearly that he did not have the
second sunt in his source. This emendation is also linguistically unacceptable. The literary word
order infin. + governing verb + infin. is not found in II, where pairs of infinitives depending on the
same verb regularly follow it (cf. 62, 69, 74, 75).
P also inserts an auxiliary at 87: 'tunc Albinus et Boetius dueti sunt in custudiam'. The scribe
first wrote ducti, with B , then changed to ducti sunt Clearly he had ducti in his source, but then
had second thoughts about its correctness.
Once it is seen that P was liable to supply an elliptical auxiliary, two more of its readings can be
questioned. At 36 Cessi and Moreau follow P in supplementing a participle which stands alone in B :
'mox eo egresso factus imperator Augustulus'. But quite apart from the passage discussed above,
21
this common type of ellipse occurs a number of times elsewhere where there is no manuscript authority
for supplementation: 45 'cuius pater Edico dietus'; 49 'missus ab imperatore Zenone'; 58 'qui in
baptismo Eusebia dicta'.
So at 82 adimpletum is supplemented by est in B ^ and P 1 . In this case Moreau inconsistently

follows in allowing the ellipse.
Further instances will be discussed below of P' s tendency to fill out an expression needlessly.
b Intra and infra are often contaminated in vulgar texts, like other pairs of words which are
similar in form as well as meaning.27 The author of II, however, who had a liking for intra (43 twice,
45, 72, 74, 75, 78, 95), never confuses it with infra . But the second hand in B was not so sure of
the traditional distinction between the two terms, for at 74 ('iussit eos secum prandere et intra palatio
post prandium meridiari') intra is falsely corrected to infra. P follows suit.
c A false correction found in P at 62 is of particular interest, for it reveals a tendency of the

scribe to regularize by the mechanical application of an orthographic principle. The true reading (as
was seen by the scribe himself, for he later put his mistake right) can only be quid multai By a trivial
copyist's slip this has been corrupted to quid multu in B . Such was undoubtedly the reading which
the scribe of P had before him for he changed to the meaningless quid multum. The change is based
on a mechanical assumption that the odd form was due to the common loss of final <-m> . This
evidence makes it likely that <-m> has in other places been restored in P without justification.
d At 71 there is another case of the scribe of P correcting after committing himself to a non-
classical usage which he must have had in his source. The correction has parallels in later passages.
In B and P 1 we find 'palatium usque ad perfectum fecit, quem
has been conceived as masculine, or that the masculine form of the relative has been used
28 9
neuter. P¿ 9 changes to quod.
e So at 96 B and P * have 'saxum ingentem quem . . . ', which is obv

the masculine form of the relative extending its range. For saxus as a m
CIL X. 4431. 30 In the hand of P the apparent anomaly is removed ( inge
f Another similar case is at 93, where B and P 1 have 'deductus est

est corpus'. For corpus as a masculine in late Latin, see TLL IV.999.18 f
It is obvious from these three examples not only that P tends to eme
canons, but also that the manuscript authority for the retention of the
ing, for they were first copied by P directly from his source. Moreau in
71 but eliminates the masculines at 93 and 96, following P^.
g At 65 B has the rare usage intentio = 'strife', which is virtually cer

will show (see below, p. 28). There is an erasure in (+++tentio), and
same hand. It looks as if the scribe copied down intentio , was puzzled b
and then regularized to contentio (which is accepted by Gardthausen,
h Another place where P can be caught in the act of regularizing is

amplectit , a characteristic late Latin example of a deponent which has
amplectitur.
i At 73 B a reads 'quis quod opus habebat faciebat, qua hora velliť. In classical Latin veliet
would be expected, but here there has evidently been contamination of veliet and velit. So in Gregory
of Tours and elsewhere there is constant contamination
<3 O
of the two forms.32 Of the two possible
corrections, P has written the wrong one ( velit ).
22
j At 79 there is an instance of a very rare word correctly used in B and P ^ (interrasilem =
'perforated' < rado : TLL VII. 1 .2264.3 ff.). By P ^ it is altered to internasilem , perhaps because
of a popular etymology. The scribe may have seen internus in the word. Rare words are particularly
susceptible to modifications due to popular etymology. Whatever the reason for the change, the
scribe has shown his taste for pointless emendation.
k The syntactic regularizing of P can be seen at 82, where unde dare ( BP 1) is certainly right
(see below, p. 30). P 2 has darent . The presence of this correction will later throw light on another
disputed passage.
1 The expression lúdeos urbis Ravennatis (P^) at 8 1 (urbis Ravennati pi) is an implausible
expansion. B 1 has lúdeos raūtis (= Ravennatis B^), which in view of the use made elsewhere in
the text of the adjective Ravennas is probably right: cf. 82 Ravennatis synagogas BP' 84 a palatio
Ravennatis BP (presumably a corruption of Ravennati). The reading of P is rendered unlikely by
the use of urbs , for civitas is the normal word for 'city' in our text, as elsewhere in late Latin: urbs
is employed only under special circumstances (see below, p. 103). In the contemporary Ravenna
papyri civitas Ravennas (or Ravenna) rather than urbs Ravennas is the standard method of referring
to the city (e.g. pp. 182, 212 twice, 242). Cf. 83 civitatis Veronensis.
m At 77 nolens (P) cannot stand, as will be shown below (p. 26): Vellens ( B ) should be
retained. The emendator has apparently chosen nolens instead of volens on stylistic grounds,
to avoid the repetition of volo.
n More expansion is evident in P at 83, where B reads 'ex eo enim invenit diabolus locum',
with ex eo used elliptically for ex eo tempore. P^ has the same reading, but P^ adds tempore after
enim In this case the scribe found ex eo in his source, decided to fill out the expression, but then
rejected his own correction.
Some instances of expansion have already been pointed out in P. There may be another at 96,
where P has animam exalaret (immediately after the expression animam amisit , 95), but B simply
exalaret.
o Another place where P adopts a non-classical usage, along with B , only to regularize it, is at
84. B and P ^ have terre motay P ^ the classical expression terre motus. Eyssenhardt, Gardthausen,
Cessi and Moreau print motus , though Mommsen keeps mota.
Nouns of the fourth declension in Vulgar Latin regularly became masculines of the second.34
Terrae motus (second deci), does not occur in late Latin (TLL VIII. 1532.61 ff.), but it is by no means as
well attested as the neuter terrae motum (cf. Vet. Lat. Matth. 27:51 (cod. a) 'terrae motum factum est';
cf. Mark 13:8 (cod. d); Fredegar 2.37; CIL VIII.2481; CGL 11.430.25, 501.35, III.294.19; see TLL
VIII. 1532.64 ff.). It is possible that the word was reinterpreted as a substantival perfect participle
formed from moveo 35 See further below, p. 90 on the form. Whatever its explanation, the grounds
for retaining mota are unshakeable.
p At 89 the reading of B and P * ('quod facturus es, rex, facito citius') makes perfect sense,
and contains in addition the colloquialism citius = cito (cf. e.g. Vit. Patr. 3.108 citius =5.1.1 cito,
translating Greek raxecoç; 5.14.1 citius = Ta'è coç).36 Nothing demonstrates more clearly P's
inclination for clever but pointless emendations than the proposal fac cito (P^' The scribe
even neglected to delete citius . Though the change is obviously no more than a second thought,
Mommsen gives it his approval, and Cessi goes so far as to print fac citius %
q At 73 B and pl have '(fecerunt)37 . . . vinum triginta anforas in solidům', where triginta

anforas is a common type of partitive apposition (see p. 93). The scribe of P then regularized to vini
23
The changes in P (and B which have been discussed here are of a variety of types.
Supplementation of an elliptical expression is especially common. Points of syntax have been
regularized at 62 and 82. There are regularizations of gender at 71, 93, 96 and 84. At 73 and 77
morphological anomalies have been removed. A rare word is replaced at 65 and another falsely
modified at 79, and a typical instance of lexical confusion has crept in at 74. In no case is there
reason to believe that P (or B is right and B wrong, and in most places P clearly had inherited the
same text as B. P thus stands convicted of many kinds of normalization, a fact which must be kept
in mind in the editing of the text. Where B and P diverge and P has a classical usage, it is always
likely that P has regularized.
Almost nothing has been said above about the numerous orthographical divergences between
B and P, for the evidence bearing on phonological change will be discussed separately. There are,
however, some readings in P (quite apart from multum at 62) which immediately arouse suspicion.
It is, for example, characteristic of P that it has the diphthongal spelling <ae> where B has <e >.
But the hyperurbane postaea at 85, where B correctly writes postea , points to a regularizing tendency.
Other hypercorrect spellings in P are hutilis at 61 {P often has an aspirate where it is lacking in B :
e.g. 65, 71 , 77, 94), and patritius at 85 (the form provintiam in B at 62 becomes provinciam in P ,
and palaciu (. B b) at 7 1 is correctly written as palatium by P.
24
3 The Main Problems
In this section I discuss many of the textual difficulties, real or imagined, in II, thoug
will be left for discussion until later chapters. These will be listed at the end of this
92 metuens vero rex ne dolo generi aliquid

adversus regnum eius trac tare t, obiec to crimine
iussit interfìci.
dolo BP : dolore Henr . Val
It is worthwhile to begin with this passage, for it gives a particularly clear illustration of the w
in which ignorance of later Latin has perverted the text of II. The sense is: 'There the king, feari
that through resentment at the death of his son-in-law, Symmachus might take some step in opp
to his rule . . . ' (Rolfe). The emendation of Henri Valois is accepted by Eyssenhardt, Gardthause
Mommsen, Cessi and Moreau, and Cipolla ('Ricerche intorno' 45) describes dolo as an 'errore man
per "dolore" '. But in vulgar texts by a process of lexical contamination certain words frequentl
quire the sense of other, unconnected, words of similar form.38 Rare words are particularly susc
OQ
to semantic change of this type. Thus vomica is sometimes used as an equivalent of vomitus. Volúp-
ias is used for voluntas ,40 mendum for mendacium, damnare for damno afficere and morosus for tardus, ,41
So dolus comes to mean the same as dolor?2 as Augustine explicitly notes, in Evang. Ioh. 7.18 'multi
fratres imperitiores latinitatis loquuntur sic, ut dicant "dolus ilium torqueť', pro eo quod est "dolor" '
The new sense is extensively represented in Romance (e.g. Sp. duelo , It. duolo , OFr. due 0-43 Clearly
the vulgarism is right here, especially in view of the agreement between the MSS.
93 unus de turba adeptus demonio cecidit.
adeptus demonio (daemonio B ^) B^ : areptus a demonio P :

abreptus daemonio Hadr. Val : adestus daemonio Henr. Val
The text must be changed. Deponents are usually correctly used in II (amplectit 62 is an exception),
and there is no example of a deponent with passive sense. The exact meaning which adeptus would bear
is also unclear.44
Many parallels settle the problem beyond doubt. Arreptus (a) daemonio (as too correptus (a)
daemonio) was a set phrase in late Latin for a seizure of this kind. This emerges with special clarity
from Pass. Barth. 9, where the Greek rendered is unlike the Latin: arreptus daemonio rex = 'éireoev
dirò daíiiovoç ò ßaotkeik. Cf. Vita Sanct. Arn. 9 quaedam mulier . . . a daemonio arrepta' 10
f emina arrept a daemonio ' Pass.Andr. 1 5 areptus a daemonio (= Xrupůek biro ôainovoç); VitaMelan.
5 (cod. 2) arrepta a daemonio ; Greg. Hist. Franc. 4.36 daemone arrepta ; Mart. 42 arripitur daemonio.
Note also Afra Luke 9:39 'arripit enim ilium spiritus immundus*. For the alternative expression
correptus (a) daemonio, see, for example, Vita Sever. 1 , Jerome Epist. 39.2.3, VitaMelan. 5 (cod. 1),
Vita et Vir tut es Eparchii 1.17.
25
Since the reading of P may be an emendation, there is no need to retain the form with simplific-
ation areptus : arreptus is more commonly attested. Nor need a be added with demonio , for the phrase
means little more than arreptus (correp tus) febre.
Eyssenhardt, Gardthausen, Mommsen, Cessi and Moreau adopt the form daemonio , even though
demonio is found in both MSS. and is plausible for this period. Similarly at 61 both B and P have
demonem. See further below, pp. 43 ff. on the treatment of < ae> in II.
77 quadam die procidens46 imperator, dum

festinus47 veliet a latere imperai oris
transiré, obsequium ordinare Vellens
calcavit clamidem imperatoris.
Vellens B : nolens P
If nolens is accepted, ordinare must be taken as an historic infinitive, a usage which does no
elsewhere in II. There is no need for change. Despite Rönsch's assertion (132) that the form 'ist
nirgends bezeugt1, Vellens and analogous forms are in fact often found, and are readily explicab
e.g. Vet. Lat. Luke 6: 1 (b, d) veliere ( vellebant c , Afra ); Fredegar p. 96.17 vellebam ; p. 79.19 Ve
(cf. pp. 114.26, 116.8, 131.11, 131.20, 138.10, 149.3, 154.26); p. 147.4 veliere?* Vita Galli Ve
1 1 Vellens. There are also similar examples in Merovingian official documents,49 and at 78 in ou
B 1 has velens , but B ^ and P volens.
Irregular verbs were subject to remodelling in Vulgar Latin, with results which were felt in R
The above forms probably derive from regularization of the infinitive velie to veliere , from whi
present stem could have been created.50 So esse was regularized to *essere and off erre to *offer
The repetition veliet . . . Vellens is of a type common in those vulgar writings in which exten
use is made of the present participle. Cf. e.g. Pass. Sanct. Quir. 3 'venientes vero Romam, venerun
Itin. Ant. Plac. 43 (Rec. A) 'venientes per campos Táñeos venimus . . . ' (cf. the more 'correct' R
where the repetition is eliminated).
83 nam mox iussit ad Fonticlos in proastium

civitatis Veronensis oratorium sancti
Stephani, idem situm altarium subverti.
idem situm B : ibidem situm P : id est Mommsen
52
In proposing id est altarium (which is accepted by Cessi as well as Moreau) Mommsen suggested
that the whole phrase may have been an interpolation (as a gloss on oratorium ). But both oratorium
and altarium could have stood together in the original version, for they are not synonyms: an oratorium
is a chapel, and an altarium the altar within it. Note e.g. Itin . Ant. Plac. 40, where the two words are
clearly distinguished: 'ubi est oratorium, cuius altare positum est super petras illas'. Mommsen's
suggestion is also unsatisfactory because it eliminates situm , which is in both MSS. Moreover both of
the genuine examples of id est in II introduce parenthetical lists of proper names: 74 'habebat . . . tres
nepotes, id est Pompeium, Probum et Hypatium'; 90 'cum aliis episcopis, id est Ecclesium ... et
Eusebium
One possibility would be to change idem to ibique: 'he ordered that the chapel of St Stephen, and
the altar situated there, should be destroyed'. Ibique is an expression much favoured in late narrative
prose: e.g. Greg. Hist. Franc . 2.9, 2.20, 2.23, 2.24, 7.38, Cass. Hist. Trip . 4.18, p. 965A, Chron. 966,
Marcellin. Chron. a. 399.3, 413. For an example immediately followed by a past participle, see Greg.
Hist. Franc. 4.23 'ibique inventum. . .'. Though -que is not common in vulgar texts, it remained fre-
quent with certain adverbs and conjunctions (see below, p. 77 f.).
26
But it might be felt that the corruption of ibique to idem would be difficult to explainē That
from ibidem to idem would be easier, but it would also have been easy for the scribe of P to hit on
the emendation ibidem
The text can remain unchanged. Idem was contaminated with item in late Latin and fossilized
as an adverb, usually with the sense 'also'.53 A slightly different, local, sense seems to be required
here by the juxtaposition of situm ('situated in the same place'). After it was fossilized, idem may
have suffered contamination with ibidem For contamination between two adverbs of which only
the second elements correspond to each other, cf. the use of totidem = itidem, 54
39 postquod factus est imperator Zeno
postquod# : postquam edd.
Despite the unanimity of editors in eliminating postquod , it should be retained. Postquod =

postquam is a well attested late usage,55 and is probably reflected in Romance (e.g. It. poiché , Fr.
puisque , Prov. poisque , Sp. pues que ).56 It occurs, for example, a few times in Diosc. Lat.: e.g. x,
p. 202. 1 'carbonibus pones et facis, ut vulliat, et post quod friguerit . . .'. It is a genuine Latin usage,
for it is in no way determined by the Greek version (2.76.13 W eáoaç i//u77?rai)? Further examples
are found in the Comp. Luc. (7 10 'post quod pisas, commisce(t)'; e 19 'post quod refricdaberiť),
Fredegar (p. 127.24 'quarto anno post quod Childebertus regnum Guntramni acciperat, defunctus
est'), Marculf. Form. (p. 66.2 'post quod alius migraverit'),59 the Pact. Leg. Sal (24.9 'post quod
infantes non potuerit habere') and elsewhere.60
For some analogous usages, and an explanation of postquod , see below, pp. 73 f.
42 (Zeno) eum invitavit in solacium sibi adversus

Basiliscum, oblectans militem, post biennium
veniens, obsidens civitatem Constantinopolim.
oblectans B : obiectans edd.
The situation is that Zeno, having been deposed by Basiliscus, retires to Isauria, gathers a force,
and eventually attacks Constantinople.
Oblectans should undoubtedly be kept, since it alone is consistent with the manner in which
the present participle is employed elsewhere in II (see below, pp. 60 ff.).
Present participles, which are usually perfective in this work, are regularly positioned according
to their temporal reference relative to that of the main verb and to that of adjoining participles. If
the action which they express precedes that of the main verb, they come before it; if it is posterior
to that of the main verb, they follow it. So in strings of participles the order is temporally determin-
ed (e.g. 36, 49, 70, 82, 88).
Obiectans disrupts the natural temporal sequence, since the action to which it refers (the casting
of troops against Constantinople) is obviously posterior to the action contained in the second parti-
ciple. But if oblectans is retained the meaning is: 'He won over troops, went to Constantinople after
two years and laid siege to the city'. Thus oblectans describes happenings within the province before
he set out to Constantinople, and therefore occupies its natural position in the series.
Oblecto is used in this sense at 72: 'sic enim oblectavit vicinās gentes, ut se Uli sub foedus darenť.
27
65 eodem tempore intentio orta est in urbe Roma
inter Symmachum et Laurentium: consacrati
enim fuerant ambo.
intentio B'. +++tentioP^ : contention
For the use of intentio with the same sense as contentio , see TLL VII. 1.2 122. 52 ff. (omitting
various examples from Cass. Var .,61 the Edict . Roth .62 and elsewhere).
In a number of places where intentio has this meaning the reference (as here) is to strife concern-
ing the appointment of a bishop or Pope, or to strife of other kinds among, or involving, priests: Greg.
Hist . Franc. 2.13 'foeda apud civis pro episcopatu intentio vertebatur'; 6.38 'pro episcopatu intentiones
et scandala orta';63 Conc.s II.3.3 p. 101.14 'ne qua . . . intentio inter . . . sacerdotes . . . nascatur'; Avell.
p. 618.18 'quas intentiones habuerimus cum episcopo' (cf. p. 685.15); Cass. Var. 9.15.6 'nec possunt
dici iusta quae nimia sunt, cum de apostolici consecratione pontifìcis intentio fortasse provenerit et ad
palatium nostrum perducta fuerit altercatio populorum'.
This tendency to specialization both renders intentio virtually certain in our passage, and also
throws light on the nature of the semantic change. It is likely that intentio , which usually means
'exertion, striving, concentration', was originally applied euphemistically to disputes involving bishops,
etc.: a genuine contentio would be unworthy of a cleric. But euphemisms constantly degenerate in
sense.
75 dum hec vidisset, coepit cogitare intra se

et dicere eo quod nullus eorum regnaret.
coepit orare deum, ut . . .
dicere BP : discens Mommsen
Nothing can be said for Mommsen's emendation, which is adopted by Cessi, Rolfe and Moreau.
Dicere is perfectly sound. Two infinitives, the second of them dicere , as here, also follow coepit at
62: 'coepit repetere arras et dicere'. Moreover B presents a combination of various Christian idioms.
For cogitare intra sef see Matth. 16:7, Luke 12:17; for dicere intra se, Matth. 9:3, 9:21, Luke 18:4
(cf. Herm. Past. Vis. 1.2 (a); Vit. Patr. 5.10.78);64 for coepit dicere, Luke 11:37 (cf. Herm. Past. Vis.
4.1 (a); Vit. Patr. 3.62, 3.151); for coepit cogitare intra se, Vit. Patr. 3.19; and for the association
of cogitare and dicere , Luke 12:17 ('et cogitabat intra se dicens'). An identical combination to that
here is also found at Herm. Past. Vis. 4.1 {a): 'intra me ergo coepi cogitare et dicere' (/cat ev avrņ
fļp%āfir)v duaXoyíÇeoõ at Kat Xêyew). We thus have a piece of Christian Latin which must be left un-
changed.
Furthermore the only other instance of eo quod introducing an object clause in II also follows a
verbum dicendi (85).
73 sexaginta modios tritici in solidům ipsius

tempore fuerunt et vinum triginta
anforas in solidům.
fuerunt BP : emerunt Gardthausen
Emerunt , which is accepted by Rolfe and Moreau, is implausible both palaeographically and
stylistically. Emo was replaced by comparare in the late period, and leaves no trace in Romance.65
Frick (378) felt that modios and anforas were examples of the accusative used for the nominative.
This view would be more attractive if anforas alone were subject, for it is the first declension termination
28
{-as } which is commonly attested with nominative function (CIL III.2386, 3551, V.5078). Fuerunt
seems to require emendation. I suggest fecerunt, which involves little alteration and gives an excellent
sense. Facio was in use from the earliest period with the meaning 'value', accompanied by an accusa-
tive, genitive or ablative of price, or by a prepositional phrase (as here) with the same function ( TLL
VI. 1 . 1 1 8.46 ff.). Transi : 'In his time they valued sixty measures of wheat at a single gold-piece. . . '
57 Gothi sibi confirmaverunt Theodericum regem

non spectantes iussionem novi principls.
spectantes B : exspectantes Gardthausen

The inverse of prothesis is aphaeresis, the dropping of a vowel before /s/ + consonant (e.g. Spania
<Hispania). This tendency (along with prothesis) has left its mark in Italian?6
Aphaeresis had some effect on compounds in ex -, for by assimilation the group /ks/ was reduced
to /s/ (e.g. note dexter>O.Fr., Prov., Cat. destre, Sp .diestro, Pg. destro). Hence lt. schiudere <
excludere, stimazione < ex(i)stimatione. 67
By this process exspecto often becomes specto in late Latin. It is therefore likely that B pre-
serves the form used by the author. This same confusion between specto and exspecto is also found
in the Rav. Pap.69
70 et sic sibi per circuitum placuit omnibus gentibus.

placuit omnibus gentibus B : placavit omnes gentes Mommsen
Mommsen's emendation (adopted also by Cessi, Rolfe and Moreau) is needless, for the transmitted
text is plausible both in sense and syntax.
It was probably the twofold dative construction which caused offence, but in fact this is easily
explained. It is a feature of late Latin (not without parallel earlier, especially in Pļautus) that dative
reflexive pronouns are often attached pleonastically to verbs, whether transitive or intransitive. The
dative is akin to one of advantage: it expresses more intensively the interest of the subject in the action
or verbal idea. Its pleonastic quality can be well illustrated from Pļautus, where plain verb and verb +
dative are sometimes used in the same context with no real distinction of meaning: e.g. Mil. 1099
'aurum atque vestem muliebrem omnem habeat sibi'; cf. ib. 1 100 'sumat, habeat, auferať.70
Here sibi is the reflexive dative of advantage, and omnibus gentibus the object of placeo (in the
typical object position, after its verb). There is a comparable example in Querolus of a verb usually
governing the dative (credo) juxtaposed with a dative reflexive which is not its object but a pleonastic
dative of advantage: 3.2 (p. 43.5 P) 'quicquidlibet narres, recedamus qualibet; ego autem non credam
mihi, nisi aurum inspexero'.71 The direct object of credo would be tibi.
48 et funditus deluit
deluit 2? ^ : delevit^P
Here is a place where our knowledge of the tendencies of B ^ and P should lead us t
(against the editors). The form deluit is a well attested analogical regularizaron bringin
into line with that of other -ere verbs (see TLL V.l. 433.61 ff.). The removal of anom
conjugation was thoroughly characteristic of Vulgar Latin.
The remarks of Diom. GL 1.373.18 ff. are especially illuminating: ' "adolui" volunt
sacrifìcio dici et venire ab eo quod est "adoleo". sed et in sacrificio Accius Cassius ad T
secundo "adolevi" dicit sic, ... et in passiva declinatone "adulta" non "adoleta" '. D
to appeal to earlier usage in defence of the form adolevi , which was clearly in decline i
29
62 mater enim iam sponderat virům .
sponderat B : spoponderat P
Again it is likely that P has regularized, and thus the safest course for the editor is to follow B.
In its development Latin tended to eliminate reduplicated forms of the perfect,72 and the perfect
formation of spondeo with base spond- does occur elsewhere.73
82 qui vero non habuissent unde dare frustati

per publicum sub voce praeconia ducerentur.
dare BP ^ : darent P ^ frustati B : frustrati P : fustati Henr. Val
An unshakeable case can be made in support of dare. In late Latin the infinitive is frequently
used in indirect questions and relative clauses, in anticipation of Romance constructions such as Fr.
'je ne sais que faire'.74 The usage must have arisen through contamination of the two structures verb
+ object + infinitive, and verb + (relative) object + subjunctive/indicative (e.g. habeo aliquid dicere +
habeo quod or quid dicam ).75
This type of infinitive is particularly common after habeo unde or habeo quod: e.g. Vet. Lat.
Luke 14: 14 (a, c,f) 'non habent unde reddere tibi'; Schol. luv . 7.87 'non habebat unde se sustentare';
Mar. Merc. Conc.s 1.5 p. 16.39 'unde mundari . . . non habent'; Capitol. Maximin. 29.5 'de quo nos
nihil amplius habemus quod dicere'; Pallad. 1 1.1.2 'non habet amplius quod nocere'.76 It is likely
that the commonplace construction habeo + object + infinitive exercised an influence.
The infinitive is probably also correct at 96: 'saxum ingentem, quem superpone re, inquisiviť
(so B ; P corrects to superponeret , which is adopted by Eyssenhardt, Gardthausen, Mommsen, Cessi,
Rolfe and Moreau). Cf. Grom. p. 350.3 'non invenimus lapides peregrinos quos ponere' In this
case a final infinitive has been substituted for a final subjunctive.
The form frustor (from fustor < fustis , with epenthetic /r/) lives on in Italian {frustare ) and
Provencal (frustar ), and is attested in late Latin (the Lombard laws). The /r/ could be due to con-
tamination between fustor and *frustiare ('break, cut to pieces' < frustum ] cf. It. frusciare, Fr.
froisser ), or it may simply be an expressive epenthetic /r/ added after /f/, as in Fr. fronde < funda.11
Frustror ( P ) = fustor also has reflexes in Romance. The second /r/ is due to assimilation (cf.
e.g. App. Prob. 180 frustum non frustrum ).78
The form adopted here will depend on our estimation of the two MSS. Read therefore frustati.
93 dum pervenisset cum lectulo, ubi lectus

erat, usque ad hominem .
lectus BP : latus Mommsen
The transmitted text is meaningless and corrupt: lectus has been introduced under the influence
of the preceding lectulo.
Latus , however (accepted by Cessi, Rolfe and Moreau), is equally impossible. In II, as in many
late and vulgar texts, the pluperfect passive is invariably formed with /aerara rather than eram +
perfect participle when the verb is punctual (aoristic) (38 f actus fuerat, 39 natusfuerat , 49 victus
fuisset, 52 directus fuerat, 65 consacrati ... fuerant, 69 fuerat adlocutus, 1 1 destructum fuerat,
76 directus fuerat, 95 evacuatus fuisset). There is only one other instance of past participle + erat ,
and that is a special case, for the verb is not punctual but stative (perfective): 74 'ut in ilio lecto, ubi
regium positum erat, nullus eorum dormirei' (= 'situated', as often in Latin of all types). We might
compare Greg. Hist. Franc. 2.23, where eram is used with the same participle and for the same reason.
30
80
Gregory usually constructs an aoristic pluperfect by means of past participle + fueram.
In the present passage latus erat could not be interpreted as perfective. Had the author used the
verb fero in such a context (the sense would be continuous: 'the bed, on which the body was being
carried'), he could only have adopted the imperfect passive, a tense which is employed freely in the
work (e.g. 37, 44, 57, 60, 72, 73, 78, 79, 82, 83, 87). The periphrastic passives amatus sum , eram
cannot be continuous in sense.81
We must therefore seek a past participle which could form a perfective pluperfect passive with
erat in this context. The obvious candidate is locatus (or its compound collocatus ), which has a
number of strong advantages: (a) it is highly satisfactory in sense; 'when he had arrived with the
couch, on which the body was placed'; (b) the expression becomes identical in structure and mean-
ing with the only other example in II of a past participle used with erat' and (c) (cot)loco had estab-
lished itself at this period as the vox propria for the placing of oneself or another on a bed (see pp. 18,
110). Cf. 74 'duo enim in alio amore fraterno se conlocaverunť. For a context similar to ours, cf.
Vita Sever. 5 'ad lectum pontificis, ubi iacebať. Iacebat belongs to the same semantic field as locatus
erat.
45 Odoacar vero . . . mox deposuit Augustulo

de imperio, factus est rex mansitque in
regnum annos XIII.
deposuit B 1 : deposito P
Given the regularizing by and P, it is safer to read deposuit here.
According to classical usage the ablative absolute is certainly superior, for deposuit would lead to
a string of finite verbs, the third attached by -que. In late Latin, however, as in the Romance languages,
it is common in such strings for the final member to be introduced by a connective: cf. 49 'Zeno itaque
recompensans beneficiis Theodericum . . . , donans ei multum et mittens eum ad Italiani'; 74 'id est
Pompeium, Probum et Hypatium'. There is also a very similar sentence at 36 which supports the
retention of deposuit here: 'deposuit de imperio Glycerium et factus est episcopus et Nepus factus
imperator Romae'.
The form Augustulo gives no support to the reading deposito , for in B < -m> is often dropped
and the accusative singular masculine termination becomes { -o } (see below, pp. 51 ff.).
60 secundum aedictum suum, quem eius constituit

quem eius B : quo ius Mommsen
Closer to the paradosis, and superior in sense, would be quem eis (= 'the edict, which he laid down
for them ...'). Edictum constituo is a set phrase ( TLL V.2.71.42 ff.; see e.g. Cic. Verr. 1.104, Cod .
Theod. 1 1.30.3). Neither the change of gender of edictum , if such has occurred, nor the use of the
masculine form of the relative instead of the neuter would be without parallel in II (see pp. 22, 32 f.).
The structure (antecedent + possessive, relative + dative) becomes identical to that at 88: 'immemor
factus omnis eius beneficii et gratiae, quam ei dederať.
Mommsen (to some extent following Rühl) restored the sense of the whole of sect. 60 by a
clever transposition. It is worthwhile to point out the merits of this transposition and the unjustified
modifications which Moreau has made.
The clauses beginning ut etiam express two judgments passed on Theodoric, one by the Romans,
the other by the Goths. It is almost certain, therefore, that these clauses are consecutive, following
'sic gubernavit duas gentes in uno, Romanorum et Gothorum', where both Romans and Goths are
31
mentioned. For sic introducing a consecutive clause in a similar context, see 72: 'sic enim oblectavit
vicinās gentes, ut se illi sub foedus darenť; and for ut etiam at the start of a consecutive clause, cf. 59.
The transposition of nihil . . . iudicaretur from after fecit re-established the consecutive clauses in their
rightful place.
The participial expressions nihil . . . temptam and exhibens . . ., following the main verb gubernavit,
simply describe two facets of Theodoric's government which led to his popularity among the Goths and
Romans. Moreau needlessly removed exhibens . . . amphitheatrum and placed it after largitus. He
thereby rendered the transposition far more difficult of explanation, for it becomes necessary to suppose
more than a simple displacement of a whole group of words.
38 cuius infantiam misertus concessit ei sanguinem,

et quia pulcher erat, tarnen donavit et creditor
sex milia solidos, misit eum intra Campaniam
cum parentibus suis libere vivere.
tarnen B : etiam Hirsch feld ap. Mommsen

donavit et creditor B : donans ei reditum Mommsen : donavit
ei ut creditor Cessi : donavit ei reditum Gardthausen
Etiam (accepted by Rolfe and Moreau) is an intolerable emendation. The word occurs 5 times
elsewhere in II, always second position in its clause, and in all cases but one in the expression ut etiam
(40, 44, 59, 60; cf. nihil etiam 60). Tamen need never have been replaced. In late Latin especially,
but also occasionally earlier, it can be used without its normal adversative or restrictive force as a
simple connective or resumptive particle (= autem , et96e, 'moreover').82 E.g. Greg. Iul. 2 'haec autem,
ut . . .ab ipso aedituo cognovi, fídeliter retuli, praebet tamen huic operi testimonium Sollius noster'
(= 'moreover')- For its use at the start of a colon, cf. id. Martin . 1 praef. In our passage it means
roughly the same as in the passage quoted, and links the second concession offered to the first.83
There are only 3 other instances of tamen in II, two of which are similarly weakened: 50 'ibique
persecutus est eum Theodericus et pugna facta ceciderunt populi ab utraque parte; tamen superatus
Odoacar fugit Ravenna' (introducing a new thought, = et : cf. 54 'et victus Odoacer fugit Ravennam';
note that the word comes first in its colon); 58 'vir enim bellicosissimus fortis, cuius pater Walamir
dietus rex Gothorum, naturalis tamen eius fuit' (introducing an appended thought: 'For he was a
brave and warlike man, whose father, Walamir, was called King of the Goths - and Theodoric was
his natural son'). There is a genuine adversative example at 60.
Donans is another of Mommsen's attempts, based on obscure stylistic grounds, to link two
sentences into one (cf. 75 discens ). Read donavit and place a stop after solidos.
Reditum is possible, but not for that reason necessary. With the help of a much simpler change
we may keep creditor : read donavit ei creditor (lit. = 'he gave him as a creditor'). Dono is often no
more than a substitute for do or trado in late Latin: see TLL V.l.2012.1 ff.
Pronominal indirect objects frequently follow their verb in II (as earlier in this passage; cf. e.g.
68 'dedit ei successorem'; see below, pp. 130 ff.). For the use of creditor = ut creditor , cf. 55, 57, 62,
72 (in contrast to 88 'tractans non ut dei amicus sed legi eius inimicus').
58 mater Ereriliva dicta Gothica catholica

quidem erat, qui in baptismo Eusebia dicta.
qui B : quae edd.
32
This is not the only place where B has qui instead of a feminine form of the relative pronoun :
there are 3 similar examples in 62 (including one example of quem for quam), all of which are re-
placed in P by the feminine form.
It is common in late Latin for qui to be used instead of the feminine or neuter forms of the
84
relative, in anticipation of the Romance practice. It is likely that in a text such as ours the
phenomenon should have left its mark. P has probably regularized.
53 Festum, caput senati

senati BP : senātus Moreau
B and P also concur in having the genitive senati at 92. In the circumstances it is without
justification to regularize, especially since the form in {-i} occurs from the earliest period onwards.85
On the tendency of fourth declension nouns to pass into the second declension, see above, p. 23.
85 inventa occansione B : occasione P

or
Occansio is a form censured by the App. Prob. (123). It occurs

(pp. 54.28, 79.19, 108.16), the Act. Petr. c. Sim. (17), th e Marcu
in the Vet. Lat. It undoubtedly had a wide currency in the wri
especially Audollent, Defix. 140 'si forte occansione inveneriť. T
retain the form here and assume that P has regularized.
56 omnes interfecti sunt, quis ubi potuit

reperiri.88
quis B', quivis Mommsen : ubi quis Eyssenhardt
With this passage may be compared:
73 quis quod opus habebat faciebat, qua

hora vellit, ac si in die.
quis BP : quivis Zangemeister
The change to quivis has been almost universally accepted by editors, but it is unjustified.
Double relative constructions are common in late Latin:89 Per. 20.7 'petierunt . . ..unusquisque
eorum monasteria sua, qui ubi habebat'; 44.3 'de plebe autem qui quomodo possunt vadenť;
Jord. Get. 152 Sellando quis quem valebat expeliere'.
As this usage has been inadequately treated in the handbooks and confused with other usages,
it deserves to be explained in detail. There are three separate constructions to be distinguished.
These are: (a) the use of quis for quisque ;90 (b) the double interrogative;91 and (c) the double relative,
the construction which we have here.
The use of quis (or qui) = quisque is certainly attested, but Lofstedt {Per. 212 f.f2 was wrong
to invoke it to explain examples of our type.93 In all the examples quoted of the double relative
construction the word order tells against Lofstedt's interpretation. If, for example, Per . 20.7 'qui
ubi habebat' were equivalent to ubi quisque habebat , the expected order would be ubi qui , since
ubi would be the only genuine relative in the construction.
The clue to the understanding of our examples is furnished by the second construction above,
the double (indirect) interrogative (cf. Eng. 'he asked who was doing whať), which is well attested
since the classical period: e.g. Cic. Q. Rose. 21 'considera . . . quis quem fraudasse dicatur'; Brut.
152 'quae quibus propositis essent . . . consequential MiL 23 'uter utri insidias feceriť; Tert. Scorp.
1 p. 145.20 'nesciunt . . . quid quomodo scriptum sit'.94 To this category obviously belongs Vict.
33
Vit. 3.19 'notariis scribentibus, quis quid dicereť (= 'the scribes were writing down who said what'),
though Lofstedt (Per. 272) interprets quis as equivalent to quisque , and apparently sees no difference
between this example and the others which he quotes, which are not indirect questions. So H-S
oddly classify the passage in one place as a double relative (557), but in another as a double interrog-
ative (460). A final example worth quoting is Vict. Vit. 1.25 'decernens per singulos dies quantum
quis pro merito accipereť (='... who should receive what'). The confusion caused by the group
of constructions in question is further shown by the fact that H-S (202) interpret this example as
exhibiting quis = quisque , though they are well aware of the existence of the double interrogative.
The analysis of the above construction is straightforward. It is simply a blending of two indirect
questions: considera quis fraudasse dicatur + considera quem fraudasse dicatur.
The structure of our examples is identical, except that they contain relatives rather than interrog-
atives. Per. 44.3, for example ('qui quomodo possunt vadenť) is a blend of qui possunt vadent and
quomodo possunt vadent. So 56 'omnes interfecti sunt, quis ubi potuit reperirť is a blend of omnes
interfecti sunt , qui potuerunt reperiri and omnes interfecti sunt , ubi potuerunt reperiri. The use of a
singular relative after a plural antecedent is possible because the doubling of the relative makes the
construction distributive. And in any case the indefinite use of qui (quis) with plural implication
(= si quis) is common at all periods: cf. e.g. 66 'se omnia . . . quod retro principes Romani ordinav-
erunt . . . servaturum'. Nor is the alternation of quis and qui significant. There is constant inter-
change between the two words in late Latin.96
Our analysis has the advantage of explaining the order of the two relatives. In 'quis ubi potuit
reperiri' the subject pronoun precedes the locatival relative. And at 73 the subject pronoun precedes
the object.
84 stela cum facula apparuit, que dicitur

comis, pendens per dies quindecim.
pendens BP : splendens Henr : Val
The appearance of a comet in the sky is often noted in the chronicles, and the author has to some
extent been influenced by quasi-formulaic descriptions: cf. Exc. Sang, . 543 'apparuit stella ardens per
dies XXX'; ib. 547 'signum apparuit in caelo stella ardens sicut facula III non. Mar.'; Fast. Vind. Post
567 'stella apparuit ardens in caelo per dies XXX'; Agnellus 42 'apparuit post haec stella in caelo ardens
per dies XXX'; Marcellin. Chroru a. 389.3 'stella . . . ardens potius quam splendens apparuit'; ¿7.416.3
'stella ab oriente per septem menses surgens ardensque apparuit'; 0.442.1 'stella quae crinita dicitur
per plurimum tempus ardens apparuit'.
The presence of ardens or splendens in all these passages makes the emendation of Henri Valois
superficially attractive, and indeed it is accepted by Eyssenhardt, Gardthausen and Rolfe. But pendens
is also attested: Fast. Vind. Prior : 514 'his consulibus signum apparuit in celo quasi columna pendens
per dies XXX'; Marcellin. Chron. a. 390.1 'signum in caelo quasi columna pendens ardensque per dies
triginta apparuit'.97 In view of the agreement between the MSS. pendens should be retained.
60 nihil perpere gessit

perpere Be (?) : perperam B P P
Rönsch (121) cites a parallel for perpere , and the form is explicable. An adjective perperus is
attested in late Latin,98 and from this could have been formed an adverb perpere. So the adverb
penitus was interpreted early as an adjective, and from here emerged an adverb penite (Catull. 61.171).99
In this case the MSS. are of no assistance. Read perpere as diff. lect .
34
85 quod factum dum revocitus negaret
revoci tus B : revocatus P : evocatus Mommsen in app. crit.
The reading of Pis adopted by Gardthausen, that of B by Eyssenhardt, Mommsen and Cessi.
Moreau prints evocatus . The sense is: 'When he was summoned and denied this . . .
The form revocitus , like vocitus, does occur elsewhere and should never have been removed.100
It probably arose through contamination of the past participles of the frequentative and of the
simplex (vocitatus + vocatus > vocitus ).101 There is no need to change the prefix, for its sense tended
to fade.
62 et dum alium se rex non esse facturum103

sub iusiurandum pollicitus est nisi ipsum, alium
non acciperet maritum, tunc confusa est mulier.
alium B 1 : aliud B^ P : alium maritum Mommsen

alium non BP : non alium Gardthausen
An appeal has been made to the king by a youth whose mother has denied that he is her son.
The king exposes the woman by stating that she must marry the youth. The general sense of the
passage is obvious enough, for Suetonius tells the same story of Claudius {Claud. 15.2). But the
reading to be adopted and the exact interpretation of the Latin are far from clear.
Rolfe, who adds maritum in the first clause with Mommsen, translates: 'And when the king
declared with an oath that he would not make anyone else than the young man himself her husband,
and that she should receive no other husband, then the woman was disconcerted'. This interpretation
is syntactically possible, for it is not unusual to find an infinitive in an acc. c. infin. construction follow-
ed immediately by a subjunctive verb which should strictly be itself an infinitive co-ordinated to the
first:104 e.g. Greg. Hist. Franc. 4.34 'dicens, durum esse servitium illius loci nec omnino tanta possit
implere, quanta ei iungebantur'; 8.15 'praedicabam iugiter nihil esse Dianam ... set potius Deo . . .
dignum sit sacrificium ļaudis inpendere'. This construction (which should be treated separately from
the plain subjunctive coming straight after verba dicendi 105 ) obviously arose through the failure of
vulgar speech to distinguish clearly between subordination and co-ordination: 106 the second clause
was felt to be subordinate to the first, and the verb was therefore put in the subjunctive.
But there are objections to taking our passage in this way. The first clause must be supplement-
ed (e.g. by maritum ), for it is meaningless on its own. But if it is supplemented, its content is no
different from that of the second clause. Although there are frequent verbal repetitions in II, otiose
duplications of material are not in its manner.
It is more likely that acciperet stands in the nisi clause, and that nisi is used elliptically, as else-
where in late Latin, for nisi ut. 107 On this interpretation aliud rather than alium should be read, and
alium non reversed in order: 'aliud se rex non esse facturum sub iusiurandum pollicitus est nisi ipsum,
non alium acciperet maritum'. Trans.: 'He promised that he would see to nothing else except that108
she should receive the youth, and no one else, as her husband' (i.e. if there was one thing that he would
see to, it was that she should marry the youth). This interpretation receives support from a similar
hyperbolical expression containing facio at 91, which is itself followed by an elliptical example of
praeter = praeter quod: 'omnia repromisit facturum praeter . . . '.
Various other textual problems will be discussed in later chapters. For problems involving phono-
logical issues, see Chapter III. On the loss of final <-m> see pp. 51 ff.; on comis (84), see p. 104; on
mari (84), p. 54; on various locatives, pp. 57 ff.; on Odoacrim (52), p. 59; on reperire (56), p. 65; on
synagogas quae (82), p. 88; on ad capite (74), p. 90; and on accepta uxorem (63), p. 99. On the
punctuation at 36, 49, 68, 70, 78 and 93 see pp. 60 ff. on the use of the present participle. On the
punctuation at 43 see p. 89.
35
111
PHONOLOGY AND ORTHOGRAPHY
The study of phonological developments in late Latin is best based on an extensive co

material. Hence, since II is so short, it is of limited interest. Nevertheless the work does
exemplify some important features of late texts. When a non-classical form in B can be ex-
plained decisively it is incumbent on the editor to accept it rather than to follow P, which in
this respect as in others may be regularizing.
37
1 Vowels and Diphthongs
With the loss of phonemic distinctions of vowel length, in most of the Romania the reflexes of the
classical phonemes /ēļ and /i/ on the one hand and those of /o / and /u/ on the other merged in
stressed syllables as /e/ and /o/, while in unstressed syllables the reflexes of /eT/, /e/ and /i/ on the
one hand and those of /o/, /o/ and /u/ on the other fell together as /e/ and /9/.1 One of the most
notable features of many vulgar texts (including II) is the use of the graphemes <e> and < o> for
/i/ and /u/, and inversely of and for /ē~ / and /0/. Such spellings point to the remodell-
ing which must have been occurring in the vowel system.
The evidence provided by II is of interest in two respects:
a Every example of < e> for /i/ and of <0 > for /u/ is in an unstressed syllable. Whatever
o
the ultimate cause of the transition from a vowel system based on quantity to one based on quality,
it does seem likely that the strong stress accent of Latin played a role in undermining quantitative
distinctions.4 This it would have done by causing the prolongation of short stressed vowels and
the reduction of long unstressed vowels. The situation prevailing in II (and in other works: see
below) seems to indicate that the starting point for the revolution was a loss of distinctions of vowel
quantity in unstressed syllables.
An important contribution to the problem has recently been made by Herman ('Evolution').
Herman proves statistically that the distribution of long vowels between accented and unaccented
syllables in Latin was markedly unequal. It was only in stressed syllables that the opposition of
long and short vowels was in effective operation in the classical period. Since the long vowels were
rare in unaccented syllables, they had in those positions no important role in communication.
Distinctions of length would therefore tend to be neglected outside accented syllables (249). As
a result there would have emerged two vocalic systems, first the unaccented, in which distinctions
of length had no place, and secondly the accented, in which the long-short oppositions were longer
retained (249 f.). Our text lends support to this view.
It is not only in II that the graphemes <e> and <o> for /i/ and /u/ are more numerous in un-
stressed syllables. Carlton (62 f.) has noted the same feature in the Rav. Pap.5 In the documents
examined by Politzer and Politzer there is in some respects a greater incidence of change in unstress-
ed syllables.6 B. Lofstedt (90) observes that <o> in particular is especially common for /u/ in un-
stressed syllables. And in Anthimus<e> for /i/ is considerably more frequent in unstressed as against
stressed syllables than the slight preponderance of /i/ in unstressed compared with stressed syllables
in the language in general would justify.7
The evidence of the grammarian Consentius also points to the influence of the accent in over-
throwing the quantitative system. Every example which he censures (GL V. p. 392) of current mis-
takes in vowel quantity consists either of the lengthening of a stressed vowel or of the reduction of
an unstressed: p. 392.3 'quidam dicunt piper producta priore syllaba'; 392.1 1 'si quis dicat orator
correpta priore syllaba, quod ipsum Vitium Afrorum speciale est'; 392.18 'si quis pices dicens priorem
extendať; 392.25 'si quis dicens pices producta priore et correpta sequen ti pronuntiet'.
39
b It is commonly stated that <e> is written for /i/ more often in vulgar texts than <o> for
/u/.8 This is not the case in II, where <o> for /u/ outnumbers <e> for /i/. It has been shown
by Gaeng (83 f., 97 ff.) that in Christian inscriptions the merger of /o / and /u/ is more apparent in
the area of Central Italy9 than elsewhere in the Romania. 10 It may well be that there /0 / and /u/
fell together earlier than elsewhere, and that we have in II a genuine regional characteristic. Again
the Rav. Pap. exhibit the same feature as II.1 1
Clearly the correspondence between the Rav. Pap. and II both in this matter and in the greater
incidence of change in unstressed syllables creates a strong presumption in favour of the authenticity
of B's readings.
i Stressed Vowels
 for /e/
No example.
 for /ē" /
38 proficit , 62 suscipi , 74 eligisset, 11 procidens
The first 3 examples are all of the same type (the change has affected the stem vowel of the per-
fectum), and all are defensible. An umlauting process, whereby a stressed /e~/ was closed under
the influence of a following yod (e.g. ecclisia ) or final /P/, is well established for Vulgar Latin,12 and
also for Italian dialects.13
In the first person singular the transition from feci to fici was effected by the final /P/, and the
stem vowel was later changed in the other persons as well. Fic - is widely attested in late Latin,14 and
is also reflected in Romance (e.g. Milan, fise, Fr., Prov. fis, Sp. hice , Pg .fiz). Proficit occurs in Greg-
ory of Tours.15
The explanation of eligisset and suscipi is the same. Numerous examples of -cipi for -cepi are
found in late Latin (including the Italian Edict. Roth .).16 The reading of B at 62 is further support-
ed by the fact that the verb is in the first person singular.
Procidens is also explicable. Sporadically in late Latin (including that of Italy) /k/ causes the
closing of a following /ē~ /.17 Mercidem, for example, is common. 18 Other compounds of cedo (e.g.
succedo) are similarly affected.19 The distinction made at GL VII.p. 296.25 f.2 'accedit per e ab
ambulando, accidit per i ab eventu' is evidence of the tendency.
<e> for /i/
No example.
< e> for /P/
No example.
 for 1 0/
No example.
40
 for I o I
87 custodia (BP), 50 Octub(res) (BP, twice)

i1
Custodia, which has parallels in Fredegar and the Lombard laws, is comparabile with forms
such as ecclisia, in that an Umlaut has been effected by a following yod. The same change is attest-
ed in idoneare (> iduniare ), matrimoniare (>matrimuniare), testimonium ( >testimunium ), etc.22
Octob(res) should undoubtedly be kept in the text, especially in view of the MS. agreement,
for the form is common in late Latin and is reflected in Romance (Pg. outobre, OSp. otobre, Sp.
octubre ).23 The determinant of the form is obscure.24
< o >for /u/
No example.
<o> for /u/
No example.
ii Unstressed Vowels
for /e/
75 fierit, possit, 68, 84, co mis, 36 Orestis
Comis exhibits a morphological change. The {-es } nominative singular termination (whether
with short or long vowel) of the third declension tended to be replaced by the more common {-is},
as the evidence of the Appendix Probi abundantly shows.25 The form comis is common (see p.
104).
-j/1
The form Orestis might be due to the closing caused by final /- s/. But it is more likely
that since {-esj-was normally a plural termination, the anomalous non-Latin name was remodelled.28
At 75 ('coepit orare deum, ut illi revelatio fierit, ut scire possit, dum adviveret, qui post occasum
eius regnum suscipereť) the relatively strict classical sequence of tenses has presumably been disregard-
ed. Fierit may be a subjunctive form created on the analogy of an opposition such as possit : posset.
 for /e~/
No example.
<e > for /i/
71 dedecavit, reddedit (2?P)

29
If the author wrote reddedit, it is obviously a case of recomposition. The other example is
due to the regular merging of the reflexes of classical /ē~ / and /i/.
41
<e> for /TI
95 alienigenes
This form (functioning as an ablative plural) is inexplicable linguistically, and should therefore
be removed from the text. 0
 for /o/
36 Nepus (3 times)
This form is to be ascribed to a morphological factor. The word has assumed the second
declension nominative singular morph {-us}. Nepus is also found in the Lombard laws, Jordanes
and elsewhere.31 It is possible (but not likely) that a secondary reason for the spelling was the
apparent tendency of final /- s/ to cause raising of the preceding vowel.32
 for /o/

88 reconciliatus
This may well be what the author wrote, for in the accusative plural of the second declension
this spelling is extremely common in vulgar texts.33 But it is not easy to explain.
It is difficult to see how, in the view of B. Lofstedt (87 f.), the analogy of the {-us} nominative
singular could have been influential. Lofstedt supports his argument by stating that us für -os im
Akk. Plur. selten bei denjenigen Wörtern eintritt, die im Nom. Sing, nicht auf -us enden'. He further
states that he has found only one instance of a {-us} accusative plural cited for is, ille or ipse in the
hand-books (eus, quoted by Vielliard). But cf. hus, ducentus, trecentus, sexcentus, nostrus and
ipsus (all quoted by Vielliard, 32), none of which possessed a current {-us} nominative singular.
Since in the second declension words with nominative singular terminations in other than { -us}
were rare (especially in Vulgar Latin), the accusative plural {-us} is naturally more common in
those words which also have a nominative singular in { -us} .
Uddholm (42) asserts that {-us} for {-os} is especially frequent in the words annus and solidus,
both of which habitually occur with numerals. Admittedly a plural termination can be rendered
redundant in words of this type (e.g. Eng. 'five pound'),34 but if this factor were relevant here annus
and solidus would also encroach on anni and solidi . Annus , solidus etc. can only be variants of the
classical accusative plural form, not fossilized nominative singulars.
B. Lofstedt (87) rejects Carnoy's view (50) that a morphological proportion motivated the
{ -us } form: rosa(m) annu(m)
rosas annus
But this explanation is not as implausible as

been pronounced as [o ] , and that the accus
texts, but we shall later see that in written f
singular termination is comparatively tenac
have operated at a graphemic level in the for
fifth declensions as well as the first the same
tions of the accusative. It is irrelevant that t
from those of the plural, since we are dealin
we have the evidence of a grammarian that lo
42
An additional influence may have been the close relationship between nouns of the second
declension and those of the fourth.36 The latter began to pass into the second declension at an
early period.
<o> for /u/
The convergence of /o / and /u/ as /9/ causes < o > to be written for /u/ 22 times in B (Z?1),
in 21 cases in final syllables accompanied by the loss of final <-m>.37 In the remaining example
(62 edocatus ) the change is pretonic.38
<o>for/u/
56 iusso , 79 senso , 80 consulate , 48 adolatione
The first 3 forms are morphologically determined. The ablative morph here is that of the
second declension. 39
With adolatio we may compare the use of adolor for adulor 40 The form can be satisfactorily
explained as due to the influence of popular etymology. There is some evidence that the classical
[ū] of adulor was subject to shortening, probably under the influence of adulescens : Pomp. GL
V.p. 233.34 f. 'adulo media syllaba producitur' (a precept which implies a tendency towards
shortening); cf. CE 1058.3 'cumque pater materque deos pro me adulareť. [u] would develop
regularly to [9] , represented graphemically by < o> . Alternatively the second vowel of adolatio
may be the reflex of classical /0/. Adolatio may have emerged as an alternative to adulado under
the influence of the form adolescens.
iii <ae>
The classical diphthong /ae/ developed early to a money hthong, and in Romance usu
as /ç/, which is equivalent to the reflex of classical /e/. 1 That the monophthongizat
by our period42 is clear from the Tablettes Albertini , which can be dated exactly to
493-496. In this work there are only 7 examples of <ae> (one of which, - vae , p. 293
urbane), compared with 79 of <e> .
But the Tablettes Albertini are exceptional, for in many other vulgar texts the con
of the formal registers caused the limited retention of the graphemic symbol <ae> .
be stressed that it is unlikely to have had any phonetic basis. In this section we are d
with a grapheme.
In certain Italian texts (the Edict Roth ., the Rav. Pap., Jordanes), including II, som
peculiarities in the distribution of <ae> suggest that in the orthography of North and
Italy the treatment of the symbol varied according to its position in the word. It is
that the teaching of the schools had some influence on its use.
In the Edict Roth . <ae> (whether representing original /ae/ or by hyperurbanism

/e/ or /ē~/)43 is far more common as a first declension case ending and in the preverb p
is in initial or medial positions (other than after pr -). The figures are
< ae > < e >
in case ending 77 5
in preverb 67 38
in initial or medial positions 18 40
43
Thus in initial and medial positions <e> outnumbers < ae > , but otherwise it is < ae > that pre-
dominates. The reason for the varying treatment of the diphthong is not difficult to see. With
the fall of the declension system the classical nominal inflections became in most cases learned
forms which had been replaced in speech by prepositional expressions. A writer who attempted
to preserve an artificial declension system out of respect for the traditional formality of legal Latin
would be capable of learning and preserving an artificial diphthongal spelling which belonged to
that system. Inflections not in use in ordinary speech but preserved in the written registers as
taught forms were immune from normal phonetic changes precisely because they were not in
spoken use (see pp. 52 f.).
Though a late writer might be aware that in initial and medial positions the [ę] of speech was
sometimes to be 'correctly' represented at the graphemic level by <ae> , no single rule could be
learnt to tell him when the orthography < ae > was correct. Hence he would be more likely to
be influenced by the current pronunciation.
The preverb is a special case. Its original form could readily be learnt. The particularly
frequent hyperurbane spellings of the type praetium for pretium 44 testify to a belief that < ae>
should be written after pr -.
The later Lombard laws, the Leges Liutprandi , have some interesting characteristics. Through-
out the diphthong continues to be preserved in case endings (1 12:32). In the laws down to A.D.
724 <e> outnumbers < ae> in medial and initial positions (17:9), but in those of the years 725-
727 the compilers made a conscious attempt to restore the diphthong. It is preferred by 18:8,
but is constantly used in words where it does not belong ( mediaetatem 72 (twice), 84, 85 (three
times), 92, piaetatis 8 5). 45
The compilers of the Leges Liutprandi were largely unaware of any rule that <ae> should
follower-. Down to 724 pre - is used exclusively (56 times), but in the years 725-727 the
classicizing tendency noted above manifests itself in 12 examples of prae - (alongside 40 of pre -).
The Rav. Pap. are comparable with the Edict Roth. In the papyri of the fifth and sixth
centuries <ae> is preferred to <e> in case endings by 144:17. But <ae> is retained in initial
and medial positions only 8 times, compared with 7 instances of < e >. The greater uncertainty
felt concerning the orthography in these positions is further shown by the fact that in 4 places the
hyperurbane spelling <ae> for<e> occurs. Finally, after pr- <ae> is preferred by 128:14.
In the papyri of the seventh and eighth centuries < ae> is preferred to <e > by 101 : 56 in
case endings, but again it is less resistant to change in initial and medial positions. There it is
retained only 3 times, whereas <e> appears 10 times; and there are 1 1 instances of hyperurbane
<ae> for<e>. After pr- <ae> still outnumbers <e> (60:42).
The Rav. Pap. are especially important, for they provide evidence of the orthographical con-
ventions operating at roughly the time when II was written. As original, non-literary documents
they are free from the orthographical alterations which scribes transmitting a literary text over a
long period might make. Since <ae> is treated in much the same way in the Edict. Roth, as in
the papyri, the spellings found in the Edict, are likely to be roughly those of the original compilers
rather than of later scribes.
In Jordanes there are exactly the same variations of treatment as in the above texts. In the
first 25 pages of the Rom. < a e > outnumbers <e > by 178:5 in case endings and 46:4 after pr -,
but in initial and medial positions <e> is proportionately far more common (60 times, against 91
examples of <ae> ).46
44
In II it is in thepreverb that <ae> is most secure. It is preserved 25 times, compared with only
2 instances of pre
The treatment of <ae> in initial and medial positions provides the usual contrast. <ae>
is retained a few times, but is outnumbered in the proportion of about 2: 1 (9:4).48 Moreover in
3 places the inverse spelling <ae > for <e> appears (39, 60, 73).
49
Finally, in case endings <ae> is written 13 times, but <e> is adopted 15 times. In this
respect there is a slight difference between II and the other texts, but it nevertheless remains true
that <ae> is proportionately more common in the preverb and inflections than in initial and medial
positions.
45
2 Consonants
i Loss of Final /-s/
In Romance final /-s/ is lost in Rumania and Italy,50 but largely retained in the W
division of the Romania, together with the fact that in old Latin final /-s/ was drop
circumstances, raises a much debated problem. Was there continuity between the e
periods in Italy, the restoration of the /-s / in the West being due to the influence of
Or did Italy and Rumania innovate in dropping the /- s/?52 If so, when?
The evidence of Italian texts, including II, must lead to scepticism concerning t
of continuity between early and late Latin. In most texts loss is rare, and when it
is often due to special factors (e.g. mistakes, especially by stonecutters, abbreviatio
logical factors; loss also tends to occur immediately before another /s/). 53 The rel
of /-s/ can be seen by comparing the incidence of its loss with that of /-m/, which is
dropped from an early period in texts of all areas. Nor can it be accepted, with Gr
(126), 54 that an innovatory loss in Italy took place as early as the second or third
Italian texts of a much later period (e.g. the sixth century) show a high degree of p
of <-s>.
Vaananen ( Inscript . Pomp. 80) notes some 25 examples of < -s> omitted at Pompeii which
cannot readily be explained away. But as he points out ( op.cit . 81), <-m > is dropped 10 times
as often as < -s > . The Pompeian evidence might gain in significance if it could be reinforced by
later Italian evidence, but this is not the case. In the Rav. Pap. Carlton (157) finds only 14 instances
of loss (compared with 309 instances of loss of < -m > : 135), and most of these he is able to ex-
plain on special grounds (159). So the examples which B. Löfstedt (128) quotes from the Lombard
laws are of little significance. Most are of the type 4 morti incurrat periculunť {Roth. 3), 55 where
the genitive singular morph of the second declension has apparently been assumed by a third
declension noun. Moreover a syntactic factor has to be taken into account, as Löfstedt (133 f.)
admits: in late texts (and indeed earlier) the dative shows a tendency to encroach on the sphere
of the genitive.56 Thus it would be misleading to maintain that a phonetic factor was the only
or indeed the major determinant of the omission in Löfstedt's examples.
In no sphere is the citing without comment of statistics less satisfactory than in discussion
of final /- s/ in late Latin. The special factors which may cause omission are so numerous that
each example must be quoted in context. The failure to observe this principle invalidates the
claim of Politzer and Politzer (14) to have found over 100 examples of loss in seventh and eighth
century Italian documents.57 And in any case the texts they consider are very late.
In II there is only one possible instance of the phenomenon (52 'Tufa tradidit Odoacrim
comité patricii Theoderici et missi sunt in ferro'; a plural is certainly required, as the verb missi
sunt shows), the insignificance of which can be seen if we compare the frequency with which
< -m > is omitted (see pp. 5 1 ff.).
46
In the light of the available evidence the only conclusion justifiable is that /-s/ was restored with
a high degree of success in the classical and early imperial periods, and that new factors must have
come into operation at a much later date in Italy and Rumania.
ii Final /-tf
53, 69 capud , 46, 48 iniquid , 62 reliquid
The opposition of /d/ and /t/ in final position was probably neutralized in the late Republic or
early Empire.58 This is suggested by the haphazard alternation between the two plosives in inscrip-
tions and elsewhere.59
But the form which the neutralization took is open to question.60 Safarewicz (97) argued that
it was manifested in the obligatory occurrence in the position of neutralization of the voiceless member
of the opposition. But <d> for <t> is probably more common than <t> for <d> :61 only if the
reverse were the case could we be sure that Safarewicz was right. It is more likely that the neutraliz-
ation took the form of assimilation to the following sound.6 Before vowels and voiced consonants
/d/ would have occurred, and before voiceless consonants /t/ 63
There is little indication of the neutralization in II. All 5 examples above are special cases. It
will be seen that in each case the change <t> > <d> occurs in words to which there corresponded
a phonetically similar word originally showing /d/ in final position ( apud , quid). A type of ortho-
graphic contamination has taken place.64 When in pronunciation the opposition of /d/ and /t/ had
been neutralized, such contamination at the level of writing could easily occur. Capud , inquid and
reliquid are common, as too is ad for at , id for it and quod for quot (and the inverse spellings).65
It is of note that relinquo and inquam are not found with <d> in final position in forms which pre-
sent an intervening consonant between <-qu-> and the final plosive (e.g. *reliquissed , *reliquund).
The explanation from contamination is thus virtually certain.
iii Gemination and Simplification
49 fuiset , 50 fosatum , 52 Tuffa , 60 anonas , 65 Symachum (3 times), 67 anonas ,

76 succesorem, 77 ve lens, 84 stela , 92 Symachus , 94 tyrranno
Simplification thus outnumbers gemination by 11:2. Moreover one of the examples of gemin-
ation is in a proper name (52 Tuffa), and the other (94 tyrranno) is in a learned Greek loan-word
(not reflected in Romance) which has simply been misspelt. This prevalence of simplification would
seem to suit a text composed roughly in the area of North Italy. In standard Italian the tendency is
for geminates to be retained and single consonants doubled,66 but in North Italy simplification is
normal.67 However the relevant examples are not numerous enough to allow us to claim categori-
cally a regional characteristic.
A geminate frequently reduced (3 times) is /ss/. In this case simplification perhaps points to
a voiced [z] pronunciation which is well attested intervocalically in North Italy.6 Fosatum is widely
reflected in Romance.69 Succesorem can be paralleled in type in another Italian text, the Edict
Roth. (228, possesione ).70
A number of our examples (fosatum , succesorem , anonas) appear to obey the so-called 'law of
mamillď (i mamma , but mamilla : a geminate followed by a long accented syllable tends to be re-
duced).71 If this law were in genuine operation in Vulgar Latin,72 we might expect some alternation
between sucessor (nominative)73 and succesorem. Anona is already found at Pompeii,74 and also
occurs in the Edict. Roth. 75 The word does not survive in Romance.
Al
Another form reflected in Romance is stela. 76
The form velens is probably not phonetically determined. The stems vel-, veil -, like noi -, noil-
77
and mal -, wß//-, are frequently contaminated.
iv Assibilation and Palatalization
70
The assibilation of /tj/ is mentioned repeatedly by grammarians, and evidenced from an early period
in literary texts and inscriptions by <tsi> and similar graphemic sequences (e.g. CIL IX.4182 Titsieno,
XII.2081 tersio , 2086 sepsies ).79 A notable inverse example is found in B at 60: circentium =
circensium Cf. Thessalonicentium, quoted by Schuchardt, i, 154.
Elsewhere in II there is one example of <ci> for <ti> 80 ( palaciu 71), and 2 of <ti> for < ci>
(provintia 42, 62), all of which should be printed, in view of the extensive evidence of such phenomena
in other texts.
v Aspiration
The author usually writes <h> correctly in Latin words (a literary affectation without foundation in
popular speech).8 But note 40 peribent, 11 abuisset, 96 exalare t, and inversely, 41 Hisauria, 42
Hisauros.
But Greek aspirated plosives in loan-words are frequently rendered by a simple plosive:82 65
Symacum , 71 termas (twice), amphiteatrum , 85, 86, 87, 92 (twice) Boetius, 87 cordai 94 scolasticus .
In addition note anforas for amphoras at 73. The transition of the aspirated voiceless bilabial plosive
0 to the fricative /f/ is well attested from an early period.84 Original 0 is represented in Romance
partly by /p/, but mainly by /f/.85 Amfora had achieved the status of a 'correct' form, as Appendix
Probi 221 amfora non ampora shows.
For digraphic representation of Greek aspirated plosives, see 60, 80, 94 catholicus, 60 amphi-
theatrum , 79 charta , 88 brachium. There are numerous examples in proper names. The alternation
between digraph and simple plosive probably represents the author's uncertainty at a time when formal
orthography and current pronunciation diverged. The readings of B should be kept.
It is remarkable that, while in many proper names (e.g. Symachus) a digraph is always or usually
found in B, Boetius is written 5 times with the simple plosive but never with a digraph. No doubt /tj/
was assibilated in pronunciation, with a sibilant replacing the aspirate of the original word. Since the
urbane orthography for assibilated /tj / was <ti>, Boetius would establish itself as the 'correct' re-
presentation of *Boetsius, with the primary 'correct' form Boethius for Boetius forgotten in the process.
vi /ks/
Twice in II (38, 89) the perfect stem of iungo is written iuncx-. There are numerous parallels for this
spelling,86 which should be kept in the text. Since the single grapheme <x> represents two phonemes,
attempts were often made to render the double sound orthographically by means of two consonants.87
00
The consonant cluster /ks/ was assimilated to /ss/ (or /s/

would have caused further orthographic confusion. There is
Basilisco (43 B^°) belongs to the same category.89 /sk/ somet
reverse development may also occur: ascella < axilla)?® and f
48
I v
MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX1
1 Case and Prepositional Expressions
In late Latin there occurred a transition from a nominal system in which case function was
realized mainly by case inflexions to a system in which these functions were marked by relative
word order and by prepositions. Some use had always been made of prepositional expressions
in Latin, but these now gradually assumed supreme importance. The main determinant of the
change was a loss of distinctiveness of certain case inflexions. In particular the distinction bet-
ween accusative and ablative singular was neutralized by the loss of final /- m/ and the shortening
of long vowels in final position.2
In many late texts, including II, the classical case system is largely intact, though various
indications point to changes in progress at a subliterate level. In II certain patterns of word order
which are functional in Romance are already apparent,3 and there is an increased use of preposition-
al phrases. The ablative singular inflexions especially had so lost distinctiveness that they can be
seen to be in decline as independent exponents of the traditional ablative functions.
We may begin by a brief survey of some of the specific functions realized by prepositional
expressions in II which in earlier Latin would usually or always have been realized by case inflexions.
But it must be stressed that we are dealing with a semi-learned text. The traditional conservatism
of the written registers prevents a wholesale departure from the classical system.
i Prepositional Expressions for Independent Case Inflexions
At 68 ('quem fecerat in initio regni sui') the use of in with initio for the classical plain ablative (cf.
principio) is exclusively late (Vet. Lat . onwards: TLL VII. 1.1 659.71 ff.). The TLL article gives
the impression that the idiom was a special feature of translation literature (rendering ev áp'f¡ ),
but our passage should have been quoted along with Mul. Chir. 180 as showing that this was not the
case.
It is apparently only in II (80 'et contra fidem catholicam inimicus') that inimicus is
the preposition contra for the classical dative (cf. 88 'legi eius inimicus'). But as early
is found with another preposition, in (Bacch. 547), 4 and in late Latin with adversus and
The use of ad for the dative with verba dicendi , which is familiar in the colloquial re
Pļautus (see n.4) and survives in Romance, does appear in II, though only twice. The ex
49
very near each other: 82 'data praecepta ad Eutharicum Cilligam et Petrům episcopum'; 88 'dicit ad
eum' (cf. ib. 'die ei'). Their proximity may be due to the author's momentary and unconscious drop-
ping of his formal register.6
At 62 the late denominative intimo is employed in a common turn of phrase: 'omnia filius
mulieris intimasset in auribus regis'. But the author seems to be alone in preferring in + abl. to the
dative (TLL VII.2. 17.70 ff.).
The modal and instrumental ablative is still used independently in II (43, 49, 55, 60, 74, 82, 85),
but scarcely less common is the semantically equivalent use of cum + abl.: 65 'cum omni gaudio . . .
occurrentes'; 87 'cum fuste occiditur'; 90 'cum prosperitate perduxiť; 93 'cum dolo suscepiť; ib.
'cum summo gaudio populi deductus est corpus'. These uses of cum are not unknown in earlier
Latin,7 but their incidence in II is remarkable.8
Cum gaudio is already found in Varro, Sallust and a few times under the early Empire ( TLL VI.
2.1716.8 ff.), but in classical Latin it is outnumbered by gaudio ( TLL VI.2. 1715.44 ff.). Cum gaudio
became obligatory in much late Latin.9
No other example of cum fuste is quoted at TLL VI. 1.1658, though fuste and fustibus (instr.)
are very frequent. But there are analogous examples of prepositional usages for the instrumental
ablative at Lex Sal 17.6 'si quis . . . ingenuum de fuste percusseriť, and Amm. 29.3.8 'de fustibus
caesi'.10
Cum dolo , finally, is an extremely rare expression found elsewhere mainly in translation literature
(TLL V.l. 186 1.61 ff.). But as the above parallels show, it would have been familiar in type if uttered
in ordinary speech.
Twice in II in is used in temporal expressions for which the ablative alone would have been
employed in classical Latin: 56 'in eadem diem11 iusso Theoderici omnes interfecti sunt'; 73 'quis
quod opus habebat faciebat, qua hora vellit, ac si in die'. This usage is too well known in late Latin
to require illustration.12 An early example in Varro (Men. 448 'in die dormire') is probably a sub-
literate colloquialism.
The author shows scarcely any tendency to employ de + abl. for the genitive. There is a solitary
example at 93 ('coeperunt reliquias de veste eius tollere'), standing not for a possessive but for a
partitive genitive.13
As early as Petronius the accusative was in rivalry with the ablative (or genitive) of price in Vulgar
Latin: 43.4 'vendidit enim vinum, quantum ipse voluit'. Not unexpectedly this type of ablative, like
various others, is sometimes replaced by prepositional expressions. The usage has received little attention.
See 73 '(fecerunt) vinum triginta anforas in solidům', 'they valued 30 amphorae of wine at a gold piece! 14
For the replacement of a genitive of value by a prepositional expression, see Didasc. Apost. 2.6
pro nihilo = roß ¡ urjSefóç. 15
In addition to the above examples there are a few unremarkable prepositional phrases used in
contexts in which an independent case usage would have been possible, though not obligatory, in
classical Latin. At 60 ('rex fortissimus in omnibus iudicaretur') a genitive plural could have stood
for in + abl.16 At 49 ('pro merito laborum') an independent ablative would have been possible, and
at 42 ('eum invi tavit in solacium sibi') a predicative dative (cf. auxilio)}1
Most of the above prepositional expressions (omitting those in the last paragraph) replace the
ablative (8 or 9). The dative is replaced 4 times, and the genitive once or twice. These statistics may
be taken as a rough indication of the relative vitality of the three cases. Although the ablative frequently
50
18
appears to be correctly used after prepositions, its potency as an independent carrier of the
wide range of functions which it possessed in classical Latin was certainly in decline. Moreover
the relative frequency of prepositional phrases for the ablative in II merely indicates a tendency
which would have been far more marked in the spoken varieties of the language.
The figures given above, along with some facts which will be given below, cast doubt on some
of the assertions concerning the break-up of the declension system found in a standard text-book
(that of Grandgent). Grandgent states (43 f.) that 'the genitive probably ceased to be really popular
... by the beginning of the third century', and (44) that 'the dative was more stable than the genitive'.
And his remark (45) that 'the analogy of prepositional substitutes for the genitive and dative favored
the use of prepositions with the ablative', at least implies that the decline of the ablative either follow-
ed or accompanied that of the other two cases. His dating of the disappearance of the synthetic
genitive19 is of course mere speculation, for we can only guess about the nature of the spoken registers.
His view that the genitive in all its functions was lost earlier than the dative is highly questionable,20
and his apparent belief that the ablative disappeared no more quickly is certainly incorrect. Texts
of roughly the same period as II confirm the conclusion of the last paragraph. Thus in the Variae of
Cassiodorus prepositional expressions for the ablative are extremely common,21 and ad + acc. for
the dative occurs often.22 But there is no clear case of de + abi. for the genitive (other than the
partitive). Similarly in Gregory of Tours there has been a marked recession of the ablative before
numerous prepositional expressions,23 and the use of ad + acc. for the dative is much in evidence.24
But there is no corresponding indication of the disappearance of the genitive. De is restricted to
25
partitive expressions, many of which would have been acceptable in classical Latin.
This argument concerning the stability of the synthetic genitive relative to that of the dative is
confirmed by the material collected by Sas. In most of the ten texts and documents (down to the
end of the eighth century) which he examines the genitive (singular and plural) is almost intact,26 but
analytic equivalents with ad have made inroads on the dative.2
ii The Accusative Singular
In B there are numerous examples, either governed by prepositions or complementing verbs, of nouns
or adjectives with the accusative morphs {-a} , {-e} or {-o} (or {-u} ) instead of the classical {-am},
{ -em} or { -um } . P , where it is extant, usually has the classical forms,28 and editors for the most
part follow P in regularizing. But is regularization justified? Final /-m/ had long been lost 29 and the
spellings with final <-a>, <-e> and <-o> 30 would have had a phonetic basis. The practice of B
must be examined more closely. We shall begin with those accusatives which complement verbs
rather than depend on expressed prepositions. Case usage after prepositions raises further problems,
and will be considered separately below.
There is a distinction in B between the treatment of first declension words on the one hand and
those of the second, third, fourth and fifth declensions on the other. Accusatives with { -a } are con-
siderably more frequent than those with {-e } or {-o }, as the following table illustrates: 31
{-a} 19 {-e} 3 {-o} 19

{-am} 28 {-em} 50 {-um} 78
The {-a} form accounts for about 40 per cent of all

the {-e } form accounts for only 5 per cent of accusa
{-o }({ -u} ) form for only 19 per cent of accusative
The disproportionate frequency of {-a} is by no m
51
inscriptions the loss of /- m/ in the first declension is more marked than in the second. B. Lofstedt
(226 ff.) has recently shown in detail that an identical distinction to that in II is also found in the
Lombard laws. And the extensive statistical material given by Sas33 points to a similar situation in
a variety of late works. In the Per., for example, {-a} is outnumbered by {-am} in the proportion
85%: 15%; but for {-um} / {-o} the corresponding figures are 98:2, and for {-em} / {-e}, 99:1.
In the Lex Salica the figures are: for {-am} / {-a} , 51:49; for { -um} / {-o }, 74:26; and for
{-em } I {-e} , 89: 1 1. In the Merovingian documents collected by Lauer for the period down to A.D.
692, {-a} is actually preferred to {-am} in the proportion 64%:36%, but {-um} is preferred to {-o }
by 68:32, and {-em } to {-e } by 62:38.
In the light of this and other evidence not mentioned34 it would be perverse to maintain that the
clear distinction between the treatment of the first declension accusative and that of the other
declensions was due to the scribe of B rather than the original author. The distinction had emerged
long before the ninth century. We cannot of course be sure that in some places the scribe was not
responsible for the omission of <-m> , but it does seem likely that in other places B preserves the form
used by the author himself, and that P regularizes, as in other matters, according to classical canons.
Since there are numerous lexical and syntactic vulgarisms in II which can scarcely be removed from the
text even by a regularizing editor, there are also bound to be genuine phonological vulgarisms. The
editor is not justified in eliminating the latter simply because they are easier to eliminate. It is incon-
ceivable that the author used a language which was vulgar in some respects, but rigidly classical in
others, as Moreau and others apparently thought. There is no course open to the editor but to follow B .
There is also a special reason for adopting this course. In the late sixth century, and particularly
in the seventh and eighth centuries and later, there is a tendency for the terminations {-a }, {-e} and
{ -o } to be used in vulgar texts not only in the function of direct object and after prepositions, but also
with genitive and dative function.35 If it was the scribe who introduced into II the accusatives with { a},
{ -e} and {-o} , we should also have expected him to admit traces of the oblique case in other functions,
since he was working as late as the ninth century. But no such traces are to be found. The mode of use
of { -a} , {-e} and {-o } in II is appropriate to the period prior to the end of the sixth century.
B. Lofstedt argues (228) that the special frequency of {-a} has to do with the transition of neuter
plurals into feminine singulars. This change would have caused uncertainty in the written language
concerning the accusative inflection of nouns with nominative in{ -a} . On the one hand {-am} emerges
for the original neuter accusative morph {-a } , and inversely there would be a tendency for { -a } to be
written for original {-am } in feminines. This spelling would have been the more common because it
represented the pronunciation of the accusative singular.36 For an item supporting Lofstedťs view,
see below, p. 54
It is worth mentioning that some of the accusatives without <-m> in B occur in strings of accusa-
tives (whether series of nouns or nouns accompanied by more than one qualifier). Indeed the { -o }
accusative is used almost exclusively in such contexts (whereas that with { -a } is found for the most
part in unaccompanied words). The author apparently felt it sufficient to mark the case in the classical
manner just once; in the rest of the series he would employ a spelling which better represented his
pronunciation. The inconsistency is thus due on the one hand to his desire to use a classical form with
which he would only have been familiar in writings; and on the other hand to his uneasiness about the
artificiality of a string of terminations no longer in everyday use.37
In the second declension accusative objects with {-o} are usually masculine rather than neuter (but
see 41 and 51). The rarity of neuter accusatives in {-o} , a feature shared by other late texts38 deserves
to be explained.39
An explanation must start from the fact that in the nominative singular as well as the accusative
the original neuter morph {-um} , where it is retained instead of the more vulgar {-us} which arose
52
from the passage of neuter to masculine, is scarcely ever reduced to {-o}. This can be seen from a
glance at the material collected by Sas (100 ff.). The neuter nominative shows {-um} 55 times in
the Per., 8 times in the Lex Sal., 52 times in Gregory of Tours, bk. IV, 19 times in the documents
of Lauer (down to A.D. 692), 33 times in the Lib. Hist. Franc., 1 1 times in the Form. Andec., 81
times in the documents of Tardif for the period 750-770, 61 times in the Marculf Form, and 51
times in the documents of Tardif for the period 770-800. Against this there are only 3 nominatives
in {-o} in Lauer (692-717), 2 in Tardif (750-770), 7 in the Marculf. Form ., and one in Tardif (770-
800).
The retention of {-um} in the nominative at a time when in speech final /-m/ was lost and when
/u/ had passed to /o/ can only be ascribed to one factor. The distinctive neuter terminations were
purely literary, without any basis in ordinary speech, for in the spoken language neuter nouns would
have passed into the masculine. Whereas in the masculine accusative original {-um } would be written
<o> because that spelling had a phonetic basis, the neuter nominative virtually did not exist in speech
and was not therefore subject to reduction. Thus in the conservative written registers, where some
feeling for the neuter still survived because of the tenacity of formal conventions of writing, the neuter
nominative continued to be written in its original form.
The reason for the survival of the original neuter accusative will now be apparent. If an original
neuter was felt to be masculine, its accusative would be subject to exactly the same type of reduction
as that of an original masculine. But in the written registers, as we have seen, literary convention had
caused the neuter to linger longer. It is precisely because the conception of the neuter as a grammatical
category survived at the literary rather than the colloquial level that the original accusative spelling was
often retained. As a learned archaism it was immune from the phonetic factors by which a spoken
form would have been influenced.
The resistance of the nominative { -um } to reduction in the texts which have been mentioned is
good evidence that the neuter was dead in speech. Otherwise spellings influenced by the current pro-
nunciation of such forms would inevitably have found their way into writings more frequently.
iii The Accusative Singular with Prepositions
The use of the forms {-a }/ {-am} , fe} / {-em} and {-o }/ {-um } in nouns governed by prepositions
is more difficult to assess, for a further syntactic factor has to be considered. In prepositional express-
ions in late Latin the accusative tended to be generalized as the universal case, and a hypercorrective
inverse tendency is also to be seen (see below, iv). Thus an example of a preposition normally governing
the accusative used in conjunction with a noun with an apparent accusative morph {-a} , {-e} or {-o}
may really be a case of the hyperurbane employment of ablative for accusative. We might, in some
texts at least, expect this factor to increase the incidence of<-e>for <-ertt> and <-o> for<-urrc> relative
to that of <-a> for<-am> .
But it will be argued in the next section that in II genuine case confusion of the type concerned
is rare except under special conditions. Hence it is not surprising that in singular nouns dependent on
prepositions which in classical Latin would have governed an accusative {-a} occurs for {-am} with the
same disproportionate frequency as that seen above.
The termination { -a} is scarcely less frequent than {-am} . It is found 12 times in II,40 in contrast
to 14 instances of {-am} . But {-em} outnumbers {-e }by 32:7?* and {-um} outnumbers {-o }by
46: 10.42 P usually regularizes.4
The relative frequency of { -a} is illustrated by the terminations used after intra , a favoured pre-
position in II. In first declension nouns B employs {-a } but not {-am}: 38 intra Campania , 42 intra
53
provintia , A3 intra cisterna sicca, 45 intra Pannonia. {-em} and {-um }, however, are preferred to
{-e } and { -o} : 43 intra baptisterium , 75 intra cubiculum, 78 intra urbem Constantinopolim (cf.
however 74 intra palatio 2?1). In successive sentences at 43 intra is used with {-a} twice, and {-urn }
once.
Also of interest is the adoption by B of { -a } after in or ad in the place-name

The name must originally have been Pinetum (= 'pine-wood'), which had then pass
via the neuter plural.44 Its obligatory termination {-a} supports the explanation g
frequency of {-a} has to be seen against the transition from neuter plural to femin
iv The Accusative and Ablative with Prepositions
The function of most prepositional expressions is sufficiently marked by the pre

ablative or accusative morph is superfluous. The functional load could therefore b
entirely to the preposition, and the accusative morphs generalized. As early as t
inscriptions the accusative occurs with prepositions normally taking the ablative
cum sodales', 275 cum discentes ; 2155 a pulvinar ).45 The inverse tendency, the
the ablative for the accusative, sprang on the one hand from an awareness that in
the ablative as well as the accusative had been a prepositional case, and on the oth
familiarity with the subtleties of the defunct classical language. Since singulars w
< -a>, <-e > and < -o > may have been intended as either accusatives or ablatives,
detect case confusion in plural nouns and certain types of singulars.
In II (B ) prepositions are for the most part correctly used with the cases whi
taken in classical Latin. But those prepositions which earlier had taken two case
with either case. The author was aware that once both cases had been possible, b
according to no observable principle. He was unable to see that with such prepo
or ablative morphs were still functional in the classical period. Clearly for him th
element in a prepositional expression was now the preposition. He chooses the c
accordance with what he has read in learned Latin, but not understood.
In in particular is employed haphazardly with both ablative and accusative in B

sometimes failed to remove an unclassical usage which he must have taken directl
Moreau's handling of the problem is unsatisfactory. At times he allows an abnorm
he regularizes either in the face of B or even despite agreement between B and P.
The unclassical uses of in are as follows:
a 39 exer<ci>tus in arma B
b 40 patellas in genucula non habuisset B
I take genucula here as an accusative plural rather than an ablative singular (as it is inter
VI.2. 1810.3). The preceding example is a good parallel.
c 50 fixit fossatum in campum B * (a borderline example)

d 59 bonae voluntatis in omnibus B
e 83 iussit . . .in proastium civitatis . . . altarium subverti B^
f 84 in mari praecipitati BP
In the following places the author may have deliberately used the ablative, but it is also possi
54
that we have the accusatives { -a } , { -e } or {-o} .
a 52 missi sunt in ferro B
b 54 ingressus ... in fossato B

c 70 tradens in matrimonio i/*6
d 72 si quis voluit in agro suo argentum vel aurum dimittere BP
Mommsen, followed by Cessi and Moreau, emended here to agrum suum.
e 78 in Trini tate . . . mittis B
f 81 in aqua . . . iactaverunt B
g 87 dueti in custudia BP 47
Most of the words concerned here are of the second or third declension. In the preceding
section they are treated as showing the accusatives in {-e} and {-o} . Had they been left out of
consideration, as they might with some justification have been, our conclusion concerning the
special frequency of { -a } would have had even stronger foundation.
Sub , which also may govern the ablative or accusative in classical Latin, almost always take
the accusative in II where the ablative would have been expected:48
a 60 militia Romanis sicut sub principes esse praecepit B
b 62 sub iusiurandum polli<ci>tus est BP

c 72 ut se illi sub foedus darent BP
d 87 sub tormenta . . . occiditur BP
There is only one example of case confusion with a preposition which normally takes just on
construction: 82 secundum hoc tenore B : hunc tenorem P.
v Directional Expressions
There is a distinction, of some importance in late Latin, between the author's method of expressing
'motion towards' towns or small islands and that of expressing 'motion from'. This distinction thro
light on the changes taking place in the case system.
'Motion towards' is usually rendered in the classical manner by means of the plain accusative:
36 'veniens Ravennani';49 50 'fugit Ravenna'; 51 'perambulavit . . . Mediolano'; ib. 'missus est Tufa
. . . Ravenna'; 52 'veniens Faventia'; ib. 'venit Faventia'; ib. 'adducti Ravennani';50 53 'ambulavi
Mediolanum'; ib. 'fugit . . . Ravennani'; 54 'fugit Ravenna'; 64 'quae . . . Constantinopolim trans-
miserať; 65 'ambulavit . . . Romam'; 70 'revertens Ravennani'; 82 'currentes Veronám'; 88 'rediens
. . . Ravenna';51 ib. 'evocans Ravennani'; ib. 'ambula Constantinopolim'; 92 'deducitur . . . Ravennan
The occasional examples of ad + acc. instead of the plain accusative are usually special cases. At
36 ('fugam petit ad Salonam') ad is apparently used to avoid a double accusative with petit. At 42
('deinde misit ad civitatem Novam') there is similarly an implicit double accusative, for misit has an
unexpressed personal object. There remains 50 'abiit in Veronám', where in may have special point
55
'Motion from' is rendered not by a plain ablative but by the preposition de' 49 'superveniente
... de civitate Nova'; 52 'exiit ... de Ravenna'; 53 'exiit de Cremona'; 54 'exiit ... de Ravenna';
92 'deducitur de Roma'. In certain passages the juxtaposition of the exponents of 'motion towards'
and of 'motion from1 well illustrates their contrasting character: 52 'exiit ... de Ravenna et venit
Faventia'; 53 'exiit de Cremona et ambulavit Mediolanum'; 92 'deducitur de Roma Ravennani'.
After the loss of final /- m/ and of quantitative distinctions in final syllables, oppositions of the
kind Romam Ravenna venit could no longer be expressed by case inflexions alone. To eliminate
ambiguity the language evolved a new and economical system of opposition which stood halfway
between the classical (inflexional) and Romance (prepositional) systems.
It is significant that the new opposition took the form Roma<m>de Ravenna venit rather than
ad Roma<m> Ravenna venit. When the accusative and ablative singulars fell together for phonetic
reasons, it was the accusative functions which attached to the resultant morphs. Clearly the ablative
was obsolescent as an independent inflexional entity with recognizable functions.
A similar system of opposition is found in the Hist. Trip, ascribed to Cassiodorus, though it is
not as sharply defined as that in II. Ad + acc. does occur in the work, but there are frequent examples
of the independent accusative. On the other hand 'motion from' is regularly expressed by means of
prepositions.52 The new system must have been very well established in the spoken registers to have
found its way into the learned Latin of the Hist. Trip.
vi The Genitive and Ablative of Quality
The genitive of quality occurs at 48 ('esset bone voluntatis'), 59 (same phrase), 61 ('tantae sapientiae
fuit') and 72 ('tante enim discipline fuit'), but there is only a single instance of the ablative of quality
(79). There occurred a reversal in the comparative frequencies of the two constructions between the
classical period and that of our late vulgar texts. In the Republican period the ablative was preferred,
but it was displaced later.53 This development may be put down to the greater tenacity of the
synthetic genitive in popular speech.
vii The Accusative and Ablative of Duration
The classical distinction between the accusative of time (expressing duration) and the ablative (express-
ing 'time within which') is a fine one. In late Latin in particular, but also to some extent earlier, the
ablative encroaches on the accusative as an exponent of duration.54 Behind this development lies the
frequent ambiguity of the ablative in temporal expressions: e.g. Ter. Adelph. 520 'ut triduo hoc per-
petuo e lecto nequeat surgere'. Strictly triduo hoc might be interpreted as 'within this three day period',
but it scarcely differs in sense from triduum. Another usage before which the accusative of duration
yielded ground is per + acc., which in various texts outnumbers the plain accusative.55
But caution is needed in dealing with the ablative of duration. It has been seen above that in
the singular the accusative and ablative are indistinguishable, and evidence has been given that the
ablative was moribund. A statistical case for the popularity of the ablative of duration could only
be based on the incidence of the plural forms. Discussions of the question have ignored this rule of
procedure. Moreover if the ablative increases in frequency in late Latin, as indeed it appears to do56
it can only have done so at the level of the more formal registers. The evidence for the fading of the
ablative is such that the ablative of duration could scarcely have existed in the ordinary speech of the
lower-classes. A prepositional usage (i.e. per + acc.) is more likely to have been employed to express
duration.
56
Our text reinforces this warning. The accusative occurs 6 times (36, 39, 42, 45, 59, 71), always
in the plural. The ablative appears to occur twice (39), but both times in the singular ( anno uno).
In the absence of plural examples of the ablative it would be unsound to assume that the author intend-
ed the expression anno uno as an ablative. Indeed it is surrounded by accusative plurals of duration
in similar or identical contexts (36, 39, 42, and especially 59). Both cases of anno uno should be re-
tained in the text, but the question of their case must be left open.
The only demonstrable rival of the accusative of duration in II is per + acc., which is found 4
times (36, 53, 59, 84). Cf. 95 'dum intra triduum evacuatus fuisseť.
viii The Locative
In Latin the locative, so far as it existed, receded gradually before prepositional and certain other
usages. 57 In II, where original locatives are outnumbered by the various alternatives, the conditions
of flux are well exemplified.
In the singular it was only in the first declension that the locative survived for a long period with
its function intact, and that was because of the frequency of Romae and its analogical influence.58
In Orosius, for example, Romae is by far the most common locative still in use;5 alongside it only 3
examples of Alexandriae and Aquileiae can be quoted.60 In the Rav. Pap. there are 5 possible occur-
rences of the locative, all of the first declension (Ravennae).6^ In II there are 3 or 4 original locatives
again of the first declension: 36 Rome , 71 Ravennae , Verone .
In the second declension the survival of the locative was not supported by the existence of a
place-name of frequency comparable to that of Romae. The locative ablative63 occurs from an early
date onwards. At Vitr. 8.3.24, for example, Tarso is juxtaposed with Magnesiae , and in the Pompeia
inscription CIL IV.4299 Herculaneo is juxtaposed with Nuceriae . 64
Similarly in the third declension the locative ablative was standard, though in consonant stems a
few locatives in {-!"} drawn from the second declension turn up sporadically (e.g. Carthagini ).65
In II there are a few examples of first declension ablative singulars standing as locatives: 53
Ravenna ; 66 81 Verona ( BP ).6 It has been shown by Löfstedt ( Synt . ii, 75 ff.) that because of the
retarding influence of Romae the appearance of the locative ablative in this declension was late: it
is not attested until about the fifth or sixth centuries, and then of course it must have had a learned
character.
Prepositional expressions with locative function also occur a number of times in II: 37 in
Placen tia, ad Pineta; 66 ad Palmam; 83 ad Fondetesi
There remain 4 places where the accusative is employed as a substitute for the locative: 36
'imperante Zenone Augusto Constantinopolim'; 69 57 'et moritur Constantinopolim Zeno imperator';
71 'item Ticenum palaciu termas amphiteatrum et alios muros civitatis feciť; 80 'Romae et Ravennan
triumphaviť. In each case Moreau emends, but without justification (at least in the first two passag
The locative accusative is well attested for this period, and Constantinopolim (along with other non-
Roman names in - polim ) is especially common:72 e.g. Marcellin. Chron. a. 402.3 'Constantinopolim
71
ingens terrae motus fuit'; a. 536.5 'Agapito Constantinopolim defuncto'.
The frequent overlapping of the notions 'where' and 'whither' is well known.74 The action of
many verbs is ambiguous between directional and static (cf. e.g. 'he was locked in prison' and 'he was
locked into prison'; so in Latin certain verbs may take in + acc. or in + abl.). Ad, the standard ex-
ponent of 'motion towards', had always been capable of expressing a locative notion. For the encroach-
57
ment of an original directional on the locative we need only think of later Greek, where etç + acc.
may be locatival as well as directional: e.e. Mark 13: 16 ò etę ròv äypov fxq eiTtOTpeýáTOj etę ra ònioocj:75
7 fk
Cf. in Mod. Greek pevoj oto ovin ('I stay at home') and ráco orò otīiti ('I go home'). The pre-
historic syncretism of dative (directional) and locative as the Greek dative further illustrates the fine
dividing line between the two functions. Equally familiar, though of the inverse type, is the common
displacement of directional by static adverbs (see below, p. 84). In a classical expression of the
type hue venit , where the directional verb selects a directional adverb, direction is doubly marked.
Later the tautology was eliminated. The marking of direction was left to the verb, and the locative
hie served in both locatival and directional sentences. Ibi displaced eo , ubi displaced quo, etc.
But there is another factor which must also be taken into account, especially since the locative
accusative in Latin is not freely used but is largely restricted to certain non-Latin place-names in -polim.
Place-names are often fossilized in a particularly common form, and that form used with a variety of
functions. Many place-names in Romance reflect original locatives or locative ablatives (e.g. Firenze
<Florentiae , Girgenti < Agrigenti, Angers< Andeeavis, Acqui, Aix <Aquis ,77 Asti <Astis, Paris <
Parisiis , etc.).78 As early as the fourth century the grammarian Consentius testifies to the existence
of some fossilized locatives: GL V.p.349.4 'interdum efferuntur novo modo et quasi monoptota, ut
Curibus Trallibus Turribus Sulcis . . .'. Place-names derived from locative or oblique cases with locative
function are also well represented in other languages. Certain German place names reflect original
datives, 79and Eng. meadow is an original locative. Vendryes comments as follows on the phenomenon:
'Dans les noms propres de lieu, c'est le locatif (ou ce qui en tient lieu) qui est le cas le plus important.
Ce fait explique qu'en France les noms de villes tirés d'anciens noms de peuples présentent la forme
du datif-locatif pluriel.'80
The directional case (or a directional expression) may also be fossilized. In Marcellinus' Chroń.,
where Constantinople is constantly mentioned, it is the directional Constantinopolim which is most
common. A few times, as we have seen, it is used without directional force. The starting point for
its encroachment on the locative would probably have been its use in contexts indeterminate between
static and directional. Uncertainty about the inflection of a foreign name may have facilitated its
fossilizai ion. A parallel example of a directional becoming invariable is provided by etę ti )v nókw
( >Istambul ).81
Norberg ( Beiträge 52 f.) is able to quote examples of Constantinopolim (and other names in
- polim ) not only with locative but even with nominative and other functions. This makes it certain
that the form had become invariable.
ix Some Uses of the Double Accusative
The sentence 'muros alios novos circuit civitatem' at 71 would have been syntactically inconceivable
in classical Latin, for eireumeo only takes a single accusative. Nevertheless, the text at 71 is certainly
sound.
Latin possesses various verbs which can have two different object constructions: acc. (often of
the person) + abl. rei, or acc. rei + dat. (often of the person): e.g. eireumdo aliquem aliqua re or
eireumdo aliquid alieui. In vulgar texts the two constructions are sometimes blended, producing a
double accusative:
09
e.g. Apic. 6.9.13 'quem perfundis ius tale'; Oribas. Syn. 3.207 'evacuas colo-
quentidas oleum'.
At 71 there has been an extension of this tendency. Circumeo cannot take two different but
semantically equivalent constructions, acc. + abl. = acc. + dat., but it can be used with one object
construction (acc. + abl.) in which it is interchangeable with other eircum- compounds. See e.g.
58
Claud. 28.527 f. 'colla monili circuit', where circumdat or circumicit could be substituted. Since
these other verbs could be employed with both object constructions and hence with a double
accusative, it was only a small step to the acquisition by circumeo of the same construction by ana-
logy.
No exact parallels to this use of circumeo are attested, but there are other examples of double
accusatives with verbs which do not normally take both of the object constructions noted above.
See e.g. Pact. Leg. Sal. 27.34 'si quis mulierem brachilem furaverit . . .'. Furor itself would usually
be accompanied by an acc. rei + dat. of the person. But fraudo and defraudo , which originally took
two constructions fraudare aliquem aliqua re and fraudare alicui aliquid and later a double accusative,
influenced other verbs of the same semantic field. Eludo , ludifïcor and privo are all found with
83
double accusatives.
Even closer to our example is Fredegar Cont. p. 187.27 'circumsepsit urbem munitionem
fortissimam'.84 The analogy of circumdo lies behind the usage.
Another double accusative should be restored to the text at 52: 'Tufa tradidit Odoacrim
comités patricii Theoderici et missi sunt in ferro'. Odoacrim is the reading of BP (Odoacrem Be ),
but editors print Odoacri. Trado occurs a number of times in late Latin with a double accusative:
Greg. Hist. Franc. 5.18 'unum volucrum tradidi puerus (= pueros)'; Fredegar p. 159.2 'tinsaurum
quod suffecerit filium tradens'; Lib. Hist. Franc, p.251.25 'tradidit Siagrium missos Chlodovecho'.85
It was the analogy of dono which was influential in this case. 86
59
2 The Verb
i The Present Participle and Nominative Absolute
In II the present participle is rarely employed in the classical manner. It is most

perfective sense to fill the gap caused by the absence in Latin of a perfect activ
fect participle (passive) and the present (perfective active) were thus made to fo
usage is well known in late texts,87 but some of its features are worthy of ment
relevant later.
The position occupied by the perfective pres. part, in II relative to that of th

sentence tends to be logically determined (see above, p. 27). On the one hand i
verb if the action it expresses precedes that of the verb. Thus the structure of
Ravennam deposuit Augustulum de regno' is standard. The order Augustulum
ingrediens Ravennani, though it might have been acceptable in classical Latin (w
for ingrediens ), is largely avoided. On the other hand, when a perfective pres. p
verb, the action it expresses may also follow that of the verb: e.g. 53 'mox subs
Theodericus veniens in Pineta' ('the patrician Theodoric soon followed him and
ib. 'et fixit fossatum, obsidens Odoacrem clausum per triennium Ravenna' ('he m
then kept Odoacar in a state of siege for three years in Ravenna'); 62 'amplectit
deum se filium revidisse'; 67 'ingressus palatium, exhibens Romanis ludos circe
Palace, and exhibited games in the Circus for the Romans'); 81 'dehinc accensu
observantes ñeque regi ñeque Eutharico aut Petro . . . , consurgentes ad synagog
(here I take non observantes . . . Petro as virtually equivalent to a consecutive cl
est : 'the people were so infuriated that they showed no respect for the king . .
then a perfective pres. part, with a logical position before incenderunt ); 84 'ste
quae dicitur comis, pendens per dies quindecim'. With these examples might b
from another text: Vita Lucii Confessons 3 'tunc Timotheus gaudens de praece
et de doctrina maģistri sui, pervenit in partibus Gaìi'àrum, praedicans baptismum
missionem peccatorum' (here the positions of gaudens prior to, and praedicans a
are logically determined).
The connection to the rest of the sentence of those pres. parts, which are po
tenuous. It was a stylistic preconception of the author that two or more actio
by a sentence-type comprising a core finite verb supplemented by one or more
according to their temporal relationship to the verb. It is this preconception
sentence such as 42 'eum invitavit in solacium sibi adversus Basiliscum, oblectan
biennium veniens, obsidens civitatem Constantinopolinť, with its string of crud
all posterior in time to invitavit and arranged in temporal order.89
II has been used as^roviding evidence for the existence of the Vulgar Latin 91
pres. part. = finite verb, a category which it will be argued here did not exist
60
the above remarks it is already possible to dispose of two apparent examples of the finite pres. part.
At 36 editors punctuate thus: 'et Nepus factus imperator Romae. mox veniens Ravennani: quem
persequens . . . ' As the text stands, veniens appears to be equivalent to a finite verb. But if a
comma is placed after Romae, and a full stop after Ravennam, veniens becomes a postponed perfective
pres. part., describing an action posterior to the election of Nepos. Its connection to the main verb
factus (est) is no more tenuous than that, e.g., of veniens to invitavit at 42 above.
92
At 68 the usual punctuation is as follows: 'item Amalafrigdam germanam suam in matrimonium
tradens regi Wandalorum Trasimundo. Liberium praefectum praetorii . . . fecit patricium'.93 This
punctuation falsely creates a finite pres. part, tradens. A comma should be placed after Trasimundo ,
and tradens treated as a perfective pres. part, temporally prior to fecit , and hence preceding it. All
of the other supposed instances of the finite pres. part, in II will be discussed below.
The position of the perfective pres. part, when it precedes the verb is unfixed, but one pattern
is particularly common in a wide variety of authors. It is relevant in a discussion of the finite pres.
part., and must be illustrated. The pattern is that seen e.g., at 36 'superveniens Nepos . . . deposuiť
(pres. part. + S + V) or, alternatively, at 92 'metuens vero rex . . . iussiť (pres. part. + intervening
word + S + V). There are 14 examples in II. Cf. e.g. Vit. Patr. 5.1.1 'et respondens senex dixit';
Vict. Vit. 1.20 'adprehendens itaque Sebastianus . . . effatus est'; 2.53 'vitantes igitur nostri . . . de-
ligunť; Caesar. Arel. Serm. 1.3 'timens apostolus . . . ait'; Itin. Ant. Plac. A 40 'occurrentes mulieres
. . . unguebanť; Lib. Hist. Franc, p.244.2 'videntes enim Franci . . . fugierunť; 256.4 'audienshaec
Gundobadus . . . aiť; Pass. Quir. Teg. 2 'audiens haec Claudius, coepit . . . querere'; Mart. Matth. 13
'euntes autem milites . . . audiebanť; Fredegar p. 100. 16 'venientes cum caeleritate Franci . . . diregunť.
For a clear example in translation literature which is not determined by the Greek version, see Act.
Petr. c. Sim. 32 'superveniens autem quidam . . . ' = e?ç ôé nç ekdúv .... The popularity of the
pattern can be seen from the fact that in the Vita Lucii Confessons pres. part. + S occurs 6 times, but
S + pres. part, only once.
We may now turn to the remaining examples in II of the apparently finite use of the pres. part.
The usage has usually been ascribed to ellipse of esse in periphrases of the type faciens est ('he is
doing'), 4 but such an explanation is untenable, as has been argued by Eklund.95 In II there is no
single example of a periphrasis to set against the numerous examples of the unaccompanied (apparent-
ly finite) participle. It is therefore inconceivable that the latter is derived from the former.
Many examples of the construction in question can be simply explained in the light of what has
already been said above. Very often the usage occurs in the structure pres. part. + S (with or without
an intervening word), both in II and elsewhere. See e.g. 36 persequens Orestis ; 53 mittens legationem
Theodericus ; 78 temp tans eum diabo lus; 93 rever tens Iohannes; ib. euntes populi. Cf. e.g. Vict. Vit.
1.50 discedens mulier. In these examples the pres. part, has the position not of a finite verb, which
is usually preceded by its subject, but that established above as particularly characteristic of the intro-
ductory perfective pres. part, expressing an action prior to that of the main verb. The finite pres. part,
is in many cases nothing other than an introductory pres. part, with a subsequent breakdown of the
logical ordering of the sentence. Such breakdowns occur especially often in the presence of complex
subordination. For a writer of little learning attempting to compose in a periodic style which was at
a considerable remove from his everyday register, a finite verb would not always be either ready to
hand or necessary for the completion of the sense once he had committed himself to the formulaic
introductory pattern. Alternatively the verb might differ in subject from the participle. Thus the
sentence is either left unfinished, in which case the pres. part, superficially appears to be a finite verb;
or there may be a change of subject, in which case the pres. part, seems to become part of a nominative
absolute construction. The more extensive the subordination which the sentence contains, the more
likely it is that the author will be either left without a main verb, or forced to change subjects.
I now deal with the remaining absolute examples of the pres. part, in II.
61
a 36 quem persequens Orestis patricius cum exercitu, metuens
Nepus adventům Orestis, ascendens navem fugam petit.
Here there has been a change of subject after the writer had committed himself to an intro-
ductory perfective pres. part, (persequens ). Note that persequens Orestis is identical in structure
to metuens Nepus' originally it was no doubt conceived as syntactically identical, but in the event
was left unattached to a finite verb. Persequens Orestis has the appearance of a nominative absolute.
b 43 quia senātus et populus Zenonem metuentes, ne quid male

pateretur civitas, relicto Basilisco, se illi omneš dederunt.
This example has been correctly explained by Svennung (Pall 434) as a case of contamination
of a causal clause (e.g. quia . . . metuebant) on the one hand, and a causal participle (metuentes) on
the other.
c 49 Zeno itaque recompensans beneficiis Theodericum, quem fecit

patricium et consulem, donans ei multum et mittens eum ad Italiam.
cui Theodericus pactuatus est . . .
B reads recompensas rather than a pres. part. This leads Eklund (125) to classify the example
as doubtful, but it is certain that recompensans is the correct emendation: cf. e.g. 39 Zeno . . . regnans'
42 Zeno confortane 43 Zeno . . . exiens. These parallels establish recompensans as an introductory
pres. part., this time preceded by its subject. The construction has broken down, probably because
of the amount of subordination. The finite verb expected before the cui clause never occurs. It is
better to place a comma rather than a full stop after Italiam .
d 53 mox subsecutus est eum patricius Theodericus veniens in Pineta et

fìxit fossatum, obsidens Odoacrem clausum per triennium Ravenna, et
factum est usque ad sex solidos modius tritici, et mittens legationem
Theodericus, Festum, capud senati, ad Zenonem imperatorem et ab eodem
sperans vestem se induere regiam.
Mittens . . . Theodericus has the common introductory structure, and it is possible that the
author has been left without a finite verb. But were it not for the clause et factum est . . . tritici
the construction would comprise finite verb (fixit fossatum) followed by loosely attached pres. parts,
in temporal sequence (cf. 88). The parenthetical clause has broken up the series, and the author has
picked it up again by the introductory formula pres. part. + S.
e 65 ambulavit rex Theodericus Romam et occurrit beato Petro

devotissimus ac si catholicus. cui papa Symachus et cunctus senātus
vel populus Romanus cum omni gaudio extra urbem occurrentes.
Occurrentes does not seem to be derivable from the introductory formula. It is possible that
there has been contamination of a relative clause with a postponed nominative absolute. Relative
clauses are often conflated with participial constructions in late Latin.97 But the problems con-
cerning the nominative absolute (see below, p. 64) make it safer to regard the clause as a crude
attachment for which the author neglected to provide a finite verb.
f 70 deinde sexto mense re ver tens Ravennani, alia germanam suam

Amalabirga tradens in matrimonio Herminifredo regi Turingorum:
et sic . . . placuit.
62
The punctuation given here, that of all editors except Rolfe, is unsatisfactory. A comma placed
after Turinzorum gives the construction pres. part. + et + V, a pattern which is extremely common in
late Latin. Since the structure pres. part. + et + pres. part, is not at all frequent, it is clear that the
pres. part, was not felt to be genuinely finite itself: it required the support of a neighbouring finite
verb. Et often links a subordinate construction with a finite
OQ
verb, as a result of a 'loss of feeling for
the difference between co-ordination and subordination'. Cf. 64 'facta pace . . . , et omnia orna-
menta . . . transmiserať, where an ablative absolute is attached in the same way to transmiserat.
g 77 quadam die procidens imperator, dum festinus veliet a latere

imperatoris transiré, obsequium ordinare Vellens, calcavit clamidem
imperatoris.
Procidens was at first conceived as introductory, as the structure shows, but a change of subject
in the subordinate clause dum ... is maintained in the principal clause and procidens imperator is
left unattached. It looks like a nominative absolute.
h 78 temp tans eum diabolus, volens sectam Eunomiana sequi: quem

populus fidelis repressit, ita ut ei in ecclesia clamaretur.
Temptans . . . diabolus has the usual introductory structure. The subject changes in volens ,
which is not picked up by a finite verb. The breakdown again occurs in a sentence containing a
certain amount of subordination. There should be a comma rather than a colon after sequi. Temptans
. . . diabolus has the appearance of a nominative absolute.
i 82 mox Iudei currentes Veronám, ubi rex erat, agente Triwane

praeposito cubiculi, et ipse hereticus favens Iudeis, insinuans regi
factum adversus Christianos.
The considerable incoherence of this sentence is not difficult to explain. Currentes is intro-
ductory, but in the presence of two types of subordinate construction it is left unattached. The
appositional nominative et ipse ... is discussed below (p. 93). Favens is adjectival, and insinuans
is a postponed perfective pres. part, ('having ...')•
j 85 Cyprianus, qui tunc referendarius erat, postea comes sacrarum et

magister, actus cupiditate insinuans de Albino patricio, eo quod litteras
adversus regnum eius imperatori luštino misisset: quod factum . . .
Another good example of a pres. part, left unattached because of the complexity of the
subordination.
k 88 rediens . . . tractans . . . inmemor factus . . . confidens . . .

item credens . . . mittens et evocans ... et dicit ad eum.
The series of pres. parts, is followed by the main verb dicit , which is attached by the apodotic
use of et which has been seen above (f).
1 93 revertens Iohannes papa a luštino, quem Theodericus cum

dolo suscepit et in offensa sua eum esse iubet. qui post paucos
dies defunctus est.
If qui were omitted, the sentence would be perfectly constructed, with defunctus est as its main
verb and Iohannes (in the introductory formula) the subject. Once more the author has shown his
inability to construct a periodic sentence in the classical style. We might compare 38 'enim pater
63
eius Orestes Pannonius, qui eo tempore, quando Attila ad Italiani venit, se illi iuncxit et eius notarius
factus fuerať, where qui (also, as at 93, juxtaposed with another subordinate clause) is superfluous.
Clearly the punctuation 100 (with a full stop after luštino) is unjustified, for there is no possibility
that revertens was conceived as finite, standing as it does in the introductory pattern. It is the
presence of qui rather than the use of revertens which by classical standards renders the passage
abnormal. Commas should be placed after both luštino and iubet.
m 93 ergo euntes populi ante corpusculum eius. subito unus de turba

arreptus demonio cecidit.
Euntes populi was at first intended as introductor/, but the author was unable to attach it to a
verb as he proceeded. A comma should obviously be placed after eius instead of a full stop (the
punctuation of Moreau).
Thus in almost every case the supposed finite pres. part, is merely introductory. It has often
been left unattached because the classical periodic style to which the author aspired has proved too
much for him to handle.
It is possible that a form of nominative absolute comprising pres. part. + S gradually arose as a
result of frequent anacolouthon interrupting the pattern pres. part. + S + V. If so, when the parti-
cipial construction occupies initial position the dividing line beween anacolouthon and the genuine
nominative absolute (i.e. that used deliberately as an equivalent to the classical ablative absolute,
rather than inadvertently) is impossible to define. The term 'nominative absolute' has been tenta-
tively used above in reference to those constructions which are immediately followed by a change
of subject. But it is conceivable that the nominative absolute as a genuine syntactic category does
not exist in II; perhaps we should always speak of anacolouthon. Its existence could strictly only
be regarded as definite if it had acquired mobility and were attested within the clause or in final
position, and this is not the case in our text. 101
Indeed present participial examples of the nominative absolute in non-initial position are very
difficult to find anywhere. Eklund, who does not question the existence of the usage, does quote
a few examples (168 ff.), but none is really convincing. 1 02 It is usually possible to take the pres.
part, as introductory and attach it to the following sentence, in which anacolouthon may be assumed.
On Vict. Vit. 2.6. for example ('ordinato itaque episcopo Eugenio, viro sancto Deoque accepto, sub-
limis nata est laetitia et gaudium cumulatum est ecclesiae Dei. exultans multitudo catholica sub
barbara dominatione de ordinatione pontificis reparati; nam maximus iuvenum numerus . . . attesta-
batur, quod ...')> Eklund states (169): 'It would be quite as good a solution to put a comma after
Dei and a full stop after reparatU a punctuation which would make exultans . . . reparati a nominativus
absolutus depending on the preceding text'. But it should be noticed that exultans multitudo has the
formulaic introductory pattern. If a new sentence begins at exultans anacolouthon is easily explicable
thereafter in the presence of subordination. It is equally unconvincing to allege a clause-final nominative
absolute at Ben. Reg. 7.13 f. (' . . . demonstrans nobis hoc propheta, cum ...'), for the order is intro-
ductory, and anacolouthon would have been easy in view of the complex structure of the rest of the
sentence. So at Greg. Hist. Franc. 9.12 ('ibique cum tribus famulis mortuus est, multum ex hoc
episcopus dolens, quod eum non solum defensare non potuit verum etiam locum, in quo orare con-
sueverat et in quo sanctorum pignora adgregata fuerant, sanguine humano pollui vidiť) there is no
reason why a full stop should not be placed after mortuus est , and episcopus dolens interpreted as
introductory with subsequent anacolouthon.
103
Given the marked preponderance of unattached participial constructions in the initial position,
their obvious origin in the introductory pres. part, of late narrative prose, and the doubtful nature of
those which are non-initial, it is distinctly possible that the present participial nominative absolute is
a spurious phenomenon, existing only as a form of anacolouthon. It is also well to remember that the
64
pres. part, was a literary device which survived in Romance only in adjectival and substantival forms.
The supposed absolute construction which we have seen thus could scarcely have had a basis in
popular speech.
ii The Passive
There is one place in B where the classical present passive infinitive seems to have been replaced by
an active form: 56 'omnes interfecti sunt, quis ubi potuit reperire ' (i?1 : reperiri B^). Reperire may
be a scribal error, but it is linguistically defensible. Vulgarisms should not be removed from II with-
out good reason.
The present infinitival terminations of the first, second and fourth conjugations, -are/-arit - ere /
-eri, and -ire /-iri, show little phonetic difference between the active and passive forms. Moreover as
a result of the shortening of long vowels in final position (see p. 42), the passive ending -ri could be
represented graphemically by <-re> : /F/ >/i/> /e/. 104 In vulgar texts from the sixth century on-
wards infinitives intended as passive constantly turn up with what appears to be the active form: 105
e.g. Tardif 63 'ubi Pippinus rex requiescere videtur et nos si Domino placuerit sepelire cupimus';
Marculf. Form. p. 77. 7 'quicquid dici aut nominare potest'.
In the third conjugation, however, the active and passive forms are phonetically distinct (e.g.
dicere , dici). Hence both remained in use in written texts without confusion for considerably longer.
It is only in the eighth century that confusion sets in,106 a fact which indicates that the synthetic
passive infinitive (which was replaced in Romance by reflexes of the periphrastic amatum esse type)
was by then obsolescent. In Fredegar, for example, the termination -ere for - i is just beginning to
appear.107 In II the passive termination in the third conjugation is still intact (62 sisti, 69 scribi ,
poni , IA sterni, poni, 78 sequi, 83 subverti, 91 restitui, 92 interfici, 95 opprimi).
Since the one example of confusion in II occurs in a verb belonging to a conjugation which was
affected early, the editor is justified in retaining the reading of B ^ . It is plausible that a text of its
period should show the beginnings of a vulgar development attested elsewhere from the sixth century
onwards.
II
In II there are 2 examples of the periphrastic infinitive typ z amatum esse for the present passive
infinitive: 81 'quare ludei baptizatos nolentes* (there has been ellipse of the subject accusative se
and also of esse; the use of acc. c. infln. with nolo for the infinitive is unremarkable); 90 'iubet
ergo rex iratus . . . superinpositum eum cum aliis episcopis' (again with ellipse of esse).
Muller (76) and Bastardas Parera (128 f.) were both apparently of the view that passive periphrases
of this type are securely attested only from the eighth century onwards.108 If this were true, the
presence of two periphrases in II would be strange indeed, for we have found no other evidence to
suggest such a late date for the work. But it is necessary to approach Muller's chronology with
caution. He has considered only Merovingian and Carolingian Latin, and that mainly of documents
composed according to certain obvious linguistic conventions. The formal registers of other areas
need not show identical characteristics.
A periphrasis of the type in question turns up in the Ravenna Papyri under the year 564: p. 238
'possi t esse conputata'. Since it is possible that II itself was written in Ravenna, our sixth century
date remains unaffected. In spoken varieties of the language the usage may well have been current
65
from an earlier period (see further below). Indeed it is found a number of times in Vitruvius and in
Cicero's early works, where colloquialisms often occur. 109
It was the view of Muller that the periphrastic passive infinitive emerged to fill the place vacated,
for phonetic reasons, by the old synthetic forms. It is true that periphrases eventually replaced the
synthetic forms. But for a long period the use of periphrases was otherwise motivated. This we
could conclude even from a text as short as II, where the synthetic passive is intact, but the peri-
phrastic already in use: the presence of the latter was not determined by the absence of the formei.
Moreover the periphrasis at 90 belongs to the third conjugation. It has already been seen that in
this conjugation the synthetic passive survived until very late.
There is another usage which must be taken into account in a discussion of amatum esse , viz. the
employment of the perfect active infinitive for the present active.110 Examples such as habuise velet
(S.C de Bacch. 4) are well known since early Latin in the legal language, and since the late Republic in
poetry. 111 But in late Latin the usage also appears in prose of various types,112 and indeed is found
in II at 61 : 'nos non piget . . . posuisse'. A glance at a list of examples will show that it is not employ-
ed freelv in all the traditional functions of the infinitive but mainly as the complement of auxiliary
verbs.1 3 It is to these same contexts that the passive usage tends to be restricted, even at a late date.114
Clearly the active and passive forms should not be treated separately. The periphrasis amatum esse =
amari is simply the passive correspondent to perfect actives such as that at Tert. Marc. 2. 29 'possum
antitheses retudisse'. Since the latter usage is widely attested in late Latin, we may assume that the
limited attestation of the passive is no indication of its currency. It is of particular interest that in II
active and passive alike are found.
How is the contextual restriction on the two usages to be explained? In the examples given by
Rönsch of aux. + perf. act. infin., the auxiliary itself is frequently in a past tense: e.g. Tert. Marc. 3.2
'praecessisse debuerať; 3.9 'non debuerunt . . . sumpsisse'. A partial explanation might be that there
was assimilation of the tense of the dependent infinitive into that of the auxiliary (cf. Eng. 'I would
have been able to have come'). But there are also cases where the auxiliary is in the present tense.
A perfect infinitive dependent on a modal auxiliary does not refer to a past event but expresses
aspect (perfective) alone. In the sentence dico eum venisse , venisse expresses past time relative to
the time of utterance: it thus has tense reference. But in volo venisse , venisse is indifferent as to tense.
There is no reference to a past act: the subject states a desire to have finished doing something. With
modal auxiliaries perfect and present infinitives can be used almost indifferently, for the auxiliary has
the effect of nullifying the past reference of the perfect infinitive. The subject can state that he has an
obligation, desire or ability either to do something (present infinitive) or to have finished doing it (per-
fect infinitive). The two statements convey much the same information, though in the second the
hypothetical act is more vividly imagined as being in a state of completion.115
The perfect infinitive used with modal auxiliaries was thus in origin an aspectually motivated
variant for the present, giving a more concrete reality to the act. But with the decline of the present
passive infinitive and the development of the new periphrastic passive system amatus est , fuit , etc.
(see below, III), amatus esse eventually became a full substitute for amari.
III
The classical periphrastic passives occisus est and occisus erat are ambiguous. Both may be either
punctual (aoristic) or stative (perfective). Occisus est may mean either 'he is killed' (state) or 'he
was killed' (at some point in the past); and occisus erat either 'he was killed' (state in the past) or 'he
had been killed'. This ambiguity provided the impulse for the appearance of some new periphrases:
e.g. occisus fuit , a substitute for occisus est in its aoristic sense; and occisus fuerat , a substitute for
66
the aoristic use of occisus erat. There emerged a new passive system which is partly reflected in
Romance: 116 present (state), occisus est ; perfect (aoristic), occisus fuit ; pluperfect (aoristic),
occisus fuerat, etc. This system encroached on the classical passive system, though occisus est
could not have the continuous sense of occiditur ('he is being killed').1 17 The new system has a
certain logic, in that the tense of the auxiliary is the same as that of the periphrasis: 118 the present
is formed of participle + present tense of esse , the perfect of participle + perfect tense of esse , etc.
It is not until very late that the system fully emerges,119 despite the assertions of various scholars.120
II presents an overlapping of the new with the old which is typical of texts down to about the eighth
century.121
The perfect passive, whether aoristic or perfective, is never formed with fuit in II. There are
some 39 instances of the normal classical formation.
On the other hand, as we have seen (pp. 30 f.), the pluperfect (aoristic) is always formed not
with the classical auxiliaries but with fuerat or fuisset. Similarly the one instance of a future perfect
is formed with fuerit (75) rather than erit. There is thus a neat distinction between the formation
of the perfect on the one hand, and of the future perfect and pluperfect on the other. Exactly the
same distinction is found in other texts, including, for example, the Ravenna Papyri. There the
fect with fuit does not occur, but the pluperfect formed with
i Si
fuerat ox fuisset is found 17 times,
compared with only one example of the classical formation. The future perfect with fuerit
found 12 times, 12 compared with no examples of the classical formation.1
Though the issue is problematical, it may be significant that the remodelling begins in the
tenses. 12 Since an ordinary speaker would not have occasion to use the pluperfect very oft
forced to do so he might tend to produce a logically formed periphrasis. But the perfect pass
(aoristic) was so common that the old form long remained current.
IV
1 27
It is a feature of II that deponents are almost exclusively used in the classical form. The only
exception is amplectit at 62. This verb is attested as an active as early as Livius Andronicus (frg. 19)
and Pļautus (Rud. 8 16). 128
1 29
The synthetic medio-passive is also still represented. The medical term evacuo is used in the
middle at 93 ( evacuatus fuisset , = 'he had evacuated himself), though elsewhere in late Latin it appears
with a reflexive pronoun in the active: Oribas. Syn. 1.2 p. 802 'evacuare se homo debet' = npocnrodénevov
Another medio-passive usage (the reciprocal) is correctly employed at 49 (pactuatus est : cf. paciscor).
Reflexive verbs are scarcely ever used in II with medio-passive or passive function. Se iuncxit (38) is
unremarkable. The reflexive, along with the medio-passive, use of this verb is attested at all periods.
iii Tense
The structural conditions underlying the encroachment of the pluperfect subjunctive on the imperfect,
beginning with the expression of unreality, have often been explained. See e.g. Thomas 218 f.: 'Dans la
domaine de l'hypothèse et celui du souhait, le subjonctif imparfait designe alors l'idée ou le voeu contraire
à la réalité presente, le plus-que-parfait l'idée ou le voeu contraire à la réalite passée. Dans ces conditions,
l'imparfait tend à perdre sa valeur passée, le plus-que-parfait celle de perfectum The imperfect subjunctive,
originally a potential of the past,130 in unreal clauses tended from early Latin onwards to be used with present
value. Consequently the pluperfect stepped into its place, also from an early date. 131 Since the imperfect
did not entirely lose its past value,132 it had an ambiguity of function which opened the way for
67
the emergence of a more economical opposition present: pluperfect. The Romance imperfect sub-
junctive (in the West) reflects not the Latin imperfect but the pluperfect. 133
Already in classical Latin the pluperfect had by analogy encroached on the imperfect in certain
other functions, notably in independent clauses (e.g. as a past jussive, in which function only the im-
perfect subjunctive is employed in early Latin).1 4 And in late Latin it makes its appearance in sub-
ordinate clauses from which all idea of anteriority is absent: e.g. Lucif. Cal. Äthan . 2.4 'hortatus . . .
Iohannes ut dignum fructum fecissent (= facerent) paenitentiae';135 Ann. Regni Franc . p.4 (a.145)
'praeparaverunt se uterque, Carlomannus ad iter suum et Pippinus, quomodo germanum suum
honorifice direxisset cum muneribus'; p.68 ( a 784) 'ibique inito Consilio cum Francis, ut iterum
hieme tempore iter fecisset supradictus domnus rex in Saxoniam'; p.74 (a. 787) 'misit Romaldum. . .
postolare de adventu iamdicti domni regis, ut in Benevento non introisseť.
There are some clear examples of the latter type in II: 82 'iussit ... ut omnis populus Romānus
Ravennatis synagogas, quae incendio concremaverunt, data pecunia restaurarent; qui vero non
habuissent unde dare frustati per publicum sub voce praeconia'; 79 'unde si subscribere voluisset,
posita lamina super charta per earn penna ducebať (here voluisset expresses repetition; in imperial
Latin the imperfect subjunctive is often used thus ); ib. 'inlitteratus erat et sic obruto senso, ut
in decem annos regni sui quattuor litteras subscriptionis edicti sui discere vmWdXznus potuisseť ' 40
'peribent de eo, quia patellas in genucula non habuisset , sed mobiles fuissent , ut etiam curso
velocissimo ultra modum hominum haberet'.137
II
The Latin future, which had an insecure phonetic basis, was replaced by certain periphrases in
Vulgar Latin and Romance. 138 In II the future is not often required, but it is frequent enough
to show that the old classical system, if not defunct, was giving way to the new forms of expression.
At 89 there is an example of the periphrastic future - urus + sum : 'hoc tibi ego non promitto
me facturum, nec illi dicturus sum'. It is significant that the verb is both first person singular and
third conjugation. Forms such as dicam , which corresponds exactly to the first person present sub-
junctive, would probably have been among the first discarded. 139 The author is still familiar with
the synthetic future of the third person singular, third conjugation, as accipiet at 75 shows (the
only example of a synthetic future in II). The periphrastic future - urus + sum is common in late
Latin,140 but is not reflected in Romance. The finite forms -urus sum etc. and the future infinitive
•urum esse may have been felt to comprise a system. The loss of the future infinitive141 may have
caused the decline of the finite periphrasis. Late periphrases of the type - urus + future of esse142
indicate the fading of the participle in - urus as an exponent of futurity.143
Another passage which may be mentioned here, though strictly it probably belongs under the
Imperative, is 78 'ita ut ei in ecclesia clamaretur: "in Trinitatem lanceola non mittis" ' {mittis BP:
mittes Rolfe). If the verb is taken as future in sense, the present form should nevertheless be retain-
ed with the MSS., for the colloquial use of the present in a future sense is familiar in Latin as well as
the Romance languages.144 But in fact the sentence is probably a command. In this case too mittis
should be retained, for the imperatival present indicative is a vulgarism, attested in the Pompeian
inscriptions, which is reflected in Romance.145 The usage probably implied the necessity of the
immediate fulfilment of the act. In our passage a peremptory tone would be appropriate.
There is an instance of a present infinitive used for a future at 53: 'sperans vestem se induere
regiam'. Comparable examples abound in old as well as late Latin,146 and must always have been
characteristic of the colloquial registers. But the author of II elsewhere employs the future active
infinitive in the classical way (62, 66, 91). It is possible that he was uncertain about the perfect
participle of induo , an irregular verb without reflexes in Romance.
68
Finally, at 74 debeo + infin. is used for the future: 'quis de ipsis in eodem lecto eligisset dormire,
in hoc se debere cognoscere (= cogniturum), cui regnum postea tradereť. This periphrasis survives in
Sardinian.147
Ill
1 48
The historic present is still used in Romance, and was probably as common in colloquial narrative
as in the historical register.149 See e.g. Petron. 62.2 f. 'nactus ego occasionem persuadeo hospitem
nostrum ut mecum ad quintum miliarium veniat . . . apoculamus nos circa gallicinia . . . ' (a freedman's
narrative).
There is at least one type of historic present in II which was undoubtedly familiar in popular
speech, viz. the repetition of dicit at 62 followed by direct speech in the account of a conversation:150
dicit mulieri denuo: "est fllius tuus, annon?" qui dixit "non est filius meus", dicit ei rex: "quae
est facultas tua . . . " Cf. 88 'dicit ad eum' The use of dicit for dixit introducing direct speech is
particularly common in the fifth book of the Vitae Patrům}^ whereas in the third (of higher social
provenance) dixit is preferred.
iv Deletion of the Reflexive Pronoun
At 88 ('tractans non ut dei amicus') the sense is obviously 'acting not as a friend of god', with deletion
of the reflexive se from se tractare (= segerere ), an expression which is found in Cicero {Fam. 13.12.1
'quo in muñere ita se tractaviť) and turns up sporadically in later Latin (e.g. Cass. Var. 6.2.4, and
often;152 VitaSanct. Radegund. 2.1, 2.8). For the omission of se , cf. Dracontius, Satisfactio 229
'(iuvenis) maturus tractať, where the meaning is 'acts', 'takes action'; Fredegar, p. 103. 14 'studiose
tractaviť.153
69
3 The Adjective
i Comparison of Adjectives
The author of II had little occasion to use the comparative. Minor (50) is one of a small group of
synthetic comparatives reflected in Romance.154 On citius - cito (89), see p. 23. The synthetic
superlative in both of its functions occurs a number of times, but mostly in formulaic terms of respect:
39 nobilissimus, 40 velocissimus, ib. providentissimus, 58 bellicosissimus, 60 fort issimus, 65
devotissimus. On diutissime (87) see below, p. 84.
In popular Latin the intensive superlative tended tc be displaced by periphrases of the type
intensive adverb (e.g. sane , valde , vehementer , fortiter, bene , multum , nimis, satis ) + positive. 155
It is of note that the only such periphrasis in II occurs with a second declension adjective in -er (asper):
80 'qui Eutharicus nimis asper fuit'. The superlative of adjectives in -er had long caused confusion.
Celerissimus is found as early as Ennius, and integrissimus, miserissimus and acrissimus are attested.156
It is possible that at 80 uncertainty over the form of the synthetic superlative led the author to use a
periphrasis with nimis. 157
Though there is no other exactly comparable periphrasis in II, there is an example of double
gradation (intensive adverb + synthetic superlative) at 40 (< omnino providentissimus ).158 The adverb
omnino deserves note, for though commonly used in superlative periphrases, it does not seem to have
received attention. Cf. An th. 80 omnino recentem' 87 maturas omnino ; Itin. Ant. Plac. 7 parvus
omnino ; 29 angustum omnino}^ Ben. Reg. 39 omnino debiles', 50 omnino longe; 58 omnino curiose;
Jord. Get. 58 omnino peregrinum ; 139 acri omnino. For a parallel instance of double gradation,
see Jord. Get : 75 omnino amplissimus.
ii The Use of Appositional Adjectives for Modal Adverbs (« devotus )
In Latin, as in English, an appositional adjective expresses a detachable, transitory state rather than a
permanent characteristic: e.g. Cic. Verr. 4.65 'tum inanes ad Antiochum revertuntur'.160 In English
such adjectives are either postponed ('John, empty handed, returned home') or, if prepositive, are
separated from the noun by a marked pause ('Unhappy, John returned'). 161 The state may be caused
by the action of the verb ('Unhappy, he did it'), or it may simply be concomitant with it (as in the
Ciceronian example).
If appositional adjectives show a detachability from their noun, so modal adverbs are not bound
162
tightly to their verb. It is possible to distinguish degrees of affinity of adverbiais to verbs. In the
sentence libenter pedibus venit , the instrumental adverbial pedibus refers to the process itself, but the
modal adverb libenter refers only to certain concomitant circumstances in which the process is carried
out.
70
Appositional adjectives thus express a circumstantial and transitory state of the subject as he
performs an act, and modal adverbs a circumstantial and transitory manner in which an act is per-
formed. The two categories clearly overlap Adjectives which may express circumstantial and
transitory states (e.g. adjectives of state of mind) 163 can be used appositionally as virtual equivalents
of modal adverbs. The choice between adverb and adjective, when available, does not seem to
be determined by stylistic factors, but is idiolectal. The 'adverbial' use of adjectives occurs in all
registers,165 and is well domiciled in Vulgar Latin. In time certain appositional adjectives were
fossilized as adverbs in their nominative singular form (e.g. voluntarius> Fr. volontiers ; Primarius >
OFr. premiers). 166
At 65 devotus is used appositionally as an equivalent to devote (with its function marked by

postposition): 'ambulavit rex Theodericus Romam et occurrit beato Petro devotissimus . . .
Devotus is common in late Latin with this function: e.g. Greg. Mart . 43 'mane autem facto, sacerdos,
admonitis civibus, cum crucibus et cereis ad occursum sanctarum reliquiarum devotissimus properať;
65 'cui traditis rebus, suppliciter exoravit, ut easdem oratorio restitueret; quod diaconus devotus
impleviť; 99 'quidam Iudaeus ab ipsa infìrmitate correptus sancii basilicam, quamquam Christo non
crederet, devotus tamen expetiiť;167 Cass. Var. 9.25.3 'patrem quoque clementiae nostrae in ipsa
curia Libertatis qua diserti tudine devotus asseruiť; 1 1 .7.3 'ut trina illatione devotus constitutis
temporibus suam compleat functionem'; 12.16.3 'ut trina illatione servata assem tributarium
devotus exsolvat, quatinus nec aliquis se sub immatura compulsione ingemiscat exactum nec iterum
remissione protelata quisquam se dicat esse praeteritum'.
ļeQ
The fact that it is devotus rather than fidelis (with which it is sometimes equated) which is
used in this way indicates a semantic distinction between the two words. Whereas fidelis refers to
a more permanent state, devotus may express a temporary state of mind or mode of behaviour. It
can indicate the voluntary assumption in a particular circumstance of an attitude of obedience or
devotion. We may compare it with supple x, which is fossilized in late Latin as a full adverb.169
In Cassiodorus devotus is constantly used not of obedience, fidelity or devotion in general, but of
that manifested in one particular circumstance, the paying of tributum. 170 From here may be ex-
plained a superficially odd sense of devotus (= voluntarius ).171 In contexts in which there is a con-
trast between the notions of compulsion and momentary obedience manifested in the performance
of a service, devotus may appear to be interchangeable with voluntarius : e.g. Cass. Var. 12.8.3
'grata enim nobis est sine instantia compulsons exactio et hoc devo tum facere, quod vix poterai
coactus implere'. Here devotus , as elsewhere in Cassiodorus (see above), refers to obedience in the
paying of tribute (cf. 12.16.3 above). It could not be removed from a context of this kind and used
as a free variant of voluntarius .
71
4 Demonstratives
In II is is by far the most common demonstrative pronoun. It is found 74 times, compared

examples of ille, 10 of ipse and 17 of hie . Iste does not occur at all. But the nominative s
and plural forms of is are avoided, with the exception of 2 examples of id in the expression
(74, 90). The disappearance of the phonetically indistinct nominatives is a phenomenon app
in many late texts. The forms of is used in II are: eum, earn 19 times, eius 26, ei 16, eo, e
eos, eas 3, eis 1, eorum 2.
170
The predominance of is over the other demonstratives is almost universal in late Latin,
spite the fact that it scarcely survives in Romance (but id ipsum> It. desso). It must be assu
either that it was living even in the lower social dialects until relatively late, or that it was so
established in the literary registers that even those who would not use it in speech would habi
prefer it in writing. The latter possibility is the more likely, for there are occasional glimpse
in extant literature of the situation which may have prevailed in the spoken language. Anthi
for example, has is only once (in the expression id est), but ille 41 times and ipse 76 times.17
in the letters of Terentianus and of his father ( P.Mich . viii, 467-72) is occurs only 4 times (
in polysyllabic forms), but ille 30 times. Literary conventions have so influenced Latin of the
known as 'vulgar' that it is at best only a rough guide to lower-class speech.
Ille is severely restricted in use. At 38, 43, 51 and 72 it occurs in the expression se illi.
it is determinative (i.e. picked up by a following relative): 'in ilio lecto, ubi . . . ' Is , which is
normal word with this function in classical Latin, is not employed thus in II. Ille qui is also
ferred to is qui in other late texts (e.g. the Pact. Leg. Sal.)}1* and ille survives as a dete
in Romance (e.g. Sp. el que , OFr. els ¿jm/).176
Ipse is often an anaphoric adjective in late Latin (qualifying a word previously used: e.g. E
Roth . 262 'si quis caballum emerit et auctorem ignoraverit et venerit certus homo, qui ipsum
caballum suum dicat . . .'), in anticipation of one of its Romance functions (that of the def
article). 177 But in our text, if the few cases bearing the original sense 'himself are excepted
always used substantially = is (48, 62, 72, 73, 74 twice, 75, 82), as often elsewhere in late La
At 75 it is determinative ('qui tibi primus intra cubiculum nuntiatus fuerit, ipse accipiet ...'),
82 it occurs in the expression et ipse (= et is) ('agente Triwane praeposito cubiculi, et ipse her
favens Iudeis'), and twice in 74 it is used in an idiom {quem de ipsisf quis de ipsis) which was
1 KO
established in vulgar texts. It is particularly noteworthy that most examples of ipse = is are
found in close proximity to one another in the later part of the work. A possible explanation for
such a cluster is that the author had lapsed from his formal register into his usual colloquial register.
Such momentary lapses are not uncommon in Latin of this type.
Iste (= hie) is not used in II, although in Romance it is iste rather than hie which prevailed out-
side a few set expressions.181 The author's preference for hie is another characteristic common to
other vulgar writings which must be put down to the influence of a formal register. Indeed many
of the instances of hie in II are in expressions which look like the stock-in-trade of formal writing
(53 his consulibus, 54 hoc consule , 62 dum haec aguntur , 69 dum hec cognovisset , 75 dum hec
vidisset, 76 cumque hec cognovisset , 77 cumque haec . . . tacite abuisset , 82 secundum hoc tenore ,
85 post hec).
12
5 Conjunctions
i post quod
On the text of 39 ('ergo post quod factus est imperator Zeno'), see p. 27. Before we attempt
to explain post quod , it will be useful to mention some parallel conjunctional expressions comprising
preposition + quod .
1 propter quod. This expression occurs in classical Latin, but there it is relative (= 'on account
of which'). In late Latin it is a causal conjunction (=tsinceł). 182 There are some unnoticed examples
in Isidore: Etym. 1 1.3.16 'hi et aypuxpayÌTai dicuntur, propter quod solas ferarum carnes edunť; 17.7.25
'hanc enim Graeci Kaorav lav vocant, propter quod fructus eius gemini in modum testiculorum intra
folliculum reconditi sunt, qui dum eiciuntur quasi castrantur'.
2 praeter quod (= 'apart from the fact that'). E.g. Apul. Met. 2.18 'riam praeter quod epulis
alienis voluptates meas anteferrem, metum etiam istum tibi demam maturata regressione'.183
3 secundum quod (= 'according to what . . .').184 E.g. Comp. Luc. D14 'secundum quoci
superius docuimus'; Caesar. Arel. Serm. 1.19 'secundum quod ait beatus Petrus'.
4 ante quod (= antequam ). E.g. Lex Sal 24.4 'si vero infantem in utero matris suae occiderit
aut ante quod nomen habeat . . . '185
Various explanations of these usages have been proposed. Nor have all the expressions been
treated alike (post quod in particular has been regarded as different from the others). Herman, whose
discussion of the question is the most extensive, believes that the various explanations are not mutually
exclusive (Subord. 89), and this is a view which it would be foolish to reject. But it will be maintain-
ed here that there is another neglected factor which has the advantage of covering all the above express-
ions economically.
Svennung, speaking of post quod (Pall. 505), suggested that it might in part derive from ellipse
of a demonstrative in a structure post id quod. 1 6 And indeed examples of such full structures do
occur. Alongside secundum quod quoted above from Caesarius, note Serm. 5.3 'secundum illud
quod scriptum est'. For propter hoc quod see Herman, op. cit. 92. But it should be noted that
the relationship of an inserted demonstrative to quod in the examples given at the outset would
not always be the same. At Caesar. Arel. Serm. 1.19 a demonstrative would be an ordinary ante-
cedent, and quod a relative pronoun standing as object of ait. But at Isid. Etym . 1 1.3.16, for
instance, quod would not be relative but explicative or causal. Hence the demonstrative would
be anticipatory rather than antecedent ('they are called ajpuxpayiraL for this reason [propter hoc]
namely that [quod] ...'). Since demonstratives are more often antecedent than anticipatory,
Svennung's explanation is better suited to those locutions in which quod behaves as a relative.
But it is by no means inapplicable to expressions in which quod is not a relative, for explicative quod
may be anticipated by a demonstrative. The existence of propter hoc quod alongside propter quod
certainly shows that ellipse may have been one of the factors behind the emergence of the latter. But
it is doubtful if it was the only or indeed the most important factor. The full structures (where quod
is explicative) are so infrequent that they could not alone lie behind our usages.
73
Herman, who also deals with conjunctional expressions of the type adverb + quod (op. cit. 86 ff.),
sees these as in many cases parallel to our expressions, for often the prepositions concerned may also
function as adverbs. Thus, for example, in the case of iuxta quod , iuxta may be interpreted as ad-
verbial and the expression as equivalent to similiter quod ( op.cit : 89). That this factor may also
have been influential cannot be denied, but Herman perhaps exaggerates its influence. The adverbial
use of propter = propterea in particular (op.cit. 92) is extremely rare and unlikely to have been of
major importance.
All the expressions cited above can be analysed as comprising a preposition governing a noun-
clause introduced by quod . Thus, for example, the classical structure [venit] 'propter quod audivit
hostes victos esse] (= 'he came, and as a result heard . . . ') could have been reinterpreted thus: [venit
propter ] [quod audivit hostes victos esse] (= 'he came on account of the fact that he heard ...').
There need have been no intermediary propter hoc quod, though the sporadic occurrence of this
idiom could have assisted in the re interpretation. Two arguments can be stated in favour of our
view:
a The productivity of quod (= 'the fact that') introducing object noun-clauses in late Latin is
well known. The late structure dico quod veniet replacing the acc. c. infin. may be analysed as dico
+ object noun-clause.188 The influence of an intermediary hoc dicot quod veniet need not be invoked.
Now if a quod- clause could stand as the object of a verb, it could also be governed by a preposition.
b The evidence provided by translation literature is more important, for it gives an idea of con-
temporary analysis of the expressions. Propter quod can most frequently be compared with a Greek
original. Usually it renders the construction ôid ró + infin.: 189 e.g. Oribas. Syn. 4.28 Aa 'educunt
ventrem, propter quot . . . sunt perittomatici' (= ôuz ró . . . Tioiéiv nepÍTTcofia). 190 Now since bid
governs an infinitival object construction ([Sid] + [to + infin.] ), it would seem that to the translators
propter , in its function as a preposition (rather than as an adverb), governed a comparable object con-
struction ([propter] + [quod + V] ). 191
Our analysis could account for post quod as well as the other expressions. It would be a rough
equivalent to fiera tó + infin. In any case post quod scarcely consists of adverb + quod , for the ad-
verbial form in late Latin was postea (see p. 1 20). Indeed alongside post quodt postea quod , which
would have had a different origin, is also attested (e.g. Apic. 4.2.4).192 Clearly there are two distinct
types of combination in late Latin, preposition + quod and adverb + quod , which cannot simply be
reduced to a basic type adverb + quod.
Herman (Subord. 94; cf. Norberg, Synt. Forsch. 239) argues that the quod in post quod is
temporal.193 The existence of temporal quod , which is common in late Latin, may well have been
one of the factors ultimately leading to the emergence of post quod. But if we accept the influence
of this factor, we need not exclude from consideration our additional factor discussed above. A
complex expression of the type in question may develop from a combination of determinants.
Herman (loc.cit.) cites a temporal example of quod from Fredegar (p. 149.14 'post anno tercio
quod regnare coepisseť) alongside one of post quod from the same author (p. 127.24 'quarto anno
post quod Childebertus regnum Guntramni acciperať), and derives the latter from the former: 'De
là, la formation de la locution post quod est presque automatique, c'est la résultat d'une simple
transposition qui ne change rien a la pensée exprimée'. This explanation is superficially plausible,
but it may well be that the two sentences are not at all closely related. The second example is open
to another interpretation which may make it a special case quite separate from the example of post
quod in II. We might translate 'In the fourth year after which Childebertus had taken the throne . . .',
with quod acting not as a conjunction but as a relative. Quod often serves as a universal relative
pronoun in late Latin, as Herman himself points out (op.cit. 67). This use of quod is in fact found
some 14 times in Fredegar.194
74
ii praeter
At 91 praeter stands for praeter quod (= 'apart from the fact that', 'except that': see above, p. 35):
'omnia repromisit facturum praeter reconciliatos, qui se fìdei catholicae dederunt, Arrianis restitui
nullatenus posse'.
ige
The use of adverbs as conjunctions in Latin has been extensively discussed. The close conne
between the two categories is shown by the fact that various subordinating conjunctions were in
adverbs. 196 But sometimes, as in our passage, it is not an adverb which is employed as a subordi
but a preposition. It may be argued that subordinators, unlike co-ordinators, are constituents of
subordinate clause, and that they thus resemble prepositions, which are constituents of their no
phrase.197 It is this functional resemblance of prepositions and conjunctions which lies behind th
sporadic use of prepositions for conjunctions.
1 Qft
A case in point is Oribas. 836.12 'mensura ... sit usque ruborem carnem adducant', which is
an instance of prepositional usque (used elliptically for usque jJ)199 employed as a conjunction.200
The explanation of the usage is the same as that of vulg. Eng. 'without' (e.g. "I shall not go without
he comes'). The writer sets out to employ a prepositional adjunct, but because a verbal noun-phrase
is not forthcoming as object of the preposition, he lapses into a verb-phrase which stands to the pre-
position in much the same way as would a noun-phrase (= 'without his coming').
Another good example is at Marc. Emp. 16.105 'sed ante lucem, post unctus fue rit, statim lac
vaccinum bibat eadem hora mulsum'. Since post immediately follows the prepositional phrase ante
lucem , it is likely that unctus fuerit stands to it in the same relationship as lucem to ante.
There is a notable difference between the use of praeter at 91 and that of the other prepositions
above. Those above are followed by finite verbs, but our example takes an infinitive. The praeter-
construction occurs in an acc. c. infin. following repromisit , and it is possible that the infinitive of
the main clause (facturum) h as attracted the verb of the subordinate clause into the infinitive also.
But there is another possible explanation of the infinitive. It has been argued above that the
analysis of such subordinating locutions as propter quod or praeter quod is praeter + [quod + V] ,
with praeter governing the whole object-clause. Now in late Latin object-clauses introduced by quod
encroach on infinitival constructions, notably those which complement verba dicendi. By a hyper-
corrective process an infinitival construction might be substituted for a quod- clause when the latter
would be necessary in more learned Latin. Thus at 62 ('benedicens deum se filium revidisse') a
causal use of quod might have been expected (see p. 94). At 91 the author may again have intro-
duced an infinitive for a quod- clause, producing a construction parallel to the Gk. preposition + ró
+ infin. (though not a conscious Grecism).
iii at ubi
201
The adversative particle at turns up mainly in combinations in late Latin (e.g. at enim, at vero , at nunc).
One such is af ubi, which accounts for all examples of the word in the Per.,2®2 Benedict's Regula, 20 3
Apicius204 and also II (41 , 57, 62). The coalescence of at and ubi to form a temporal conjunction is
particularly clear in cases such as Per. 24.6 'et at ubi diaconus perdixerit omnia' (= 'when') (cf. 25.3).
It was first suggested by Geyer ('Per.' 613 f.) and later widely accepted,205 that, even in the period of
extant vulgar texts such as the Per., the first element of the expression at ubi came to be interpreted as
the preposition ad , producing a combination of the same kind as ad plenum , ad tunc , ad subito , etc.
It is not clear why this hypothesis has proved so attractive. In II the author certainly felt the first
element to be the adversative particle at , for twice it is still adversative (41, 62). Given the constant
weakening of adversative particles into connectives (see e.g. below, p. 79 on sed), it is easy to see how
75
a combination at ubi should become purely temporal rather than adversative + temporal. If con-
tamination of the type suggested had taken place, we should expect a sense 'until' to be attested.
But this does not seem to occur. Ahlquist (56), followed by Lòfstedt {Per. 286), was undoubtedly
wrong to interpret the phrase thus zXMul. Chir. 495 'adfunde ad ciatum per nares, adubi reicerit
saniem', for the meaning is that the concoction should be used when there is an effusion of blood.
Reicio has its characteristic late sense 'vomit' (> It. recere), and the disease under treatment is stated
in unambiguous terms at 493: 'de vulneribus in ventre et saniem habentibus'.
iv quare
At 81 Rolfe translates quare as 'accordingly'. But since it introduces an explanation of the contents
of the preceding sentence, it should be taken as a conjunction (= 'for'): 'facta est lis inter Christianos
et lúdeos Ravennatis. quare Iudei baptizatos nolentes . . . frequenter oblatam in aqua fluminis iactaverunť
= 'There arose a quarrel, for the Jews . . . '206 One explanation offered of the semantic change 'why? ',
'because of which' > 'since' is that it occurred in paratactic constructions such as that at Suet. Tib. 59
907
'non es eques; quare? non sunt tibi milia centum'. But we should have to suppose that such e
were very common indeed to account for the development, and there is no evidence that this was
The Suetonian example is a rhetorical question of a type which would occur only very sporadically
That Rolfe was able to translate quare above as if it were conclusive illustrates the fact that th
209
is often only a very fine distinction between causal and conclusive (or interrogative) conjunctions.
Thus, for example, though SHA , Aurel. 15.3 'et quoniam superius epistulam posui, qua sumptus
Aureliano ad consulatum delatus est, quare posuerim rem quasi frivolam eloquendum putavi' must
have been intended to mean 'I have thought I should tell why I inserted a detail apparently trivial', it
could easily be reinterpreted as meaning 'I have thought I should explain, since I have inserted a detail
apparently trivial'. The example in II is almost certainly causal, but a conclusive nuance is not entirely
ruled out. It is this ambiguity which facilitates, if not accounts for, the change of function of quare.
Light can be thrown on the possibility of a double interpretation of quare if we consider the
double function of relative constructions. Such a clause is usually determinative, in that it identifies
210
something which has been mentioned. If so, it will frequently show the explicit pattern is, qui
But qui may also = et is: "The relative pronoun is often used . . . instead of a co-ordinating conjunction
or particle, to serve as a connexion between two independent sentences'.211 Thus in the sentence
equum vidi , qui occisus erat , the relative clause is determinative; but in ad Caesarem iit, qui ei haec
dixit , qui = et is. The distinction between the most common type of temporal cum- clause and the
so-called cum-inversum construction is to be explained in terms of the above distinction. E.g. cum
intrasses, eum laudavi ('when you entered, I praised him') has a determinative cum- clause, for the
main clause could contain tum just as a determinative ^/-clause may be anticipated by is. But con-
trast eum laudavi , cum repente intravisti : this might be analysed eum laudavi, et tum repente intra-
visti.
Quare in its original sense as a conjunction is not determinative but must be analysed like cum-
inversum. Thus facta est lis, quare Iudei . . .iactaverunt (taking quare in Rolfe's sense) would be
susceptible of rewriting in the form facta est lis, et propter earn rem Iudei . . . iactaverunt. But if the
conjunction is reinterpreted as determinative, its sense comes very close to that of causality: facta est
lis propter earn rem, propter quam Iudei . . . iactaverunt (= 'a quarrel arose because of the factor which
made the Jews throw away ...'). From here it is a small step to the sense 'a quarrel arose because
the Jews threw away . . . One of the factors behind the functional change was thus a reinterpretation
of the connective relative conjunction as determinative.
Herman (< op.cit . esp. 370, 372) makes the interesting observation that most examples of causal
quare or cur (which shows the same development as quare) occur after verbs expressing anger,
76
indignation, reproach, accusation, etc.: e.g. SHA , Sept. Sev. 14.13 'damnabantur autem plerique, cur
iocati essent, alii, cur tacuissent . . Hier. adv. Ruf. 3.34 'sed in eo reprehendendus sum, quare
accusatores tuos amicos meos non coercuerim'. Such verbs, even though they are not themselves
interrogative, can always evoke the idea of an indignant question (op. cit. 370 f.) (e.g. They were
condemned - "Why had they joked?" '). In such contexts the interrogative particle passes simply
to causal. Since the expression facta est lis belongs to the semantic field in question ('A quarrel
arose - "Why did they throw away ...?"'), it is especially likely that our example of quare is
causal.
v cumque, cum, dum
Cum is used only once in II (62), but in combination with - que it appears twice: 76 'cumque hec
cognovisseť; 77 'cumque haec apud se tacite abuisseť. Independent cum is largely replaced by dum ,
which overlaps with and encroaches on it, especially in late Latin.212
The uses of dum in II are various. At 48 it is causal ('dum ipse esset bone voluntatis'), at 60
('dum ipse quidem Arrianae secte esset, tarnen . . . ') and 61 ('dum inlitteratus esset, tantae sapientiae
fuit . . . ') concessive, and a number of times it is employed with verbs in the pluperfect tense in a
temporal sense ( = 'after': 62, 69, 75, 76, 93, 95). 2 3
In the earliest Latin prose - que is extensively used as an enclitic on the first word of the sentence
or clause with the function of a sentence connective rather than a copulative particle.214 The various
introductory adverbs formed with - que which survived into the classical period (itaque, namque, atque ,
neque ) are the remnants of this tendency.215 In later Latin a wide range of additional introductory
adverbs and conjunctions compounded with -que emerges (e.g. ideoque , utinamque, nuncque, itemque,
ibique : see below). These must have been formed partly on the analogy of the existing words mention-
ed above, in keeping with the popular taste for reinforced adverbs, particles and prepositions. They
may have been artificial (i.e. characteristic of the popular written rather than spoken register), for they
do not survive in Romance. In some cases - que so merges with the word concerned that it becomes
semantically empty, and the word can be used within the sentence or clause.216 In such cases, however,
another factor also has to be taken into account. In late prose of vulgar flavour there is often a lack of
feeling for the distinction between subordination and co-ordination, with the result that a copulative
particle (et as well as -que) is used to attach the main clause to a subordinate clause.217 Here I am
only concerned with the attachment of -que to introductory words at the beginning of a sentence.
The evidence of various late works, including II, suggests that in the written registers of late
Latin cumque encroached markedly on cum , which has no reflexes in Romance. This is well shown,
for example, by the Vita Lucii Confessons , where cumque is used 17 times, but cum only 3 times.
So in the Ravenna Papyri it is almost exclusively cumque that is used (12:2 to p. 352), as too in the
Pass. Sanct. Mart. Fruct. (4: 1). In various other works cumque is used roughly as often as cum . though
it has not ousted it (e.g. in the Vita Sanct. Arn . where cumque appears 9 times, and cum 13).
In the Vetus Latina cumque sometimes occurs in certain codices, cum in others: e.g. Mark 7:25
cum , a n; cumque , q (evdvç àicovoaoa ; Vulg. statim ut audivit ); Mark 6:22 cumf a; cumque , aur
dilq A. So in the Latin translations of Herm. Past, there are various instances of cumque which
have apparently not been determined by the Greek version: e.g. Vis. 1 .3 (cod. a) 'cumque finisset
verba haec' = fiera tò navdfjvai abrr^ç ra prißara raura; Vis. 3.1 (¿z) 'cumque veļiem sedere' =
ôéXovTÓç ļiov . . . Kadioai; Vis. 3.8 (a) 'cumque cupidus essem' = Kare7ri0u/io<; cbv.
219
Some other late examples of adverbs or conjunctions coming at the start of a sentence
with an attached -que are: iterumque (Vita Caesar. Arel. 1.61), statimque (Vita Sanct. Arn. 28,
29, Vita CaesartArel. 2.42), moxque (Vita Vedastis 4), indeque (Marcellin. Chron. a. 545.4),
77
sicque ( Vita Caesar. Arel 2.47, Vita Sanct. Am. 7, 10), tumque (Fredegar p. 150.5), dumque ( Vita
Caesar. Arel 1.28, Cass. Hist. Trip. 1.18 p.917C, 3.10 p.954C).
The examples of cumque provide 2 of only 4 instances of -que in II, and of the remaining instances
one (50) is attached to ibi at the start of a sentence. The other is at 45 ('factus est rex mansitque in
regno'), where the text is uncertain (i mansitque BP^' mansit P1), though -que should probably be re-
tained. Et on the other hand occurs some 130 times. There is no case of ac or atque. The copulative
particles other than et were not in popular use at our period, or indeed considerably earlier. 220 But
-que clearly had a limited currency as a reinforcement for adverbs and conjunctions.
vi quia
Causal quia rather than quod or quoniam is always used in II (38, 43, 62). The author's preference
accords with that of numerous other late writers.221
vii ac si
Ac si ('as if) is classical after various adverbs of comparison (e.g. similiter , aliter ), but after tam , ita ,
tantus and talis , as well as independently, quasi is the classical word.222 But this distinction of usage
is fine, and ac si tended in late Latin to encroach on the sphere of quasi (and tamquam ), both in
comparative expressions (72 'ac si intra muros civitatis esset, ita existimare tur'; 91 'ita occurrit ac si
beato Petro') and independently (73 'qua hora vellit, ac si in die'). In II it has displaced tamquam and
quasi (for another example, see 65). So in the Per. it is preferred by 7:4. But the total elimination
of its rivals in II must be regarded as idiolectal rather than as general in the language.
78
6 Introductory Particles
literary Latin possessed a wide variety of connective particles, each with distinctive nuances, which
do not survive into Romance. It is possible that some of these words were not found necessary in
popular speech, which is not so meticulous in marking precisely the relationship between sentences.
But this is not the only reason for their disappearance. Certain types of particles (e.g. adversative)
have a necessary place in all the registers of a language. Though many of the classical particles dis-
appeared, they were often replaced. The main reasons for the fading of the classical set were
(a) that they were poorly motivated; and (b) that they were sometimes phonetically indistinct. The loss
of final /-m/ would have caused autem and quidem to be scarcely distinguishable from aut and from
the relative pronoun. And at ceased to be distinct from ad when the opposition of final /-d/ and /-t/
was neutralized. The replacements which the various Romance languages came up with were usually
more expressive words, often with a compound form.223 The adversative particles were replaced by
magis (> Fr. mais , etc.), which is attested, though only sporadically, in Latin with this function.224
Though the classical particles probably had no place in the spoken registers by our period, most
of them are used constantly in vulgar texts, for the obvious reason that they would have been recognized
as literary. But as in the case of many such literary usages in the late period, their original functions
were often misunderstood.225 Frequently they serve only to introduce a new sentence or thought,
whatever their former function. Or they may be used adversatively, even if originally their functions
were otherwise. II is a typical late text in its use of particles.
sed
lift
Sed , like at , eventually disappeared, but it did survive longer than at However in II it is rare. It is
still adversative at 43 (sed quia) and 86 (but in the expression non solum . . . sed et), but a second examp
at 86 and another at 72 are merely connective.227 The latter occurs in the phrase sed et ('item Ticinum
palaciu termas amphiteatrum et alios muros civitatis fecit, sed et per alias civitates multa beneficia
praestitiť), the origin of which can be seen more clearly in certain passages in the Per. (e.g. 24.4 'dicuntur
etiam psalmi lucernares, sed et antiphonae'« cf. 24.7). A preceding non solum has been deleted, leaving
sed et with connective rather than adversative force ('and also').
autem
There are only two certain examples of autem in II, neither of which is adversative: 38 Ingrediens autem
Ravennani* (= ôe ); 96 'se autem vivo fecit sibi monumentum' (= $e). In various other texts of roughly
this period the word is rare or non-existent.228 Vero was current longer as an adversative particle. In t
Pact Leg. Sal., for instance, vero is used incessantly, often with full adversative force,229 but autem doe
not occur.
The rarity of autem is a further factor which must be considered in determining the text at 37 (s
79
vero
Common as a connective in II: e.g. 45 'cuius tempora pacifica fuerunt. Odoacar v

rex' (cf. 39, 63, 72, 82, 87, 92). It is probably adversative only at 36. At 62 it is
speech).
ergo
Ergo is adversative at 96 ('et anima amisit. ergo antequam exalaret ...'), and elsewhere is some-
times connective (e.g. 93 'qui post paucos dies defunctus est. ergo euntes populi ante corpusculum
eius'; cf. 39, 80). There remain a few places where it seems to retain its usual classical sense
(49, 59).
igitur
There is no definite example of igitur in its most common conclusive sense. A good illustration of
its function is to be found at 36, where it occurs first word in the work, and can therefore only be
1X1
introductory-connective. All other instances can be so interpreted (48, 55, 79, 88, 94), though
Rolfe sometimes seems to take it as temporal or continuative (= deinde ).
itaque
Always connective (49, 68, 74).
enim
Adversative at 74, where it stands in an explicit antithesis: 'unus quidem in uno lecto se iactavit, duo
enim in alio amore fraterno se conlocaverunť. Cf. 62 'factus iuvenis quoquo modo revertitur ad
matrem; mater enim iam sponderat virům'.233 This usage is well illustrated by the paraphrase ('vos
enim . . . imponite') at Schol. Juv. 7.229 of Juvenal's 'sed vos . . . imponite'.
Elsewhere enim is usually introductory-connective (38, 57, 58, 69, 70, 72, 83). It could be
interpreted thus at 62, where B ^ and P have 'cum enim vidisset mater'. But it is better to follow B ^ ,
which omits enim.
At 38 it occurs first word in its sentence inB^, whereas B^ writes et enim. Enim can be retain-
9 Ì4
ed, for it is attested in the initial position elsewhere in late Latin. Once it had lost its currency, it
enclitic character was neglected.
For the classical sense, see 65, 72.
etiam
See p. 32.
tamen
See p. 32.
nam
Adversative at 89 ('hoc tibi ego non promitto me facturum, nec illi dicturus sum.
causis, quibus mihi iniuncxeris, obtinere ab eodem . . . potero'), where hoc and aliis c
antithetical.235 At 63, 78 and 83 it is a connective.
80
item
Item probably does not have its original comparative sense (= 'likewise', 'in the same way') in II. It
usually means 'also' (e.g. 61 'dixit: "aurum et demonem qui habet, non eum potest abscondere."
item: "Romanus cf. 68, 71 twice, 83, 84, 88), a sense which it had acquired at an early
period.236
81
7 Some Adverbs and Adverbial Expressions237
i The Adjectival Use of Adverbs (i retro )
At 66 ('quod retro principes Romani ordinaverunť) we should probably translate 'what former
emperors had ordered', with retro virtually playing the part of an adjective (e.g. priores). This
usage is extremely common in late Latin (from Tertullian onwards): e.g. Tert. Orat. 1 totius retro
vetustatis', Bapt. 9 amarne retro naturae', Bapt. 20 omnium retro delictorum' adv. Marc. 7.8 t antis
238
retro saeculis' adv. Val. 7 infinitis retro aevis ; Cypr. Epist. 1 SAO post longam retro aetatis pacem'
Optat. 1.19 retro temporis. For the expression retro principes , see e.g. Pan. Lat. II. 1.2, II. 13.2, Amm.
22.9.3, SHA, Alex. Sev. 35.1, Cod Theod. 12.1.181 pr., Cass. Var. 4.20.2, Cod. lust. 1.18.11, CIL II.
4105, III.445, 111.5326, VI. 32419. Ai Inscript. Lat. Christ. Vet. 35 it occurs in an inscription of
Theodoric.239
The adverbs which appear to be used adjectivally240 turn out on closer inspection to fall into a
variety of classes which have never been properly elucidated. 241 It will be worthwhile here to define
some of these classes.
a The two most common uses of an adjective are the attributive (e.g. parvus filius ) and that in
the predicate after esse (filius est parvus). An adverb which occurs constantly in the predicative
position after esse , as do numerous Latin adverbs, 242 could in time be transferred to the attributive
position. Nequam , for example, was in origin employed as an adverb after esse , with the sense 'be
of no value' (e.g. Plaut. Asin. 178). From here it developed into an indeclinable attributive adjective.243
b A verbal noun may occasionally be qualified by an adverb instead of an adjective because of

its verbal character: e.g. Liv. 8. 19.7 ' fugam magis retro quam proelium . . . spectante milite' (= fugere
retro);244 25.9.2 'ne quis agrestium procul spectator agminis fallerei' (= procul spectans)', Sen. Suas.
6.5 Yoris victores domi trucidamur' (= foris vincentes ).245 For a verbal noun with a different type of
verbal construction, see Cie. Pis. 1 'quo quidem tempore is meus domum fuit e foro reditus . . . '246
c In some cases an adverb juxtaposed with a noun and superficially functioning as an adjective
may in fact differ in rank. E.g. Liv. 1.21.6 ' duo deinceps reges . . . civitatem auxerunt' can be taken
in the sense 'two kings successively . . . ', with the adverb strictly associated with auxerunt. So at
Vitr. 7.1.3 'crebriter pistatione solidetur' crebriter is easily interpreted as an adverb, though H-S, 171
regard it as an adverb standing for an attributive adjective. Cf. Cic. Fam. 4.5.4 ' regiones circumcirca
prospicere'. 247
d Sometimes the adverb is not attributive in function but predicative. K-S, i, 219 are wrong
to paraphrase Liv. 34.33.3 ' nox prope diremit conloquium' as nox propinqua .... The force of the
phrase is 'night, being near, put off . . . ', and the juxtaposition of noun and adverb arises from the
absence of a present participle of esse in Latin. A full paraphrase might be: nox erat prope et diremit
colloquium , which would be normal Latin.
82
e Similarly many of the examples usually quoted in this connection on rewriting (with the
copula expressed) show the pattern N + esse + N + adverbial adjunct, which is of course normal
Latin. E.g. Prop. 2.28.61 'divae nunc, ante iuvencae'248 could be rewritten ilia nunc est diva , quae
ante erat iuvenca. Cf. Liv. 6.15.7 'Vulscos, toties hostes ' (= Vulsci toties erant hostes ); 36.14.9
'Philippo, iam pridem hosti (= Philippus iam pridem est hostis) .249
These categories do not explain all the supposed examples of attributive adverbs. The influence
of Greek must sometimes be invoked, especially in translation literature.250 But enough has been
said to show that the glib assertion that an adverb juxtaposed with a noun is adjectival must be
treated with caution.
Retro is certainly often equivalent to an indeclinable adjective (occupying an almost compulsory

position before its noun). It is not possible to say exactly how it acquired this function, but various
factors are worth mentioning. It may, like nequam , have passed in time from the predicate position
after esse to the attributive position. Examples can be quoted of N + esse + retro (Hor. Carm. 3.29.46,
Vita Sanct. Chlod. 8), but in extant literature they are not numerous enough to make it certain that
the usage was sufficiently well-established to account for the functional transition. Another possibility
is that adjectival retro developed from imitation of the similarly frequent use of npíp in Greek.
Finally, we might posit a transitional context similar to that in the present example, which could be
translated 'what Roman emperors formerly had ordered'. The constant use of such a formula, perhaps
in the official citation of precedent, might eventually lead to the attachment of retro to the noun (as
has been seen, retro is particularly common with principes) and its spread to other nouns.
ii tantum, multum tempus
At 49 ('pro merito laborum suorum loco eius, dum adveniret, tantum prae regnare t') tantum is
equivalent to tam diu (= 'in return for his labours, he should rule right up to the time when he arrived').
A concession is being made to the subject (Theodoric), and hence the translation 'only' (Rolfe) is
inappropriate. Two factors are relevant in explaining the usage.
In the first place, combinations comprising tempus + adjectives of quantity, including tantum ,
are particularly common in late Latin for diu and tam diu (see further below): e.g. Tert. Nat. 3. 1.7
tantoque tempore ; Anim 37 tanto temporisa adv. Prax. 24 tanto tempore (4 times); Vit. Patr. 3.24
per tantum . . ..tempus; 5.4.24 tanto tempore ; 3.26 t antis temporibus.
Secondly, in expressions of the type tempus + adjective there is constant ellipse of tempus. An
early example is brevi = brevi tempore . Alongside vernum tempus = ver (Amm. 19. 13. 1 , Greg. Hist.
Franc. 4.42) vernum occurs in Cato (Agr. 54.3) and in the late period (e.g. Mul. Chir. 497, Mart. Cap.
691, Macrob. Sat . 1.12.14). 252 Even more important was hibernum , which completely ousted hiems 253
For the full expression hibernum tempus , see e.g. Amm. 21.6.7. Aestivum also leaves traces in
Romance,254 and is attested a few times in late Latin: e.g. Anth. 50 et stivo (= aestivo) et hiberno '
Vit. Patr. 5.7.7 'et iterum quando fìebat aestas, dicebant: quia transacto aestivo, discedamus hinc'
(note that aestas is used here in the narrative, aestivum in the speech: the two words probably
differed in register, aestivum being the colloquialism).256 Matutinum is reflected as It. mattino , Fr.
matin etc.,25 and is found already in late Latin (e.g. Heges. 3.20.2).258 Diuturno is used for diu at
Mul. Chir . 755. At Hist. Trip . 4. 10 p.961D Cassiodorus writes post paulum soon after post paulum
. . . tempus (4.9 p.960C). And at Vit . Patr . 5.3.15 post multum is used for post multum tempus .
The obvious explanation of tantum is that it arose from ellipse of tempus in the expression
tantum tempus (acc. of duration).
There is also a similar ellipse at 83 ('ex eo enim invenit diabolus locum'), where P ^ has added
83
tempore needlessly.
There are certain other circumlocutions with tempus in II which are worthy of mention here:
71 post multa tempora' ib. multa tempora ; 78 non post multum temporìs.
Of these the most noteworthy is the second, for it stands for diu . There is no example of diu
in II, though the superlative form occurs at 87. Similarly in the Per. and Anthimus only the form
diutius is found.25 Circumlocutions with tempus were so favoured in late Latin that they encroach-
ed on various adverbs, and in particular diu . In the Mul. Chir., for example, there are only 8 instances
of diu, but 14 of longum tempus (cf. Fr. longtemps ), 2 of multum tempus and 1 of diuturnum (see
above).260 Longum tempus is a classical phrase (see Plin. Epist 4.1.1, 10.31.3, Suet. Iul 85 ,Nero
57.1, Gaius Inst. 2.51, Gell. 5.10.7), but multum tempus (in various forms) also is common in the
later period (cf. OFr. molt tens).261
Some other circumlocutions with tempus standing for adverbs are: nullo tempore (= nunquam ),
ullo tempore (= umquam ),262 temporibus (= interdum )263 uno tempore (= simul ), quanto tempore
(= quamdiu ), omni tempore (= semper ), plurimo tempore (= saepissime ), medio tempore (= interim ).264
To these add the following: Itin. Ant. Plac. 6 alio tempore (= 'once', quondam ); Isid. Etym. 17.6.1
infra parvum tempus (= paulo post); Fredegar p. 84.20 post paucum tempus (= paulo post); Jord. Get.
50 certum tempus (= aliquamdiu).
iii usque nunc (61)
In classical Latin usque , if not accompanied by ad , may occur in combination with certain directional
adverbs (e.g. usque adeo, hue usque , usque eo, quousque). But from its habitual association with ad ,
usque alone acquired a directional sense (see n. 199). This development lies behind its use in late
Latin with a variety of static adverbs (e.g. usque nunc , usque modo , usque hodie, usque impraesentiarium,
usque mane ).265 For usque nunc an earlier writer might have used usque ad hoc tempus (e.g. Cic. Inv.
2.5, Col. 9.1.7, Suet. Vesp . 8.4).
Prepositions were freely compounded with adverbs in late Latin (and indeed earlier) to give the
adverb an additional nuance (e.g. abante , deforis , econtra ).266
iv ibique
Used for eo at 50: 'ibique persecutus est eum Theodericus'. Of the pairs ibi eo , ubi quo etc. the
directional member tended to disappear (see above, p. 58).267 Cf. 76 'dum advenisset, ubi directus
fuerať.
84
'iro
8 Some Prepositions
i foris(37,93)
Foris (-as) largely replaces extra as a local preposition in late Latin. It is also more extensively re-
presented in Romance.269 Its encroachment on extra cannot be explained in isolation, but is best
seen against the structural background of the earlier use of the two words as adverbs.
As local adverbs with literal force foras and foris almost had the field to themselves from early
Latin onwards in ordinary educated Latin. Extra , which is attested
1
as an adverb 111
70
(though metaphorical)
from Cato (A
perhaps under
uses foris and
use of the latt
intus: Civ . 3.6
extra not at al
intus), Petron
of foris (-as), b
trast with int
most part with
ring usually t
Nat. 2.144 'ext
percipimus'. T
274
verbs referring to both motion beyond and a static position outside a non-human object or boundary.
275
When foris and foras passed by a common process into prepositions, the semantic field tended
to undergo remodelling, and not in a haphazard way. Just as the adverbial use of extra with literal sense
had been overshadowed by that of foris and foras , so now its prepositional use receded before that of the
other two words, especially in vulgar texts. The use of the words as adverbs is structurally parallel to
their later use as prepositions.
The prepositional use of foris and foras was derived from the literal adverbial use. In extant late
Latin when prepositional they are never metaphorical, though their Romance reflexes acquire a metaphori-
cal function. 2 Extra , however, had been common in metaphorical phrases since early Latin,277 and it
retains this function in late Latin. Extra and foris (-as) in various authors thus act as complements when
prepositional, the one being metaphorical, the other literal.
The two words are perfect complements in the Pact. Leg. Sal. Foris (or its vulgar compound
form deforis) is used 5 times, always with literal sense,278 and extra 8 times, always metaphorically.279
The same distinction is maintained in the Itin . Ant. Plac., though the text is shorter and neither word is
-jon
frequent. In the Per. extra (met.) is found 4 times, and the literal usage only once, but foris (pr
lit.) occurs 6 times.
85
The decline of extra (lit.) can be illustrated from a variety of other texts. Victor Vitensis, for
example, has 4 instances of /om,281 but none of extra. The latter is also absent from the Edict.
Roth., the Ravenna Papyri,283 the Regula of Benedict,284 the Itin. Theod ,285 and the Itin. Burdig 286
In our text the one instance of extra (lit.) is used with another archaism, urbs (65). Extra urbem
may have been a fossilized expression which lingered on. With the current word for 'city' (civitas),
foris is used at 93, as often in other late vulgar texts (e.g. the Ravenna Papyri). The author does not
distinguish between the form of the preposition used with verbs of motion (93 'deductus est corpus
eius foris civitate') and with static verbs (37 'occidit . . . Paulum ad Pineta foris Ciassem Ravennae').
287
Foris and foras were already confused in Petronius' Cena Trimalchionis.
ii id est
At 90 there is an example of what superficially appears to be an appositional use of the accusative:

'superinpositum eum cum aliis episcopis, id est Ecclesium ... et Eusebium ... et Savinum ... et alios
duos'. But in non-logical appositional phrases in vulgar texts the nominative rather than the accusative
is the norm (on 82 see p. 93). With our passage compare CIL III.371 add.p.977 'praesentibus colleg
ibus suis, id est Perulam et Frontinum . . . mandaviť. On this example Svennung (Pall. 176) observes
'vielleicht nur graphisch', but alios duos at 90, if not the list of names, shows that the accusatives
are genuine. Both series of accusatives must be taken as governed by id est. This usage is common
in late Latin.288
86
9 Negation
The expressive négative nullatenus, which first appears in late Latin,289 occurs twice in II, both
times with possum : 79 'quattuor litteras subscriptionis edicti sui discere nullatenus potuisseť; 91
'réconciliâtes . . . Arrianis restitui nullatenus posse'. It has not been noticed that frequently elsewhere
the word is used thus: Cass. Var. 5.23 'quia nullatenus destitui posse creditur'; Avitius p.l 14.12
2Q0
'nullatenus queunť; Itin. Theod. 28 'nullatenus potuerunt eum (lapidem) in antea mover e' ' Marculf.
Form p.77.23 'quod repetit nullatinus valeat vindicare'. Cf. Vit. Patr. 3.99, Vita Vedastis 9, Fredegar
Cont. p. 184.21, Vita Aridii 21, Vita Gaugerici 8, Leges Liutprandi 1 .
It should also be pointed out that nullatenus was not in genuine free variation with haudquaquam
or nequaquam The latter pair had always been used mainly, though not exclusively, with adjective?
and adverbs rather than verbs.291 Nullatenus is used mainly with verbs.292 Possum is frequently negat
and therefore sometimes given a more emphatic negative. Cf. Itin. Ant. Plac. 5 'Iudaei vero nulla rerum
ratione possunt agitare'.
ii
At 83 (' ut nullus Romānus arma usque ad cultello uteretur, vetuiť ) the classical construction would have
been ne quis + subjunctive.294 In final clauses in late Latin ne was displaced by ut nonf 295 and it is for
that reason that ut nullus is used at 83. There is only one instance of final ne in II, and that after a
verb of fearing (43).
iii
Neither neque nor nec is common in II, but the few examples behave in a manner predictable for the
period. Nec , which ousted neque in vulgar speech, occurs independently at 73. 29 The only examples
of neque are at 81, where they occur in responsioni 'populus non observantes neque regi neque Eutharico
aut Petro'. There is considerable evidence, to which that of II can now be added, that it was in the
297
correlative neque . . . neque that neque survived longest.
The resumptive negatives neque . . . neque at 81 following non observantes are of a type normal
at all periods. In the Per ,, where nec . . . nec is already preferred to neque . . . neque, ^ the only
instance of neque . . . neque is resumptive after a preceding negative: 37.7 'nam nullus est neque maior
neque minor'.
Note that at 81 the second neque is followed by aut rather than a third neque. The structure
neque . . . aut is characteristic of the literary style of Tacitus, but it must also have been found in the
colloquial registers. 300
87
10 Concord
66 se omnia . . . quod retro principes Romani

ordinaverunt, inviolabiliter servaturum promittit.
As early as the Lex Repetund. of 123 or 122 B.C. the neuter plural omnia stands in cor
a singular (collective) relative:301 CIL I. 583.73 'utei ea omnia, quod ex hace lege factu
facianť. In later Latin, cf. Pact Leg. Alamann 3.3 'omnia ei reddat, quod ei per lege ob
neuter relative construction of the type quod factum est may readily take on an impl
It was apparently at least partly as a result of its use as an antecedent to such structur
was fossilized in late Latin: e.g. Form Andec. 1 'haec omnia subscripta rem . . . recipe
In our passage, however, it is likely that the author made a deliberate jump from a pl
as such to a singular with collective connotation. An interesting parallel is found at 56
feri sunt, quis ubi potuit reperire'), where there is obviously no question of a fossilize
for both antecedent and relative are masculine. This latter passage incidentally shows
singular relatives need not be neuter (as is sometimes assumed).
ii
82 synagogas, quae incendio concremaverunt, data pecunia

restaurarent-
Here we must emend to quas , interpret concremo as intransitive, or treat quae as a fossilized form.
The third course is best, for there is abundant evidence that in the late period quae (like quod )
tended to become a universal relative.303 For parallels to our passage, see Lib . Hist Franc . p.244.2
'habere et leges coeperunt quae eorum priores gentiles tractave runt'; 304 Greg. Mart 1.2 ' virtutibus
quae complexus est'.305
The interchangeability of the structures quod factum est and quae facta sunt might have led to
blends such as quae factum est , 306 and the consequent use of quae instead of a singular form of the
relative. The fossilizing of the form as an all-gender relative may have received at least some impet
from constructiones ad sensum such as Varro Rust 1.1.11 'circumcisis rebus , quae non arbitror pert
ad agriculturam'.307 It will also be noted that quae usually has a feminine antecedent. Since the ne
plural quae had the same form in the nominative and accusative, the feminine quae may by analogy
spread to the accusative.
iii
53 e / ctum est usque ad sex solidos modius tritici.
The lack of agreement between factum est and modius is of a type which has been discussed by
88
308
Lofstedt, though this example has not been noticed. All comparable examples show the same
pattern: initial verb (third pers. sing.), followed by a loosely connected subject which may even be
plural. Löfstedt cites, among other parallels, the Herodotean eon . . . ema otóSloí (p. 3). There
are parallels also in Cato, all of which, like the present case, are from the context of weights and
measures: cf. 144.5 'accedit oleae salsae modii V'; 135.4 'in commissura abibit pedes III'. For
factum est + masc. or fem. subject, cf. Pass. Barth. 9 'factum est autem timor et tremor'; Chroń.
Alex, chron. I p.94.22 'factum est dispersio'. In our passage triticum , the price of which the author
sets out to state, may have determined the neuter factum (see further below, v).
iv
43 cui Zeno dato sacramento secu rum esse de sanguine, exiens,

inclausus cum uxore et filiis intra cisterna sicca, ibidem frigore
defecerunt.
If this punctuation is accepted, the construction (S + cum + V pl.) is of a type attested first in
Terence ( Haut : 473), then in Sallust {Jug. 101.5), Cicero (e.g. Phil. 12.27), later Latin and Romance.309
All examples quoted3 10 have the same structure: the verb does not intervene between the subject
and the cwm -phrase. At 43 the singular subject is followed by two singular participles ( exiens , in-
clausus) preceding the cww-phrase. If defecerunt is part of the same sentence, there is not only a
sharp transition from singular participles to plural verb, but a pleonastic description of the place of
death {intra cisterna sicca, ibidem ). It is better to interpret inclausus {est) as finite, and to place a
full stop after sicca. The change of subject is simple in a new sentence. Elsewhere S + cum selects
ä singular verb in II (39, 43, 5 1).
5 1 tradiderunt se illi maxima pars exercitus.
The logically determined use of a plural verb (or attribute) with a collective noun or expression is
found in all types of Latin: 311 cf. 81 'populus non observantes . . . consurgentes . . . incenderunť;
82 'populus Romanus . . . restaurarenť.
According to H-S, 439 the order here (V pl. + S sing.) is rarer than S sing. + V pl. This is only
to be expected, since the order S + V outnumbers V + S in clauses of all types in most writers. More-
over it has been seen above (on 53) that when the verb is in initial position, circumstances are especially
favourable for the non-agreement of subject and verb. The number of the verb is determined by that
of the subject. Thus if the subject occupies initial position, there is already present an expressed
determinant of the number of the verb. But if the verb comes first, the author may construe it
according to a vaguely formed idea of what is to be the subject, and in the completed sentence there
may result a violation of grammatical concord.
89
1 1 Gender
The upheavals suffered by the classical system of gender have left a mark on II. It has already been
seen (pp. 22, 33) that there are signs in B of the use of the masculine forms of the relative pronoun
in reference to antecedents of other genders, and we have dealt (pp. 22, 31) with a few classical
neuters which appear as masculines (60 edictum , 93 corpus , 96 saxum).
At 74 B has ad capite , which is changed to ad caput by most editors (following P), though
Mommsen prints ad capitem. If B preserves the form used by the author, capite cannot be taken as
an ablative. It has been shown above (pp. 54 f.) that the provable use of the ablative after preposit
with which the accusative would be expected only occurs (with one exception) with prepositions
governing both ablative and accusative in the classical period. There is no evidence that the author
thought of ad as taking any case other than the accusative. Capite must therefore be accusative,
with <-m> omitted. Capitem is apparently not attested elsewhere, but is explicable. Third
declension neuters often occur with the third declension masculine accusative singular morph {em }
(e.g. marmorem, pectorem, roborem, frigorem etc. in Gregory of Tours).312 In view of the proven
regularizing of P, an editor must as usual follow B.
According to Rönsch (118), oblatam (81) is a substantivized participle deriving from ellipse of
hostia. But it is likely that the neuter plural substantival participle oblata has passed into the
feminine first declension 313 There are a few other feminine first declensions in II derived from
neuter plurals: Pineta?^ 67 moeniae, 85 sacrarum.
In late texts the decline of the classical neuter is reflected partly (as above) by the use of origin
neuters as masculines or feminines, and partly by the hypercorrective inverse tendency. In II most
the non-classical usages are of the former kind. The few cases of neuters replacing classical masculin
or feminines are all of the same type: 71 portica (pl.), ib. aquae ductum quod, 84 terrae mota. In
each case the classical word belonged to the fourth declension. Nouns of this class tended to disapp
in late Latin as a separate category. They passed into the masculine second declension, as did most
neuters. The similar treatment of neuters and of fourth declension masculines explains the confusio
in II. A writer prone to hyperurbanism, vaguely aware that a word known to him from current usa
as a masculine of the o declension had not originally belonged to that category, might at times choo
the wrong category of the two alternatives into which to place it.
Lecta (74) is a special case, for it had long alternated between masculine and neuter.
90
12 The Predicate
i Prepositional Phrases in the Predicate accompanying facio
At 71 a prepositional phrase stands in the predicate accompanying facio : 'palatium

fectum fecit'. This is an interesting example which has not been noted at TLL VI 1
in Bendz's discussion (36 ff.).
The phenomenon has been greatly oversimplified by Bendz (see 37 'Sie ist im gro
ganzen umgangssprachlich') and H-S (414 'Überwiegend umgangssprachlich ist die S
Praepositionalausdrücken oder Adverbien an Stelle von nominalen Objekts- oder Su
dikativa nach f acere'), and has not received adequate treatment in the TLL articles o
efficio (for the latter, see V.2. 177.44 ff.). The prepositional (and adverbial) expres
sometimes occur in the predicate with facio , efficio and reddo are not of one type b
a number of categories which must be carefully distinguished.
a Numerous instances can be rewritten with a substantival predicate in the pla

(or nominative, if the verb is passive). Thus Vet. Lat . Is. 41:18 'faciam deserta in n
equally well be presented in the form faciam deserta nemora , Vet. Lat. Is. 40:4 'ut e
in viam rectam' in the form efficeret tortuosa viam rectam , and Tert. Cast. 5. p.74
duabus maritatus tres in unam carnem effeciť in the form tres unam carnem effec
this type, expressing the transmutation (metaphorically or literally) of one thing int
comprise a considerable proportion of the quoted cases of the usage. They all occur
are almost always in translations from Greek or in Grecizing writers. Sometimes, in
possible to compare an extant Greek version, as at Is. 41 : 18 quoted above ( novrioco
Clearly the usage is a Grecism, and is learned rather than popular. The generalizatio
Bendz concerning the colloquial nature of the usage thus break down at once.
b Our example could be rewritten with an adjectival rather than a substantival

palatium perfectum fecit. It therefore belongs to a different category from the exa
Cf. lul. Hon. Cosmogr. Ree. A 24 'Danuvius . . . per non parva . . . procurrens . . . eff
rotunditatem' (= efficitur rotundus)', Petron. 38.12 'qui omnia ad se fecerunť (= 'w
everything their own', omnia sua fecerunť).
The explanation of these examples is not far to seek. Ad perfectum would have
with certain verbs implying motion ( adduco , perduco ): e.g. Rav. Pap. p.216 'petitio
ad effectum congruum perduxistis'; Vulg. Ill Kings 7:1 'domum ... ad perfectum us
So the Petronian ad se would have been normal with a verb such as rapio .317 Both a
contaminated facio with verbs expressing the bringing of something to a certain sta
Thus ad perfectum perduco and perfectum facio when contaminated produce ad per
We may now turn to a slightly different category. An example such as Plin. Nat
'magnitudo duras facit et sine suco ' cannot be rewritten with an adjective because n
adjective exists. But sine suco clearly has the same role as a privative in in-. The n
of a suitable word gives the key to the usage: having committed himself with duras
91
construction, Pliny has admitted an abnormal prepositional phrase to avoid a periphrasis.
Many of the examples quoted are comparable in that the prepositional phrase could not be re-
placed by an existing adjective (cf. e.g. Cael. Aurel. Acut. 3.8.75 'sine cibo facimus aegrotos'). But
this, while making the usage more understandable, does not explain why it is far more common in
late Latin than earlier. Pliny is unusual for his period, and in any case a special factor has influenced
him.
Prepositional phrases are of course commonplace in the predicate after the copula esse. A
sentence such as aegrotus est sine cibo would be perfectly grammatical.
In late Latin a particularly common idiom is facio + infin. for the classical facio or efficio + ut
(e.g. 11.87 'quem . . . fecit occidi'). 318 Late usages such as that seen above in Caelius Aurelianus
are therefore best interpreted as arising from the deletion of esse after facio : aegrotos esse sine cibo
facio > aegrotos sine cibo facio. The copula is readily dropped at all periods. Moreover the infinitive
esse is common in the idiom facio + infin. in late Latin. 31 It can scarcely be accidental that the two
structures facio + infin. and facio + subst. + prep, phrase become frequent at much the same time.
It is also of note that just as Pliny admits the structure facio + subst. + prep, phrase once, so he pro-
vides one example of facio + infin. (Nat. 21. 144). 320
Cases of the passive fien with prepositional phrases in the predicate (see 53) are by no means un-
usual, for fieri , like esse , functions as a copula (see below, n.322).
c A final category worth discussing for the sake of completeness, though it is not directly
relevant here, is the use of an adverb in the predicate with facio : e.g. lui. Valer, p.86.20 'id deus . . .
procul feceriť. The explanation is the same as that of Cael. Aurel. Acut. 3.8.75 above. The copula
esse has been deleted in the structure id esse procul facio. However confusion may be caused by a
widespread misconception concerning adverbial predicates with esse.
As we have seen (n.242), it was suggested by Hofmann that with esse adverbial predicates were
colloquial, and this view is widely accepted.321 But many adverbs behave in much the same way as
prepositional phrases. Certain locative notions are regularly expressed in the predicate by adverbs or
prepositional phrases: e.g. Caesar est hie (= in hoc loco). There are many adverbs which constantly
occur in the predicate even in literary varieties of Latin (e.g. palam, frustra , procul ): e.g. Cic. Pis. 1 1
'quae sunt palam' = 'which are in the open'.322 The passage quoted above is thus an easily comprehen-
sible combination of the two structures esse procul and facio (esse).
ii Nominative of the Predicate with Reflexive Verbs
At 44 a nominative is employed in the predicate accompanying a reflexive verb ('munificus omnibus

se ostendiť), a construction which is unclassical in prose. Cf. Liv. 1.6.1 'seque eius auctorem
ostendiť.
Lofstedt (Synt. i, 79) draws attention to an example comparable to ours (Act. Andr. et Matth.
p. 132. 13 'praebens se deus cum mira faceret, ostendit se homo portando dedecus'), but his explanation
is unconvincing: 'Hier handelt es sich zwar um keinen Namen, wohl aber um die in der christlichen
Sprache besonders wichtigen, halb formelhaften Bezeichnungen deus und homo , was vielleicht zur
nominativischen Konstructionsweise beigetragen hať. Many late parallels, quite apart from our own,
do not have predicates of the type which Lofstedt finds quasi-formulaic: e.g. Greg. M. Epist. 9.123
'ut et quasi egentium amator . . . ostendas'; 9.57 'ergo se fraternitas vestra erga eum sollicita curet
ostendere'; Vita Sanct. Balthild. A 4 'se ostendebat ut mater'.324
92
Ì25
Nor is it entirely satisfactory to point out that se ostendere is virtually equivalent to ap
and can therefore have a nominative in the predicate. The observation may be true enough, bu
does not apply to examples such as Anth. 76 'statim supinus se ponať (cf. 77); Vit Patr. 5.14.1
'prostravit se pronus in terram'; Cass. Var . 11.1.13 'reddens se totus'; Einhard, Vita Karoli 1
se regi permisiť.
An explanation must be sought in the nature of the reflexive construction. In late Latin i
constantly equivalent to the medio-passive or even the passive.326 In the passage quoted the ref
pronoun must be taken closely with the verb as a medio-passive substitute. The nominative pre
agrees with the subject of the verb.
iii Apposition
There are 2 examples of a use of the appositional accusative (partitive apposition) in II which belong
to a type already found in Cato and frequently occurring in late Latin:32 67 'donavit populo Romano
. . . anonas singulis annis, centum viginti milia modios' (= 'he gave a hundred and twenty thousand
measures of grain . . . '); 73 '(fecerunt) vinum triginta anforas in solidům' (= 'they valued thirty
amphorae of wine at a single gold piece'). Logically we might have expected anonarum for anonas
and vini for vinum , and indeed at 73 the scribe of P first wrote vinum and then changed to vini (a
clear case of normalization which the scribe committed without MS. authority). But cf. e.g. Cato
Agr. 109 'farinam facito libras IUI'. In this usage, which has parallels in other languages, there
virtually occurs a conflation of two constructions: e.g. donavit anonas + donavit viginti milia modios.
The partitive expression is compulsorily postponed.
For an instance of the nominative in apposition to an oblique case, see 82 'agente Triwane
praeposito cubiculi, et ipse hereticus favens Iudeis'. Here et ipse , which is usually in the nominative,
has caused a nominative string.
93
13 Object Clauses and the acc. c. infin.
The acc. c. infin. is still preferred in II to object clauses introduced by quod , quia or eo quod
(the figures are about 24:4, though the classification of the acc. c. infin. is not always straightforward).
Often in late texts the acc. c. infin. predominates, though it is likely that at the subliterate level it had
been supplanted by the period at which II was written. The survival of the construction was due
to the conservatism of the formal registers.
The artificiality of the acc. c. infin. is sometimes shown by signs of uncertainty in a writer's use
of it.331 There is an example of hyperurbanism in II at 62: 'benedicens deum se filium revidisse'.
The object clause, as expressing the reason for the act described in benedicens , is causal, and would
therefore usually be in the form of a quod- or a quia-clmse (+ subj.: benedicens deum, quod filium
revidisset ). The author was aware of the interchange ability in certain circumstances of the acc. c.
infin. and quia-clmses, but has chosen an abnormal context for the introduction of the acc. c. infin.
The only other acc. c. infin. worthy of mention is at 8 1 ('Iudei baptizatos nolentes'), where it
has been used instead of a plain infinitive.332
The 4 examples of object clauses are: 40 'peribent de eo, quia . . . habuisset . . . '; 75 'dicere
eo quod nullus eorum regnareť; 85 'insinuans de Albino patricio, eo quod litteras . . . misisseť;
88 'credens quod eum pertimescereť. Three of these are in the later part of the work, where the
acc. c. infin. is not markedly more frequent, but there is probably no significance in their distribution.
Twice (40, 85) there is a phrase intervening between the governing verb and the object clause, and
once (75) the governing verb is itself infinitive. It would seem that the author, after committing
himself to the pattern V + prep, phrase, was uneasy about admitting an acc. c. infin. at a remove
from its governing verb. The acc : c. infin. is usually juxtaposed with its verb. The structure V +
prep, phrase + quod (quia) is a familiar one in late texts: e.g. Greg. lul. 17 'ferebant autem de
eo quod . . . '; Vit. Patr. 5.1.16 'dicebant de abbate Pambo, quia . . . '333 It is understandable
that the acc. c. infin. should survive longer in contexts where it was closely bound to a verb than
in those where it was more loosely attached.
At 75 the motivation for the object clause was probably a reluctance to hang an infinitival
construction on another infinitive.
Since object clauses are so few in II, discussion of the introductory conjunction would not
prove fruitful. But it will be noted that quod is outnumbered by quia and eo quod 334
In all four places the mood in the dependent clause is subjunctive. There has been much dis-
cussion of the factors determining mood in such clauses,335 not all of it decisive or convincing.
Lofstedt {Per. 120) believed that after verba dicendi the subjunctive was normal, and after
other verbs, the indicative. As a reason for this he suggested that after verba dicendi the feeling
of oratio obliqua was more marked. His view has been rightly rejected,336 for no widespread
94
distinction in the treatment of the two classes of verbs (if those of the second type can be referred
to as a separate class) can be seen. Moreover it is not explained why after verba dicendi 'man . . .
am deutlichsten das Gefühl der Or. obi. bewahrt hatte', nor why this feeling should have manifested
itself in the use of the subjunctive (but see below).
Salonius (300 ff.), following a dissertation by Mayen, argued that the mood varied according
to the conjunction used. After quia , the indicative was preferred; after quod , the subjunctive,
though not obligatory, was more likely than after quia, Mayen and Salonius did find a certain
amount of evidence indicating such a tendency, but a survey of other texts would have produced
much conflicting evidence?37 The tendency is not observable, for example, in the Per. , Orosius,338
or the Scholia to Juvenal.339 It may be accepted as a feature of certain idiolects, but is by no means
general. But we must be wary of asserting that the conjunction itself is the determinant of the mood
in the dependent clause, even in those writers in whom Mayen's distinction holds good. In independent
(causal) quod- and quia- clauses factors other than the conjunction chosen can be shown to determine
the mood.
The choice of mood in causal clauses furnishes a clue to the explanation of Mayen's observation.
It is well known that as a rule the subjunctive is used after causal quod or quia only as a modus
obliquus (in subjective statements: allegations, suppositions, etc.). 340 But it has not been observed
that in some idiolects, when the subjectivity of the causal clause motivates the use of the subjunctive,
that subjunctive (or the subjective statement) in its turn motivates the use of quod rather than quia.
The mood is the determinant of the conjunction rather than the conjunction of the mood. This is
very clearly the case in the Historia Augusta, where both quod and quia (causal) are common. Quia
is invariably followed by the indicative:341 it is thus confined to statements seen by the author as
objective. In explanations seen as subjective and therefore requiring a subjunctive, quod is the con-
junction used. 34 Quod is also the conjunction invariably used in reasons given in indirect speech,
which likewise require the subjunctive. The mood thus exercises an unmistakable influence on
the choice of the conjunction. 344
Gearly it was the compatibility of subjunctive mood and quod which led in some idiolects to the
disproportionate frequency of quod in those object clauses which for another reason contained a sub-
junctive verb. There seem to be two main reasons why writers sometimes prefer the subjunctive to
the indicative.
A glance at the mood of verbs in the object clauses dependent on credo assembled at TLL IV.
1 145.5 ff. shows a distinction of usage. When credo is negatived, either explicitly or by implication,
the mood is always subjunctive. But when it is positive, the mood is usually (though not always)
indicative. In the Vulgate, for example, positive credo takes the indicative 9 times, the subjunctive
3 times; but negatived credo always takes the subjunctive (4 times). This is precisely the situation
obtaining in the Romance languages in object clauses dependent on the reflexes of credo. 345 Thus
in one environment at least the Romance function of the subjunctive in object clauses as the mood
of unreality or uncertainty had already established itself. This makes it obvious that the attempts
which have sometimes been made to explain the mood of the verb in object clauses in Latin according
to such psychological factors 346 have been along the right lines, even if they have usually been over-
subtle. The Romance situation had certainly not fully emerged by our period.
In the second place, as Lofstedt stated, but did not explain, there must have been some feeling
that the subjunctive was a mood appropriate to indirect quotation. This feeling is easy to under-
stand. A finite verb occurring in orat. obi had always been in the subjunctive mood. Moreover
in late Latin, when a writer begins with an acc. c. infin. clause and then lapses into a finite verb in
a co-ordinated clause (e.g. Greg. Hist. Franc . 8.15 'praedicabam iugiter nihil esse Dianam ... set potius
Deo . . . dignum sit sacrificium ļaudis inpendere '), that verb is put in the subjunctive.347 And when
the introductory conjunction is deleted, as it often is in late Latin, the verb of the object clause is
95
348
again subjunctive. The subjunctive was thus the mood par excellence of indirect statement.
There are numerous works in which the subjunctive predominates in object clauses (e.g. the
Historia Augusta , 349 Orosius, the Per. and Fredegar ), and not merely those clauses of the
special type discussed above.351
Thus it is understandable that the choice of mood in object clauses in late texts should often
appear chaotic. The nuances possessed by the subjunctive in Romance were developing, but were
retarded by a lingering sense that the subjunctive was obligatory in orat . obi
There is no obvious psychological reason for the use of the subjunctive in any of the 4
passages of II, though at 85 it might be argued that there is an implication of unreality or im-
plausibility. It is safer to suppose that the author was subject to the influence of the second
factor above.
96
14 Final and Consecutive Clauses and the Infinitive
The final infinitive is used as the complement of a variety of verbs and verbal expressions in
with many it had established itself even in the formal registers at a much earlier date. But th
some noteworthy examples. Mitto + infin. (38 'misit eum intra Campania . . . vivere') belon
category of verb of motion + final infinitive which is well represented in early Latin (Plaut
688 'hune missa sum ludere'; Ter. Eun. 528 'misit . . . orare')352 and then mainly in late Lat
and must therefore have been domiciled in the colloquial registers over a very long period. E
infin. (74 'eligisset dormire') is late ( TLL V.2.384.43 ff.). The analogical influence behind it
of verbs such as statuo , constituo , volo, cupio etc. Facio + infin. (87 'fecit occidi') is of well
importance in late Latin: it encroaches on iubeo (cf. 92 'iussit interfici'), 354 which is not ref
Romance. Dignus (sum) + infin. (39) occurs earlier but is not widespread in the classical per
V. 1.11 52.32 ff.).
Final ut is found only 4 times in II, and then mainly as a marked exponent of finality in
where the determining verb or verbal expression is separated from its complement: 82 'iussi
praesumptionem incenda, ut . . . 88 'die ei inter alia, ut . . . ';35594 'dictavit praecepta die q
feria , septimo Kalend . Septembrê, indictione quarta , Olybrio consule , ut . . . '. Cf. 83 'ut n
Romanus arma usque ad cultello uteretur, vetuiť.
The use of consecutive ut is of some interest. It is usually not permitted to stand indepe
its function is signalled by the juxtaposition of either etiam (ut etiam : 40, 44, 59, 60) or ita
44, 59, 78, 87). Such reinforcement, imparting greater motivation, is characteristic of Vulga
The expression ita ut is also disproportionately common (compared with independent conse
in some other late texts. 357 In the Historia Augusta the combination ita ut etiam occurs a f
(cf. 11.59). 358
On the use of the infinitive in relative clauses (82, 96), see above, p. 30.
97
15 A Use of the Indicative in certain Subordinate Gauses
The subjunctive is obligatory in II in most of the contexts in which it had been used in classic
and in addition is found in object clauses which replace the acc. c. infin . (see above, pp. 94 f
the indicative has encroached on it to some extent. The subjunctive, though surviving in Ro
shows some tendency to recede.359
There is one use of the subjunctive which has disappeared completely in II, that in subordi
clauses in indirect speech: 66 'se omnia . . . quod retro principes Romani ordinaverunt . . . serv
promittiť; 82 'iussit . . . ut . . . synagogas quae incendio concremaverunt , restaurarenť; 91 'o
repromisit facturum praeter reconciliatos, qui se fidei catholicae dederunt , . . . restitui nullate
The indicative can be used in subordinate clauses in the classical period, but only when they ar
thetical and not looked upon as part of the speaker's statement. No such reason can be foun
the indicative in the above three passages. It is of note that whereas the subjunctive is used in
object clauses directly dependent on verba dicendi etc., in the above environment, where ther
direct dependence, the indicative has established itself.
98
16 The Ablative Absolute
oz: i
The ablative absolute, a literary construction, is used often by the auth

his aspirations to formality. But he shows signs of uncertainty.
As elsewhere in vulgar texts, it is used in II a few times with its subjec

main verb: 362 49 'ergo superveniente Theoderico patricio de civitate Nov
missus ab imperatore Zenone . . . 75 'hec eodem cogitante et orante cum
vidit hominem'; cf. 96 'se autem vivo fecit sibi monumentum'.363 On th
At 64 the construction is co-ordinated with a main verb by et. See p

menon.
A particularly notable use of the ablative absolute is found at 43 'cui Zeno

securum esse de sanguine . . . inclausus (est) (Basiliscus)', where strictly a Zen
used instead of Zeno . The active structure corresponding to dato sacramento m
as Zeno dedit sacramentum In the passive form Zeno is still felt to be the lo
therefore placed ungrammatically in the nominative in subject position before
precedes the logical object). A perfectly grammatical sentence in Caesar 364 is
with this passage: Gall 2.1 1.2 ' hac re statim Caesar per speculatores cognita .
continuiť. It was under the influence of the active structure Caesar cognovit h
as the logical subject was placed within the ablative absolute before cognita.
The presence of this vulgarism in II makes it possible to solve a textual p

'postea vero accepta uxorem de Francis nomine Augofladam' P makes a chang
that he is copying the same text as that of B : accepta uxore . . . Augofladam
with the ablative participle accepta , has been emended to the ablative, but th
fladam remains unchanged. Editors have either made the perfect participle f
suggested by Gardthausen), or removed the accusative forms.
But the text of B should be kept. Again a passive structure has been contam
implied active structure. The latter structure is S + accepit uxorem. Since ux
the logical object, it is placed in the accusative after accepta. Cf. e.g. Fredega
ab Eiegio quingentos in muñere áureos' ' p. 157.6 ' collicta multetudinem . . .
8.20 'racionem accepta quieviť; Itin. Ant. Plac . 1 1 ' completo matutinas . . . *
' excepto plagas . . . '. 36 An especially clear illustration of the operation of th
can be seen in examples such as Paul. Diac. Hist. Lang. 4.36 'extincto Mauricio
filios)', 366 where the case of Mauricio is determined by that of the juxtaposed
filius , at a further remove from the participle, is placed in the logically deter
At 63 the ablative absolute is not followed by a main verb. This need caus
clear that at this period its workings were imperfectly understood. Since in vu
cipial component could be construed with a nominative subject or an accusat
ing superficially as a finite verb. But there is no need to speak of a genuine f
participle, any more than of a finite use of the present participle. The author
99
clearly that two usages with no basis in ordinary speech, the ablative absolute and present participle,
were subordinate structures. Thus both may sometimes be left unsubordinated to a main verb, or
co-ordinated to one by et But neither functions freely as a full finite verb. Rather they are occasion-
ally employed as 'literary' verb-phrases ambiguous in status between subordinate and finite.
It is now possible to explain a strangely constructed sentence which seems to be repetitious: 57

'at ubi cognita morte eius antequam legatio reverteretur, ut ingressus est Ravenna et occidit Odoacrem,
Gothi sibi confirmaverunt Theodericum regem'. The temporal expression ut , following at ubi , looks
superfluous: 'But when, after learning about (Zeno's) death before the return of the embassy- when
he entered Ravenna . . . , the Goths made him king'. But it is doubtful if the author would have been
aware of any repetition. Cognita morte should not be taken as a classical ablative absolute within
a temporal clause. As in the above examples from II, the construction is not fully absolute, but
functions as a verb-phrase which has partly lost its former clearly apprehended subordinate status.
At ubi cognita morte virtually acts as a temporal clause: 'But after he had learned about Zeno's death
before the return of the embassy, when he entered Ravenna, the Goths . . . '.
100
v
VOCABULARY1
1 Nouns
i Miscellaneous
solarium
At 42 ('eum invitavit in solarium sibi adversus Basiliscum') solacium means 'help', 'assistance', a sense
which the word constantly has in late Latin.2 Sometimes the sense, like that of auxilium, passes from
abstract to concrete (= 'auxiliary forces'). A transitional example is that at Cass. Hist. Trip. 8.13
p.l 1 18D: 'quo cognito, Valens praecepit Thraciae militibus ut barbaris auxilia commodarent. hoc
solacio victus . . . '. See further Ennodius p.364.1 ' solaciorum tuorum pondus omnis bellandi
apparatus sustinere non valuiť (= exercituum ).3 A slightly different sense again is found at Anon.
de Rebus Bellicis 15.1 'membra quoque vestientis inter armorum hiemisque discrimen tali solatio
adiuta labori suffícianť (= 'comfort', physical rather than mental, here provided by a type of garment).
Again, at Simp . Med. 123 'et solacium praebetur doloribus' the meaning is closer to 'relief.
Solacium is not the only word of this root to exhibit such a semantic scatter. For consolor =
'relieve', 'ease' (physically), see Simp. Med . 76 'folia ipsius contusa tumores qui ex fervore nascuntur
consolantur'; 81 'unde et tumores consolatur'. Both consolor = adiuvo and consolatio = adiutorium ,
auxilium are also attested. For the denominative solacio = 'help' > 'compensate', see Edict. Roth.
24 'si quis gastaldius exercitalem suum molestaverit contra rationem, dux eum solaciet, quousque
veri ta te m suam inveniať.
There are two other words in late Latin which commonly mean 'help', 'assistance', adiutorium
and auxilium. Of these adiutorium (along with the frequentative adiuto) survives in Romance.4
Auxilium eventually 'fell into disuse. In II adiutorium occurs at 53, but auxilium is not used.
There is one significant distinction of distribution between solacium on the one hand and auxilium
and adiutorium on the other in late Latin. Solacium almost exclusively denotes secular, and partic-
ularly military, assistance, whereas both auxilium and adiutorium were also current in the language of
the Church to express divine aid.5 In Gregory of Tours, Hist. Franc, bks. 2-8, for example, there
are 27 instances of solacium = 'help' (including a few cases with concrete meaning), none of which is
religious in reference. But of the 7 examples of adiutorium in the same books, 3 express divine aid,
and of the 13 examples of auxilium , 5 are so used. The distinction is even clearer in the Regula of
Benedict. There the 4 instances of adiutorium refer to divine assistance (prol., 17, 18, 68), whereas
all 6 instances of solacium refer to human assistance (1, 31, 35 twice, 53, 66).
101
The religious use of adiutorium is especially frequent in the formula cum dei adiutorio. Two of
the examples of the word in Gregory are in this expression (2.37, 3.7).6 The same expression is very
common in Caesarius of Aries, who appears not to use adiutorium in a general sense,7 and is also found
(e.g.) at Vict. Vit. 2.428 andern*. Regni Franc, pp.46 (a.776), 88 (ä.791).
It is clear then both that adiutorium and auxilium were especially common in Christian Latin, and
that there is at least one register (the religious) in which the semantic shift 'consolation' > 'help' (includ-
ing physical) exhibited by solacium could not have taken place.9
A clue to the explanation of the shift may well lie in the fact that solacium = 'help' is particularly
common in contexts similar to that in our passage (describing requests for assistance). Cf. Cass. Hist :
Trip . 6.1 p.1030 B 'Constantius contra Magnentium solatia petierať; 8.13 p.l 1 19 B 'misit ad fratrem
solatia petens'; 11.15 p.l 197 A 'Saracenorum solatia postulaviť; Var. 3.26 'expetita solacia non
nege tis'; 5.4.5 'eius solacia non quaesiviť; 5.41.3 'solacia eiuspetiiť; 6.5.5 'solacia quaeranť; Cass.
Iosephilud. Ant. 1. 271 'et ab eis solatia poposcerunť; Rufin. Interpr. IosephiAnt. 8.12 'petens ab
eo solatium'; Greg. Hist. Franc. 2.41 'evocatus ad solatium Chlodovechi'; 3.6 'vocans in solatium
Theudoricum regem'; 3.7 'fratrem suum in solatio suo vocať; ib. 'Chlothacharium ... et Theudobertum
. . . solatio suo adsumptos'; 3.1 1 'convocatusque Theudoricus in solatio eorum'; Fredegar p.102.1
'solatium per laegatis Chlodoveo postulans'; Ann. Regni Franc, p.10 (a.l 53) 'solatium quaerendo'.10
In a militaristic society it might be a matter of honour not to beg for help. Solacium ('help')
may have originated as a euphemism ('comfort') springing from a reluctance on the part of the subject
to acknowledge explicitly his need of physical assistance: he asks simply for moral support and com-
fort. But euphemisms habitually degenerate, and take on the same sense as the words for which they
were first substituted.
sanguis
Three times in II sanguis means roughly 'life', vita : 38 'concessit ei sanguinem' (= 'he granted him his
life'); 43 'dato sacramento securum esse de sanguine'; 55 'accepta fide securum se esse de sanguine'.
Since blood is the most obvious life force,1 Expressions of the type sanguinem effundere , perdere are
virtually equivalent to vitam effundere , perdere. It is in contexts of this kind, whether explicit or
implied, that sanguis can approach the sense 'life'. At Aug. Civ. 1.26, for instance, ( crimen effusi
humāni sanguinis ) a straightforward substitution of vita for sanguis could be made. In our passages,
however, sanguis is more pregnant. It is noticeable that all 3 instances are in similar contexts. An
assurance is given or a concession made that someone will not lose his life. In such contexts sanguis
was almost certainly a vogue usage of a ruling class given to a particularly expressive description of
execution. An elliptical expression 'he conceded him his blood' is explicable as a contrast to a frequent
order of the type 'take his blood'. That such a usage was current at the Gothic court can be seen from
Cass. Var. 9.18.7 'quod si ad tale flagitium ancilla pervenerit, excepta poena sanguinis matronali sub-
iaceat ultioni'.
pop uli
There are a few examples of populi (pl.) in II which deserve comment: 50, 53 'ceciderunt populi ab
utraque parte'; 93 'quod videntes populi et senatores coeperunt reliquias de veste eius tollere'.
In Latin of all periods populus , as subsuming a large number of individuals, frequently selects a
plural verb.12 But in later L^tin it is often pluralized and used in a sense slightly different from that
of populus : e.g. Pass. Sanct. Apost. Petri et Pauli 10 'innumerabiles enim populi dum converterentur
ad dominum' (= ev rib ovv rovç avapid i±r'TOVÇ toõ Xaóv emoTpéýai); Pass. Andr. 8 'ideo te sacrificare
102
conpello ut isti qui per te decepti sunt populi relinquant vanitatem tuae doctrinae' (= oòrot oi . . .
Xaoi)€, Itin. Ant. Plac . 9 'quinqué milia populos saciaviť (cf. Rec. B 'quinqué milia hominum
satiaviť). 13 This usage is a particularizing plural, in that it focuses attention not on the mass as
a whole but on its component members. 14 In the passages quoted it can be seen that the plural
has something of a partitive sense: the reference is to numerous individuals who form only part of
the populus as a whole. Thus populus means ' the people', but populi (in our passages) 'people, some
people, individuals (out of the populus )' (= homines). 15 At 93 the author has not chosen the official
phrase senātus et populus, which would include the whole body of the senate and people and would
be inappropriate in the context, but has used a phrase obviously intended to denote individual
members of those groups. Senatores regularly stands to senātus as populi to populus. In the other
two passages the sense must be that some men (as distinct from the whole armies) on both sides fell.
The use of populi in the latter two passages should not be confused with various examples of
populus superficially bearing the same sense as ex ercitus: e.g. Heges. 1 .24.2 'donee omnis hostium
populus extinguere tur'; 3.9.1 'dux et populus bello promtior inte rcipere tur'; 3.26.4 'populus alius
Trachonitidis et Gaulanitidis regionis . . . deserentes propria . . . poenas dedere'; 5.14.4 'Simon cum
armatis suis et populo Idumaeorum ad sepulchrum Iohannis speculabatur' (cf. 5.19). Behind this
usage lies the indifference of the members of any one state to making distinctions between the
populace as a whole and the military personnel (< exercitus ) of foreign states engaged in warfare. In
non-technical language an Italian might refer loosely to an invasion of the Gothic people rather than
of the army of the Gothic people. In our text note the use of gens at 37 ('Odoacar cum gente Scir-
orum occidit Orestem') and 49 ('superveniente Theoderico . . . cum gente Gothica'). Cf. Amm. 18.6.
18 'Asiam cum numerosis populis pervasurus adveniet'. Neither populus nor gens can be said to be
a genuine synonym of exercitus.
It must be pointed out that it is not always possible to distinguish in the above manner between
populi and populus. The former is often used in vulgar texts as no more than an alternative to populus .16
civitas, urbs
As is well known, civitas came into rivalry with urbs from a relatively early period, and eventually dis-
placed it in Romance.17 The usage civitas = 'town', 'city' is common in II (1 5 times). 18 Urbs does
occur, but only in reference to Rome (36, 44, 65 (3 times)), Constantinople (78), and in an official
title (87 praefectum urbis). In such applications urbs no doubt remained current until very late.
Jordanes, for example, who uses civitas and urbs more than 50 times each,19 avoids applying civitas
to Rome and Constantinople,20 but uses urbs frequently. So in the Vulgate version of the N.T., where
civitas is very common, there are only 2 instances of urbs , both in the expression ab urbe Roma.2ì
naturalis
At 58 naturalis is used as a substantive in the sense 'natural son': 'vir enim bellicosissimus fortis, cuius
11
pater Walamir dietus rex Gothorum, naturalis tarnen eius fuit'. The ellipse of filius with naturalis
leading to the substantival use of the latter could readily have taken place in the legal language in con-
texts such as the following: Gaius Inst. 2.136 'adoptivi filii, quamdiu manent in adoptione, naturalium
loco sunt.' 23
infantia
Infantia does not have its literal sense at 38 ('ingrediens autem Ravennani deposuit Augustulum de regno,
cuius infantiam misertus concessit ei sanguinem'), but is used as the abstract correspondent to infans in its
characteristic late sense ('child'). Cf. TLL VII. 1.1350.15 ff., where this particularly clear example is not
noted.
103
comis
At 84 both MSS. have comis in the sense 'comet' (emended to cometes by Henri Valois). The non-
Latin cometes tended to undergo remodelling in Vulgar Latin. Comes (-is), the Latin word graphemi-
cally closest to the Greek (though etymologically unrelated to it), was probably able to assume the
new meaning because it could be popularly reinterpreted as being of the same root as coma. 24 Alter-
natively comes in its classical sense ('companion') may have been contaminated with cometes. 25
Comis = cometes occurs in Agnellus in a similar expression in a passage apparently drawn from
the Ravenna Fasti (p. 335 (Mommsen) 'et post haec apparuit stella comis mense Augusto'), and often
in glosses.26
ecclesia, basilica
In most of the Romania ecclesia survives as the word for 'church', but basilica is reflected in North
Italian dialects and a few other areas (referring to an edifice, not the institution).27 In II both ecclesia
(43, 87) and basilica (94) are used of unspecified buildings of worship, but only ecclesia is used of the
Church of Rome or Constantinople (65, 78). Much the same distinction operates in the Rav. Pap.28
ii Diminutives
The use of diminutives which are semantically indistinguishable from their simplex is a well know
feature of Vulgar Latin. In II there are a number of such words, some of which survive into Roman
corpusculum
At 93 the alternation corpusculum-corpus ('euntes populi ante corpusculum eius . . . deductus est
corpus eius') establishes that the diminutive has no intellectual force.29 So in the Vita Sanct. Rade
the expression sanctum eius corpusculum at 2.21 is followed a few chapters later (2.24) by sanctum
corpus. Cf. Vita Servatii 1.3 'quere tibi pura et munda lenteamina ad legendum corpusculi tui, et c
migraberis a corpore' ; Vita Carileffi 12 'ad cuius sancii corporis excubias . . . eius sanctum corpuscul
Vita Sever, 7 'corpusculum . . . corpore'.
The use of corpusculum in Merovingian Vitae Sanctorum and elsewhere in reference to the bodi
of saints was no doubt motivated by emotive considerations. Note especially Vita Sanct. Chlod. 8
'corpusculum, quod regio cultu in bysso et purpura enutritum fuerat ... a corpore et animo', wher
corpus is used in the emotionally neutral 'body -soul' antithesis, and corpusculum in the description
the final adornment of the body.
In our passage the corpusculum is that of a Pope who has recently died. The author then turn
to corpus > probably because deducere corpus was a formulaic expression.
facula (84)
The equivalence of facula and fax in late Latin is shown by Appendix Probi 133 (fax non facia), wh
it is to be noted that the author does not simply give as the 'correct' form facula (without syncope
Fax was completely displaced in Romance by the diminutive, partly no doubt because of its mono
syllabic form.30 In the Latin translation of Irenaeus facula is already preferred to fax. 31 Fax is no
used in II.
104
genucula (40)
Geniculum has diminutive force at Varr. Ling. 9.1 1 ('qui pueris in geniculis alligent serperastra'), but
later it displaced genu. Numerous diminutives referring to parts of the body displace the simplex
(e.g. axilla , articulus , auricula , buccula, cerebellum , clavicula , corculum ).32 Genuc(u)lum is widely
represented in Romance, whereas survives only in a metaphorical sense?3 Genu is glossed by
geniculum in the ninth century Glossarium Amplonianum?* Note too that at Oribas. Eup. 2.1 app.
26 p.515 ingenucola is used to translate enC yovaroq. For the alternation of -u- and before
-culum in diminutives, cf. ossiculum-ossuculum , anniculus-annuculus , feniculum-fenuculumt pedi-
culus-peduculus (Petron. 57.7). 35
The corresponding passage in Agnellus (drawn apparently from the same source) also has the
diminutive: p.314 (Mommsen) 'hie vero patellis genuculorum non habuit et sic currebat fortiter,
ut . . .
lectulus
Lectulus can be a genuine diminutive (e.g. Isid. Etym. 20.1 1.6 'cunabula sunt lectuli in quibus infantes
iacere consuerunť), but it is likely that it is equivalent to lectus at 93. Lectulus is often completely
interchangeable with lectus in Vulgar Latin. At Mart. Matth. 23, for example, the Greek kXípí]
is 3 times translated by lectulus and once by lectus. In the next chapter there also occurs the sentence
'factum est enim quum ingrederetur lectulum in palatio, vidimus enim nos omnes quomodo Matheus
surgens de lecto ad caelum ascendebať, with both words again rendering K'ivr'. Again, in the Scholia
to Juvenal at 6.268 Juvenal's lectus becomes lectulus in the comment. At Soranus Gyn. p. 83.6
'mulierem in lecto .... collocamus' is followed a few lines later by 'in lectulo collocans' (22). Similar
alternation of diminutive and simplex, indicating synonymity, occurs also at Vita Genove fae 36, Vita
Sever. 5 and ps.-Theod. Prise, p.307.
parvulus
Parvulus is used twice at 62 of a child (adjectivally, in the expression parvulus fìlius). It has been
observed by Baehrens (20) that diminutives are characteristic in vulgar speech in reference to members
of the youngest and oldest generations. To his examples could be added vetulus 36 and parvulus. The
latter is particularly common of children,37 both as an adjective and as a substantive (with ellipse of a
noun such as puer or fìlius ).38 Indeed it survives in Catalan (parvol ) with the sense 'child'. The use of
the word of children is found first in Terence ( Andr . 35). All 6 instances in Tacitus are also so used,
and there are constant examples in late Latin.39
iii Some Nominal Formations
fossatus (50, 53, 54)
Originally the past participle of the denominative fosso , used as a substantive. The substantival u
perhaps developed from ellipse of the noun in an expression such as locus fossatus or terminus fo
tus. Fossatus is used particularly often by the Gromatici as a technical term for a boundary ditch
a fact which makes the latter phrase an attractive intermediary.
Fossatus (-m) naturally came into rivalry with fossa in late Latin. Both words survive in Roman
with varying distinctions of sense.41
105
The first conjugation denominative formation was productive at all periods, not least in late
Latin.42 Past participles in -atus used adjectivally, often in rivalry with existing adjectives,43 are
a well known feature of Vulgar Latin. Adjectival participles could readily be substantivized by
ellipse of a noun in the manner described above. Or alternatively neuter nouns could be formed
directly by substantivization of a neuter participle (e.g. cogitatimi). The two processes combined to
produce a constant stream of substantivized participles, both in - atus (- m ) and -tus (-w),44 and indeed
it is often impossible to determine by which process a new noun developed. Fossatus (- m ) itself, which
can often be interpreted as neuter, could equally well owe its origin to the second process. And nouns
in -ata, which are important in Romance,45 may in part be due to the ellipse of feminine nouns, and in
part to the passage into the feminine singular of neuter plurals substantivized directly.46
I append for comparison with fossatus (-m) a short list of little-known late Latin substantivized
participles in - atus (-m), without attempting to determine their mode of origin: catenatum , which is
mentioned by Isid. Etym. 20.13.5 ('catenatum, quod capiendo teneať) and survives in Romance (OPr.
cadenat , Sp. candado , Pg. cadiado );47 formátům (Isid. Etym. 15.9.5 'formátům, sive formacium, in
Africa et Hispania parietes e terra appellant, quoniam in forma circumdatis duabus utrimque tabulis
inferciuntur verius quam instruuntur');48 arcuatum (Isid. Etym. 4.8.13 'hune morbum Latini arcuatum
dicunt, a similitudine caelestis arcus'); arculatum (Fest. 15.10 'arculata dicebantur circuii, qui ex farina
in sacrifíciis fíebanť); praedatum = praeda (SHA, Prob. 8.3).
The expression fossatum figere seems to have had the status of a cliché, for it occurs twice in our
text (50, 53), and 2'Itin. Theod. 29.
perfectus
A substantive perfectus , - us (cf. effectus, profectus ) is occasionally attested in later Latin, and may well
be the word used at 71: 'palatium usque ad perfectum fecit'. There is, for instance, an example in
Tertullian which a juxtapose d profectus almost certainly shows to be fourth declension: Anim. 20 'sed
Empedocles causam argutae indolis et obtusae in sanguinis qualitate consti tuit; perfectum et profectum
de doctrina disciplinaque deduciť. Another example which is undoubtedly a - tus substantive is in Cod.
d of the Vet. Lat. at Luke 14:28: 'computavit sumptus, qui necessarii sunt, si habet ad perfectum' (cf.
perficiendum , aur, f Vulg.; consummationem, Afra; consummandum al.). Clearly an act is referred to
('the completing of). Substantives in -tus constantly have such a function.49
At 71 and also at Cass. Hist. Trip. 3.10 p.954 D ('ne ad perfectum verba Eusebii pervenirenť) the
reference is to a state of completion rather than an act of completing. It is equally possible then that
the word is conceived as the substantival perfect participle perfectum , a word which occurs a number
of times in the Latin translations of Irenaeus.50 However substantives in -tus, like those in -tio, can
express the state of accomplishment of an act as well as the action itself. For effectus in the former
sense, see TLL V.2. 129.83 ff.; cf. 128.83 ff.
' At 71 the issue is impossible to resolve.
iussio
At 57 the author uses iussio , a late word,51 in the accusative singular form, but at 56, where an ablative
is required, iusso is preferred. The defective iussu ( iusso ) is still often found in late Latin, but it tended
to be supplemented by iussio rather than the substantival perfect participle iussum ( iussa ).52 Iussio
and iussu (-o) are complements, for example, in Fredegar,53 Victor Vitensis,54 and the Rav. Pap.55
But in other works iussio has completely ousted iussu (-o): e.g. Benedict's Regula, 5 6 the Lex
Alamannorunł 7 and the Leges Liutprandi. 58
106
Gregory of Tours seems to progress away from iussurrč 9 in the Hist. Franc. It occurs 3 times
early in the work (1.10, 2.3, 2.9) before iussio is used, but thereafter iussio almost displaces it.60
Iussu continues to be used, for the most part in the phrase ex iussuý 1
The formation -tio had considerable vitality at all periods, and words of this formation frequently
came into rivalry with words of other formations.62 Two other examples of rivalry between a sub-
stantival perfect participle and a noun in -tio are provided by praeceptio and promissio. The relative
frequencies of praeceptio and praeceptum , and promissio and promissum seem to vary to some extent
according to the tastes of individuals; but promissio in particular is highly favoured in the late period.
In II it is used at 69, whereas promissum is absent from the text.
It is beyond the scope of the present work to discuss the productivity of the -tio formation in
any detail, but a few examples of its inroads on other formations are worth giving from late medical
Latin.
In Theodorus Priscianus' Eupor. the expression aequa ponderatione (sometimes with the preposition
sub) gradually ousts the moie usual aequis ponderibus 63 as the author advances. Until p. 45 the latter
seems to be used without exception,64 but thereafter aequa ponderatione is preferred.65
In the same work causatio is used indistinguishably from causai vulnerario from vulnus?1 curat io
from cwra,68and ordinario from ordo ,69
Also worthy of note is the use of ulcerationes at Diosc. Lat. x, 197.13 (cf. Marc. Emp. 9.35 ex-
ulcera tionem). Ulcus is common in medical Latin.
negotians
At 72 ('negotiantes vero de diversis provinciis ad ipsum concurrebanť) negotians is equivalent to

negotiator. It is one of a very small group of substantival present participles which became so well
established in late popular Latin that they could even be employed in the nominative singular: see, e.g.
Inscript. Lat. Christ. Vet. 677 Balicus negotias .70
107
2 Adjectives (¡ utilis , miser)
Rolfe, following RÖnsch {Sem. Beitr. ii, 57), translates utilis as 'rich' at 61 ('Romānus miser
imitatur Gotho et utilis Gothus imitatur Romanům'), and he is certainly right, despite Lofstedt's
view {Late Latin 102) that 'the meaning is incorrectly given by Souter ... as "rich" This sense
well suits the context, for miser from early Latin onwards often denotes poverty.7 1 If utilis meant
'good' here, as Löfstedt believed, there would be no point to the antithesis with miser.
11 73
The sema
The furth
'honoured
In many s
classes (e.g
is wealth.
copiosos .
Bonus its
all period
bonis') bon
possessors
The devel
'good', and
Apuli idon
Honestus
equivalent
(30) is esp
that the s
applied to
where the
mittebant
A final pa
wealthy.80
108
3 Verbs
i Miscellaneous
genero
At 84 the author uses genero in its literal sense ('mulier pauper . . . quattuor generavit dracones')
rather than gigno , which does not occur in II. His preference deserves some comment.
Genero had had only a limited currency in earlier Latin, and then in the more artificial genres.81
But it became frequent in later Latin, including that of vulgar flavour, and it has reflexes in OFr. (gendrer)
and Pg. (gerar). Its increased popularity was no doubt due to the regularity of its inflection compared
with that of gigno , 82 which was not in high favour in the late period.83
The growing importance of genero can be illustrated by comparing the incidence of gigno and
genero in a variety of late writers. In Diosc. Lat. only genero (lit.) seems to occur: in book II it is
found 8 times, compared with no examples of gigno. 84 So in Anthimus there are 10 instances of
genero (met.),85 but none of gigno. In the short book which the Mul. Chir. devotes to reproduction
(VIII), genero only is used (744, 746 twice). Fredegar uses gigno incessantly in the first book of his
work on the Franks, but there it is in Biblical contexts and has been inspired by the Vulgate, in which
it is the standard word. Later he prefers genero. 86 In the medical treatise de Vesicae Vitiis (1, twice),
the Burgundian Laws (twice) and the Itin. Ant. Plac. (S) genero only occurs. Even in the more learned
Latin of the Cod. lust, genero predominates by 26:10. The Edict. Roth, has only genero.^1 The pre-
ference shown for genero in the Latin translation of Irenaeus' adv. Haer. is particularly striking: in the
first book it occurs 36 times, against a single instance of gigno. 88 Finally, it is worth noting that in one
place the fifth book of the Vit. Patr. has genero whereas the third, which belongs to a higher social
stratum, has gigno: 5.8.13 'pastor filios non generaviť = 3.20 'Poemen filios non genuiť.
conforto
At 42 there is an example of conforto which can only mean 'strengthen' (militarily): 'Zeno confortans
Hisauros intra provintia'. This denominative is attested since the Vet. Lat .89 For the formation, cf.
confirmo and consolido.
Given the long-standing existence of confirmo , which was at home in all registers and commonly
means 'strengthen',90 the emergence of conforto in popular Latin must be explained from the vitality
of fortis = 'strong' (as distinct from 'brave', the most usual classical sense) in ordinary speech (cf. It.
forte , Fr. fort , etc.).91 This vitality can be readily illustrated from extant literature. In the Vulgate,
for example, there are 332 instances of fortis , compared with only 39 of firmus 92 In the N.T. fortis
regularly translates loxvpfk (e.g. Matth. 3:11, 12:29, Mark 1:7, 3:27, Luke 3:16, 11:21, 11:22), the
standard word indicating physical strength,93 whereas firmus usually renders ßeßatcx: (e.g. Rom. 4:16,
2 Cor. 1:7, Hebr. 2:2, 3:14, 6: 19), which is mostly figurative.94
109
Conforto came into rivalry with confirmo , and indeed in some popular texts is preferred to it.
In the Act. Petr. c. Sim., for instance, conforto predominates by 1 1:5. Cf. 1 confirmantis in fide;
30 confortabantur in fide. So in Victor Vitensis it is preferred by 5: 1 ,96 in the Acts of the Christian
martyrs collected by Musurillo by 7: 2, 97 in the Per. by 2:0 and in the medical work Simp. Med. by
4: l.98 In II confirmo does not occur. Theodorus Priscianus can even use conforto in the sense
'assert' {Log. 46), on the analogy of confirmo. This usage was almost certainly artificial, for it is
not quoted from elsewhere,99 but its presence in Theodorus does indicate that the two verbs were
felt to overlap.
In the N.T. confirmo usually translates ßeßcnocj (Mark 16:20, Rom. 15:8, 1 Cor. 1:6, 1 Cor. 1:8,
2 Cor. 1:21, Coloss. 2:7) or arrçpífco or its compounds (Luke 22:32, Acts 14:21, 15:32, 15:41, 18:23,
Rom. 1:11, 16:25), but conforto dvvaßoco or its compounds (Rom. 4:20, Eph.6:10, Coloss. 1:11,
1 Tim. 1: 12, 2 Tim. 2:1, 2 Tim. 4:17) or fcparatóco (Luke 1 :80, 2:40, 1 Cor. 16:13). But it is difficult
to believe that there was any widely felt semantic distinction between the two verbs. The desire to
find different Latin words for the variety of Greek verbs expressing the idea 'strengthen' could lead to
artificial distinctions of usage. The Latin versions of Herm. Past., in contrast to the Vulgate of the
N.T., employ both confirmo and conforto to render the same Greek verb, loxvpo-noiéco. 100 Moreover
at Mandat. 12.6 there are 2 instances of confirmo translating evbwayiô a?, a verb translated by conforto
in the N.T. (Rom. 4:20, Eph. 6:10). Cf. also Simp. Med. 2 confortât stomachum and 5 1 viscera con-
firmât. The two verbs seem to have differed in register rather than meaning: it is predominantly in
vulgar and colloquial works that conforto occurs.
'puť and 'throw'
In his use of words for 'throw' and 'put' the author of II exhibits certain late and even Romance
characteristics.101
Colloco , which first underwent specialization in the medical language (= 'lay (someone) down'
or, reflexively, 'lie down': e.g. Cels. 3.7.2 'multa veste operiendus est et collocandus ut dormiať) and
then gained wider currency in its specialized sense (cf. Fr. coucher ), occurs only once in II, and then
with the meaning 'lie down': 74 'duo enim in alio amore fraterno se conlocaverunť. 102 It may also
originally have occurred at 93 with the same sense in a corrupt passage (see pp. 30 f.). With 74, cf.
Ant. Brüx. 37 'sero qua hora se collocai'; ps.-Plin. Med. 2.14.7 'cum se collocai'.
lacio , which does not survive in Romance (it was to some extent homonymous with iaceo ), is not
used in II, but the frequentative iacto (cf. e.g. It .gettare, Fr./čter)103 is found at 81 = 'throw': 'ob-
latam in aqua fluminis iactaverunť.
At 74 iacto is used in a weakened sense of lying down ('unus quidem in uno lecto se iactaviť), in
antithesis with se conlocare. This weakening is explicable, and can be paralleled elsewhere, especially
in the Latin translation of Soranus' gynaecological work. In the latter iacto and colloco are used inter-
changeably in identical contexts: e.g. p.25.18 'iactanda est in lecto (feta)'; cf. p.22.1 'in ilium autem
qui mollius est stratus, post laborem fetam collocamus'. 104
For a time in late Latin the standard term for 'throw' was mitto. It then passed to the sense 'put'.105
In II mitto = 'throw' co-exists with iacto : cf. 78 'in Trinitatem lanceola non mittis'; 52 'missi sunt in
ferro' (perhaps transitional).
'go' and 'come'
There is only a single example of eo in II, and that in a polysyllabic form (93 euntes populi).
Monosyllabic forms are avoided at 62 by the use of vade , and at 88 by that of ambula. Vado ,
110
which partially replaced eo in the present stem in Romance, is not used elsewhere in II, no doubt
because the subject matter requires that most verbs be in the past tenses.
Ambulo is used twice in the perfect (53, 65), and its compound perambulo (see below, pp. 1 17 f.)
occurs at 51.106 But for the most part the author was content to use venio; 107 usually in contexts
where eo would have been possible, though not obligatory (see further below).
At 65 ambulo is clearly no more than a substitute for eo , but at 53 it is used in a military con-
text and might possibly be translated 'marched'. We know from Vegetius (1 .27) of a common mili-
tary exercise to which the verb ambulo was applied. Three times a month soldiers were compelled
to make a round march of about ten miles under full armour: 'ter in mense tam équités quam pedites
educantur ambulatum; hoc enim verbo hoc exercitii genus nominant. decem milia passuum armati
instructique omnibus telis pedites militari gradu ire ac redire iubebantur in castra'. There can be no
doubt that the exercise owed its name to soldiers' irony, for ambulo means literally 'go for a stroll'.
The verb seems to have been extended to cover marching in general,108 though it is always possible
in a vulgar text that it is simply a replacement for eo.
The relationship between venio and eo deserves comment,109 for it is sometimes said that the
former is misused for the latter.
'Come' usually carries a presupposition that either the speaker or the addressee is at the goal of
motion. Contrast, for example, 'I shall come to the office tomorrow' and 'I shall go to the office
tomorrow'. In the first sentence it is implied either that the speaker is at the office at the time of
the utterance, or that the addressee is or will be at the office himself. But these are not the only
circumstances under which 'come' or venio can be employed. In narrative style, when there is no
specific addressee, 'come' and venio can be used in the past tenses even when there is no implication
or possibility that the narrator is at the goal of motion: e.g. 'In that year Hannibal came to Italy';
Tac. Hist 3.15.2 'a Verona . . . Bedriacum venit'. This usage is made possible by an aspectual
feature of the past tenses of the verb. Compare the sentences 'He went to Italy in June 'and 'He
came to Italy in June'. The latter focuses attention on the completion of the action: it indicates
that the subject arrived in June. But the first sentence may equally well be directed to the starting
point of the action, indicating that the subject set out in June. Venio and 'come' are frequently
used in the past (or historic present) to express arrival, even if the narrator is not at the point of
arrival.
This use of venio has been neglected in discussions of venio and eo . In the Ciceronian sentence
'In Aegyptum venit' (Pis. 49), where Nisbet (ad loc.) believes that venio is used for eo to avoid the
perfect iit, venit is clearly completive, and in no way different from the Tacitean example quoted
above. 110 So all examples of venio in II, whether past or historic present, refer to arrival, and are.
therefore unexceptional.
It is difficult in any type of Latin to find examples of venio = eo which are not of this kind.
But note Vit. Patr. 5.4.1 'fratres aliqui volentes venire ad abbatem Antoniům de loco Scythi, ingressi
sunt navem ut irent ad eum'.
pergo
Another verb of motion worthy of mention is pergo. There is only one example in II,111 and that
problematical: 59 'cuius temporibus felicitas est secuta Italiani per annos triginta, ita ut etiam pax
pergentibus esset'. Rolfe translates thus: 'In his times Italy for thirty years enjoyed such good
fortune that his successors also inherited peace'. But to give pergentibus this sense is quite indefens-
ible. We must seek another interpretation.
Ill
119
It is almost certain that pax means roughly 'security', and that pergentibus is a subst
present participle = viatoribus. Thus the sense of the passage is that there was free and sec
ment for travellers throughout Italy, a theme to which the author further alludes at 72-3.
Cipolla ('Frasario officiale' 922 f.) draws attention to an inscription of Theodoric which m
similar claim ( Inscript : Christ Lat . Vet. 35.6 'usui publico et securitati viantium'). See furt
Var. 2.32.3 'quod erit cunctis viantibus profuturum' for reference to a measure designed to
travellers.
The use of a substantival present participle instead of an existing noun was a formal and
device,113 though occasional examples are found in Vulgar Latin (see above, p. 107 on neg
this case a close analogy is provided by vians , viantes, which has reflexes in Romance.114
Nevertheless the author's choice of pergo rather than another participle (or noun) is of
for the word was formal rather than popular at this period. There is, however, a similar ex
pergentibus in Eucherius in a context in which pilgrimage texts usually have euntibus: p. 1
quarto a Paneade miliario Tyrum pergentibus' (cf. euntibus at Itin. Burdig. 593). Cipolla {l
has seen the influence of officialese on the language of our passage.
In the literary Latin of the late Republic and early Empire pergo is a favoured substitut
monosyllabic forms of eo. Of the 5 examples of pergo expressing motion in Cicero, 4 are in
in which eo is not used (imperative singular, first person singular perfect: Leg. Agr . 2.48,
1 .23, Plane. 98). Moreover while Cicero has eo 6 times in polysyllabic forms with the phras
silium in the speeches against Catiline (1.20, 1.22, 1.23, 2.12, 2.15, 2.16), at Cat. 1.23 he rep
by pergo in the same expression when an imperative is required. Similarly in Livy pergo oc
quently in phrases in which eo is used in polysyllabic forms (e.g. 9.41.10 'ad urbem . . . mag
eribus pergit'; cf. 28.17.1 1 'quo . . . itineribus magnis ierat'; 1.23.4 'infesto exercitu in agr
Albanum pergit'; cf. 2.26.6 'Ariciam infesto agmine itur'; 28.1.9 'ad hostem pergit'; cf. 37.
'ire ad hostem'.
But in vulgar texts, in which vado , venio and ambulo encroach on eo , pergo is seldom found.115
In the Per., for instance, where venio, vado , the polysyllabic forms of ire and ambulo are very frequent,
pergo is used only once (19.2). In the Itin. Ant. Plac . venio occurs 65 times, ambulo 4 times and vado
twice, but perģo is avoided. Even in the SHA , the prose of which is more formal, pergo is found only
5 times. In the Vulgate there is a significant distinction between the O.T. and the N.T. Pergo is used
170 times in the O.T., but only twice in the N.T. Since Jerome relied on the Old Latin versions only
in the N.T., it would seem that the word was largely alien to the Vet. Lat., though a component of
Jerome's own vocabulary.
suscipio
At 62 ('quia peregrinum te suscipi'; cf. ib. 'peregrinum eum suscepi') suscipio does not have any of
the senses in which it is familiar in earlier Latin, but is used for excipio ('receive' in the sense of 'wel-
come'). This use of the word in late Latin does not seem to have received due attention.
In one Old Latin version of Coloss. 4: 10 (ap. Pelag. in Col. 4.10 p.471), for example, where the
Vulgate reads 'si venerit ad vos, excipite ilium', we find suscipiatis instead of excipio. Cf. e.g. Herm.
Past. Sim. 8.10 'libenter in hospitiis suis Dei servos susceperunť; Heges. 1.31.3 'humanissime milites
suscepit';116 ps.-Plin. Med. 3.15.8 'crastino hospites mihi venturi sunt, suscipite illos'; Cass. Inst. 1.32.1
'peregrinum . . . suscipite'.117
Suscipio is also found = accipio in our text, a sense in which it is better known. 118 This mean-
ing is not peculiar to late Latin,119 though it certainly predominates there. The passages concerned
112
in II are: 75 'regnum suscipereť (cf. 47 'regnum accepiť; for the expression regnum suscipio , see
Vita Sanct. Balthild . 5, Fredegar p.85.10); 63 'susceperat filias' (cf. Fest, p.55.17 'ut sic ipse felix
sit in suscipiendis liberis'); 93 'quem Theodericus cum dolo suscepiť (ambiguous). Of the numerous
parallel examples of suscipio = accipio which could be adduced, I quote only two of special clarity.
At Schol. Juv. 2.83 Juvenal's expression accipient te is glossed by suscipiaris' and at Pass. Andr. 5
suscipiens corresponds to ôe£á/zei>oç in one of the Greek versions.12**
The semantic shifts which suscipio shows in late Latin may be part of a chain reaction involving
other compounds of copio, though the evidence is confused and difficult to interpret. Accipio itself
tends to encroach on capio (= sumo). 121 In the Didasc. Apost. , for instance, accipio (= XafißdvoS)
is very common, but capio is not used thus at all. 122 It is also frequent in this sense in Anthimus.123
The compound accipio could readily be reinterpreted as meaning 'take to oneself generally as distinct
from the more specialized sense 'take to oneself from another' (i.e. 'receive'). Excipio seems to have
faded from use, except in the form excepto , 124 in which the preverb, unlike that of excipio = 'wel-
come', still has literal force. Suscipio may have shifted into the gaps left by excipio and accipio.
But it must be stressed that the evidence relating to the semantic field is far from straightforward.125
All that is certain is that the distinction between the various azp/ocompounds became blurred in later
Latin.
perhibeo
At 40 the author may have added perhibent to what he found in his source: 'peribent de eo, quia
patellas in genucula non habuisset, sed mobiles fuissent, ut etiam curso velocissimo ultra modům
hominum habereť. Cf. Agnellus p.314 (Mommsen) 'hic vero patellis genuculorum non habuit et
sic currebat fortiter, ut arrepto cursu quadrigas pedibus iungereť. Perhibeo is an artificial word.
There is an aspect of its use in II which suggests that it was by no means thoroughly familiar to the
author.
Perhibeo = 'say' was subject to certain functional restrictions in early Latin. It was not employ-
ed with a single direct object, nor could it take an acc. c. infln. construction with an active verb ex-
hibiting the pattern SVO. The verb is of course a compound of habeo , and its use is analogous to
that of habeo = 'consider', 'hold'. Just as habeo is used in the active with object and predicate
(e.g. habere deos aeternos ) or in the passive with a predicate Qiaberi aeternus ),126 so perhibeo , when
it is not absolute (as it often is, in the parenthetical expression ut perhibent ), is usually active with
object and predicate (e.g. Erin. Ann . 149 'vento quem perhibent Graium genus aera lingua'; Ann. 23
'est locus Hesperiam quam mortales perhibebanť), and sometimes a pleonastic copula esse (e.g. Pacuv.
ap. Her. 2.36 'fortunám insanam esse . . . perhibent philosophi'), or passive with a predicate. Of the
14 instances in Pļautus, one is absolute {Cist. 66), and 13 are passive, with {Trin. 692) or without
(e.g. Stich. 274) a copula expressed with the predicate. The example at Men. 409 ('non ego te novi
. . . qui Syracusis perhibere natus esse') is only a slight extension of the type with copula. Other
early writers who impose the same restrictions on the word are Lucilius (452) and Terence {Ad. 504).
The semantic change 'consider' > 'say' which must have taken place can be easily paralleled elsewhere
(cf. e.g. wni).121
Down to the time of Tacitus perhibeo is rarely used otherwise than as above. 128 Cicero, however,
once employs it (in the passive) with an active infinitive {Rep. 2.4 'perhibetur . . . ceteris praestitisse'),
and at Agrie. 10.5 Tacitus provides a genuine case of a dependent acc. c. infin. construction as distinct
from O + pred. + esse : 'sed mare pigrum et grave remigantibus perhibent ne ventis quidem perinde
adtolli'. By the late Republic the word seems to have acquired an artificial and perhaps a poetic flavour.
Caesar avoids it, and all 3 prose examples in Cicero are in special contexts {exempla from myth or the
remote past).
113
Certain later authors who used the word, including our own, were not alive to the restrictions
seen above. At 40 it is followed by an object clause of the structure SVO. Cf. Diosc. Lat. x, p.223.3
'simili modo et quatuor radices quartanis mederi peribetur' (impers, pass, with a genuine acc. c. infin.);
227.15 'perhibent Afri, quod die, qua quisquis a scorpione fuerit hic percussus et comederit ocimum,
statim moritur'.
Perhibeo could not have been in common use in the late period, for it does not survive in Romance.
Such archaisms sporadically find their way into the works of those aspiring to a formal style. Diosc.
Lat. and Anon. Val ., unaware of or indifferent to the earlier use of perhibeo , simply employed it as a
suitably formal equivalent to dico.
porto
The popularity of porto in Vulgar Latin requires no illustration here.129 But at 84 the verb appears
in a sense which is worthy of notice: 'duo (dracones) de occidente in orientem ferri in nubibus a
populo visi sunt et in mari praecipitati, duo portati sunt unum caput habentes'. Rolfe is almost
certainly right to translate as follows: 'the two others, which had but a single head, were taken away'.
The meaning of the passage is thus that two of the portents were swept aloft, and two were removed
(by the people).
Words for 'take' frequently acquire the additional nuance 'take away', 'remove', or even 'steal'
(cf. Eng. 'take'). Since fero is often equivalent to aufero from early Latin onwards,130 it is natural
that its later replacement porto should also possess the sense 'remove'. Cf. e.g. Pact. Leg. Sal. 27.13
'si quis de campo alieno lino aliquid furaverit et eum <aut > in caballo aut in carro portaverit . . . '131
crepo
Onomatopoeic words expressing in origin a sound commonly come to express an act or event which
might accompany that sound. Thus 'crack' in English can mean 'split' or 'burst' even if the event is
soundless. Crepo shows a similar development. It can refer to a bursting or breaking accompanied
by a crack (e.g. Sen. Epist. 96.1 'domus crepuiť), or even, by hyperbole, a bursting which is sound-
less (e.g. Theod. Prise. Log. 64 'cetera . . . venis crepantibus adhibemus') (cf. Fr. crever). 132 At 87
('diutissime tortus, ita ut oculi eius creparenť) crepo obviously does not refer to a sound, as Rolfe's
translation suggests, but to the eyes bursting out of their sockets or bursting under pressure. Crepo
is used in this way of eyes a number of times elsewhere (e.g. Mul. Olir. 184, Greg. Hist. Franc. 9.34).
For a parallel hyperbolical use of an onomatopoeic word in reference to eyes, cf. coll. Eng. 'pop
(out)'.
memor / immemor factus
1 33
Predictably memini and obliviscor do not survive. The latter was partly replaced by *oblitaret
which was formed from the past participle of obliviscor. One verb for 'remember' which continued
was recordo.134
In II recordor (still a deponent) is used at 44: 'Zeno recordatus est amore senātus et populť.
But another method of expressing 'remember' and 'forget' current in late Latin was by means of
circumlocutions with memor or immemor , two of which occur in II: 47 'Odoacar rex memor factus,
quod a viro sancto praedictum audierat'; 88 'inmemor factus omnis eius beneficii et gratiae'.
A good example of an expression of the latter kind, construed moreover with an acc. object, is
114
at Ven. Fort. Carni. 3.21.6: 'ne minimam pascens immemor esses ovem'.
Memor esse (f actus) is more common. It often occurs in translation literature, where it may
correspond to a single Greek verb: 135 e.g. Vet. Lat. Deut. 9:7 (ap. Aug. Quaest. Hept. 5.14) 'memor
esto' (= ļivr]oOr}Ti' Vulg. memento ); Vulg. Luke 17:32 'memores estote uxoris Loth' (= iwruiovevere );
Vulg. Gal. 2: 10 'ut pauperum memores essemus' (= t&v tîtooxcov . . . yprinovevcoiiep); Avell. p. 245 .2
'eius, qui memor factus est' (= im'1xov€voavroç:)' Conc.s II.3.3 p.38.1 'non sum memor' (= ob iLēļivr'ļiax).
Like immemor esse above, memor esse so nearly approaches a transitive verb in function that it
often takes an accusative object:136 e.g. Vet . Lat. Matth. 16:9 (e) 'ñeque memores estis quinqué panes'
(= iivrißOP€V€T€ Tovç 7 lèvre aprovç ; Vulg. recordaminî)' Vet. Lat. Gal. 2:10 (g) 'ut pauperes memores
essemus' (see above); Vet. Lat. Heb. 2:6 (d) 'quod memor es[t] eum' (= łiąirrioKft aurou); Arnob,/«
Psalm . 88 p.455C 'memor esto . . . apostolos'.
One writer who makes use of memor esse , but never memini , is Benedict in the Regula : 1 'semper
sit memor omnium quae praecepit Deus'; 19 'semper memores simus, quod ait Propheta'. In the Vulgate
memor (esse) is about twice as common as memini in the N.T., but in the O.T. memini is preferred (68:55).
rogo
Twice at 62 rogo might be translated 'appeal to': 'filius rogavit regem adversus matrem' = 'the son
appealed against his mother to the king' (Rolfe); cf. 'filius tuus adversus te rogať.
This usage requires little comment. It derives from omission of the object clause or acc. rei which
would normally complement the personal object with rogo = 'beg'. Cf. e.g. Pan. Lat. V.9.3 'neque enim
parvi negotii est imperatorem totius orbis pro se peculiariter rogare'.
ii The Formation of pactuor
This verb, found at 49 ('cui Theodericus pactuatus est, ut . . . '), is also attested in a gloss: CGL IV
270.44 pepegit: pactuatus est. 137 Rönsch (122) regarded it as formed from pactum , but this view
must be rejected. It is possible to explain the form decisively.
A number of verbs in Vulgar Latin with presents in - uo have been remodelled on the analogy of
their perfect forms in - ui . Petronius, for example, twice writes vetuo (47.5, 53.8), and numerous com-
parable forms are found in glosses (e.g. censuó , diriguo , conticuo , complacuo , commutuo , obstipuo , mis-
cuo, coacuo). 138
Rönsch compares vetuo with eructuo, which is attested (for eructo) in Christian Latin.139 But the
two forms are not comparable, for the perfect of eructo is not eructui. In fact eructuo and pactuor be-
long together in a different category from that of all the above verbs.
Originally denominatives formed from -u stem nouns were thematic verbs of the third conjugation
showing -wo in the first person singular (cf. the -ik o type in Greek): e.g. acuo, metuo , statuo , tribuo .140
But the third conjugation had lost its productivity to a large extent by the historical period. 141 Hence-
forth denominatives from - u stems appear as first conjugation verbs with presents (attested or hypothetical)
occasionally in o (feto , gradatus , gusto , luxare, luxari , singulto) but usually in - uo : aestuo , amictuo,
arcuo , ar tuo y eructuo , fluctuó , habitúan , ictuo , iduo, intellectuo, lituo , manuatus, mantuatus, ructuo,
sinuo, situatus, sumptuatus, tumultuari 142 Thus ructuo and eructu were formed from ructus, -us.
This formation remained productive well into late Latin, as an examination of the distribution of some
115
of the above words would show.
The verbs paciscor, pactus and pango , pepigi (or pegi), the former of which was used in the pre-
sent tenses and the latter in the perfect, are obviously highly anomalous and of a type likely to be re-
placed in popular speech (cf. on genero above). Pactuor seems to have been one such replacement,
though it is not reflected in Romance and must have had only a very limited currency. On the evi-
dence of the above verbs it must have been formed from pactus , -us, an alternative form for pactum .143
Rönsch (122) draws attention to another verb, pactare , which is also attested in glosses. This
would have been formed more predictably from pactum.
Denominatives are usually active and transitive.144 If passive in form they may be middle in
function (e.g. contristor). Pactuor was no doubt influenced by the analogy of paciscor (a reciprocal
use of the medio-passive).
iii Some Compounds
super-
Super, whether used adverbially, as a preposition, or in verbal compounds, usually has additive
(e.g. in the expression satis superque ) or local (= 'over', 'on top of) force. In late Latin in
particular (and to a lesser extent earlier) it has a high incidence as a preverb used to give greater
motivation to verbs which, even uncompounded (or with some other prefix), have the additive or
local senses in question. Compounding was of course an important means of motivating pre-
positions, adverbs, verbs and even conjunctions in the later period. Compounds in super - of this
type differ slightly from the many verbs with empty preverbs, in that the prefix, though dispens-
able, has a role to play in bolstering the sense inherent in the root (or existing compound).
A good example of the process involved is provided by Theodorus Priscianus' use of super -
addo , 145 which is semantically indistinguishable from, and, as more highly motivated, even preferred
to addo. In a representative portion of the text (pp. 1 18-255) it outnumbers addo by 17: l.146
Similarly in the two Latin versions of Herm. Past. Vis. 2.2 we find adicio and superaddo used inter-
changeably (translating npooéOriKav ): A 'adiecerunt peccatis suis libídines'; B 'superaddiderunt
peccatis luxurias'. For further examples of superaddo , cf. Marc. Emp. 19.46, 36.51 ,Mul. Chir. 997.
Superadicio is also attested (Marc. Emp. 9.56, Theod. Prise. Faen. 81).147
In II at 90 superimpono is used for imponoś. 'iubet ergo rex iratus navem fabricari et super-
inpositum eum cum aliis episcopis'. Johannes is simply to be embarked on the boat, not on top
of it. This passage may be compared with 96 'saxum ineentem, quem superponere, inquisiviť,
where super does not simply reinforce, but replaces, in} The tendency for superimpono to be
used indistinguishably from impono in late Latin149 can be well seen from Marc. Emp. 19.39
'sesamumque commanducatum superinpones vel bulbum Afričanům tritum cum aceto inpones '150
So at Marc. Emp. 8.37 ('superinlita vel inuncta sedat mirifice dolores oculorum') superinlinoì5ì
is used in exactly the same way as inlino at 8.38 in the next sentence: 'fronti inlitus tumorem oculorum
doloremque sedat'.
Some other comparable words which do not appear in Lewis and Short are supercooperio (Pact.
Leg. Sal. 41.7), superadhibeo (Theod. Prise. Log. 44) and superinunguo (Marc. Emp. 8.6, 8.1 17,
Oribasius152 ). Cf. e.g. supercresco, supericio = inicio , superduco = induco ,153 superiacto = inicio}54
superunguo, superemineo , supervestio , superacervo , supercontego, supertego (most of these words are
predominantly late).
116
Supervenio , which is used a number of times in II, is different in kind, for the preverb usually
imparts to it a nuance which sets it clearly apart from the simplex. Nevertheless, it can come very
close to venio in meaning.
The most easily analysable senses (in which the prefix has one of its inherited functions) are:
a 'come in addition': e.g .Vit. Patr. 5.14.2 'venit abbas Abraham ad abbatem Arem; et cum
sederent simul, supervenit quidam frater'; Act. Petr. c. Sim. 23 'et cum haec dicerent, supervenit et
Simon'; cf. Diet. Cret. 1.13.
b 'come over' (lit. or met.): e.g. Ov. Met. 10.490 'crura loquentis / terra supervenit'; Virg.
Aen. 12.356 'semianimi lapsoque supervenit'; Pass. Barth. 4 'spiritus sanctus superveniet in te'.
The word also seems to be common in a secondary sense (of which I offer no explanation) 'come
upon suddenly or unexpectedly', whence even 'attack': 155 e.g. Herm. Past. Vis. 3.13 'alicui maesto
supervenerit nuntius bonus aliquis' (= eàv tipi Xvnov^evc^ ëXôji ayadr¡ nç àyyeXia); Sim. 9.7 'ne
forte subito paterfamilias superveniat,(= ļītfirore ò òeo-nórqç e&Ttwa eXdfl); Vit. Patr. 3.27 'et ecce
subito supervenit discipulus eius'; 5.17.12 'ambulans autem aliquando iter, supervenit in conventu
latronum'; Veg .Mil. 3.10 'fatigatos adgrediatur [et] últimos vel certe insperatus superveniať; 3.22
'superveniens obprimit ignorantes'; Amm. 18.6.8 'Persae civitati supervenirent incautae'; 19.6.7
'supervenire ipsi regiae . . . occulte meditabantur'; 28.5.10 'eisdem tempore praestituto supervenirent'
('attack').
But sometimes the prefix is without additive or local force, and is aspectual instead (= 'arrive':
cf. advenio , pervenio). It thus reinforces the normal perfective aspect of venio .156 The verb is fre-
quently used thus when no goal of motion is expressed (whereas venio is preferred when there is an
expressed goal: cf. the alternation between Eng. 'he came to Rome' and 'he came up'). Compare,
for example, Cypr. Epist. 44.1 'venerunt ad nos . . . Maximus presbyter et Augendus diaconus', where
the goal of motion {ad nos) is expressed and venerunt is used, with ib. 'supervene runt vero Pompeius
ac Stephanus collegae nostri', where no goal is expressed and supervenio is preferred. Cf. Amm. 21.
12.18 'quae dum agitantur casibus ante dictis, supervenit . . . Agilo'; 25.1.5 'vulneratis qui super-
venerant'; Diet. Cret. 2.43 'supervenit cum supradictis ducibus Ajax' (cf. 2.50, 3.2); Act. Petr. c. Sim.
32 'superveniens autem quidam de via amicus Simonis' (= e7ç 6é tlç eXdcbv . . . ).
Finally, in II and elsewhere supervenio sometimes moves one step closer to venio. At 36 it is
completive, but it has a goal of motion expressed: 'superveniens Nepos patricius ad Portům urbis Rome'.
It in no way differs from venio in the next sentence ('mox veniens Ravennani').
Various parallels could be quoted from late Latin. Thus at Luke 1 1 :6, where the Vulgate reads
'amicus meus venit de via ad me', some codices of the Vet. Lat. {d r1) have supervenit. Note also Vit :
Patr. 5.13.1 'de susceptione fratrum, qui superveniunt ad eos'; cf. 5.13.3 'venimus ad alium senem'.
perambulo
Perambulo at 51 ('perambulavit Theodericus patricius Mediolano') and a few times elsewhere in later
Latin provides a good illustration of a compound in which the force of the preverb is lost.
In Republican and early Imperial Latin the sense of per - is local: the verb is used transitively with
a place name or similar word as object.157 Later it is complemented occasionally by prepositional
phrases containing per (e.g. Itin. Ant. Plac. 37 Rec. A), and a few times has a sense which, though
slightly different, still gives some force to the preverb; e.g. Vulg. Job 22: 14 'et circa cardines coeli
perambulai' (= 'wander around (everywhere)'); cf. percrebresco.
117
In our passage it would be over-subtle to distinguish perambulo from the simplex ambulo , as a
comparison with 53 ('et ambulavit Mediolanum') shows.
advivo
The original sense of advivo seems to have been 'live with or in', 158 but this sense is not common.
Thomas (Joe. cit.) believes that the prefix lost all force and that the verb was equivalent to vivo. But
it is undeniable that the great majority of examples in later Latin are found after dum, donee, quam-
diu and the like, as at 75 {dum advivereť). 159 This makes it likely that the preposition had additive
force (= 'as long as he goes on living'). Thomas (loc. cit.) asserts that 'cette nuance durative . . . serait
isolee parmi les acceptions du préverbe', but it is over-subtle to distinguish between this nuance and
that of the prefix in adaugeo ('increase further', 'go on increasing'). In any case the contextual
specialization of advivo shows that it was not a free variant of vivo.
adimpleo (82)
One of the most common senses of the prefix ad- is that which Thomas calls the 'sens additif et sens
intensif (op. cit. 23 ff.). It sometimes gives this force to verbs which in themselves carry no idea of
addition (addo, accenseo , adiungo, adicio, adstruo, addisco, addoceo, etc.) or it may be used to in-
crease the motivation of verbs already possessing such a notion. An early example of this type is
adaugeo , which is found in Pļautus. The first example of adimpleo is in Columella, where it refers
to the act of filling something to overflowing: 12.43 '(casei frusta) vase componito: tum optimi
generis musto adimpleto, ita ut superveniať. A later example of the same kind is found at Iren. Lat.
adv. Haer. 1.7.2 'maior cálix adimpletus est de minori calice, ut et supereffunderet ex eo', where it is
only a Greek simplex which is translated (nXrípcodévTOç).
But examples of this latter type, where ad has genuine semantic content, are rare. Usually in the
verb adimpleo, ad.( like super in some of compounds discussed above) is a dispensable motivator, and
there are many places where it would be difficult to find any distinction between adimpleo and im -
pleo. Compare the following passages, both from the same chapter of Theodorus Priscianus' Faen.
(47): 'et si solo pulvere aluminis scissi easdem cavernas adimpleas '; 'aut suco tithymali cavernam
imple' Note also Pact. Leg. Sal. 36 'legem non adimpleviť; ib. 58.1 'tota lege impleať. At
Pass. Sanct. Apost. Petri et Pauli 9 adimplevit is employed to render a Greek simplex (enXripojoev);
and at Herm. Past. Mandat. 9 one Latin version has adimplebit, the other implet for the Greek
nXripcxpoPVoei. For a while at least an author's choice seems to have been determined to some
extent by personal taste. In the Pact. Leg. Sal. , for instance, it is impleo which is preferred (6:2).
But free variation of synonyms seldom exists for long (cf. above, p. 105 on fossatus). In
Italian there is a clear distinction between the reflexes of impleo (empire) and of adimpleo (ad-
empiere), the former meaning simply 'fill', the latter 'execute', 'accomplish', 'complete'. And
already in late Latin the vast majority of examples of adimpleo do not have the sense 'fill' or even
'fill to overflowing', but express the bringing of something to completion.160 This is so at 82:
'data praecepta ad Eutharicum Cilligam et Petrům episcopum secundum hoc tenore et ita adimpletum'.
It would be futile to speculate on the conditions under which adimpleo became specialized.
118
4 Some Prepositions
de
De is almost exclusively used for ex, in keeping with the usua) habit in vulgar texts.161 De =
'from' occurs at 36, 38, 39, 45, 49 (twice), 92, 93 (twice). There are examples of ex at 60 and 83,
but both are in set expressions (ex toto ,162 ex eo = ex eo tempore ). The only remaining example is
not local: 95 'fecit sibi monumentum ex lapide quadrato'. It reinforces the view that the use of ex
of material survived longer than the other uses. 163
ab
De has also virtually driven out ab in II. In a local sense the latter is found only in the special phrases
a latere (77), 164 ab utraque parte (53), 165 and non longe a (84), and in juxtaposition with usque ad
at 7 1 ('a porta usque ad portům'). 166 The one local example which is not a special case is at 93 (*re-
vertens ... a luštino'). A does survive as the normal means of expressing agency.
Throughout II it is the rule that ab is used before vowels,167 a before consonants.168 There is
only one exception, and that of significance: 62 'mulier conpellitur ab sponso' ( B : a P). There is
a strong possibility that the author felt the presence of a prothetic vowel before /s/ + consonant, in
anticipation of certain Romance forms (e.g. Fr. époux , Log. ispozu , Prov., Cat. espos , Sp., Pg. esposo ),
and therefore wrote ab. 169 If so, P has regularized.
119
5 Some Adverbs
postea
Always used in II rather than post (36, 74, 85). Cf. It. poscia , Log. pustis , Fr. puis , Cat
pwes, Pg. pow. Postea seems to have been the everyday word throughout the Empire:
it predominates by 30:4, in Petronius by 5:0, and in the SHA by 100: 20. 170 It is worth
Tacitus, who often provides a contrastive check on the register of a word, far prefers
declines in frequency throughout the historical works (Hist, lì, Ann. 1-6, 5, Ann. 1 1
tunc
Our text provides additional evidence of the displacement of tum by the phonetically stronger tunc
in Vulgar Latin.171 The latter is used at 53, 62, 81 , 85, 86 and 87, but tum does not occur.
sic
Probably temporal at 87: 'qui accepta corda in fronte diutissime tortus, ita ut oculi eius creparent,
sic sub tormenta ad ultimum cum fuste occiditur'.172
frequenter, subinde
The disappearance of saepe in late popular Latin 173is reflected in II, where frequenter (with a highly
favoured adverbial termination)174 occurs twice (81, 84) and subinde (cf. Fr. souvent) once (85), but
saepe never. 175
In Tacitus freą uen ter is used only in the Dialogus (39.3), in a speech. His preference for saepe
in the historical works may well be due to the fact that it already had a formal or recherché flavour.
There are also indications in Petronius of the fading of saepef for it is outnumbered by frequenter and
subinde. Nevertheless saepe long survived in literary varieties of Latin as the preferred term. In the
SHA , for example, it far outnumbers frequenter.
ante
Used at 62; antea does not occur in II. It has been shown that ante was already the everyday word in
Pļautus' day, and it continued to be such at all periods.176
The distribution of the word in Tacitus is of some interest. In the minor works only ante is used
(1 1 times), but in the historical works antea occurs about 17 times. It is still outnumbered by ante,
a fact which establishes that ante was not restricted to the colloquial registers but was current in all
varieties of Latin. The predominance of ante becomes more marked in the later books of the Annals.
There it is preferred in the proportion of about 4: 1, but in books 1-6 it is only about twice as numer-
ous as antea.
120
V I
WORD ORDER
1 Inversion of Subject and Verb
II is a good starting point for a discussion of subject-verb inversion in late' Latin, for it provides
numerous classifiable examples of the order VS.
Latinists have tended to discuss not inversion as such, but initial, medial or final position of the
verb.1 This approach may yield general information concerning verb position, but it throws no light
on the nature or motivation of inversion. An initial or medial verb may precede or follow its subject,
or the subject may be unexpressed.
Romance scholars have devoted far more attention to the problems of inversion.2 An early
attempt to establish a rule covering the position of the verb in Old French was made by R. Thurneysen,3
who took as his starting point Wackernagel's law. He argued that, just as in the early Indo-European
languages unstressed words tended to lean on the first stressed element of the sentence, so 'im Altfran-
zösischen steht das Verbum fini tum unmittelbar hinter dem ersten Satzgliede, wenn dieses vollbetont
ist ... ; sonst reiht es sich dem nächsten volltonigen Satzgliede an' (300). But Wackernagel's law did
not have universal application even in earlier Latin, let alone in the late period, and the view that the
verb became an unstressed element is open to question.4 In late Latin and early Romance inversion
of the subject often occurs when the verb is in initial rather than second position in its sentence or
clause.
Two possible determinants of inversion which have been much discussed are the following:
a The presence of an invertissant , usually adverbial, at the head of the clause.5 If for some
reason an adverb with a strong connection with the verb is placed in initial position, it may draw the
verb to itself and produce inversion.6
b The tendency for the 'psychological subject' to precede the 'psychological predicate', even if
the latter is the grammatical subject.7 In reference to the sentence 'The king came in', Kellenberger
(op. cit 4) observes that the traditional definitions of subject and predicate may be 'no longer valid if
the narrator has been describing a state ceremony in which various dignitaries enter one by one and in
which the king appears last. In this case the sentence makes a statement concerning an entrance and
the new and important idea is the identity of the person entering. The sentence might even be cast
differently: "In came the king" '. In the terminology of C.F.A. Hockett the entrance might be des-
cribed as the 'topic', and the king as the 'comment'.8 A similar distinction is drawn by M.A.K. Halliday
between the 'given' and 'new' elements of the English sentence, the usual progression being from 'given'
to 'new'.9
121
It will be shown below that the given-new distinction is of some value in discussing late Latin
word order, but it is not usually a crucial factor. In practice it often proves difficult or even imposs-
ible to distinguish between topic and comment, given and new. Only rarely is the context such that
it is meaningful to speak of the verbal action as given. Frequently, indeed, verbal action and subject
are both new. At Per. 3.4, for example ('cum ergo iubente Deo persubissemus in ipsa summitate et
pervenissemus ad hostium ipsius ecclesiae, ecce et occurrit presbyter veniens de monasterio suo . . . ,
senex integer . . . ')> presbyter is certainly new, as the following explanatory note shows, but the
verbal action is also presented as unexpected in the context.
It will be argued here that one of the most important determinants of inversion in late Latin was
the voice of the verb. This factor also seems to have been influential in early Romance, as we shall see
(though it is beyond the scope of this work to deal in any detail with the post-Latin period). In treat-
ments of inversion in the Romance languages the nature of the verb has rarely been seen as significant,10
and statistics of the kind which will be given below for Latin have not been compiled for early Romance.
i Inversion with Passive Verbs
In II and in other late texts there is a marked tendency for inversion to occur when the verb is passive.
There are 14 such examples in II:
36 mox eo egresso factus imperator Augustulus

39 ergo postquod factus est imperator Zeno
49 si victus fuiset Odoacar
51 eo anno missus est Tufa ... a Theoderico
53 et facta est pugna
53 et factum est usque ad sex solidos modius tritici
57 et factus est imperator Anastasius

62 ab aliquo sublātus est filius
62 tunc confusa est mulier
65 consacrati enim fuerant ambo
7 6 renuntiare< tur > ipse
81 post haec . . . facta est lis inter Christianos et lúdeos
81 dehinc accensus est populus

93 sic cum summo gaudio populi deductus est corpus
There are on the other hand 18 examples of the order SV where V is passive, and of these a
majority are special cases, where other determinants have exercised an influence. V (pass.) + S may
be said to outnumber S + V (pass.). The examples are as follows:
36 et Nepus factus imperator Rome

37 Augustulus ... a patre Oreste patricio factus est imperator
44 ut etiam ei imagines per diversa loca in urbe Roma levarentur
45 Odoacar vero . . . factus est rex
122
45 cuius pater Edico dietus
54 et fugiens Levila magister militum Odoacris occisus est

56 cuius exercitus . . . interfecti sunt
58 cuius pater Walamir dietus rex Gothorum
62 mulier conpellitur ab sponso

62 dum haec aguntur
73 nec in Civita te portae claudebantur

75 ut illi revelatio fierit
79 ut subscriptio eius tantum videretur
84 duo . . . visi sunt . . . , duo portati sunt

87 tunc Albinus et Boetius dueti in custudia
88 rediens igitur < r>ex Ravenna . . . inmemor factus omnis eius beneficii
92 dum haec aguntur

92 Symachus, caput senati, . . . deducitur de Roma Ravennam
At 54 and 88 anteposition is determined by the presence of the participial construction pres.

part. + S. As we have seen (p. 60), this construction precedes the main verb when the action
which it expresses itself precedes that of the verb. At 45, 56, and 58 the relative pronoun in the
genitive draws the subject to itself. Dum haec aguntur at 62 and 92 is a literary formula. In 8
places the anteposition occurs in subordinate clauses, in which, as we shall see, verb-final position
lingered much longer than in main clauses.11
Finally, at 37 the subject Augustulus had been subject of the preceding two sentences: 'mox
eo egresso factus imperator Augustulus . Augustulus imperavit annos X. Augustulus , qui
When the subject of a passive verb has been previously named, there is a tendency in late texts for
it to precede the verb: to this extent the given-new distinction is influential. Thus in the first sen-
tence, where Augustulus is new, it follows a passive verb; but in the third sentence, where it is well
established as given, it precedes. The position of the subject in the two sentences is thus determined
by the combination of two factors. The tendency for the subject of a passive verb to be postponed
can be overridden when the subject is to be overtly marked as given.
So at 84 Cquattuor generavit dracones: duo de occidente in orientem ferri in nubibus a populo

visi sunt et in mari precipitati, duo portati sunt unum caput habentes') duo occupies initial position
twice after the dracones have been established as given. And at 87 Albinus and Boetius precede
their verb after both have been given throughout the preceding paragraph.
The operation of the given-new distinction as a determinant of anteposition may also be illus-
trated briefly from the Per. In the following passages, where a subject precedes a passive verb, it has
become the topic in an earlier sentence or in the same sentence: 4.3 'et lectus est ipse locus de libro
regnorum: id enim nobis vel maxime ego desideraveram semper, ut, ubicumque venissemus, semper
ipse locus de libro legeretur'; 12.8 f. 'ostense sunt nobis inde a contra duae civitates, id est Esebon
... et alia Og . . . hae autem civitates . . . ' (see further below, n. 12).
The disproportionate frequency of the order V (pass.) + S can be established by comparing the
frequency of SV and VS where V is an active transitive (or pseudo-intransitive) verb. In II the latter
is found only 12 times, compared with 51 instances of SV.
123
The order V (pass.) + S is also frequent in other late texts. There follow some details of its
incidence in th e Per. , VitaRemigii, Anthimus and Fredegar.
In a 25 page section of the Per. (edition of O. Prinz, chaps. 1-20.4) I have noted 54 examples
of V (pass.) + S compared with 34 of S + V (pass.), of which about 1 6 are special cases.12 On the
other hand S + V (act., trans.) outnumbers V (act., trans.) + S by about 46:35, thereby confirming
the high frequency of V (pass.) + S. Nevertheless inversion is more common in the Per. with active
transitive verbs than it is in II. This may to some extent be due to the influence of the Vulgate
(O.T.), which in turn is influenced by the Hebrew original.13
In about 10 places in the sample where V (pass.) + S occurs, the verb is in initial position.14
There is thus no question of an invertissant determining the order. But in 14 other places the verb
is immediately preceded either by locatival ubi or by another locative:
2.2 in qua factus est vitulus

3.2 ubi data est lex
4.8 ut et ibi fieret oblatio
5.3 ubi factus est vitulus ille
5.3 nam in eo loco fixus est usque in hodie lapis grandis
5.6 ubi incensus est vitulus ipse
5.9 ubi celebrata est pascha
5.9 in quo confixum <a> Moyse est primitus tabernaculum
7.5 ubi accepta est lex paschae

10.7 primum ibi fieret oratio
12.2 hic posi tus est sanctus Moyses

12. 10 < de > illa parte mon tis . . . ostensus est nobis mons praecisus valde
15.5 sic a fonte usque ad ecclesiam sancti Melchisedech deducerentur mature omnes
16.6 ubi inven tum fuerat corpus
The question arises whether we should speak of the locative expression as an invertissant , ascribe
the inversion solely to the passivity of the verb, or concede some influence to both factors. A glance
at the 34 examples of S + V (pass.) suggests that the influence of the locative cannot be dismissed com-
pletely, for there is only one place (17.1) where a locative precedes. Clearly the frequency of loc. +
V (pass.) + S against the almost total absence of loc.+ S + V (pass.) demands further investigation.
One line of approach is to examine all examples of locatival ubi followed by verb and expressed
subject in the Per. 15 Overall there are 48 examples of ubi + VS, compared with 29 of the direct order
ubi + SV. But these figures can be broken down further. When the verb is passive, inversion is twice
as common as the direct order (10:4). Inversion is equally common when the verb is intransitive (3 1 :
16). But when the verb is transitive and active, the direct order is slightly preferred to the inverted
(9:7). Thus ubi has a tendency to act as an invertissant , but it is more likely to influence a passive or
an intransitive verb than an active. It becomes markedly influential only in combination with another
factor.
This conclusion is supported by an examination of all examples of initial locatives16 (including

ubi) followed by transitive verbs with expressed subject in the sample. Inversion is found 1 1 times,17
124
the direct order 9 times.18 The incidence of inversion is thus significantly lower than that after loca-
tives when the verb is passive (14:1, see above).
The passivity of the verb thus emerges as an undeniable influence on the order of the elements
S and V in the Per. The subject of a passive verb tends to be postponed even when the verb is not
preceded by an invertissant. And in the presence of an additional determinant, the pattern V (pass.)
+ S is particularly common.
No attempt has been made here to give an exhaustive treatment of inversion in the Per. , or to
identify all possible invertissants. 19 I have sought only to establish that the voice of the verb is one
of the factors which must be taken into account. Clearly the problems involved are very complex.
In any given case of inversion there may be not simply one independent determinant, but a number
operating together.
In the Vita Remigii inversion is significantly more common when the verb is passive than
when it is active and transitive. In a 31 page sample (pp.251- 271, 279-281, 294-297, 320-321)
there are 38 examples of V (pass.) + S, compared with 50 of S + V (pass.). Though the direct order
is slightly favoured, it is far less predominant than when the verb is transitive and active:
V (trans.) + S: 11
S + V(trans.): 85
The figures for intransitive verbs (other than verba dicendi , which present difficult
are as follows:
V (intrans.) + S: 17
S + V (intrans.): 60
For inversion when a passive verb occupies initial position in its clause, see e.g. p.253 'vastata nam
a Chaldeis Iudea'; 260 'concipitur ergo pontifex'; 263 'fit ergo concursus'; 279 'impressa eius fuer
vestigia'; 294 'acta sunt hec'; 294 'nuntiantur haec'; 297 'bap tizan tur sorores eius'; 320 'sepultum
est autem illud . . . corpus'; 321 'obligatur lingua'; 321 'clauduntur oculi'; 321 'ampliata et coaitat
est ipsa aecclesia'.
In cases where the verb is in non-initial position, there is no clear indication of the influence
any invertissant.
In Anthimus there are 21 examples of the order V (pass.) + S. But inversion does not occur
the verb is transitive, and is found only twice when the verb is intransitive.20 Gearly there is no
to give statistics for the incidence of the direct order to establish passivity of the verb as an influ
on the order. There is a remarkable example of inversion at 1 1 ('et si delectatus fuerit quis'), wh
quis has been moved from its almost invariable position after si to stand after the passive verb,
at 64 ('quando delectatus fuerit infirmus') a substantivized adjective stands after the same verb.
Fredegar prefers the direct order with verbs of all classes. But in the few places where he do
admit inversion, the verb is usually passive. In the first 50 chapters of book 4 there are 12 exam
of the pattern V (pass.) + S, 4 of V (intrans.) + S, and only 1 of V (act.) + S.
If the pattern V (pass.) + S is especially common in late Latin, it is by no means alien to earli
Latin. Tacitus in particular, whose word order and sentence structure are more flexible than tho
classical prose, anticipates tne texts dealt with above. In the first 50 chapters of Annals 2, V (pas
S is not greatly outnumbered by S + V (pass.) (3 1 :52). By contrast S + V (trans., act.) is far more
common than the inverted order (90:14).
125
Conclusions
The word order of the texts considered is still free. Though there is a definite tendency for the sub-
ject of a passive verb to be postponed, inversion is not obligatory. Considerable idiolectal variations
can be observed from text to text. At one extreme stands II, in which inversion of the subject is pre-
ferred if special cases are excluded, and at the other, Fredegar.
The reason for the disproportionate frequency of inversion when the verb is passive must lie in
the fact that the subject of a passive verb is equivalent to the object of an active verb. Thus 'missus
est Tufa magister militum a Theoderico' (51) could be rewritten in the active form Theodericus misit
Tufam magistrům militum. Now in Latin of our period the Romance order SVO, with the object
following the verb, was already establishing itself (see below). Hence in the passive form the subject,
because it was felt to be the logical object, might tend to be placed in the object position after the
verb. Hence we have another case of the implied active structure exerting an influence on the passive
structure (see above, pp. 99 f.).
That this explanation is correct can be confirmed by an examination of various passages in the
Per. Compare, for example, 5.7 'nam ostenderunt nobis etiam et ilium locum' with 5.9 'nam ostensus
est nobis et ille locus'. In the first sentence ilium locum is in object position after the active verb; in
the second, the content of which is identical though its structure is passive, ille locus is retained in ex-
actly the same position. The parallelism of the two sentences puts it beyond doubt that ille locus was
felt to be the logical object. Compare also 19.18 'ostendit etiam nobis sanctus episcopus memoriam
Aggari' with 21.4 'nam ostensa est michi in ipso vico memoria Laban Siri';21 and 4.3 'fecimus ergo et
ibi oblationem' with 27.7 'fit autem oblatio in Anastase maturius'.
Sometimes the author progresses from an active structure VO to a passive structure VS in such a
way that it is obvious that the subject of the second is parallel to the object of the first: e.g. 19.16
'episcopus fecit ora tionem ... et denuo benedicens nos facta est iterato oratio* ; 4.3 'fecimus ergo et
ibi oblationem et orationem impensissimam, et lectus est ipse locus'.
Striking confirmation of our explanation is furnished by the ungrammatical sentence 'sic fit
orationem' (25.3), where the logical object of the verb is not only placed in the object position, but
is inflected as an accusative, though it should grammatically be subject.22
In II there is one notable example of V (pass.) + S. At 62 ('ab aliquo sublatus est filius') the
order of the elements would be SVO if the structure were changed to active (cf. Per. 19.13 'et statim
nutu Dei expulsi sunt omnes hostes').
The pattern V (pass.) + S is also found in Old and Middle French. In a short passage from the
OFr. Quatre Livres des Rois 23 I have noted the following instances: p.43 'e fud apelez li champiuns
Goliath'; p.45 'morz fud lur campiun' (= 'was killed'). Cf. Le Roman de Troie 24 p.97 'accompli
furent li sis meis'; p. 101 'quant covert furent li destrier'. It has been observed that inversion of the
subject with passive verbs is common in Joinville.25 It also appears in Villehardouin's Conquête de
Constantinople: e.g. 53 'a eel message fu esliz li cuens Hues'; 94 'et fu pris un parlement a l'endemain';26
98 'et furent mandé li mes'; 263 'et fu coronez . . . Temperes'; 356 'et furent mandé li baron'.
ii Inversion with Intransitive Verbs
Inversion of the subject is also disproportionately frequent when the verb is intransitive. In II there
are 1 1 examples of this type compared with 20 of the direct order. The high incidence of inversion
again becomes obvious if we compare the corresponding figures for transitive verbs (12:51). The
126
following are the examples of V (intrans.) + S:
50 et pugna facta ceciderunt populi

51 et perambulavit Theodericus . . . Mediolano
52 et exiit Odoacar
53 tunc venerunt Wisigothae

53 et ceciderunt populi
53 et fugit Odoacar Ravennani

54 hoc consule exiit Odoacar
54 et ceciderunt . . . exercitus
55 sic ingressus est Theodericus
57 et moritur Constantinopolim Zeno

65 post facta pace . . . ambulavit rex Theodericus Romam
In the Itin Ant. Plac. inversion even outnumbers the direct order (27:19, omitting the cop
esse from consideration), and the same is true in the Vulgate version of Mark 1 - 10 (37:29; by c
the direct order is preferred by 26: 16 when the verb is transitive).27 In the Per. (pp. 1-25) th
V (intrans.) + S occurs about 41 times, S + V (intrans.) 39 times. Again Tacitus anticipates later
in Annals 2.1-50 the direct order outnumbers inversion by 40:20, but its incidence is far lower t
when the verb is transitive.
Similarly it has often been noted that V (intrans.) + S is frequent in the early Romance lang
'Absolute' inversion still occurs in modern French with certain verbs of motion (e.g. arriver , venir ,
entrer ).29
Intransitive verbs in any language may be of a variety of types.30 In attempting to explain the in-
version in question we must avoid treating all intransitive verbs alike.
a The subject of intransitive verbs may be 'agentive' or 'non-agentive'. Consider the following
sentences:
(1) The bird flew through the air.

(2) The stone flew through the air. 31
The first answers the question 'What did the bird do? ', but the second the question 'What happe
to the stone?'. The subject of (1) may be called 'agentive', that of (2) 'non-agentive'. Sentence (2
implies a transitive-verb sentence such as:
(3) The man threw the stone through the air.
Thus a non-agentive subject of an intransitive verb may be rewritten as object of an implied transitiv
verb.
Sometimes in late Latin the inverted subject of an intransitive verb is non-agentive. As the virtual
object of an implied transitive verb the subject is placed in object position after its verb.
127
Some of the examples of inversion quoted above from II can be explained in this way. So at 53
the sentence 'et ceciderunt populi' clearly answers the question 'What happened to the populfí' A
sentence such as 'hostes ceciderunt populos' is implied. It is of note that 'ceciderunt populi' is juxta-
posed with the passive construction 'occisus est Pierius'. Populi and Pierius are logically parallel: in
both cases a slaying by an unspecified agent is described, and populi and Pierius, as objects of the slay-
ings, are placed in object position.
With 53, compare 50 and 54, and also Itin . Burdig. 597 'cuius muros giraverunt cum area testa-
menti filii Israhel et ceciderunt muri' (here the agents of the destruction are named in the same sentence;
a transitive-verb phrase such as everterunt muros is implied); Greg. Hist Franc. 2.10 'ceciderunt ex his
viginti quattuor milia hominum'; Ann. Regni Franc, p. 60 (úf.782) 'et ceciderunt ibi duo ex ipsis missis';
p.64 (a.783) 'cecidit ibi maxima multitudo Saxonum'; Lib. Hist. Franc, p.244.4 'ceciditque ibi Priamus'.
b The most numerous examples of V (intrans.) + S are those in which the verb is a verb of motion.
With the examples quoted above from II, cf. e.g. Per. 3.4 'ecce et occurrit presbyter'; 20. 10 'hue venerit
puer'; 25.2 'intrat omnis populus'; 25.3 'intrat episcopus'; 36.1 'ingreditur ibi episcopus'; Itin. Ant.
Plac. 8 'in ipso loco transierunt filii Israhel'; Ann. Regni Franc, p.l 1 (fl.753) Venit et Carlomannus'.
From earlier Latin note e.g. Plaut Epid. 277 'priu' quam veniat fìlius'; Pseud. 693 'venit eccum Cali-
dorus'; Rud. 1021 'si veniat nunc dominus'; Tac. Ann. 2.3 1 .2 'adeurrere liberti'.
Inversion with verbs of this type has been much discussed by Romance scholars. No comprehensive
explanation of the phenomenon will be offered here, but an attempt will be made to explain those cases
in which the verb implies 'arrive' (intro, ingredior, occurro , venio, adcurro , etc.).32 'Come' (venio) will
be used as a suitable representative of the class.
'Come', with or without a locative adjunct, is the dynamic correspondent of the copula 'be' + loc.
adjunct. Thus (1) 'He is here' and (2) 'He has come (here)' form an opposition, static vs. dynamic.33
Just as 'be' is a surface-structure verb for the marking of tense, mood and aspect,34 so it may be argued
that 'come' too is not a deep-structure verb.35 Now given the close relationship of 'be' + loc. and 'come',
it is particularly interesting to find that postposition of the subject of venio in late Latin is determined
by the same factor as is postposition of the subject of esse + loc. The structures venit + S and loc. + est
+ S must be considered together, for they are closely comparable.
In late Latin in the structure venit + S, S is usually new. This is the case in all the relevant examples
from II,36 and in those quoted above from the Per. and elsewhere.
There is considerable variety in the ordering of the elements S + est + loc. in late Latin, and it is
often impossible to find any principle at work. But when the subject is new, the pattern loc. + est + S
is particularly favoured, and in some texts (especially pilgrimage texts) is almost obligatory: e.g. Per.
4.1 'ibi enim est ecclesia'; Itin. Theod. 2 'ibi est puteus'; ib. 'ibi sunt ossa sancti Ioseph'; 6 'ibi fuit
Baruc propheta'; Itin. Ant. Plac. 2 'in qua est cenaculus'; 6 'in qua est puteus'.
Conversely, when the subject has already been named and is therefore given, anteposi tion may occur.
Compare, for example, Per. 4.6 'ibi erant monasteria', where monasteria is new, and 4.7 'ubi monasteria
sunt', where it is given. Cf. e.g. Per. 2.5 'specialis autem ille ... in medio . . . est'; 2.6 'prorsus toti illi
montes . . . infra nos essenť; 4.7 'in quo horto ipse rubus est'; 20.10 'memoriae illorum hie sunt'; Itin.
Ant. Plac. 6 'et ipse puteus est ante cancellos'; Itin. Theod. 10 'quia ipse locus in spelunca est'.
It is thus the character of the subject as new that is the important determinant of inversion both
in the case of loc. + est + S and venit + S. An example such as Itin. Burdig. 591 'ad quem veniunt Iudaei'>
is the dynamic correspondent to ubi suntludaei, and its order is the same. So English (and French)
scenic directions of the type 'Enter Hamlet' (where Hamlet is new to the scene) are comparable in structure
to 'Here is Hamlet' (where Hamlet would usually be new, though a special intonation pattern might change
128
the implication of the sentence). If Hamlet were given, we might say 'Hamlet is here' (answering the
question 'Where is Hamlet?').37
It is often stated that in structures of the type 'come' + S, 'come' has little semantic value: it
merely introduces to the scene the new subject, which is the comment of the utterance, le but de
l'énoncé' (Bergh).38 Such statements intuitively recognize that 'come' is not a deep-structure verb.
Its function of introducing the real predicate of the utterance can be seen from the inter changeability
of the following sentences: Plaut. Pseud. 693 Venit eccum Calidorus'; Bacch. 639 'eccam Chrysalum
video'. Venit + S is roughly equivalent to video + O (or even ecce + O; cf. e.g. Per. 3.4 'ecce et occurrit
presbyter'),39 just as loc. + est + S may be roughly equivalent to video + O: cf. e.g. Per. 23.1 'vidi etiam
ibi ecclesiam'; ib. 'ibi enim est ecclesia'.
c There remains a large group of examples of inversion in late Latin which are easier to explain.
The locatival use of esse can usually be replaced by a more specific 'situational' verb (e.g. iaceo, sedeo ,
sto , requiesco , etc.) conveying more information about the position or attitude of the subject. Thus
ibi erat episcopus might, depending on the context, be rewritten ibi stabat episcopus , ibi sedebat epis-
copus, ibi iacebat episcopus , etc. Indeed both sto and sedeo encroached on the copula in the passage
from Latin to Romance. 40 Given the tendency towards the order loc. + est + S where S is new, it is
not surprising to find the same order loc. + stat , etc. + S where S is new: e.g. Itin. Ant. Plac. 2 'illic
currit fluvius Asciipius'; 5 'ibi etiam sedit in sinagoga tomus'; 10 'in qua mare . . . iacent leprosi';
42 'in qua pendent digiti molles'; 47 'in qua requiescit sanctus Babyllas'.
It may be pointed out finally that of the 25 examples of inversion (with both passive and intrans-
itive verbs) that we have seen in II, 15 are in the short section 49-57. The distribution is as follows:
36-48 49-57 58-75 76-96
2 15 4 4
It will be sho
work in othe
(see pp. 9 f.),
129
2 Pronoun Position
As the verb became less frequent in final position in late Latin and the linear order SV
itself (see below, sect. 4), pronoun objects were more often juxtaposed with the verb, in a
of Romance. Wackernagel's law, in accordance with which unstressed pronouns were pla
position in the clause, ceased to operate except as a literary affectation.41 The tendency
of pronoun object and verb has been established by Ramsden in an examination of the
chionis , the letters of the soldier Terentianus, the Itala and the Per . His table (30) sho
separation occurs in 37 per cent of cases in Petronius, the proportion falls to 10 per cent
6 per cent in the Itala and 21 per cent in the Per . 42
Examination of other late texts confirms Ramsden's general conclusions. But not un
we cannot simply establish an even chronological progression. In some texts separation
existent, but in others the literary aspirations of the author cause it to be common. Ther
in which variations of position can be found.
juxtaposition separation
Itin. Ant. Plac. 16 1 (5.8%)
Greg. Hist. Franc. 2(1-23) 24 32 (57%)

Fredegar 4(1-70) 18 20 (52.6%)
Lib. Hist. Franc. { pp. 241-300) 51 4 (7.3%)
Edict. Roth. 1-160 51 6 (10%)
161-250 62 27 (30%)
Juxtaposition is thus almost

Gregory, whose literary prete
of practice within the Edict. R
taking over. In the second part
clause. This could not possibly
other texts in which this order
order. See e.g. 163 'tunc illi cu
170 'ut ipsis secundum legem
place the pronoun object in se
eratam restituas lucem'; ib. 'ut
eum fletibus revocare non pos
In II certain features of pron

hand there are traces of the li
pared with 18 of separation: se
as high as that for Gregory an
style.
130
The following are the examples of separation in II:
41 qui ei, ut dictum est, insidiabatur

43 se illi omnes dederunt
44 ita ut omnes ei gratias agerent

44 ut etiam ei imagines . . . levarentur
5 1 et tradiderunt se illi maxima pars exercitus
55 dum ei Odoacar insidiare tur
55 manu sua Theodericus eum . . . interemit
61 unde nos non piget . . . posuisse

61 non eum potest abscondere
72 ut se illi sub foedus darent
72 alie gentes sibi eum regem sperantes

75 ut illi revela tio fie rit
75 qui tibi primus . . . nuntiatus fuerit
76 renuntiare< tur > ipse ei

76 qui ei dignatus est revelare succesorem
78 ita ut ei in ecclesia clamaretur
89 hoc tibi ego non promitto me facturum

93 et in offensa sua eum esse iubet
It will be seen that the pronoun object often goes to the second position in its clause.
The examples of juxtaposition are more interesting, for juxtaposition is the norm in Romance.
We shall consider here the position of the pronoun object in relation to the verb (anteposition vs.
position). Ramsden has noted in his late Latin sample a strong tendency under most conditions t
postposition, which he puts down (1 14) to the emergence of the linear order SVO. But postposit
not usual in Romance. Ramsden argues for a transition from postposition to anteposition caused
rhythmical factors (see especially 112 ff.). We shall see the clear operation of a rhythmical determ
in II.
The Itin Ant. Plac. is a good starting point, for it shows a neat distinction between the conditi
under which anteposition occurs and those under which there is postposition. This distinction is
portant both in II and elsewhere in late Latin.
In relative and other subordinate clauses the pronoun object regularly precedes the verb: e.g.
ei occurrit mulier'; 7 'dum earn recitaviť; 9 'quando ei por tavit corvus panem'; 12 'qui eis perman
22 'dum earn amplexasseť; 34 'qui illis macinabať; 39 'ex quo ... et nobis dederunt'. The only
ception is at 37: 'qui prostrati . . . adoraverunt nos'. Outside subordinate clauses, on the other han
pronoun is postponed: 8 'et denuntiant tibi'; 9 'et colligent eum medici'; 18 'et reconposuimu
'tenuiteum'; 34 'adduxit illis'; 37 'obviaverunt nobis'; ib. 'et introduxerunt nos'; 46 'sanaverun
There are three exceptional cases of anteposition (39, 42 (twice) ).
The frequency of anteposition in subordinate clauses can be ascribed to a tendency inherited fr

the classical language. At all periods the verb occupied final position considerably more often in
131
ordinate than in main clauses.46 With the verb still gravitating towards the end under these conditions
in late Latin, it would tend to follow the pronoun object. In early Romance, when anteposition had
not fully established itself in all contexts, it is nevertheless particularly common in subordinate clauses.47
It is also frequent in other late Latin texts. 48
In II overall there are 12 instances of postposition and 15 of anteposition when verb and pronoun
object are juxtaposed. But of the latter 15 examples, 8 are in relative or subordinate clauses:
45 qui eum admonuit
47 ut dei famulus ei praedixerat
62 quia peregrinum te suscipi
75 qui ita eum admonuit
86 quem ad modum eos interfìceret

88 quam ei dederat
88 credens quod eum pertimesceret Iustinus
89 quibus mihi iniuncxeris
By contrast there is only one instance of postposition in a subordinate clause (38).
In the Lib. Hist. Franc, pp. 241-300, anteposition occurs 15 times, 1 1 times in subordinate clauses.
There are only 2 examples of postposition in subordinate clauses. In main clauses postposition predom-
inates by 33:4.
Finally, in the Edict. Roth. 1-160, anteposition outnumbers postposition (when verb and pronoun
object are juxtaposed) by 2 1 : 2 in subordinate clauses, but by only 1 8 : 1 0 in main clauses. Even in this
conservative text with its learned pretensions a distinction with a basis in the spoken language leaves its
mark.
The remaining examples of pronoun-verb juxtaposition in II are as follows:
Anteposition
38 se illi iuncxit
41 huic insidiabatur Basiliscus
42 et eum invitavit
62 sed peregrinum eum suscepi
74 et singula lecta eis sterni (iussit)

8 1 mox eas incenderunt
89 nec illi dicturus sum
Postposition
38 tamen donavit ei ... sex milia solidos
38 misit eum . . . vivere
49 donans ei multum
132
49 et mittens eum ad Italiani
50 ibique persecutus est eum Theodericus
53 et mox subsecutus est eum patricius Theodericus

62 dicit ei rex
68 et dedit ei successorem
68 Odoin comis eius insidiabatur ei
74 quodam die iussit eos secum prandere
78 nam in ultima vita regni sui temptans eum diabolus

88 et die ei inter alia
According to Ramsden (114), the first stage in the evolution of the Romance unstressed p
position, the stage which is represented in the late Latin texts which he examines, was the tr
from the predominating classical order SOV to SVO, with the pronoun object, like the noun o
coming to occupy the position immediately after the verb. Whether or not a transition of th
took place, it is certainly not traceable in II. In the examples of postposition there is only a s
case of the pattern SVp (68 'Odoin comis eius insidiabatur ei'). Elsewhere where the subject
as the pronoun is expressed, it follows the pronoun (VpS): 50 'ibique persecutus est eum The
(cf. Ann. Regni Franc . p.46 (a.776) 'persecuti sunt eos Franci'); 53 'et mox subsecutus est eum
Theodericus'; 62 'dicit ei rex'; 78 'temptans eum diabolus'. The unstressed pronoun is thus pl
ween two stressed elements.
Fundamental to Ramsden's theory of the development from postposition to anteposition is the

view that the ascending stress accent of the type -x- - - caused a readjustment from ribn videt me to non
me videt (1 16). It seems clear that just such a stress pattern lies behind the order VpS in II. The pro-
noun as a rule is not attached to a verb, either in anteposition or postposition, without being both
followed and preceded by an element which might bear stress.
Further examination of the examples of postposition shows that the pronoun does not usually finish
a sentence or clause. Alongside VpS we also find VpO, with an object instead of a subject completing the
enclosing of the pronoun: 38 'donavit ei . . . sex milia solidos'; 49 'donans ei multum'; 68 'dedit ei success-
orem'.
In the absence of a nominal object as well as an expressed subject, the postponed pronoun is always
followed by another element which encloses it (VpX): infinitival construction (38, 74), locative express-
ion (49), and prepositional expression (88).
If our view is correct that in II postposition of the pronoun is not determined by the influence of the
pattern (S)VO but arises because the pronoun is enclosed in the patterns VpS, VpO and VpX, we should
be able to confirm it by an examination of the examples of anteposition. As corollaries to the above
patterns we should expect to find SpV, OpV and XpV, but not pVS, pVO or pVX. And in fact the
former are the patterns which occur. For SpV, see 74, for OpV, 38 and 62, and for XpV, 81 and 89.
41 ('huic insidiabatur Basiliscus') is a special case. Huic is stressed (in a description of a sequence of
emperors) and therefore is in initial position. Since the preposition tends to be placed next to the verb,
the subject is postponed. There remains only 42 ('et eum invitaviť) which does not fit our theory.
When there is inversion of a transitive verb in II, subject and object, if the latter is nominal, are juxta-
posed in the order SO: 74 'habebat Anastasius . . . tres nepotes'; 83 'invenit diabolus locum' (VSO). But
when the object is pronominal, the order VOS is preferred, as we have seen. This difference of order well
underlines the special determinant operating in the case of pronoun objects.
133
In the Per . the same determinant is at work. In main clauses in pages 1-24 1 have noted 45
examples of the patterns SpV, OpV and XpV on the one hand, and VpS, VpO and VpX on the other,
compared with only 7 exceptional cases where the pronoun is not enclosed.49 Similarly, when the
subject and object of a transitive verb are inverted, the order of the elements S, V and O is again VSO
if the object is nominal, but VOS if it is pronominal. For the first pattern, see e.g. 5.6 'de quo potavit
sanctus Moyses filios Israhel'; 7.7 'ubi occurrit Ioseph patri'; 10.5 'imposuerat enim Moyses manus
suas super eum'; 10.6 'ubi scripsit Moyses librum Deuteronomii'; 13.4 'ubi optulit Melchisedech
hostias Deo'. For the second, see e.g. 3.6 'dederunt nobis presbyteři'; 9.1 'tenuit nos sanctus episcopus';
10.8 'dicit ergo nobis ipse presbyter'; 16.7 'benedicens nos episcopus', etc.
No account has been taken here of the elements, if any, which directly precede or follow the six
patterns, though they might repay study, and indeed would have to be considered in a comprehensive
treatment of possible stress patterns in our text. But enough has been said to show that in at least
two late texts enclosing of the pronoun object was the rule.
It may well be that the situation seen in II and the Per. represents the second stage posited by
Ramsden in the evolution of weak pronoun position, and that it was preceded by a tendency for the
pronoun object to follow the verb (= (S)VO), whether or not it was enclosed. In both the Itin. Ant.
Plac. and the Lib. Hist. Franc., where, as we have seen, postposition is habitual, the pronoun is con-
stantly unenclosed. 50
134
3 Verb and Object
In the next two sections I consider, first, the position of the object (nominai) in relation to the
verb, and, secondly, the order of the three elements subject, verb and object when all are expressed.
In this section the three different types of verbal element (participial, infinitival and finite) are for
convenience treated separately.
a Participles (most of which are present) are followed by their object 18 times in II, and pre-
ceded by it 8 times:
Anteposition: 38, 43, 60 (twice), 68, 70, 72, 79.
Postposition: 36 (twice), 38, 42 (3 times), 49 (twice), 53 (twice), 57, 60, 62 (twice),

66, 67 (twice), 88.
The anteposition at 43 may be treated as a special case, for there has been contamination of a present
participial construction and a quia-clause (see p. 62), and the order is that which might have been
expected in a subordinate clause (with the verb in final position): 'sed quia senātus et populus Zenonem
metuentes*. At 38 ('cuius infantiam misertus . . . ') the object has been drawn to the start of the clause
by the relative pronoun in the genitive.
There is not an even distribution of the examples of anteposition. From section 60 to the end of
the text anteposition is as frequent as postposition (6:7), whereas in the earlier part of the work it is
strikingly outnumbered (2: 1 1).
b When the verbal element is an infinitive, anteposition predominates:
Anteposition: 39, 61, 62, 66, 72, 76, 77, 78, 79, 91, 93.
Postposition: 62 (twice), 75, 76.
But though anteposition might appear to be the norm, further comment is called for in a number of
cases.
3 of the 4 instances of postposition are in main clauses (76 is the exception), an

primary complement of a verb. By contrast 4 examples of anteposition are in su
72, 77, 79), where the verb commonly goes to the end. In another 4 cases the infi
ment of a verb, but is in an acc . c. infin . (61, 62, 66, 91). In this literary constru
are more likely to have survived than in structures having a basis in speech. Final
('gratias deo referre') is formulaic.51 There remain only 2 examples of anteposit
infinitive is complement of a verb in a main clause, and one of these is in a prese
probably literary) construction.
c Nominal objects with finite verbs occur as follows:
135
Anteposition: 36, 40 (twice), 44 (twice), 47, 48, 60 (3 times), 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 71 (10 times),
72, 73 (3 times), 74, 75, 78, 81 , 82, 83 (twice), 85, 86, 88, 90, 92 (twice), 94,
95 (twice), 96 (twice).
Postposition: 36, 37, 38 (3 times), 41 (twice), 44, 45, 48, 50, 52 (twice), 53, 55, 57 (4 times),
59, 60, 61 (twice), 62 (5 times), 63, 67, 68, 72, 74, 75 (twice), 77, 83, 86, 87
(twice), 94, 95, 96.
There are 47 examples of anteposition, compared with 43 of postposition. Again the tendency
for the object to precede its verb in subordinate clauses is apparent; almost half the examples of ante-
position (21) are in subordinate clauses, compared with only 6 of those of postposition.52 Postposition
thus predominates by 37:26 in main clauses. The linear structure (VO) of Romance was emerging in
main clauses, but in subordinate clauses anteposition was still the rule (21:6).
The distribution of ante- and postposition within the work in main clauses is as follows:
38-48 49-57 58-75 76-96
anteposition 2 - 17 7
postposition 8 6 15 8
As in the case of nominal objects

part of the work (14:2; note espe
all II shows definite traces of the
major linguistic readjustments of
than in speech, we may assume th
obtaining in the spoken language,
71 is particularly striking. It con
a description of the building wor
may have been taken by the auth
The distribution of the pattern

though the figures are low.
36-48 49-57 58-75 76-96
anteposition 4 - 89
postposition 2 3 1 -
In subordinate clauses down to

is less literary than the other,
decline in speech but more ten
136
4 Subject, Verb and Object
The order of subject, verb and object when both subject and object are expressed and the latter is
nominal is of some interest. There are 25 relevant examples, and in all cases but one the subject precedes
the object, whatever the verb-position. The exception is at 62 ('dum per ordinem omnia Alius mulieris
intimasset in auribus regis'). Thus the object in a subject-object opposition is as a rule marked by position.
The Romance order SVO is preferred to the classical SOV by 16:6, 53 but in fact its predominance is
greater than the figures indicate, for 4 of the 6 examples of SOV are in subordinate clauses (44, 82, 83, 92).
Moreover both examples of SOV in main clauses are in the second half of the work (7 1 , 86).54
This predominance of SVO is of special interest. In a main clause the object is more likely to follow
the verb when the subject is expressed than it is when the subject is unexpressed. The pattern VO, as we
have seen, does outnumber OV, but its overall ascendancy is not as great as that of SVO over SOV. Thus
when there is an explicit opposition between subject and object, the author rarely trusts the inflectional
system alone to bring out the opposition, but adopts a linear structure SVO. But when the subject is un-
expressed the position of the object is more free. It may stand before the verb and have its function
emerge from the context as well as the inflection.
As we have seen, the highly inflected nominal system of Latin broke up in the late period and became
inadequate for expressing the various case functions. In constructions comprising a single noun and a
verb the role of the noun will often be clear from the context. But there is more chance of ambiguity if
two partičipant nouns are expressed. Our text provides evidence that the need to mark clearly a subject-
object opposition was a factor of importance in determining the emergence of compulsory postposition
of the object.55
The only other order of the three elements found in II is VSO, which occurs at 74 and 83, both times
after temporal expressions (one with tempore expressed, the other with it understood) which may have
acted as invertissants: 74 'eodem itaque tempore habebat Anastasius imperator tres nepotes'; 83 'ex eo
enim (tempore) invenit diabolus locum'.
137
5 Position of the Infinitive
Corresponding to the emergence of the pattern SVO we should expect the infinitive (an
as accusatival) to gravitate to the position after the determining word. This is in fact
postposition of infinitives which are primary complements outnumbers anteposition
statistics conceal as much as they reveal. All 7 examples of anteposition occur from 75
The distribution is as follows:
36-74 75-96
anteposition - 7
postposition 7 7
The position of the infinitive

some of the examples of antep
ordinate as well as main claus
When the infinitive is secon
138
6 Prepositional Adjuncts
Miscellaneous elements of the sentence moved from their habitual position before the verb to their al-
most obligatory position after the verb in the transition from Latin to Romance. 60 In this section the
position of prepositional adjuncts in II is examined. These are numerous enough to enable us to see
to what extent the Romance order manifests itself.
Anteposition outnumbers postposition by a small margin (123: 1 16). But since we have seen
variations of order from section to section, it is necessary to break the statistics down:
36-38 49-57 58-75 76-96
anteposition 20 9 50 44
Exactly the same type of fluctuation a

sections 49-57 that the author most st
beyond doubt that in word order 49-57
spoken language.
In subordinate clauses the lingering te

position to predominate (by 35: 10). A m
gained from the statistics for main clau
36-48 49-57 58-75 76-96
anteposition 12 6 37 33
139
7 The Genitive
Disjunction is not admitted as freely in vulgar texts as it is in the various literary varietie
In classical prose a genitive complement is frequently separated from the rest of the nom
but in II there is obligatory juxtaposition of the two elements. There are 107 examples o
complements in the text, and in only 4 places is there disjunction (45, 58, 69, 76). Moreo
(58, 69) the separating element is a particle {tarnen, enirrì) which occupies its usual positio
word in the clause.
The genitive complement is almost always placed after the determinant. Anteposition
only as a rare stylistically marked variant for postposition in texts of vulgar flavour. M
10 examples of anteposition in II are in invariable formulae (71 aquae ductum , 84 terre m
expressions with a formal or official ring (38 patriciatus dignitatem , 47 dei famulus , 88 de
ib. sedis apostolicae praesulem ). Cf. 38 eius notarius , 73 ipsius tempore , 86 eius defensore
mirae magnitudinis opus.
140
8 Disjunction
The insignificant incidence of disjunction in vulgar texts can be further illustrated if we consider
just one other type in II, that consisting of noun and adjective separated by a verb. There are
only 4 examples in the text, all of which are in the later sections: 78 'extrema clausit diem';
79 'de qua re laminam auream iussit interrasilem fieri quattuor litteras "legi" habentenť; 84
'quattuor generavit dracones'; 88 'in catholica restituât religione'. On the formulaic character
of the first example, see p. 10.
141
Notes to Chapter I Introduction
1 The second title is unsatisfactory, for there is no evidence that any part of the text was excerpted from
a larger work. Moreau, who along with Gardthausen uses this title, draws a distinction (x) between
the epitomator and the original author, but does not give his reasons. On the other hand the title
Anonymus Valesianus is also misleading, for the two parts were composed by different authors.
2 This title is used by Mommsen, 259. In the earlier MS., B , of the ninth century, it is inscribed item
ex libris chronicorum inter cetera , and in the later, P, of the twelfth century, de adventu Oduachar
regis Cyrorum et Erulorum in Italia et quomodo rex Theodericus eum fuerit persecutus.
3 Mommsen, 5; Moreau, v.
4 See the works by Frick and Rönsch cited in the bibliography.
5 For a complete list of editions, see Moreau, xii.
6 Waitz, 92 ff. ; Holder-Egger, 317. Bury (i, 389 n. 2) refers to the author as 'a Ravenna chronicler',
and according to Moreau (Wz) he was 'certe Ravennas'.
7 Derived, as he thought, from Cassiodorus' lost history of the Goths.
8 Cf. Tamassia, 5; Stein, 792.
9 This was already seen by Görres, 210 f.
10 Cessi himself argues (cxix ff.), as has been mentioned (n. 7), that the first half goes back to Cassiodorus'
history of the Goths, but that the second half shows no connection either with Cassiodorus or Jordanes.
On the author's supposed dependence on Cassiodorus in the first part, see below, n. 34.
11 See pp. 129, 136, 138, 139, 141.
12 The expression is Gorres's (211).
13 Tamassia, 7.
14 Tamassia, 8.
15 Tamassia, 7.
16 Mommsen, 261.
17 Bury, i, 453,
18 Bury, i, 453 n. 2.
19 TLL 1.1562.37 ff.
20 This argument is admittedly subjective. From the few examples attested of the w
learn little about its use.
21 Cf. Hartmann, 2334.
22. Tamassia's contention (13) that the passage has the style of a Biblical parable is unconvincing.
23 Cf. Cessi, xc iv, cix.
24 On the schism and the religious troubles of the first decades of the sixth century, see Stein, 20 ff.,
134 ff., 224 ff. Cf. Bury, i, 464 f.
25 At the time support of Symmachus did not imply anti-Byzantine feeling, as Stein points out (137).
26 See Cessi, clxv 'la prima parte ... fu indubbiamente scritta prima della morte di Teoderico'; cf. Moreau,
143
Notes to Chapter I Introduction
27 Gorres, 211; Holder-Egger, 317; Mommsen, 261; Hartmann, 2334; Bury, i, 423 n. 1 (but Bury, like
Cessi, places 36-78 before the death of Theodoric, and 79-96 after); Hayes, 149; Tamassia, 19.
See Cessi, clxv n. 1 for a summary of opinions.
28 Stein, 224 ff.
29 Bury, ii, 221.
30 See Holder-Egger, 317 on information possibly acquired at first hand.
31 Cf. Löfstedt, Per. 6 ff.
32 Mommsen (251) prefers the title Chronica Italica. On this source see also Hayes, 150 f.
33 Holder-Egger (217 ff.) discusses at length these numerous works. See also Hayes, 145 ff.
34 Cessi, while not denying that the Fast. Rav. always lies in the background {lxxvii f., cvii), argues from
certain similarities between Jordanes* Getica and II that Cassiodorus' history of the Goths was a
common source (lxxviii ff.; note especially lxxxviii ff.; see also cvi f.). A few of the parallels between
Jordanes, who made use of Cassiodorus (Momigliano, 'Cassiodorus', 208; Cessi, lxxxviii ) and II are
indeed striking (see Ixxxiv n. 2), and it is possible that the author added items from Cassiodorus.
But sections 49-56 at least are in such a distinctive chronicle style that it is difficult to believe that
the immediate source was not the Fast. Rav. Cassiodorus* Latin is highly learned. The style of
the lost history could not conceivably have been that of the chronicles. Even in the Chronica he
works up the Latin of his source (Holder-Egger, 249).
35 No attempt is made here to summarize the conclusions of Chapter VI.
36 Cf. Auct. Haun. <7.493.4 Theudoricus . . ingressus est Ciassem IUI k. Mať; Agnellus p. 321 'et post
IV [kal.] Martii est civitate ingressus' (the page reference is to Mommsen).
37 Note that Agnellus gives an exact date, whereas II does not. Agnellus could not have drawn on II.
38 Cf. Fast. Vind Prior. 649 łet occisus est Odoacar rex a rege Theodorico in palatio cum commilitibus
suis'; Auct. Haun. <7.493.6 'pads specie Odoachrem interfecit cum collegas omnes'.
39 For a discussion of inversion, see Chapter VI.
40 Cf. 37 (twice). This passage too is taken from the Fast. Rav. (see Mommsen, 308).
41 See e.g. Fast. Vind. Prior. 616, 617, 620; Auct. Haun. Ordo Post, <7.474.3, a 474.4, <7.475.1 , <7*475.2,
<7.476.2; Cass. Chron. 1260, 1271, 1289, 1293.
42 Much has been written on the relationship between spoken and written Latin, not all of it in agreement
with what will be stated here (see especially Muller, pass.). Worthy of special mention are Pulgram,
311 ff.; Herman, Lat. vulg. 16 ff., 27 ff.; id. Subord. 29 f.; Politzer, 'Emergence* 127; id. 'Correct-
ness'; Gaeng, 22 n. 2, 292 ff.; Carlton, 23 n. 16.
43 Bendz, 32; Battisti, 31.
44 Though speculation on the question when Latin ceased to be spoken is not fruitful.
45 On this vexed issue, see now Herman, 'Diff.'; Gaeng.
46 Adams, 'Speeches' 1 30.
144
Notes to Chapter II The Text
1 A full description of the contents is given by Mommsen, 3 ff. ; cf. Cessi, v f.
2 Riihl, 371; Cipolla, 'Ricerche intorno* 11.
3 Mommsen, 260; Cessi, loc. cit. ; Moreau, viii f.
4 On the other hand, see Riihl, 369; Cipolla, 'Ricerche intorno* 14; Cessi, vii f.; id. 'Miscellanee storiche*
73, 78 f.; Moreau, ix.
5 It is far more likely that II is a chronicle in its original form. Certainly sections 49-56, derived, as we
have seen, from the Fast. Rav. , are not excerpts. These sections are, if anything, fuller than the corres-
ponding parts of the source.
6 X 'itaque nos ubicumque codicum lectiones proprietates Latini sermonis offendere viderentur, ortho-
graphiam, cum dubium non esset epitomatoris esse, non auctoris, non ad normām Berolinensis codicis,
sed ad usum antiquum formare non dubitavimus*.
7 See Cessi, x> for a list of the omissions and substitutions.
8 It is in a ninth century hand (Cessi, xii).
9 The only examples of at in II are in the expression at ubi (41,57, 62); see p. 75.
10 On medieval interpolations of the kind in question, see Mommsen, 6.
11 On the omission of final <-nt> in II, see p. 51. On other phonological changes reflected in B , see
Chapter III.
12 BP and Be indicate corrections in B where it is not clear whether the original scribe or a second hand
was responsible. B P indicates a primary correction, 2?e an alteration to the first correction (Moreau, jcjc).
13 See Adams, 'Put-throw* 155 ff.
14 On which see Tidner, 17 f.
15 Mommsen too has adeptus , but Eyssenhardt and Gardthausen {abreptus) show better judgment.
Abreptus daemonio was suggested by Adrien Valois.
16 Daemonio is a typical orthographic regularization which should not be accepted; see pp. 26, 43 ff.
17 See e.g. Lò'fstedt, Per. 162 ff.
1 8 Cessi himself refers to the passage at xiv.
19 See further p. 99.
20 E.g. Vict. Vit. 1.32, 1.49, 3.35, Greg. Hist. Franc. 2.22, 4.43, 5.25, Pact. Leg. Sal. 34.5, Lex Rib. 47.3,
Vit. Patr. 5.4.25.
21 B a and bP indicate corrections made by the scribe himself. B a indicates a primary, B^° a secondary
correction.
22 Accusative omitted: 43, 62 (4 times), 91, 92; placed before infinitive: 45, 53, 55, 60, 61, 62 (twice),
66, 69 (twice), 74 (3 times), 79, 83, 89, 90, 91, 93, 95 (twice).
23 See Cipolla, 'Ricerche intorno' 32 ff.
24 On the form of the accusative plural, see p. 42.
25 TLL V.l. 1247.7 ff.
145
26 In fact neither editor really put his beliefs into practice: both have a habit of following B in the places
where P is demonstrably correct (e.g. 93 adeptus).
27 See e.g. Svennung, Pall. 366 ff. on intra and infra. On lexical contamination, see p. 25.
28 On the use of qui as the feminine and neuter relative pronoun, see below, n. 84.
29 Cf. CE 848 ( sax solus).
30 Cf. Neue-Wagener, i, 804.
31 See TLL 1.1989.25 ff.
32 Bonnet, 435 f.; Vielliard, 174.
33 The first reading found in B is the contaminated form vellit (Z?a), which the scribe presumably found
in his source. But he was uneasy about the form, and changed it in an unthinking manner to velit
(¡fi). The fact that P has the same false correction seems to point to a direct line of derivation from
Bio P.
34 See e.g. Vaananen, Introduction 113.
35 For some perfect participles substantivized in the neuter in late Latin, see Svennung, Comp. Luc. 141
C tinctum , unctum). Words of this kind were common. They frequently passed into the feminine
via the neuter plural. For a list of feminines originating thus, see Paucker, SHA 70 ff. Thus tinctum
(see above)> Sp., Pg. tinta. See further pp. 105 ff.
36 See H-S, 168 f.

%
37 There is another textual problem here: see pp. 28 f.
38 See e.g. Lofstedt, Late Latin 156 ff.
39 Svennung, Pall 285, 561 n. 1.
40 Svennung, op. cit. 617 f. Cf. B. Lôfstedt, 177 n. 1.
41 So fugare is used for fugere at Fast. Vind. Prior. 616 'et fugavit imp. Nepos ad Dalmatias' (cf. 11.36
łfugam petit').
42 LÖfstedt, Late Latin 160 f.
43 REW 2121.
44 Though adipiscor does occur with passive meaning ( TLL 1.690.20 ff.).
45 Bonnet, 557.
46 On the form, see p. 40.
47 Editors since Mommsen usually insert the proper name Iustinus after festinus.
48 Cf. Haag, 895.
49 Vielliard, 174.
50 Cf. nollens at Vita Sanct. Arn. 1.
51 See e.g. Vaananen, Introduction 145.
52 Eyssenhardt and Gardthausen adopt the reading of P.
53 Sturtevant, pass. ; Lofstedt, Per. 295 f.; Norberg, Adnot. 118; H-S, 188 f.; TLL VII. 1.194.29
146
54 See Lofstedt, Per. 295 n. 1.
55 See e.g. Svennung, Pall 505; Comp. Luc. 166; Norberg, Synt. Forsch. 239 ff.; Herman, Subord. 94
(with further bibliography).
56 Norberg, op. cit. 241; Herman, op. cit. 202 ff.
57 See Svennung, Pall. 505.
58 Haag , 910.
59 Uddholm, 179.
60 The fullest collection of examples is given by Norberg.
61 See Mommsen's index, 553.
62 Note 146, 153, 172, 364, 366, 379.
63 Cf. 4.39.
64 Cf. ait intra se, Luke 16:3,
65 See e.g. VàáUânen, Introduction 79.
66 For some recent discussions (with bibliography), see B. Lofstedt, 112 ff.; Gaeng, 266 f.; Carlton, 205 f.
67 B. Lofstedt, loc. cit.
68 TLL V.2. 1887.65 ff.; Schuchardt, ii, 367; Bonnet, 148; Grandgent, 98. There is an early second
century example in a letter of Claudius Teren tianus ( P.Mich . viii 471.24).
69 Carlton, 205.
70 On the whole question, see now Dahlen.
71 Quoted by Lofstedt, Per. 142.
72 See e.g. Ernout, Morphologie 269 f.; Carlton, 73 n. 118.
73 Neue-Wagener, iii, 351. See also Vielliard, 169, where it is shown that spondeo is often assimilated to
the compounds of dare. Some good examples of the loss of reduplicated forms in Vulgar Latin can
be furnished from the Glosses of Reichenau, where ceciderunt is glossed by caderunt, and tetigit by
tangit (Elcock, 316).
74 H-S, 539.
75 Cf. Coleman, ł Habeo ' 218 n. 2.
76 All these examples are taken from H-S, 539. Cf. TLL VI.3.2438.52 ff.; Ronsch, Itala 430.
77 B. Lofstedt, 180 ff.
78 See Baehrens, 72 f. for some similar examples.
79 See e.g. H-S, 321.
80 Bonnet, 641 ff.
81 See e.g. Politzer, 'Correctness* 213.
82 H-S, 496 f.; Lofstedt, Per. 27 ff.; Bonnet, 316; M0rland, 159.
147
83 Its use here after et (= łand . . . moreover') is not objectionable. Et . . . tarnen occurs with other
functions (Lofstedt, Per. 32), and there is no reason why it should not be employed with a weakened
sense.
84 There is an extensive literature on the subject. See e.g. H-S, 440; Lofstedt, Per. 131 ff.;
Ronsch, Itala 276.
85 Neue-Wagener, i, 537 ff.; Sommer, 435.
86 For a discussion of the form see Baehrens, 96.
87 Ronsch, Itala 459.
88 has reperire , which may be correct. See p. 65.
89 Lofstedt, Per. 272 f.; H-S, 557.
90 Lofstedt, Spätlat. Stud 11 f.; Tidner, 34 n. 1; Norberg, Beiträge 93 f.; H-S, 202 f.
91 H-S, 495 f.
92 He was followed by van Oorde, '12b.
93 At Spätlat. Stud 77 he alludes to the occurrence of quis = quisque in the Anon. Val, without giving
references. He must have been thinking of our passages.
94 For these and other examples, see H-S, 459 f.
95 K-S, ii, 282, 309.
96 H-S, 554 f.
97 Holder-Egger, 252.
98 H-S, 173.
99 H-S, loc. cit.
100 For revocitusf see Sou ter, s.v. revoco. On forms in -itus, see in general Carlton, 51 n. 56 (w
graphy).
101 It is mainly first conjugation verbs with a common frequentative that sometimes form their past
participle in -itus (rogitus, vocitus , increpitus ).
102 For the sense 'invite', 'summon', see Sou ter, loc. cit.
103 Moreau's futurum is a misprint.
104 See Svennung, 'Nebensätze' 181 f. for examples.
105 Numerous examples of this usage are given by Svennung, op.cit. 178 ff. and Norberg, Synt. Forsch.
262 f., and others could be added (e.g. Edict. Roth. 9, 196, 197, 198, 342, 364, Fredegar pp. 47.14,
140.17). Svennung (followed by Norberg and H-S, 531) sees it as arising from the loss of ut in the
construction verbum dicendi + ut clause. This loss, he feels, would have been caused by the analogy
of indirect commands in which ut is often dropped. But it is more likely that the origin of the con-
struction lies in the deletion of quod or quia in object clauses after verba dicendi Ut clauses (= acc.
c. in fin.) are relatively infrequent, but quod and quia object clauses are standard in late Latin. Note
Edict. Roth. 342 'ut prebeat sacramentum ille . . . quia non asto animo . . . eum praesisset, sed credidit
suus fuisseť , where a quia object clause is followed by a plain subjunctive. It is natural to derive the
second construction from the first. Cf. the ellipse of 'that' in English after the most commonly used
verbs of saying, thinking, etc. (see W. M art czak, Linguistics xcv (1973) 51 ff.). The subjunctive is used
in such a construction as the only marker of subordination.
148
106 On this tendency, see p. 63.
107 H-S, 595, 641.
108 The construction is thus equivalent to facio ut, łsee to it thať.
149
Notes to Chapter III Phonology and Orthography
1 See e.g. Bourciez, 42 f.; B. Löfstedt, 21, 37, 69, 83; Carlton, 44, 55 f., 71, 81.
2 But the extent to which the inverse spellings are hypercorrective is not always clear (cf. Carlton, 61 f.).
Often they are motivated by morphological or other factors.
3 See in particular the recent discussion of modern views by Spence.
4 See e.g. Herman, Lat. vulg. 44 ff. ; Spence, 14; Coleman, 'Vowel system' 180 f.
5 See 44, 70; 55, 81 for statistics.
6 See Carlton, 63 n. 96.
7 Liechtenhan, Index, 48 quotes 28 examples of <e> for /i/ in unstressed syllables, but only 2
Herman's statistics ('Evolution' 244) show that in general /i/ is somewhat less than twice as f
unstressed as in stressed syllables.
8 See e.g. B. Löfstedt, 90. In Romance the convergence of /o / and /u/ is not as complete as th
and / i/: Bourciez, 43.
9 To which he assigns Ravenna (32).
10 See in particular the table, 97. The convergence of /o / and /u/ is more marked than that of /e~ / and /i/
in Central Italy, whereas elsewhere the reverse is usually the case.
11 For statistics see Carlton, 44, 70; 55, 81.
12 See e.g. Bourciez, 150; Carnoy, 28; B. Löfstedt, 24 ff., 98 ff.; Gaeng, 53 n.7; Carlton, 41.
13 Bourciez, 150; Carnoy, 28; Carlton, 41.
14 TLL VI. 1.84.1 ff.; Pirson, 2 f.; Carnoy, 28; Bonnet, 107; Vielliard, 10, 22; Tjader, 154; B. Löfstedt,
22, 24 f.; Gaeng, 53 n.7; Carlton, 41, 71. On the extension of the new stem vowel to the other persons,
see B. Löfstedt, 26; Gaeng, 53, n.7.
15 Bonnet, 107.
16 Taylor, 23; Vielliard, 6; B. Löfstedt, 26. For examples of suscipi from the Edict
22.
17 Bourciez, 151, 292; B. Löfstedt, 28; Carlton, 42.
18 For examples from the Edict. Roth., see B. Löfstedt, 22.
19 Schuchardt, i, 315 ff.; B. Löfstedt, 28. Schuchardt (i, 317) quotes one example of procido.
20 Quoted by B. Löfstedt, loc. cit.
21 B. Löfstedt, 72.
22 B. Löfstedt, 72 f., 99f.
23 Schuchardt, ii, 111; Carnoy, 64; B. Löfstedt, 85; Gaeng, 81 f.; Carlton, 80.
24 Baehrens, 57; Carnoy, 64 f.
25 Baehrens, 110 ff.
26 The same form may also lie behind the corrupt Oresti Pannotos at 38 ( B ).
27 On which see below, n. 32.
150
28 For another example of the form, see Pasch. Camp. 616 łfugavit Orestis Nepotem', which is drawn from
the same source (the hypothetical Ravenna Fasti) as 11.36. See Mommsen's parallel text, p. 306.
29 For which in II see 43 inclausus, 65 consacrati (reflected in Romance, including Italian: It. consacrare,
Prov. consagrar , etc.: see REW 2155), 88 inmemor , 90 superinpositum. On perfects showing -dedi
for classical -didU see Carlton, 45, 72 f., 165 n.l 13 with bibliography. The formation was productive in
West Romance (72 f.).
30 There remain in B a few anomalous spellings of proper names involving <e> and : 37 Peneta B *
(= Pmēta' cf. 53, 54 Penita B$)' 71 Ticenum (= Ticînum). I offer no explanation of these oddities.
The spelling of proper names in B is chaotic, and should probably be regularized.
31 See Bonnet, 128; Mommsen's Index to Jordanes, 174; B. Lofstedt, 86.
32 The importance of this tendency is argued by Politzer, 'Italian plurals' 278: 4 All the three vowels of
the simple vowel triangle left in final syllable developed raised allophones before final -s: -o + s >-us,
-a + s >-es, -e + s >-is.y B. Lofstedt (45, 86, 88) accepts Politzer's argument, though elsewhere (128 ff.)
he argues for the instability of final /-s/ at this period. See further Gaeng, 209: 'The weakness of this
[Politzers] theory . . . would seem to be shown by the frequent es spelling for is in the third declension
accusative plural of adjectives and the third declension nominative and genitive singular forms and the
general trend in the direction of the extension of the es ending in this latter instance*.
33 Bonnet, 127 ff.; Carnoy, 50; Vielliard, 32; Uddholm, 41 f.; Tjäder, 159; B. Lofstedt, 86 ff.; Gaeng, 207 ff.
34 Kuryîowicz, 22.
35 Herman, 'Evolution* 249 n.l 2.
36 Grandgent, 148. Cf. Gaeng, 207 f.
37 The accusatives {-o} and {-um} are dealt with elsewhere (p. 51). The examples considered here are
at 37, 40 (twice), 41, 44 (twice), 50, 51, 61, 74 (4 times), 87, 90 (6 times), 95. I omit cases which may
be due to the deliberate use of the ablative for the accusative with prepositions normally governing the
accusative
38 For the form edocare , see TLL V.2.1 13.77 ff.
39 So the genitive senati is twice used for senātus in II (see p. 33).
40 Schuchardt, ii, 181.
41 Meyer- Líibke, i §291; Bourciez, 44; B. Lofstedt, 102; Coleman, 'Vowel system* 183 ff. Betwe
classical value of the diphthong [ae] and the Romance value [e] there was probably an intermedi
stage [çl before the phonemic distinctions of quantity effaced the distinction between the reflex
/e/ and /ae/ (Coleman, op. cit. 190). But certainly by our period the reflexes of the classical pho
must have fallen together.
42 On the question of its dating, see now Coleman, 'Vowel system*. Cf. Carlton, 117, with the lite
referred to.
43 On <ae> for original /e /, see B. LÖfstedt, 102.
44 See e.g. Bonnet, 97 f.; B. Lofstedt, 103; Carlton, 109 n.220.
45 Aetate is used correctly in the same years (74, 75 [4 times) ). This may have influenced the for
mediaetatem and piaetatis. Cf. B. Lofstedt, 104 n.3.
46 The reliability of these figures is of course open to doubt. They are based on the spellings adop
Mommsen.
47 Prae - : 47 (twice), 48 (3 times), 49, 55, 59, 60, 67, 68 (twice), 69, 72, 76, 82 (4 times), 84, 87, 88, 91,
93,94; pre- : 45,64.
48 <ae> : 60 (twice), 69, 86; < e>: 61, 81 (twice), 82 (3 times), 86, 93, 94.
151
49 <ae>: 46 (twice), 53, 59, 60, 61, 67,71 (3 times), 87, 88, 91; <e>: 36 (twice), 40, 45, 46, 48
(twice), 60, 68, 71, 72 (twice), 84, 88, 96. In the last three footnotes I have listed only readings found
in B and B Monosyllables have been omitted from consideration.
50 In parts of North Italy it is sometimes kept, especially in verb forms: Elcock, 52; B. Lofstedt, 129 n.2,
132; Carlton, 157 f.
51 Grandgent, 125 f.; Vaananen, Introduction 71; Inscript. Pomp. 78; Bourciez, 51; Elcock, 51 f.;
Politzer, 'Final -s'; Michel, 100; B. Löfstedt, 129; Carlton, 157 f.
52 This question has recently been discussed at length by B. Lofstedt, 128 ff. Cf. e.g. Vaananen,
Introduction 71.
53 For careful discussion of the special factors which may operate, see Carnoy, 181 ff.; Vaananen,
Inscript. Pomp. 79 f.
54 Cf. Bourciez, 51.
55 For an inscriptional parallel, cf. CIL V.5078 'bone memorie et perpetue securitati bene quies
reliquias'.
56 Norberg, Synt. Forsch. 44; Löfstedt, Synt. i, 209 ff.; Svennung, Pall. 221.
57 So Svennung, Comp. Luc. 116 fails to take into account the possibility of special determinants in the
few examples of omission which he cites from the Comp. Luc. Nor does he give statistics which might
enable us to evaluate the worth of the evidence.
58 On neutralization in general, see Lyons, 115 ff., 126; Martinet, pass. ; Anderson, pass, (on neutralization
in Latin).
59 Sommer, 274 f.; Grandgent, 1 19; Väänänen, Introduction 63; Inscript. Pomp. 70; B. Löfstedt, 1 38;
cf. Quint. 1.7.5.
60 On the various types of neutralization, see Martinet, 76.
61 In the letters of the soldier Claudius Terentianus, for example ( P.Mich . viii, 467-471), there are 16
instances of <d> for <1 > , but only 3 of <t > for <d> .
62 Cf. Väänänen, Inscript. Pomp. 70.
63 Cf. Grandgent, 119. I hope to discuss this question in detail in an article on the Latin of the letters of
Qaudius Terentianus.
64 B. Lofstedt (138 n.2) denies that the spelling aput is due to contamination with caput , but he has not
examined the possibility of contamination thoroughly.
65 See Seelmann, 366; Sommer, 274 f.; Väänänen, Inscript. Pomp. 70; Carlton, 149.
66 Elcock, 465; Carlton, 175.
67 Grandgent, Italian 95; Bourciez, 493 f.; B. Löfstedt, 165; Carlton, 175.
68 Carlton, 176.
69 REW 3461.
70 B. Lofstedt, 165.
71 See e.g. Väänänen, Introduction 61; B. Lofstedt, 168.
72 It remains to be investigated fully.
7 3 Sucessus is attested in inscriptions: Vaananen, Inscript. Pomp. 60.
152
7 4 Vaananen, loc. cit.
75 B. Löfstedt, 165.
76 REW 8242.
77 See e.g. B. Löfstedt, 166.
78 See Mras, 86 ff. See e.g. Isid. Etym 1.27.28, Consentius, GL V.p.395.6 ff.
79 See e.g. Haag, 864 f.; Bonnet, 171 ff.; Pirson, 71 ff.; Carnoy, 141 ff.; Grandgent, 116 ff.; Vielliard,
61 ff.; Battisti, 151 f.; Vaananen, Introduction 55 f.; B. Löfstedt, 169 ff. On Romance developments
see further Grandgent, Italian 103 ff.; Bourciez, 50, 170 f.; Elcock, 53, 465 f.
80 See e.g. Carlton, 150 on this phenomenon.
8 1 VäänUnen, In troduction 5 7 ; Carlton, 1 30.
82 On the aspirated voiceless plosives in Latin, see Allen, 26 f.; Väänänen, Introduction 57. For their
treatment in Vulgar Latin, see Appendix Probi 1, 23, 66, 67.
83 Cf. It. corda , etc. (REW 1881).
84 Carlton, 132.
85 Vaananen, In trodu ction 5 7 .
86 See e.g. Bonnet, 174 n. 7; Vaananen, Inscript. Pomp. 64 f.; B. Löfstedt, 180 n.l.
87 See e.g. Carnoy, 150; B. Löfstedt, 180 n.l.
88 Thus It. dissi < dixi , Fr. cuisse < coxa. See Väänänen, Introduction 68. Cf. above, p. 29.
89 But the form should not be printed in the text. As has been seen, the treatment of proper names in the
MSS. is extremely confused. Even if this example is linguistically explicable, it is safer always to regularize.
90 Schuchardt, i, 145; Carnoy, 151; Bonnet, 174 f.
153
Notes to Chapter IV Morphology and Syntax
1 No attempt has been made here to separate morphology from syntax, for the two are interdependent. I
have not sought to be absolutely exhaustive, but have concentrated on matters of special interest in II.
2 This is noted by the grammarian Sacerdos in the third century. See Herman, 'Evolution* 249, and especially
n. 12. For further details of the wholesale confusion of case distinctions in late Latin, see Carlton, Index,
276 (s.v. 'Case, confusion in').
3 Word order will be treated separately in Chapter VI.
4 Pļautus frequently uses the dative with inimicus (Lodge, 798 a). There is other evidence in Pļautus of over-
lapping in the colloquial language of prepositional expressions with unaccompanied case inflexions (see ad
at Capt. 360): see Lofstedt, Synt. i, 187.
5 The latter usage is confined to Cassiodorus ( TLL VII. 1.1632.65 ff.).
6 For ad with verba dicendi, see TLL 1.5 12.30 ff. The colloquial poetry of Catullus also shows traces of the
usage (3.10, 67.14).
7 TLL IV. 1363.50 ff.; 1369.42 ff.
8 Cf. Haag, 913 on Fredegar.
9 Cf. e.g. Vet. Lat. Mark 4: 16 (all codd.); Luke 8:13 (all codd.); 10:17 (all codd.); 24:52; Vit. Pair. 3.148,
3.167, 5.6.7, 5.10.97, 5.13.1; Fredegar, Cont. p. 191.5; Lib. Hist. Franc, p.291.28.
10 There is no need to suppose a lacuna between de and fustibus (Rolfe (Loeb) asserts that de fustibus caesi is
an impossible construction). The expression may be regarded as one of the numerous vulgarisms in Ammianus,
many of which were probably picked up in the army.
11 B has diem, which may be the spelling used by the original author. Such spellings are either hypercorrective
against the loss of final /- m/, or due to the deliberate employment of the accusative as the prepositional case
once the ablative function had come to be carried by the preposition alone (see e.g. Coleman, 'Vowel system'
178). See further below, (iv).
12 See e.g. TLL V.l. 1043.71 ff.; H-S, 148; Meyer-Liibke, iii, §451; Bonnet, 620; Haag, 916; Pirson, 198 f.;
Taylor, 113.
13 ïh e use of de in partitive expressions was of course the starting point for its emergence as a partitive article
and as a full genitive-equivalent (see e.g. Lofstedt, Synt. i,145 ff.). On the rarity in late Latin of prepositional
constructions with de with possessive (as distinct from partitive) function, see e.g. Vaänanen, Introduction 121.
14 At TLL VI. 1. 1 18.72 only Plaut. Pseud. 849 is quoted.
15 Tidner, 22.
16 For this use of the preposition, see TLL VII. 1.777.63 ff.
17 For in or ad + auxilium, see TLL II. 1625.37 ff.
18 But it is usually impossible to be sure that an apparent ablative singular was not seen by the author as an
accusative.
19 In this he is following Meyer-Llibke.
20 See above, n. 13, on the rarity in vulgar texts of the de- construction for the possessive genitive.
21 Skahill, 113 ff.
22 Skahill, 91.
23 See Bonnet, 623 f. for a summary.
154
24 Bonnet, 583.
25 Bonnet, 611.
26 See pp. 29, 84, 114, 172 for the genitive of the first and second declensions.
27 See pp. 38, 87, 123, 179 for the dative of the first and second declensions.
28 Only very rarely does P agree with B in departing from the classical orthography. But see 54 łfugit Ravenn
(BP).
29 See Carlton, 135 ff. for a recent discussion of the phenomenon, with references to older literature. Carlton
(137) describes loss of final /m/ as 'probably the single most characteristic phonological feature of popular
Latin*.
30 The spelling with <-o > also points to the falling together of classical /u/ and / o /. See above, p. 43.
31 Accusatives in {-a}: 39 filia, 41 Hisauria, 50 Ravenna, 51 Ravenna, 52 Faventia, SA Ravenna, SI Ravenna,

60 militia, 63 Theodegotha, 6% Amala frigda, germana, sua, 70 alia, Amalabirga, Importa, 78 Eunomiana,
lanceola, extrema, 95 anima. Accusatives in {-e} : AA amore, 48 favore, TA que. Accusatives in {-o }
({-u}): 40 curso, velocissimo, Al imperio, AA senato, Romano, SÌMediolano, 61 Gotho, 68 Liberiu,
7 1 palaciu, IA Pompeio, Probo, ypatio, 90 Campano, Theodoro, Inportuno, Agapito, alio, Agapito,
95 fluxu.
32 Väänänen, Inscript. Pomp. 76; Introduction 69.
33 See especially 501, 507, 515.
34 See B. Löfstedt, 227 f.
35 For the evidence, see Taylor, 65, 78 ff., 81 ff.; Sas, (e.g.) 38, 105, 115, 500, 505.
36 Thus the spellings found in II (and elsewhere) result from the interaction of graphemic and phonetic factors.
Since it can be taken for granted that final /m/ was lost, the graphemic representation of the current accusa-
tive singular morphs would have been <-a> , <^> and <-o>. The forms in< -am> , and < -um > ,
which had no phonetic basis, would have been purely graphemic, though in opposition to í -a} , {-e}- and
{ -o} above I have marked them as morphs, as they originally were. The frequency of {-a} in texts arises
not simply because it was in current use (for {-e } and {-o } were no doubt equally current), but because, at
a time when neuter plurals were passing into the feminine, there was a hypercorrective desire to retain in
writing the neuter accusative termination. It is paradoxical that the termination <-a> , though a genuine
morph, should in texts have in part a false graphemic motivation.
37 On this phenomenon elsewhere, see Uddholm, 95; cf. Löfstedt, Late Latin 133.
38 B. Löfstedt, 228 ff.
39 Cf. B. Löfstedt, 230.
40 37 ad Pineta, 38 intra Campania, 42 intra provintia , 43 intra cisterna sicca, 45 intra Pannonia , 54 in Pineta,
65 post facta pace, 79 per eam penna, ib. super charta, 81 in aqua, 87 in custudia.
41 39 apud Zenone, 65 post . . . pace, ib. extra urbe (£2: urbae Z?1), 67 ad restauratane, lAad capite (this
use of capiteim) = caput is defended at p. 90), 78 in Trinitate, 93 foris civitate (perhaps intended as an
ablative).
42 37 ante regno , 50 ad. . . Sontio , 52 in ferro (perhaps an ablative), 54 in fossato (perhaps an ablative), 70
in matrimonio (perhaps an ablative), 72 in agro suo (perhaps ablatives), 74 intra palatio, 87 ad ultimo, 95
intra triduo.
43 But note 47 in Italia P: Italiam B ; 82 ad Eutherico P^: Euthericum BP
AA For some feminine reflexes of pinetum in Romance, see REW 6510.
155
45 Vä&iänen, Inscript. Pomp. 120 f.
46 Even in classical Latin an ablative would have been defensible here. Whether an ablative or accusative was
intended, the emendation of Henri Valois ( matrimonium ) cannot be justified.
47 At 88 'reconciliatus in catholica restituât religione* (so B' P has the accusative) both the ablative and the
accusative would have been possible in classical Latin. The editor must follow B, leaving open the question
which case was intended.
48 84 sub porticu is an exception.
49 I follow B (or B^) in printing or omitting final <-m> .
50 Here B has rav.
51 B and P here share a corruption: rediens igitur ex Ravenna. The sense requires 'motion toward
(for de) would be abnormal in II (see p. 119). Adrien Valois restored sense to the passage, as
formulaic pattern present participle + particle + noun: rediens igitur rex Ravennani (though fina
should be omitted; its absence was partly responsible for the corruption).
52 The material can be found in Bieter, 26, 68. But Bieter does not notice or comment on the distinc
which has been elaborated here.
53 H-S, 69; Lbfstedt, Per. 160 f.
54 H-S, 148; LÖfstedt, Per. 51 ff.; Salonius, 121 ff.
55 See e.g. Lbfstedt, loc. cit.
56 Cassiodorus' Chron. is one work in which the ablative plural of duration is common.
57 See e.g. Funaioli, 301 ff.; K-S, i, 524; Grandgent, 42 f.; LÖfstedt, Synt. ii, 73 ff.; Per. 252; Svennung,
Oros. 17 ff.
58 H-S, 150; Lofstedt, Synt. ii, 75 ff.
59 Svennung, Oros. 18 ff.
60 H-S, 150.
61 Carl ton, 116 n.245.
I 2
62 The form given here of the first and third exampl
Veronae. At 80 Romane (B^) is certainly corrupt. Th
63 On which see Palmer, 303 ff. On its appearance in
64 H-S, 150; LÖfstedt, Synt. ii, 75.
65 Funaioli, 317 ff.; Ernout, Morphologie 23; Palmer
66 P adds in, but Moreau prefers Ravennae. In view of M

see why he does not accept in Ravenna , if not Ravenn
67 Moreau alters to Veronae.
68 Moreau's capitalizing of the preposition in the last example ('Ad Fonticlos in proastio civitatis') is app
ly due to a belief that the name is of the same type as e.g. Liv. 6.2.8 'ad Mecium is locus dicitur' (see T
1.527.70 ff.). This view would only be feasible if ad Fonticlos followed in proastio civitatis.
69 So BP.
70 So B * ; B^ and P read Ravennae.
156
71 The other editors also resort to regularization, though not with any consistency. Gardthausen, however,
retains both examples of Constantinopolim.
72 For Constantinopolim and other names in -polim , see Norberg, Beiträge 52 f.; Löfstedt, Late Latin 137 f.
The examples quoted here are not given by either Norberg or Lofstedt.
73 So T. For an example of the usage in the Fast. Vind. Prior., see 580 'et occisus est Messiam patricius eius'
74 Bonnet, 575; Väänänen y Inscript. Pomp. 115 f.
75 Humbert, 293.
76 Humbert, 294.
77 Cf. Ann. Regni Franc, p. 96 (¿z.794) 'ad palatium, quod Aquis vocatur*.
78 Grandgent, 42; id. Italian 129; Lofstedt, Late Latin 137.
79 Solmsen, 66.
80 Rev. Celtique 45 (1928), 113.
81 Lofstedt, Late Latin , 137. Cf. Isnik< elq NiKaiav and Andermatt < an der Matt.
82 See especially Svennung, Pall. 226 ff.; Norberg, Synt. Forsch. 108 ff.; cf. H-S, 35 f.; Ahlquist, 34 ff.;
Löfstedt, Spätlat. Stud. 67 ff.
83 See Norberg, Synt. Forsch. 1 15. Norberg does not note that furor too can have a double accusative.
84 Noted by Norberg, op. cit. 117.
85 These examples are given by Norberg, op.cit. 113.
86 Norberg, op. cit. 111.
87 H-S, 387; Bonnet, 636 n. 4. H-S quote Vit. Patr. 5.5.24 łquod cum audisseť =3.14 'haec audiens',
Gk. Kal àKovaaq.
88 The same preconception was widespread in late narrative prose. Note how a Greek sentence with
two finite verbs is rendered at Pass. Barth. 9 Venientes autem innumerabiles populi . . . abstulerunť
= f¡'6ov &è ba>ap(ßßT)Ta iī'r'dr' . . *K.air'pav.
89 If obiectans is read here for oblectans , the temporal sequence of the participles would be disturbed
(see p. 27).
90 See H-S, 389 f.
91 The most recent discussion of the usage is by Eklund, 119 ff. I have not seen the earlier dissertation by
F. Horn, Zur Geschichte der absoluten Partizipialkonstruktionen im Lateinischen (Lund, 1918). Eklund
argues (see 202 ff. for his conclusions) that apparent examples of the finite pres. part, prove on closer
inspection to be accidental rather than deliberate. He isolates various factors, such as contamination
of two modes of expression, which cause the non-deliberate use of a pres. part, where a finite verb would
have been expected. But the factors which he establishes do not cover all possible examples, as he admits
himself (196 ff.). In particular he is forced to leave unexplained a number of passages in II (199). It will
be maintained here that other factors have to be taken into account, notably the tendency to anacolouthon
in the presence of complex subordination.
92 For convenience I quote the text of Moreau.
93 This is one of the passages considered problematical by Eklund, 199.
94 H-S, 389; Lofstedt, Per. 249; Svennung, Pall. 433.
157
95 See especially 120. Among other things, Eklund shows that such periphrases are not a genuine Latin
phenomenon. See especially 73: Periphrases with verbal complements are rare in Christian texts
originally written in Latin and there is nothing to prevent the conclusion that the use of such periphrases
is due to Greek influence'. If the periphrastic construction is a Grecism, the finite pres. part, in original
Latin texts can scarcely be derived from it.
96 On which, see e.g. H-S, 143 f.; Eklund, 168 ff. Whether or not the nominative absolute is a genuine
syntactic category at this period, we shall discuss at pp. 64 f.
97 Eklund, 144 ff.
98 Eklund, 172 ff.
99 Eklund, 184.
100 That of Moreau, but not of Eyssenhardt, Gardthausen, Mommsen or Rolfe.
101 Though see above, (e), on 65 occurrentes.
102 Vaahänen C Introduction 181) is able to quote one example.
103 Victor Vitensis, like the author of II, furnishes many examples of initial unattached pres. parts., but few,
any, of non-initial (Eklund, 169 n.2).
104 On the falling together of /i/ and /e / as /e/, see p. 39.
105 Bonnet, 401; Haag, 891 f.; Taylor, 53 ff.; Muller, 75 f.; Bastardas Parera, 129.
106 Muller, 75.
107 Haag, 892.
108 So Vielliard, 224 gives an example from A.D. 716.
109 H-S, 306, 352; Blase, 172 f.
110 Cf. Bastardas Parera, 129 f.
Ill H-S, 351 f.
112 See e.g. Rönsch, Itala 431; Bonnet, 637 ff.; Pirson, 208; Vielliard, 224; Bastardas Parera, 130.
113 See especially the examples given by Rönsch.
114 See H-S, 352; K-S, i, 713 f.: Muller, 76 f.; Vielliard, 224. Cf. the example quoted from the Rav. Pap.
115 Hence statements of the second type were favoured by the legal language: see e.g. Daube, 37 ff.
1 16 See e.g. Vaananen, Introduction 137 f.
117 Cf. Politzer, 'Correctness' 213.
118 Compare the remodelled future periphrases -urus ero for -urus sum , and - urus fore for -urus esse (H-S, 3 12).
119 See Bastardas Parera, 127 ff.
120 E. g. Vielliard, 158; Pirson, 209.
121 Cf. e.g. Bonnet, 641 ff. on Gregory of Tours.
122 See pp. 197, 204, 208, 210, 212, 214, 228, 230 (3 times), 232, 290 (twice), 292 (twice), 314, 316.
123 p. 204 (A.D. 552).
158
124 pp. 172, 174 (3 times), 240, 244, 288, 290, 312, 316 (twice), 348.
125 On the priority of occisus fuerat to occisus fuit , see also H-S, 322.
126 The pluperfect and future perfect are above all tenses of subordinate clauses. Hence it is not surprising
that the new periphrases are attested mainly in subordinate clauses, as Leumann (192 f.) points out. But
they are by no means restricted to such clauses (in II note 38 and 65).
127 39, 41 (3 times), 43 (twice), 44 (twice), 47 etc. Note that at 74 the deponent form of meridior is also
preserved, though the verb is already active in Suetonius: TLL VIII.842.73 ff. Cf. It. merrigiare.
128 See TLL 1.1989.31 ff.
129 On which see TLL V.2.983.58 ff.
130 Thomas, 200 ff.; E-T, 239, 378.
131 E-T, loc. cit.
132 E-T, loc.cit .; cf. Garey, 102 f.
133 See e.g. Elcock, 142. On the phonetic factors which further motivated the loss of the imperfect subjunctive,
see Thomas, 222.
1 34 Thomas, 220 ff.
135 This example is quoted by Thomas, 222. For more examples, see Moignet, i, 156.
136 Woodcock, 152.
137 Habuisset and fuisset, which account for three of our five examples, are common elsewhere, and the
indicatives habuerat and fuerat are also frequent ïoihabebat and erat (K-S, i, 140 f.; Blase, 218 ff., 229;
cf. OFr auret <habuerat and furet < fuerat). In earlier Latin, where the pluperfect of these two verbs
occurs for the imperfect, the illogicality often seems due to the fact that the author is unconsciously
influenced by the dynamic verb which might have led to the state expressed by sum or habeo. E.g. at
B. Afr. 34.5 ład Ruspinam, ubi Caesar castra habuerat, incólumes pervenerunť, posuerat would have been
perfectly logical, as a dynamic verb expressing anteriority in the past. And at B. Hisp. 13.7 'adversariorum
qui in ea turre fuerant quinqué deiecti sunt* vénérant would have been normal. Such contaminations of
thought, if frequent in popular Latin, may have caused habuisset - haberet and fuisset = esset to establish
themselves in speech before the structural factors had brought about a complete revolution in the subjunctive
system.
138 Thielmann, 168 ff.; H-S, 312; Grandgent, 56 ff.; Vossler59; Löfstedt, Synt. ii, 63 ff.
139 On the chronology of the displacement of the future in -am and that in - bo , see H-S, 312.
140 H-S, 312; Grandgent, 49, 56; Vossler, 59; Salonius, 282.
141 See e.g. Väänänen, Introduction 148.
142 H-S, 312.
143 There is a second finite periphrasis at 89 ('quod facturus es, rex, facito citius'), but it may express intention
rather than simple futurity.
144 H-S, 307 ff.
145 Väänänen, Inscript. Pomp. 123 f.
146 H-S, 357 f.
147 H-S, 314.
148 Posner, 189.
159
149 Cf. Taylor, 128 f.
150 For the colloquial repetition of a verbum dicendi in the description of a conversation, see Plaut. Mil. 61 ff.;
P.Mich, viii 471.10 (a letter of Terentianus; dico occurs 3 times in one line).
151 E.g. 5.3.23, 5.3.25, 5.3.26, 5.4.1, 5.4.10, 5.4.15 (twice), 5.4.27, 5.4.33. Cf. e.g. Greg. Hist. Franc. 2.9;
Fredegar, p. 126.8.
152 See Mommsen's Index ,591.
153 On reflexive-deletion, see H-S, 295 f.
154 REW 5592; cf. Vaananen, Introduction 126.
155 See e.g. Lofstedt, Per. 35 f.; Väanänen, Introduction 126.
156 M^rland, 173 f.
157 Similar uncertainty may have motivated the periphrasis valde dissimiles at Einhard, Vita Karoli 15. Cf.
Vit. Patr. 5.2.7 dives valde.
158 On double gradation, see e.g. H-S, 166 f.; M^rland, 175. Note, for example, Vit. Patr. 3.30 valde optimis.
159 In both places Rec. B omits omnino.
160 See E-T, 166 for examples.
161 On appositional adjectives, see D.L. Bolinger, 'Linear Modification', Pubi. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Am. 67
(1952), 1 1 17 ff.
162 Pinkster, 83 ff.
163 See further H-S, 172.
164 For bibliography, see H-S, loc. cit.
165 See e.g. Lofstedt, Synt. ii, 368 ff.
166 Lofstedt, Synt. '> 86 ff.; Late Latin 131 f.
167 These examples are referred to by Bonnet, 705 n.3.
168 TLLN. 1.883.84.
169 Löfstedt, Synt. i, 88.
170 See the examples quoted above, and see further Mommsen's Index, 534 b.
171 TLL V. 1.884. 30 ff.
172 B. Lofstedt, 257; Bonnet, 384.
173 Some statistics are given by B. Lofstedt, 258.
174 See Liechtenhan's Index, 69 f.
175 In this work il le qui is almost invariable, despite the frequency of is. Note, for example, 37.2 łsi vero iam
tribus noctibus exactis qui res suas quaerit, <si> eas invenerit, ille apud quem inveniuntur, si eas emisse
aut cambiasse dixerit, ipse liceat achramire', where the contrasting uses of ille (determinative) and is (twice)
can be seen. For further instances of ille qui , cf. 1.2, 1.3, 37.1 (twice), 37.3, 40.4, 42.1, 42.2, 44.10, 45.2
(in the vicinity of ei), 46.3, 46.4 (3 times), 46.5 (twice), etc.
176 B. Lofstedt, 264; Meyer-Lubke, iii, §81.
160
177 B. Löfstedt, 261 f.
178 For the literature on the subject, see now B. Löfstedt, 262 f.
179 Ipse qui is also used sporadically for ille qui in the Pact. Leg. Sal. (e.g. 40.7, 44.2, 45.2, 46.1). Note that
these examples are all from the later part of the document, whereas in the early part ille qui is used almost
exclusively. The compiler may have been subject to changes of taste, or there may have been a change of
compilers. For some examples of ipse qui from the Lombard laws, see B. Löfstedt, 262.
180 Cf. Pact. Leg. Sal. 2.19, 3.14, 9.3, 43.1, 45.1; Fredegar p.127.23; Ann. Regni Franc, p.42 (¿7.775).
181 B. Löfstedt, 255 (e.g. Sp. ahora < hac hora , OFr. oan < hoc anno).
182 Bonnet, 326 n. 1; M^rland, 180 f.; Svennung, Pall. 396; Norberg, Synt. Forsch. 236; Herman, Su bord. 90 ff.
183 Cf. Herman, Subord. 90.
184 Cf. Norberg, Synt. Forsch. 232; Herman, Subord. 88 ff.
185 Norberg, Synt. Forsch. 240; Herman, Subord. 94.
186 See further Herman, Subord. 89.
187 H-S , 574.
188 See Herman, Subord. 33 ff. on the various factors underlying the replacement of the acc. c. infln.
189 Svennung, Pall. 396; Herman, Subord. 95.
190 Quoted by Svennung, loc. cit.
191 Note that the example of propter quod quoted from Oribasius by M0rland, 180 ('evacuat ea quae sunt
superflua in corpore, propter quod spiritus fortiter commovetur') corresponds to Ôià + acc. (nominal)
(6iA rr¡v rov 7tv€vhclto<; ioxvpàv Kwriow). Clearly propter is prepositional, and the noun-clause intro-
duced by quod stands as its object just as tt'v . . . KÍvr'oiv stands as the object of the preposition ôiá .
192 Svennung, /te//. 505; Norberg, Syn t. Forsch. 240.
193 And certainly in the expression postea quod, quod must be temporal.
194 Haag, 885; Herman, Subord. 67 n.l.
195 H-S, 599; Löfstedt, Spâtlat. Stud. 20 ff.; Verm. Stud. 52 ff.; Per. 334; Mdrland, 170 f.; Svennung, Pall. 392.
196 K-S, ii, 172; E-T, 374.
197 See Pinkster, 173 'Subordinato« are in a sense prepositions of sentences' (quoting K-S).
198 Quoted by M^rland, 170 n. 2.
199 On this usage, see e.g. M^rland, 186. It is found as early as Celsus (Wölfflin, 'Usque' 63).
200 It may be true that for practical purposes usque here = usque dum (so M^rland, loc.cit .), but this is a mis-
leading description of the usage.
201 H-S, 489.
202 Löfstedt, Per. 286 f.
203 H-S, 489.
204 4.2.13,4.2.14,4.2.25.
161
205 H-S, 489; Bonnet, 484 f.; Ahlquist, 56; LbYstedt, Per. 286 f.; Svennung, Pall. 505 n.5; Ernout, A spec ts
201. See also REW 204 {ad ubi> OSp. ado , Ástur, aú ).
206 For the best modern discussion of this use of quare ( > Fr. car , etc.), see Herman, łO/r, quare, quomodo '
207 Löfstedt, Per. 324; H-S, 541 f.
208 See Herman, op. cit. 371 f. on the various explanations of the usage.
209 Cf. Herman, op.cit. 373 f.
210 Woodcock, 187.
211 Woodcock, 188.
212 H-S, 613 f.; Herman, Subord. 60 f.
213 The concessive usage does not appear to be dealt with by H-S. See TLL V. 1.2220.77 ff. For the temporal
usage concerned, see TLL V. 1.2229.79 ff.
214 Watkins, 129.
215 It is worth noting that at first itaque was placed first word in its clause, but as the original function of the
-que was forgotten the word achieved some mobility: Marouzeau, L'ordre iii, 120 ff.
216 H-S, 475 f.; Norberg, Beitrage 92 ff.; Eklund, 184 ff. Ideoque is the most notable example: see Lbfstedt,
Verm. Stud. 36 ff.; Tert. 96 f.
217 See above, p. 63.
218 The latter 3 times in the expressions cum praesertim or cum maxime.
219 There is no point in treating separately the reinforcement by -que of conjunctions and of adverbs. I there-
fore include some adverbial examples in a section on conjunctions.
220 H-S, 474.
221 H-S, 577.
222 Krebs-Schmalz, i, 62.
223 Posner, 222 ff. Similarly the subordinating conjunctions of Romance usually reflect compound words,
whereas the conjunctions of classical Latin are mostly indissoluble (Herman, Subord. 20 ff.).
224 H-S, 497 f.
225 On the use of particles in two late texts, Ernout, Aspects 200 f. and Mßrland, 158 ff. are worth consulting.
226 On the comparative frequency of at and sed , see H-S, 487.
227 This usage has early precedents.
228 H-S, 490 (on e.g. Jordanes).
229 E.g. 11.6, 17.6, 27.18, 27.20, 27.21, 27.22, 27.24, 27.32, 28.3, 29.2, 29.5, 29.6, 32.2, 32.3, 32.4, 35.8,
39.2, 40.9.
230 Cf. TLL V.2.771.31 ff.; H-S, 512.
231 Cf. TLL V.2.773.15 ff.
232 Cf. H-S, 513.
233 For the adversative use, cf. H-S, 508.
162
234 H-S, 509.
235 For the adversative use, cf. H-S, 505 f.
236 7XZ, VII.2.5 35.50 ff.
237 I include here a small selection of adverbs or adverbial expressions of syntactic interest. Others will be
treated briefly in Chapter V.
238 For further examples from Tertullian, see Hoppe, 113.
239 Further examples of the adjectival use of retro are to be found in Paucker, 'Hieron.' 565; and Ronsch,
Itala 343 f.
240 For numerous examples, see K-S, i, 218; H-S, 171; Riemann, 242 ff.; Svennung, Pall 398 f.
241 In the above works it is assumed that there is one single category, that of adverbs employed as attributes of
nouns.
242 See H-S for examples. The use of adverbs in the predicate after esse deserves fu
for it is unsatisfactory simply to assert that the construction is colloquial (see Hof
166). See p. 92.
243 See E-M, s.v. on the development. Cf. frugi (E-M, s.v.). Palam also appears in the attributive position
during the Empire (e.g. Tac. Ann. 1.3.3, 11.22.1, 14.32.1, 16.5.1).
244 Quoted by K-S, i, 218 as an example of adverb for adjective.
245 K-S, loc. cit.
246 Nisbet, 65. Nisbet quotes Cic. Pis. 23 praevaricatore quondam , which is parallel to the above examples.
247 K-S, loc. cit.
248 K-S, loc.cit.
249 K-S, loc. cit.
250 H-S, 171.
251 Cf. Salonius, 125.
252 Ver found little favour in popular Latin, probably because of its monosyllabic form (but see REW 9213).
It was replaced by primum tempus (Fr. printemps: REW 6753a, 67 54), prima vera (It., Sp., Pg. primavera:
REW 9213, 6754), and also prima aetas (Baehrens, 22).
253 REW 4126.
254 Bambeck, 2.
255 The latter example is quoted by Bambeck, loc.cit.
256 For the full expression tempus aestivum , see Marc. Em p. 25. 15.
257 REW 5434. For mane , which survived in old French and elsewhere, see REW 5294.
258 See also Rò'nsch, Itala 103.
259 On Anthimus, see Svennung, Pall. 292 n.l.
260 See Oder's Index, 360.
163
261 See e.g. Itin. Ant. Plac. 46, Vit. Patr. 5.5.12, Apic. 1.12.6 (cf. diu at 1.12.3 in a similar context), Fredegax
p. 92.14, Lib. Hist. Franc, p.291.4 ,Act. Petr. c. Sim. 17. For molt tens, see Lofstedt, Synt. ii, 42.
262 On these two expressions (which are as early as the Bell. Hisp. ), see Lofstedt, Synt. ii, 41 f.
263 See Svennung, Pall. 292 n.l.
264 On the latter 5 expressions, see Wölfflin, Tempus* 595 f. Elsewhere OQuadrigarius' 11 f.) Wölfflin also
draws attention to the expression magno tempore in Claudius Quadrigarius (frg. 81).
265 For these expressions, see Thielmann, 'Usque* 69 f. Add usque ibidem (Schol. Juv. 3.1 1), usque ubi
{Itin. Theod. 3, Itin. Ant. Plac. 20), usque tertio (Ben. Reg. 29), usque quater (Ben. Reg. 65).
266 H-S, 283.
267 H-S, 277.
268 I again restrict myself to certain words of particular syntactic interest.
269 REW 3431. See also the remarks of H-S, 230 f.
270 H-S, 230.
271 The adverbial use of extra can indeed be quoted from all periods {TLL V.2.2052.13 ff.), but it occurs
predominantly in poetry and artificial prose genres.
272 TLL VII.2.43.59 ff.
273 TLL V. 2.205 2.71 ff.
274 It is misleading to describe them as vulgar ( TLL VI. 1.1034.75,82), for they were as current in educated
Latin as in the lower social dialects.
275 On this process, see e.g. H-S, 278 (on intus ). For the development of an adverbial expression {per giro)
into a preposition in late Latin, see Lofstedt, Per. 66 f.
276 H-S, 230.
277 TLLV. 2.2056.1 3 ff.
278 8.3, 11.1, 11.2, 12.1, 43.3.
279 21.1, 23, 24.2, 24.3, 25.7, 26.1, 27.31, 38.12.
280 Foris 8, 25; extra 5.
281 1.16, 1.40, 3.15, 3.16.
282 Foris 3, 147, 193, 221, 256, 264, 300, 379.
283 Foris pp. 340 (3 times), 342 (twice).
284 Foris 3, 43.
285 Foris, 8, 28.
286 Foris 593.
287 Stefenelli, 86.
288 Numerous examples of hoc est and id est + acc. are collected by Norberg, Synt. Forsch. 97 ff. Cf. E-T,
24; Carlton, 84.
164
289 For the formation, cf. hactertus, eatenus etc. (see E-M, s.v. tenus). On nullatenus , see Hofmann, 'Beiträge'
103; Ronsch, Itala 231. On expressive alternatives to non in popular Latin, see Hofmann, Umgangs. 81.
290 Quoted by Goelzer, 'Saint Aviť 24.
291 It is instructive to observe the practice of Livy, who uses both words frequently: Packard, s.v.
292 See e.g. the examples from the Vit. Patr. quoted by Hofmann, loc.cit.
293 At Bell. Hisp. 4.2 nequaquam is used with possum. In Eng. can 't and cannot occur freely with a variety
of stress and tonal patterns expressing degrees of negation.
294 K-S, i, 718; Krebs-Schmalz, s.v. veto. But more usual would have been an infinitival complement.
295 H-S, 535; E-T, 149.
296 On nec and neque , see Lofstedt, Synt. i, 331 ff.
297 Lofstedt, op. cit. 333.
298 H-S, 803; E-T, 154; Lofstedt, Synt. ii, 209 ff.
299 van Oorde, 135 a-b.
300 H-S, 522; Svennung, Pall. 497.
301 Norberg, Beiträge 55. See further Bastardas Parera, 3.
302 Norberg, op. cit. 55 f.
303 Bonnet, 392 f.; Vielliard, 155; Norberg, Beiträge 57 f.
304 Quoted by Taylor, 49.
305 Quoted (among other examples) by Bonnet, 393.
306 Norberg, Beitrage 58 quotes just such an example.
307 So Norberg, loc.cit.
308 Synt. i, 1 ff.; cf. E-T, 128.
309 Meyer-Lubke, iii, § 347.
310 H-S, 433 f.; E-T, 139; VSänänen, Introduction 160; Inscript. Pomp. 114; Bastardas Parera, 9 f.
311 H-S, 436; E-T, 139 f.
312 Bonnet, 348.
313 For various examples of oblata, see Vielliard, 135; Sas, 339. On the phenomenon see in general Bonnet,
350 ff.; Schon, pass.
314 Seep. 54.
315 See TLL VI. 1 14. 1 ff. for facio in.
316 Tamassia, 15 suggests that our author may have had this passage in mind, but this possibility is unlikely.
317 Bendz, op.cit. 39.
318 Thielmann, Tacere' 180 ff.
319 Thielmann, op. cit. 185.

165
320 Thielmann, op.cit. 183.
321 H-S, 171.
322 The use of fieri as copula can be seen if we compare with this passage Cic. Red. Sen. 18 'palam factum erat*
or Plaut. Amph. 876 'fiat palam'
323 See, however, Norberg, Synt. Forsch. 56 for the construction in classical poetry.
324 For these and other examples, and for discussion of the usage, see Norberg, op.cit. 57 ff.
325 As Lofstedt does, loc.cit.
326 H-S, 293 f.
327 H-S, 44, 57; Svennung, Pall. 198 ff.; '&änänenyInscript. Pomp. 117; Uddholm, 101.
328 Svennung, /to//. 198.
329 See e.g. H-S, 28; Lofstedt, Per. 50 f. The nominative is the regular case of apposition in late texts.
330 On the relative frequency of object clauses and the acc. c. infin. in a variety of late authors, see in
particular Herman, Subord. 33. Already in the Vit. Patr. object clauses predominate (Salonius, 322 ff.
and especially 325).
331 Salonius, 322.
332 H-S, 355.
333 Cf. e.g. 5.3.19, 5.4.11, 5.4.13, 5.4.16, 5.4.24, 5.4.26, etc.
334 On eo quod , which perhaps occurs first in the Per . (though the dating of that work is problematical), see
Lofstedt, Per. 119. Cf. Herman, Subord. 47 ff. Herman (4 1 f.) shows that in the use of quod and quia
there are regional variations apparent from the sixth century onwards. Quod is preferred in Gaul, quia in Italy
335 See H-S, 577 f. on the literature and for discussion of the problems.
336 Salonius, 300 f.
337 See Herman, Subord. 42 f.
338 Svennung, Oros. 88.
339 See Wessner's Index, 326.
340 H-S, 575, 586; E-T, 348 f.
341 There are only two exceptions, one of which may be a special case: Ael. 2.4 'putant dictum, vel quia
mortua matre et ventre caeso sit natus, vel quod cum magnis crinibus sit utero parentis effusus, vel quod
oculis caesiis et ultra humanuni morem vigueriť. Quia , in the vicinity of two instances of quod, has
probably been chosen for variation. Cf. Tac. 15.4.
342 Lessing, 536 a-b.
343 Lessing, 535 f.
344 I can offer no explanation of this phenomenon.
345 Diez, 1007.
346 See e.g. Bonnet, 661 f.; Svennung, Oros. 89.
347 See above, p. 35.
348 See above, p. 148 n. 105.
166
349 Lessing, 538 f. Predictably it is quod which is used in those object clauses containing a subjunctive verb.
350 Haag, 929.
351 Note that Haag (loc. cit) can find no principle governing the choice between subjunctive and indicative.
352 H-S, 344 f.
353 For mitto + infin., see TLL VIII.1189.71 ff.
354 Thielmann, Tacere' 191 ff.
355 Dico ut (= iubeo) had undoubtedly been a colloquialism in earlier Latin. In the Republic it is restricted
mainly to Pļautus and Cicero's letters ( TLL V. 1.986.69 ff.).
356 Cf. Herman, Subord. 75, 99 ff.
357 For examples from Anthimus, see Liechtenhan's Index, 78.
358 E.g. Max. 28.1, Gall. 16.1.
359 Grandgent, 52 f.
360 H-S, 547 f.
361 See VaàYianen, Introduction 178 on its absence from the A fra in contexts in which it is used in the Vulgate.
Similarly there is no example in the letters of Terentianus (P.Mich, viii 467-471).
362 This structure is sometimes found in the classical period, but it usually has special emphasis (H-S, 139 f.).
363 Se vivo is a common formula of the sepulchral language (see VãanSnen, Introduction 179).
364 Quoted by Norberg, Synt. Forsch. 98.
365 See e.g. Haag, 903; Löfstedt, Per. 292; Vielliard, 194; Hoogterp, 'Peres du Jura* 182; Norberg, Synt.
Forsch. 234; Väänänen, Introduction 180.
366 See Norberg, Synt. Forsch. 98 for further examples.
367 See further Löfstedt, Per. 291 f.
167
Notes to Chapter V Vocabulary
1 This chapter is concerned mainly with semantics and lexical change in late Latin. A few notable formations
are also singled out for discussion. The evidence concerning word formation provided by the text is not such
as to justify a systematic morphological treatment of the subject.
2 Ronsch, Sem. Beitr. i, 66; Bonnet, 291; LòYstedt, Per. 114. See further below. See also Vict. Vit. 2.14,
Pact. Leg. Alamann. p.25.11, Edict. Roth. 145, Rav. Pap. pp.176, 304. Numerous examples from Cass. Var.
are noted in Mommsen's Index, 585.
3 See G. Härtel, CSEL vi, Index, 709. For further concrete examples, see Bonnet, loc. cit.
4 REW 173. Fr. aide (Strasbourg Oaths) is a derivative of aider , which in turn is a reflex of adiutore (Bloch
and Wartburg, s. v. aider).
5 Religious examples of solacium are very rare. There is one case quoted by Ronsch, Sem. Beitr. i, 66, and
another is found at Ann. Regni Franc, p.88 (û.791). The remarks of Blaise (183 f.) give a false impression.
6 Cf. the analogous cum eorum adiu torio at 8. 15.
7 Serm. 1.18, 1.20, 6.5, 8.4, 8.5, 12.4, 13.1, 13.4, 69.3; cf. cum ipsius (= dei ) adiutorio at 11.6, 12.2, 12.3.
8 Both examples of solacium = 'aid* in Victor (2. 14, 3.33) refer to human assistance. Another work showing
much the same distinction of usage is Cass. Var., in which auxilium is constantly employed of divine aid,
solacium of secular (see Mommsen's Index, s. v. ).
9 It should be added that another register in which the semantic change did not occur was the medical. In late
medical writings auxilium and adiutorium (= either 'help' or 'remedy') are preferred almost exclusively: see
e.g. Diosc. Lat. x, pp.189.17, 191.5, 195.29, 196.3, 241.18, Marc. Emp. 8.3, Mul Chir. 2, 3, 27, 28, 30, 32.
10 In addition to these clear-cut parallels to our passage various passages describing similar situations could also
be quoted (Cass. Hist. Trip. 8.13 p.lll9A, 11.18 p. 1200 D, Rufin. Interpr. IosephiAnt. 7.6, 8.14, Fredegar
pp. 124. 15, 138.25, ^4««. Regni Franc, p.6 {a. 748)).
11 Cf. Isid. Etym. 20.2.34, ps.-Theod. Prise, p.482.
12 On this process, see H-S, 436 f.
13 A large number of parallels will be found in Cramer. See also Bonnet, 274 f.; Mommsen's Index to Cass.
Var., 569. There is an early example at Plin. Nat. 28.4 (on which see Wackernagel, i, 93).
14 H-S, 21; Wackernagel, i, 92 f.
15 There are various usages parallel to populi in late Latin {plebes , gentes, plebeculae ), examples of which have
been collected by Cramer. On 'a<fc and 'aot, see Wackernagel, i, 92 f.
16 Cameron, 79.
17 See e.g. TLL III. 1232.75 ff.
18 42 (twice), 43 (twice), 49, 67, 70, 71 (twice), 72 (twice), 73 (twice), 83, 93.
19 See Mommsen's Index, s. v.
20 He does employ civitas thus once. Cf. 11.42 civitatem Constantinopolim.
21 However in the O.T., where Jerome was not merely following the Vet. Lat., urbs is frequent: see Lundstrom,
105 f.
22 For such ellipse, see n.38.
23 For another example, see Ronsch, Sem. Beitr. ii, 33.
24 Cometes was habitually derived by the grammarians from coma : see Serv. auct. Aen. 10.272, CGL V. 182.2.
168
25 On the rationale of such a popular etymology, see TLL III. 1782.20 f.
26 CGL IV. 2 12. 34, 586.26, 595.22, 603.4.
27 Carlton, 'Lexicology' 77; REW 972.
28 Carlton, 'Lexicology' 76 f.
29 For corpusculum indicating smallness, see TLL IV. 1025.75 ff.
30 Baehrens, 21 f.
31 Lundstrò'm, 96.
32 Ernout, Philologica ii, 64.
33 REW 3736, 3737.
34 CGL W. 298.19.
35 Stefenelli, 1 14 f.
36 REW 9291. It is already common in Juvenal, and eventually largely ousted senex.
37 Though not used exclusively in this way. In the SHA parvulus has a wide range of reference and indeed out-
numbers parvus (if the comparative minor and superlative minimus are excepted).
38 On such ellipse, see Löfstedt, Synt. ii, 242.
39 E.g. SHA, Tyr. 27.1, Tac. 6.8, Itin Ant. Plac. 47, Einhard, Vita Karoli 7.
40 TLL VI. 1.1214.12 ff.
41 REW 3460, 3461. When two words come into rivalry, it is normal either that one should fal
that the two should become differentiated in meaning (Samuels, 65). See further on impleo a
p. 118.
42 See the numerous late examples quoted by Rönsch, Itala 154 ff. See also on conforto and pactuor pp. 109 f.,
115 f.
43 E.g. bonatus, *bellatus, ma la tus, magnatus (Stefenelli, 138 f.).
44 The neuter terre mota (84) may have emerged by the second process (see, p. 23). See also p. 106 on
perfectus.
45 See Collin, pass. ; Alexander, 9 ff.
46 Cf. Grandgent, 21. For a list of participles used in the feminine as nouns, see, e.g. Paucker, SHA 70 ff.
47 Sofer, 127.
48 Sofer, 164. Formátům is also attested in the sense 'creation* ( TLL VI. 1.11 10.23).
49 Benveniste, Noms ď agent 96 ff.
50 Lundstrom, 192.
51 TLL VII.2.706.75 ff.
52 Strictly iusso might be taken as the ablative of iussum, but it clearly results from the acquisition
the second declension ablative morph i -o } rather than from any wide currency of iussum .
53 For iussio from book 2 onwards, see pp.78.12, 81.13, 132.1, 163.19; for iusso, 79.6, 81.21, 108.
125.9, 126.24, 131.26, 139.33, 141.8, 141.25, 146.24, 146.27, 147.24, 162.1, 164.24.
169
54 Iussu 1.42, 3.50; iussio 3.26.
55 Iussu pp.288 (twice), 290 (twice); iussio pp.174 (twice), 176, 182, 292.
56 5, 26 (abl.), 31 (twice, once abl.), 33 (abl.), 44, 67 (abl.).
57 pp.72.6, 72.7, 83.10, 83.16, 100.4.
58 18 (abl.), 35 (twice, abl.), 59 (3 times), 64, 83 (abl.).
59 I refer now to the unrestricted use of iussum rather than to the ablative alone.
60 Up to the end of book 5 iussio occurs at 2.29, 3.2, 4.15, 4.46, 5.14, 5.26, 5.33, 5.36; and iussum at 5.4.
61 2.42, 3.17, 4.7, 4.12, 4.46, 5.18, 5.19, 5.26, 5.27, 5.39.
62 On the productivity of -tio, see Cooper, 3 ff. See also the statistics given by Paucker, SHA 36 f.
63 This and similar expressions are common in medical works (cf. e.g. pari pondere Marc. Emp. 2. 17, aequale
pondus Marc. Emp. 4.67).
64 E.g. pp.20, 26, 27, 35, 39, 40.
65 See pp.45, 47, 58, 64, 67, 72 (twice), 76, 91, 101, 182, 254. For the other phrase see pp.54, 57, 89, 177, 237.
66 See Rose's Index, i.V. causatio.
67 See Rose's Index, s. v. vulnus.
68 See e.g. pp.32, 58. In the latter passage the expression post curationem may be compared with ante curam
at p. 20.
69 Cf. p. 149 łciborum humanior ordinario . . . ordinanda eriť with p. 151 'ordo eis cyclicus ordinandus est'.
70 See Adams, 'Present participle' 129 f. and especially 134.
71 Adjectives indicating poverty in a variety of languages are derived from words for 'unfortunate': cf. Buck,
Selected Synonyms 782 f.; cf. TLL VIII.1104.25 ff. (e.g. Plaut. Capt 583 ,Rud. 485, Cic. Verr. 3.100).
72 Cf. xpTjaróç, and the similar development of idoneus (Rönsch, Sem. Beitr. ii, 18).
73 Meister, 35; LÖfstedt, Synt. ii, 435; Late Latin 102.
74 On the development of ON rikr, Dan. rig* Sw. rik, OE rice , and of Bret, pinvidig , Welsh pende fig, see Buck,
op. cit. 781.
75 TLL 11.2087.55 ff.
76 TLL VII. 1.236.34 ff.
77 TLL VI.3.2905.4 ff.; Rönsch, Itala 332; Sem. Beitr. ii, 17.
78 TLL VI.3. 2897.5 ff.
79 TLL VI.3. 290 1.54 ff.
80 TLL VIII. 13 1.40 ff.
81 Fraenkel, Horace 293 n.3.
82 On the extension of the first conjugation in late Latin, see Ernout, Aspects 15 1 ff.
83 Gigno survives in Romance only in one dialect ( REW 3760a).
170
84 X, pp.189.21, 198.19, 204.18, 204.19, 212.3, 220.11, 235.25, 244.6.
85 Liechtenhan, Index, 68.
86 E.g. pp.49. 18, 97.22, 144.25, 164.15.
87 16, 157, 188, 191, 342, 348.
88 pp. 9, 50, 78 (twice), 112 (twice), 132, 133, 145, 148, 149, 150, 155, 157 (twice), 159, 160 (twice), 168,
192 (twice), 198, 222, 226 (twice), 227, 229 (3 times), 230, 232, 233, 235, 236 (twice), 241; cf .gigno 112.
89 TLL IV. 250. 20.
90 TLL IV. 2 19. 29 ff.
91 REW 3457.
92 Robustus is also common in the Vulgate, though only in the O.T. It seems to refer to vigour
physical strength (note the expression arborem . . . robustam at Dan. 4:17). For its Romance
ÄFW7356.
93 On toxupóç, see Bauer, s.v.
94 Bauer, s. v.
95 Conforto : 2, 4, 5, 7 (twice), 10, 17, 20, 28, 30, 33; confirmo : 1 (twice), 2, 6, 21.
96 1.50, 3.22, 3.23, 3.28, 3.40; cf. 2.53.
97 pp. 32, 106, 108, 112, 212, 296, 306; cf. 130, 204.
98 1,2,48, 110; cf. 51.
99 TLL IV. 25 1.76.
100 Vis. 3.13 y Mandat. 12.6.
101 On this semantic field, see Adams, 'Put-throw'.
102 On the text, see p. 18.
103 REW 4568.
104 See Adams, 'Put-throw' 149.
105 Adams, op. cit. 142 ff., 158 ff.
106 On ambulo and vado as replacements for eo , see e.g. Löfstedt, Synt. ii, 38 f.
107 36, 38, 42, 50, 52 (twice), 53 (twice), 62, 66 (twice), 91.
108 See Heraeus, 'Soldatensprache' 270.
109 Cf. G. Cinque, 'Fillmore's semantics of "come" revisted', Lingua e Stile 1 (1972), 575 ff.
110 The decisive argument against the view that the use of venio in these passages is motivated by the desire to
avoid monosyllabic forms is the fact that completive venio is also common in the plural (e.g. Tac. Hist. 3.60.1
'duces partium ut Carsulas venere').
Ill Excepting that at 46, in a quotation.
1 12 Cf. du Cange, v, 157 b.
113 Adams, 'Present participle' 116 ff. and especially 132 ff. (on late Latin).
171
114 Adams, op. cit. 136.
115 Though word-choice is determined by such haphazard factors that even the most vulgar and uneducated
writer may pick up and use incessantly a recherché word. Pergo is common in the Vit. Patr.
116 There are a number of examples in Hegesippus: see V. Ussani's Index in CSEL lxvi, 2, s.v.
117 Cf. e.g. Fredegar p. 145.9, Vita Caesar. Arel. 1.16, Vit. Patr. 5.10.97, 5.13.1 ( suscipio and also susceptio).
118 Tidner, 5; Wölfflin, Testus' 174.
119 See Plin. Epist. 5.6.24, 5.6.36.
120 Cf. e.g. Cypr. Epist. 45.2, Cass. Var. 1.35.2, 4.1.3, 4.27.1, Theod. Prise. Faen. 65.
121 Rönsch, Sem. Beitr. iii, 3. Note also that at Schol. Juv. 2.124 Juvenal's sumit is glossed by accipiebant,
and that at Pass. Andr. 10 accipe translates Xaße.
122 Tidner, 5.
123 Liechtenhan, Index 62.
124 On excepto , see e.g. B. Lofstedt, 215 n. 2.
125 A comprehensive treatment of the semantic field would also have to take into account prendo , which gives the
Romance terms for 'take* (REW 6736), and sumo , which is scarcely represented in Romance ( REW 8448).
Accipio = 'take* could not have been long-lived, for the reflexes of the word are more specialized (REW 73).
The senses of suscipio discussed here are also unimportant for Romance (REW 8481). We thus have to do here
with a temporary situation.
126 E-M, s. v.
Ill Cf. habeo = łsay' 'call' at Sail. Hist. frg. 2.5. 'Tartessum . . . quam nunc Tyrii mutato nomine Gaddir habenť.
128 Cf. e.g. Cic. Tusc. 1.28, Sen. Epist. 90.5, Col. 3.8.3, Mela 1.17, 2.124.
129 See e.g. Lofstedt, Per. 270 f.
130 TLL VI. 1.544.40 ff.
131 Souter (s.v.) quotes Tert. adv. Marc. 48.
132 TLL IV. 1173.31 ff. Cf. crepulus zt Mul. Olir. 664: 'crepulae ungulae fiunť.
133 REW 6015; cf. Posner, 217 on the formation.
134 REW 7129.
135 The following examples are taken from the TLL , s.v. memor.
136 Heraeus, 'Memoť 560 ff.
137 Cf. Nettleship, Contributions 543; Souter, s.v.
138 Heraeus, 40.
139 Itala 467. He could have added the simplex ructuo , which occurs alongside ructo in late Latin (Lewis and
Short, s. v. ).
140 Ernout, Morphologie 199.
141 Ernout, op. cit. 179.
172
142 There is a very extensive, though incomplete, collection of denominatives in Paucker, 'Wörterbildungs-
geschichte ' 261 ff. Most of the words listed here have been taken from Paucker, though a few have
been added from Gradenwitz.
143 Cf. edictus ( TLL V.2.68.36 f.) alongside edictum. At a time when the fourth declension was ceasing to exist
in Vulgar Latin, there was a hypercorrective attempt to preserve it in more learned Latin.
144 Bonnet, 473.
145 Lewis and Short (s.v.) quote examples only from Virgil and Propertius.
146 pp. 118, 131, 140(3 times), 150, 156, 157, 161, 182, 210,212, 222(3 times), 230, 231; cf. 254.
147 These examples are additional to those given by Lewis and Short, s.v.
148 Superpono is common enough in the early Empire (Lewis and Short, s.v.), but it becomes particularly
frequent in late medical Latin. For examples from Marcellus Empiricus, see Liechtenhan's Index, 792.
149 Lewis and Short (s.v. ) quote a few examples from the early Empire.
150 For further examples from Marcellus, see Liechtenhan's Index, 792.
151 This word is not mentioned by Lewis and Short.
152 M^rland, 92.
153 See Paucker, SHA 55.
154 Lewis and Short quote two examples of this word, but in the special senses łtoss up', 'spring over'. For the
other sense, see Pact. Leg. Sal. 19.3 'si quis alteri maleficium super iactave řiť.
155 It is possibly misleading to set up this separate category. Most of the examples could be explained otherwise
(as completive: see below), and we may be falsely ascribing to the verb itself the semantic components of the
whole passage.
156 On which see the thorough discussion by Grassi, in Strunk, Probleme 368 ff.; see also above, p. 111.
157 Müller, 139 f.
158 Thomas, Préverbe ad 1 2.
159 This contextual restriction is admitted by Thomas, loc. cit.
160 TLL 1.686.22 ff.
161 H-S, 262 f.; Löfstedt, Per. 103.
162 On this phrase see H-S, 266. B reads ex totum.
163 See H-S, 263.
164 On which see H-S, loc. cit.
165 H-S, loc. cit.
166 It is arguable that usque a could be substituted for usque ad at 83, but the change is probably not necessary.
167 49, 53 (twice), 55, 76, 95.
168 36, 37 (twice), 39, 47, 51, 60 (twice), 62, 71, 77, 84, 85, 93.
169 Cf. Rolfe ad loc.
170 H-S, 242.
173
171 H-S, 520.
172 For examples of this usage in the Per. , see van Oorde, 188j.
173 TLL VL1.1302.36 ff.; Löfstedt, Per. 276 ff.
174 Rönsch, Itala 153.
175 Cf. the remarks of M^rland, 163 and Svennung, Comp. Luc. 147 on other late texts. See also Stefenelli,
23 ff. (with special reference to the early history of subinde).
176 H-S, 223; Löfstedt, Per. 74 f.; Stefenelli, 87.
174
Notes to Chapter VI Word Order
1 So Linde, 153 ff.; Marouzeau, L'ordre ii, 47 ff.; Haida, 15 ff. Some unclassified examples of inversion in
Latin are given by E. Richter, Zur Entwicklung der romanischen Wortstellung aus der Lateinischen (Halle
1903), 151 ff.
2 See, for example, for French and Spanish, D.M. Crabb, A Comparative Study of Word Order in Old Spanish
and Old French Prose Works (Catholic University of America, Studies in Romance Languages and Literatures
li, Washington, D.C. 1955); for Provencal, R.L. Pape, Die Wortstellung in der provençalischen Prosa-Literatur
dex XII. und XIII. Jahrhunderts (Jena 1883); and for French alone, L. Wespy, 'Die historische Entwickelung
der Inversion des Subjektes im Französischen und der Gebrauch derselben bei Lafontaine', Zeitschrift fUr
neufranzösische Sprache und Literatur 6 (1884), 150 ff.; L. Foulet, Petite syntaxe de l'ancien français 3
(Paris 1930), 306 ff.; E.H.W. Lerch, Historische französische Syntax iii (Leipzig 1934), 379 ff., 466 ff.:
G. Antoine, La coordination en français i (Paris 1958), 600 ff. For modern French, which is not without
relevance to late Latin, see R. Le Bidois, L'inversion du sujetdans la prose contemporaine, 1900-1950
(Paris 1952); A. Blinkenberg, L'ordre des mots en français moderne (Copenhagen 1928). For further
bibliography, see Paula M. Clifford, Inversion of the Subject in French Narrative Prose from 1500 to the
Present Day (Oxford 1973), 2 ff. After their first citation, these and other works on modern languages
used in this chapter will be referred to by name of author only.
3 'Zur Stellung des Verbums im Altfranzösischen', Zeitschrift für roman. Philol. 16 (1892), 289 ff.
4 See Marouzeau, L 'ordre ii, 93 ff.; iii, 67 ff.; Vol. compi 33 f., 71 ff., 82 ff., 90 f. For some pertinent
observations on Thurneysen's theory, see Ramsden, 6 ff., and especially 14 f. On the question of the verb
as enclitic, see Marouzeau, L ' ordre ii, 92 ff.
5 For the term invertissant , see Clifford, 20 ff.
6 Foulet, 308 ff.; Antoine, 608 ff. For the invertissants operative over a long period in French, see Clifford,
pass. Clifford assumes, however, that et is effective at certain periods as an invertissant. This view has been
challenged by R. Wagner and F. Baulier, 'Contribution à l'étude de l'inversion du sujet après la conjonction
et' Le français moderne 24 (1956), 249 ff.; and especially L. Bergh, 'Quelques réflexions sur l'inversion
après la conjonction et en ancien et en moyen français', Mélanges . . . Michaelsson (Göteborg 1952), 43 ff.
It will be shown below, that, though inversion often occurs after et in late Latin, other determinants have to
be taken into account.
7 For the terminology and a summary of views of this type, see H. Kellenberger, The Influence of Accentuation
on French Word Order (Princeton 1932), 3 ff.
8 A Course in Modern Linguistics (New York 1958), 201; cf. Lyons, 334 ff.
9 'Notes on transitivity and theme in English', JL 3 (1967), 37 ff., 199 ff .'JL 4 (1968), 179 ff.
10 Bergh's article is a notable exception. Wespy and Pape also make some attempt to classify the verbs occurr-
ing in inversion. See also Meyer-Lubke, iii, §747.
11 Even in classical Latin verb-final position had been far more marked in subordinate than in main clauses: see
below, n. 46.
12 Often, for example, the subject has earlier been established as given in the way described above: 7.8 ( vicus ),
12.7 Qocus) ,15.3 (hortus), 16.6 Qapis ), 19.12 {aqua).
13 On the order VSO in Hebrew, see Crabb, 7.
14 4.2, 4.4, 4.8, 10.7, 11.3 (twice), 14.1, 15.4, 20.3 (twice).
15 See van Oorde, 207 ff.
16 Those at the head of their clause or immediately following a conjunction.
175
17 5.6, 5.7, 7.5, 7.7, 10.6 (3 times), 12.10, 13.4, 14.3, 20.4.
18 5.4, 5.7, 7.2, 10.3, 10.4, 14.2, 16.1, 16.3, 19.11.
19 It is worth pointing out that there is no evidence that et operates as an invertissant in the Per. Although et
is sometimes followed by inversion (e.g. 4.3 'et lectus est ipse locus'; 4.4 łet dietus unus psalmus'; 10.7 'et
facta est ibi oratio'; 12.10 'et noluit Deus'; 15.4 'et lecta est ipsa lectio'), various considerations allow us to
reject it as a possible invertissant : (a) Phrases the same as or very similar to those above often occur with the
same inverted order without a preceding et : e.g. 4.4 lectus est ergo et ibi ipse locus'; 4.8 'lectus est etiam
locus'; 14.1 'dietus est etiam psalmus unus' (cf. 10.7, 20.3); (b) Sometimes et links one structure V (pass.)
+ S to another: e.g. 4.4 'lectus est ergo et ibi ipse locus ... et dietus unus psalmus'; 15.4 'facta est oratio et
lecta est ipsa lectio'; 20.3 'facta est oratio et lectus ipse locus'. These examples all point to the lack of in-
fluence of et. The anteposed passive verbs in the first clause of each passage all stand in initial position; the
second clauses are given a parallel structure, and are simply attached by et. Cf. Bergh, 44.
20 There are also 2 examples of inversion with devenio = fio (12, 34).
21 Cf. ib. 'ostensus est michi a sancto episcopo vicus ingens', which in the order of its elements is exactly the
same as the example at 19.18, though it has a passive structure. Note that the agent (< a sancto episcopo)
occupies the same position as the subject ( sanctus episcopus ) at 19.18.
22 Lofstedt, Per. 290 ff. misses the decisive explanation of this usage. For the structure fit oratio (with oratio
in object position but not inflected as an accusative), see e.g. 24.1.
23 In K. Bartsch and L. Wiese, Chrestomathie de l'ancien français (VIIIe -XVe siècles) (Leipzig 1920).
24 The examples are from the selection of Bartsch and Wiese.
25 By Bergh, 48.
26 Bergh (48) points out that, though inversion is common in Villehardouin after et , the nature of the verb
has to be taken into account as a determinant. He shows that frequently the verb is intransitive, but does
not stress sufficiently that it may also be passive.
27 The word order of the Vulgate (N.T.) and Vetus Latina is of course largely determined by that of the Greek
original. The figures indicate that there may have been parallel development of Greek and Latin.
28 Meyer-Lilbke, iii, §747; Wespy, 159 ff.; Antoine, 602 ff.; Bergh, 46 ff.
29 Meyer-Lübke, loc. cit.; Antoine, loc. cit . ; Le Bidois, 19 ff.
30 See e.g. Lyons, 350 ff.
31 Examples from Lyons, 365.
32 Absolute inversion in French occurs mainly with verbs of this class: see above, p. 127 for the verbs con-
cerned.
33 Lyons, 397 ff.
34 Lyons, 322. Note that the copula in Greek and Latin is constantly deleted in the present indicative; it
serves to mark in the surface-structure tenses other than the present, and moods other than the indicative.
35 Lyons, 397 ff.
36 In all the examples of verb of motion (and not simply venio ) + S in II, S is new.
37 If a strong stress were placed on 'here', 'Here is Hamlet' might conceivably answer the question 'Where is
Hamlet? ', but there is no doubt that the more usual answer would be 'Hamlet is here'.
38 Bergh, 44; Antoine, 604.
176
39 In the Itin . Ant. Plac. alongside loc. + est + S we sometimes find a semantically equivalent formula loc,+
video + O: e.g. 44 'ibi enim vidimus pallium lineum'; 45 'in ipso stagno vidimus multitudinem corcodrillorum'.
40 See e.g. L'ófstedt, Per. 146.
41 As we have mentioned, Wackernagel's law had never been more than a tendency in Latin: see above, p. 121.
42 The figure for the Itala can, however, be disregarded, for the Greek version largely determines the order of
the Latin. Ramsden does not analyse the Greek and its influence on the Latin. He also states (30 n.l) that
under the term 'pronoun object* he has included forms of the demonstrative ille but not of hie (or presumably
is), which are scarcely reflected in Romance. In the following discussion I consider all the demonstratives.
Even if is and hie were not in use in the spoken registers at the time in question, I have found no evidence
that they were positioned differently from ille in texts which employ all three demonstratives.
43 Cf. 168, 177 (twice), 182, 186, 187, 190, 192, 199, 200 (twice), 216, 247.
44 Cf. e.g. 2.21 (twice), 2.23 (3 times).
45 The reflexive pronouns are omitted from this discussion.
46 Linde, 154 ff.
47 Ramsden, 79, 88, 92 f., 98.
48 See Ramsden, 43 f. and 114 for statistics from his four texts. It is of note that the Itala favours postposition
even in subordinate clauses. This may well be a non-Latin characteristic.
49 5.8, 7.4 (twice), 7.5, 12.6, 19.5, 19.9. I have also found 6 examples of the pattern verbum dicendi + pronoun
+ object clause or direct speech (12.3, 12.7, 12.9, 13.4, 15.5, 19.6). Since the latter element virtually plays
the role of object of the verb, these examples have not been treated as exceptional
50 E.g. Itin. Ant. Plae. 8, 18, 22, 37, 39, 46; Lib. Hist. Franc, pp.242.16, 243.20, 243.23, 248.25, 248.28,
249.1, 249.9, 255.22 (twice), etc.
51 Cf. 44 'gra tias agerenť. In the Per. gratias precedes ago 12 times and follows it only once.
52 Anteposition: 40 (twice), 44, 48, 60 (twice), 61, 62, 73 (twice), 74, 75, 82, 83 (twice), 85, 88, 90, 92
(twice), 94; postposition: 38, 45, 57 (3 times), 63.
53 SVO: 36, 41 (twice), 44, 48, 52, 55, 57, 59, 61 (twice), 62, 75, 86, 87, 94; SOV: 44, 71, 82, 83, 86, 92.
54 Note that one example is in 71, a section which has been discussed above.
55 We are now in a position to see an additional reason why inversion of the subject is particularly common
with intransitive (i.e. one-place) verbs. Since there can be no subject-object opposition when the verb is
intransitive, an inverted order can theoretically cause no ambiguity.
56 75, 77, 79 (twice), 84, 89, 91; for postposition, see 39, 61, 62 (twice), 72, 74 (twice), 75 (twice), 76 (twice),
77, 85, 93.
57 75, 79 (twice).
58 See 39, 59, 72, 74, 76, 77.
59 Postposition: 38, 61, 69, 74 (twice), 79, 83, 87, 90, 92; anteposition: 60,67,69,81,93.
60 Ramsden, 114.
61 Herman, Lat. vulg. 84; Adams, 'Hyperbaton' 10 ff.
62 Herman, op.cit. 86. But Herman's contention that at Greg. Hist. Franc. 3.7 ( cum Dei adiutorio ) the ant
position carries a special emphasis is open to question. The phrase is a formula of the religious language
(see p. 102). In such official expressions anteposition may be adopted for its stylistic formality.
177
ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA
p. 26 If nolens were printed, ordinare might alternatively depend on

would be asyndeton of clauses, another usage which is alien to II.
p. 32 The interpretation of 58 given here is that of Rolfe. But a pref

be '. . . whose father, called Walamir, was . . . ' (cf. 45 and 58 for the orde
p. 41 dedecavit. Alternatively false recomposition (as if the base were

place.
p. 42 réconciliâtes. After the merger of /a/ and /u/, the accusative singular and plural of
second declension words would have possessed the same vowel phoneme. If the conservatism of
writing caused the retention of < -um > in the singular, that form might in turn determine the spelling
< -us > (showing the same vowel grapheme) in the plural.
p. 47 It was in monosyllables and 'grammatical' words that the opposition of final /-t/ and
/-d/ was neutralized.
p. 48 anforas . Spellings showing < f > for 0 in loan words from Greek reflect the fricative
pronunciation of 0 in later Greek. Spellings with reflect the earlier (aspirated) plosive pronunciation.
p. 50 The phrase 'the relative vitality of the three cases' is to be taken as referring to the vitality
of the inflectional endings. Certain case relationships which are probably universal in language were
simply expressed in different ways in later Latin.
p. 62 The spelling recompensas = récompensons (49) reflects the loss of /n/ before /s/.
Emendation is not necessary.
p. 63 It is misleading to speak of a general loss of feeling for the difference between co-ordination
and subordination. Certain subordinate structures (the ablative absolute and present participle) no longer
in use but recognized as 'literary' were treated as indeterminate between subordinate and finite, simply
because their use was not determined by current rules of the language (cf. pp. 99 f.).
p. 73 The examples given here of secundum quod are inapposite. But note Fulg. Incarn . (Migne
lxv, p. 583) 'secundum quod caro est, plenus est gratiae, et secundum quod verbum est, plenum est veritatis'
('in accordance with the fact that'). Secundum quod underwent a reanalysis exactly comparable to that
of propter quod.
p. 105 genucula. It would be more accurate to say that numerous diminutives referring to parts
of the body either came into rivalry with or displaced the non-diminutive form.
179
p. 129 ' . . . just as loc. + est + S may be roughly equivalent to video + O'. This statement
should read ' . . equivalent to loc. + video + O'.
pp. 130 ff. By 'pronoun objects' I mean in this section direct and indirect objects. In late
Latin, as in Romance, both types are positioned according to the same principles. For convenience
I have examined the position of all accusative and dative pronouns, without requiring that they be
logically always direct or indirect objects.
p. 145 n. 12 indicates an original reading, Be an alteration where it is not clear whether the
first scribe or a second hand was responsible.
p. 145 n. 21 j Ba indicates an original reading, B ^ an alteration made by the original scribe.
p. 152 n. 63 See my book The Vulgar Latin of the Letters of Claudius Terentianus (PMich.
VIII, 467-72 ), Manchester, forthcoming.
ISO
GENERAL INDEX
ablative 4, 13, 49 ff. (and overlapping prep, expressions), 54 f. (governed by prepp.),

57 (= loc.)
ablative absolute 1 1, 12, 19, 31, 99 f.
accusative 49, 50, 51 ff. (without <-m> ), 53 f. (prep, case), 54 f. (governed by prepp
(of time), 57 f. (= loc.), 58 (fossilized), 58 f. (double acc.)
acc. c. infitL 4, 20, 35 (co-ord. with subjunct. verb), 65 (with nolle), 94 ff., 135
adjectives 70 (comparison), 70 f. (appositional), 71 (fossilized forms), 108
adverbs 34, 58 (directional and static), 74 (in conjunctional expressions), 75 (as con
84 (directional and static), 85 f. (and prepp.), 92 (in pred. after facere, esse), 120
'agentive' and 'non-agentive' subjects 127 f.
anacolouthon 6 1 ff.
analogy 29 f., 42, 57

aphaeresis 29
apposition 23, 63, 70 f., 86, 93
archaisms 12, 53, 86, 114 (cf. 'literary Latin')
article, definite 72
aspect 13, 30 f., 66 f., Ill, 117
assibilation 48
assimilation 30, 47, 48

auxiliary verbs 21 f., 66, 67, 69
case 49 ff. (cf. 'ablative', etc.)
Christian Latin 5, 12, 25, 28, 101 f., 143 n. 22
chronicle style 4, 9 f., 34
compounds, compounding 73 f. (conjj.) 75 f., 77 f. (adw. and coiļjj. + -que), 84 (prepp. + adw.), 116 ff. (verbs),
162 n. 223 (conjj )
concord 88 f.
conjunctions 73 ff., 77 f., 94 ff.

connective particles 26, 31, 77 f.
consecutive clauses 97
conservatism of writing 12, 43, 49, 53, 94

consonants final /-m/: 22, 51 ff., 56; final /-s/: 13, 41, 42, 46; others: 47 f.
contamination lexical: 22, 25, 27; morphological: 22, 35, 48; orthographic: 47; syntactic: 30, 34, 58 f., 62, 91,
99 f. (pass, structure contaminated with act.), 126 (pass, and act.), 135, 157 n. 91, 159 n. 137
dative 13, 46, 49 ff. (and overlapping prep, expressions)
declension, change of 23, 33, 42, 43, 46, 90, 116, 173 n. 143
demonstrative pronouns 4, 12, 32 (position), 72, 130 ff. (position)
denominative verbs 105 f., 109 f., 1 15 f.
deponents 22, 25, 67, 114
diminutives 104 f.
diphthongs 26, 43
disjunction 4, 12, 140, 141
181
'dynamic' verbs 128, 159 n. 137
ellipse 20 (esse), 21 f. (esse), 23 (tempus), 35 (nisi = nisi ut), 65 (subj. in acc. c. infin., esse), 83 f. (tempus), 90, 92
(esse), 103, 105 f., 115, 148 n. 105 (quod or quia)
enclitics 12, 77, 80, 175 n. 4
epen thesis 30
euphemisms 18,28,102
final clauses 87, 97
fossilized forms 27 (idem), 58 (place names), 71 (adjj. = advv.), 74 (quod), 88 (omnia, quae)
future 67 (perf. pass.), 68 f. (replacements)
gemination 47 f.
gender 22, 23, 31, 52 f., 54, 90
genitive 4, 13, 50 f. (and overlapping prep, expression), 56 (of quality), 140 (position)
'given' vs. 'new' 121 f., 123, 128 f.
Grecisms 12, 83, 91
hyperurbanisms 44, 48, 53, 54 f., 75, 90
imperative 68 (and pres. indie.)
imperfect 13, 67 f. (subjunct.)
indirect questions 30 (with infin.), 33 f. (double)
infinitive 4 (position), 14 (pres. pass.), 26 (historic), 28 (position), 30 (with habeo, in ind. questions, final), 65 f. (pres.
pass., perf. = pres.), 68 (pres. = fut., imper.), 75 (after conj.), 92 (with facio), 97 (final), 135, 138 (position)
intransitive verbs 126 ff. (inversion of subj.), 127 f. (types)
inversion of subject 9 f., 121 ff.
irregular verbs 26
lengthening of vowels 39
literary Latin 4, 11 f., 44, 48, 49, 53, 57, 60, 64, 72, 79, 86, 94, 99 f., 103, 112, 113 f., 123, 129, 130, 135, 136 (in
later section)
locative 57 f., 124 f. (loc. as invertissant)
monosyllables, avoided 72, 84, 110 f., 112, 163 n. 252, 171 n. 110
negation 87
neuter 22, 23, 31, 52 f., 54, 90
neutralization, phonemic 47, 79
nominative absolute 6 1 , 62, 63, 64 f.
nouns 101 ff.
object 29 (position), 51 ff. (inflection of in sing.), 99 f. ('logical'), 126 ('logical'), 130 f. (pronouns, position
135 ff. (position)
object clauses (introduced by quod, quia, etc.) 4, 73 ff., 94 ff.
officialese 6,12,102,112
onomatopoeic words 114
palatalization 48
particles 4, 32, 75 f., 79 ff.
participles present: 4, 11, 12, 18 f., 26, 27, 60 ff. (finite?, perfective), 107 (substantival), 112 (subst.); perfect, subs
23, 90, 105 f., 146 n. 35
passive 4, 13 (perf., plup.), 14 (pres. infin.), 21 f. (perf., with ellipse of esse), 30 f. (plup.), 65 ff. (pres. infin., perf.
infin. = pres., perf., plup.), 99 f. (pass, structure contaminated with act.), 122 f. (inversion of subj. with pass, verb
1 26 (pass.-act. contamination)
perfect 4 (replaced by coepi + infin., pass.), 13 (pass.), 21 f. (pass., with ellipse of esse), 67 (pass.)
pluperfect 4 (pass.), 13 (pass., subjunct.), 30 f. (pass.), 66 f. (pass.), 67 f. (subjunct.)
popular etymology 23, 43, 104, 169 n. 25
predicate 91 ff., 121 ('logical', 'psychological'), 129 ('logical')
prefixes, verbal 29, 35, 43 ff., 1 16 ff.
prepositions and case: 13, 29, 44, 49 ff., 53 ff., 55 f., 57; 75 (= conjj.), 85 f. (derived from advv.), 91 f. (in pred.
after facere ), 119, 139 (position)
present 68 (= fut., imper.), 69 (historic)
prothesis 29,119
182
quantitative distinctions, loss of 39
recomposition 4 1 , 1 5 1 n. 29
reduplicated perfects 30
reflexive pronouns 29 (pleonastic dat.), 69 (deletion), 92 f. (acc. with nom. in pred.)
regional differentiation 12, 40, 43 ff. (orthographic), 47, 65 (of formal registers), 166 n. 334
relative clauses 30 (with infin. verb), 33 f., 73, 76
relative pronoun 22, 31, 33
repetitions 19, 23, 26, 62
semantic differentiation 4, 87 , 1 05 , 118
semantic specialization 18, 28, 110
shortening of vowels 39, 42, 43, 49, 65
simplification of geminates 26, 47 f.
spoken and written Latin 1 1
'static' verbs 128, 159 n. 137
stress accent 39,133
subject 20 (in acc. c. infin .), 65 (in acc. c. infin.), 99 f. ('logical'), 127 f. ('agentive', łnon-agentive'), 133 f. (position),
137 (position)
subjunctive 13 (imp., plup.), 35 (subjunct. verb co-ord. to infin. in or. obi), 67 f. (imp., plup.), 94 ff. (in object
clauses)
subordination and co-ordination 4, 21, 35, 61 (subordination and anacolouthon), 62, 63 (subord. structure not
perceived as such), 64, 68, 73 ff., 77, 95, 98 (indie, in subord. clause in or. obi ), 99 f. (subord. structure not
perceived as such), 123 (verb position in subord. clauses), 131 f. (verb position in subord. clauses), 135 f. (verb
position in subord. clauses)
superlative 12 (in official style), 70 (periphrastic, double gradation)
'topic' and 'comment' 121 f.
Umlaut 40 f.
verbs 60 ff., 109 ff., 128 f., 159 n. 137

vowels 39 ff.
Wackernagel's 'law' 121, 130

word order 4, 9 f., 12, 18 f., 20, 21, 27, 29, 34, 49, 60, 61, 62, 64, 80, 121 ff.
L&3
INDEX OF LATIN WORDS
a, ab 4,119 civita s 23, 103

ac, atque 78 coepi (+ infin.) 4, 28
ac si 7 8 cogitare intra se 28
accipere 113 collocare 18, 20, 31, 110
ad 49 f., 51, 55 f., 57 f. comes 41 (-is), 46, 104 (= cometes)
adimplere 118 comparare 28
adiutorium 101 f. confìdere (+ in) 12
adolere (< adolui ) 29 f. confirmare 109 f.
adulari {adülari, adolari ) 43 confortare 109 f.
adulado ( adolatio ) 43 consacrare 151 n. 29
advivere 118 consolari ('help') 101
aestivum (= aestas) 83 consolatio ('help') 101
alienígena ('heretic') 6, 42 Constantinopolim (= loc.) 57 f.
altarium 26 contentio 22, 28
ambulare 110 f., 112 contra 49
amplectere 22, 67 corpus 22 (masc.), 90 (masc.)> 104

anfora , ampora 48 corpusculum 104
annona {anona) 47 corripere (correptus daemonio) 25
¿zuře 120 crepare 114
anfoz 120 crepulus 172 n. 132
ante quod 73 f. cum (conj.) 4, 77 f.
aquae ductum (neut.) 90 cum (prep.) 50, 54
arcuatum 106 cumque 4, 77 f.
arculatum 106 cunctus 12
arripere (arreptus daemonio) 18, 20,

cur 25 f. 76 f.
(causal)
rtu*/ 75 f., 100 curatio (= cura) 107
autem 4, 19, 79 custodia ( custudia ) 41
auxilium 101 f. daemonium ( demonium ) 18, 25 f.
basilica 104 damnare (= damno afficere) 25
bellico sissimus 70 cfe 50 (= gen.), 51 (=gen.), 119
bonus ('rich') 108 debeo (+ infin., = future) 69
brachium ('strength') 12 defraudare (+ double acc.) 59
brevi 83 delere ( delui ) 29
caput 47 ( capud ), 90 (capite(m))
devotus 12, 70 (superi.), 71
catenatum 106 diabolus 18
causatio (= causa) 107 dicere 28 (+ intra se), 69, 97 (+ ut)

circumdare (+ double acc.) 58 f. dignari (+ infin.) 12
circumicere (+ double acc.) 59 dignus (+ infin.) 97
circumire (+ double acc.) 58 f. dirigere 20
circumsaepire (+ double acc.) 59 diu 70, 83 f.
cito ( citius ) 23, 70 diuturno (= diu) 83
185
dolor 25 iactare 13,110
dolus (= dolor ) 25 ibi(=eo) 58
donare 32 (= dare), 59 (+ double acc.) ibique 26, 77, 84
dum 4, 77 idem (= item , ibidem) 26 f.
dumque 78 idoneus ('rich') 108
ecclesia 104 igitur 4, 18 f., 80
edictum (-s) 31,90 il le 72
eligere 40 (« eligisset ), 97 (+ infin.) immemor (factus) 1 1 4 f.

eludere (+ double acc.) 59 implere 118
emere 28 in 50, 54 f., 57
enim 4, 80 inclaudere 151 n. 29
eo quod 28, 94 indeque 77

ergo 4, 80 induere 68
eructuare 115 infantia 103
infra
esse , auxiliary: 4, 13, 21 f. (ellipse), 30 (= intra) 22
f.,
65 (ellipse), 66 f.; copula: 68 (fuissent
initium (initio) 49
= essent), 128 f.
intentio (= contentio) 22, 28
et 31, 63 (apodotic), 77 f., 176 n. 19interficere 12
etiam 32, 80, 97 in terna silis 23
evacuare 67
intimare (+ in) 50
ex 4, 119, 156 n. 51
intra 22, 28 (+ se), 53 f.
excipere 113 ipse 4,63 (et ipse), 72, 93 (et ipse)
exhalare (animam) 23, 48
ire 110 f., 112
exírj 85 f.
is 4, 12, 26 (id est), 32, 72, 86 (id est)
facere 18, 20, 29 (Value'), 35, 40 (ficî),
iste 4, 72
91 f., 97 f. (+ infin.)
ita ut 97
facula 104
itaque 80
fidelis 71
item 8 1
flrmus 1 09
iterumque 77
foris, foras 85 f.
iussio 106 f.
formátům 106
iussu (-o), iussum 106 f.
fortis 70 (superi), 109 ('strong')
lectulus 105
fossa tus 47 (fosatum ), 105 f.
lectus 90 (neut.), 105
fraudare (+ double acc.) 59
locare 3 1
frequenter 120
longum tempus 84
frustari (= fustari ) 30
ludif icari (+ double acc.) 59
*frustiare 30
malignus (= diabolus) 18, 20
frustran (= fustari) 30
matutinum 83
frustrum, frustum 30
memini 4, 114f.
fugare (=fugere) 146 n. 41
memor (factus) 1 1 4 f.
furari (+ double acc.) 59
mendum (= mendacium) 25
fustari 30
meridiari 159 n. 127
generare 109
miser ('poor') 108
gens 19, 103
mittere 13, 97 (+ infin.), 110
genuculum 54, 105
moenia (fem.) 90
habere 30 (+ undet infin.), 68 (habuisse(n)t
mor osus (= tardus) 25
= habere(n)t)
moxque 77
hibernum (= hiems) 83
multum tempus 84
hic 12, 72
nam 80
honestare (= ditare) 108
naturalis (sc. filius) 103
honestas (= divitiae) 108
ne 87
honestus ('rich') 108
iacere 110
nec, ñeque 87
186
negotians 107, 112 qui, quis 22 {quem = neut.?), 31 (<7Mem = neut.?),
nimis (+ adj.) 70 33 {qui, quem = quae , quam), 33 f. {quis = quis-
que ), 34 (<7W/s = <7Mi), 74 (<7Motf fossilized), 88
nisi (= nisi ut) 35
(guae fossilized)
nobilissimus 70
quia 78, 94 ff.
nolle (+ acc. c. in fin.) 65
quidem 79
nullatenus 87
(conj.) 73 f., 78, 94 ff.
oblata (fem.) 90
quoniam 78
oblectare 27
Ravennas 23
oblivisci 4, 114
recordari 114
occansio 3 3
reditus 32
omnino (+ adj.) 70
reřro (= adj.) 82 f.
oratorium 26
revocare {revoci tus) 35
ordinatio (= ordo) 107
rogare ('appeal to') 115
ostendere se (+ nom. před.) 92 f.
sacra (fem.) 90
pactare 116
saepe 120
pactuari 115 f.
sanguis (life') 6, 12, 102
pactus, -us 116
saxus 22, 90
palatium 22 (masc.?), 48 (palaciu ) secundum 55
parvulus 105
secundum quod 73 f.
patricius 10 serf 79
pendens (+ stella) 34
senātus (-0 33
per 56 f.
«'c (temporal) 120
perambulare 117 f.
sicque 78
perfectus, -us (or perfectum, neut.?) 106
solacium ('help') 101 f.
pergere 12, lllf.
spectare (= exspectare) 29
perhibere 12, 113 f.
spondere {sponderat) 30
perpere, -am 34
statimque 11
Pineta 54, 90
stella {stela) 47 f.
piacere (+ pleonastic dat.) 29
subinde 120
ponderatio {-pondus) 107
super- 116f.
populi 102 f.
superaddere (= adder e) 116
portare (łtake away') 114
superimponere (= imponere) 116, 151 n. 29
portico (neut. pl.) 90 (recomposition)
posse 68 (potuisset = posset ), 87 (+ neg.) superponere {= imponere) 116
post 75 (conj.), 120 supervenire 19,117
postea 120 supplex 1 1
postquod 27,73f. suscipere 112 f.
praeceptio 107 teme« 32, 80
praedatum (= praeda) 106 tamquam 78
praeter (= praeter quod) 35,75 tantum (= tam diu) 83
praeter quod 13 f. tantum tempus 83
prima aetas 163 n. 252 tempus (+ adjj.) 83 f.
* prima vera 163 n. 252 terrae motum 23, 90
Primarius 7 1 tinctum 146 n. 35
primum tempus 163 n. 252 totidem (= itidem) 27
privare (+ double acc.) 59 tractor e (= se tractor e) 69
promissio 107 tradere (+ double acc.) 59
propter quod 73 f. tum 120
providentissimus 70 tumque 78
quare (causal) 76 f. tune 120
quasi 78 tyrannus {tyrranno) 47
-que 26, 31, 77 f. ubi (= quo) 58
187.
ulceratio (= ulcus) 107 velocissimus 70
urbs 23, 103 venire 110 f., 112, 117, 128 f.

usque 75 (conj.), 84 (+ nunc), 164 n. 265 Vernum (= ver) 83
(+ ibidem, ubi, tertio , ąuater) vero 4, 80
ut 87 (final, + non), 97 (consec.: ita ut,
vetare (ve tuo) 115
ut etiam, ita ut etiam)
vocare (vocitus) 35
utilis ('good', 'rich') 108
voluntarius 71
vadere 110 f., 112
velie 22 ( vellit ), 23 (ve liens), 26 ( Vellens ,
voluptas (= voluntas) 25
veliere, vellebam, velens ), 47 f. (ve lens), vomica (= vomitus) 25
68 ( voluisset = veliet) vulneratio (= vulnus) 107
188
INDEX OF ROMANCE WORDS
Acqui It. 58 fronde Fr. 30

adempiere It. 118 frusciare It. 30
ado OSp. 162 n. 205 furet OFr. 159 n. 137
ahora Sp. 161 n. 181 gendrer OFr. 109
aider Fr. 168 n. 4 gerar Pg. 109
Aix Fr. 58 gettare It. 110
Angers Fr. 58 Girgenti It. 58
arriver Fr. 127 hice Sp. 40
Asti It. 58 ispozu Log. 119
aú Astur. 162 n. 205 jet er Fr. 110
aurēt OFr. 159 n. 137 mais Fr. 79
cadenat OProv. 106 matin Fr. 83
cadiado Pg. 106 mattino It. 83
candado Sp. 106 merrigiare It. 159 n. 127

car Fr. 162 n. 206 oan OFr. 161 n. 181
consacrare It. 151 n. 29 octubre Sp. 41
consagrar Prov. 151 n. 29 otubre OSp. 41
corda It. 153 n. 83 outubre Pg. 41
coucher Fr. 18, 110 Paris Fr. 58
crever Fr. 114 parvolCat. 105
cuisse Fr. 153 n. 88 poiché It. 27
desso It. 72 pois Pg. 120
destre OFr., Prov., Cat. 29 pois que Prov. 27
destro Pg. 29 poscia It. 120
diestro Sp. 29 premiers OFr. 71
dissi It. 153 n. 88 primavera It., Sp., Pg. 163 n. 252
duel OFr. 25 printemps Fr. 163 n. 252
duelo Sp. 25 pues Sp. 120
duolo It. 25 pues que Sp. 27
el que Sp. 72 puis Fr. 120
els qui OFr. 72 puisque Fr. 27
empire It. 118 puix Cat. 120
entrer Fr. 127 pustis Log. 120
époux Fr. 119 recere It. 76
espos Prov., Cat. 119 schiudere It. 29
esposo Sp.,Pg. 119 souvent Fr. 120
Firenze It. 58 stimazione It. 29
fïs Fr., Prov. 40 suivre Fr. 127
fise Milan. 40 tinta Sp., Pg. 146 n. 35

fiz Pg. 40 venir Fr. 127
froisser Fr. 30 volontiers Fr. 71
189

The Text and Language of A Vulgar Latin Chronicle (Anonymus Valesianus Ii)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Text and Language of A Vulgar Latin Chronicle (Anonymus Valesianus Ii)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE TEXT AND LANGUAGE OF A VULGAR LATIN CHRONICLE (ANONYMUS VALESIANUS

(ANONYMUS VALEŠI ANUS II)

INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES

Bulletin Supplement No. 36

Chapter II The Text

Chapter III Phonology and Orthography

Chapter IV Morphology and Syntax

Chapter VI Word Order

Notes to Chapter III

Addenda and Corrigenda

Index to Latin Words

Index to Romance Words

Modern works are referred to by abbreviations only, except in the footnotes to Ch

It is a pleasure finally to express gratitude to Professor H.D. Jocelyn, Dr M. Winterbottom

January 1976 J.N.Adams

1 Modern Works and Texts etc. cited by name of Editor

Adams, 'Hyperbaton' J.N. Adams, 'A type of hyperbaton in Latin

Adams, 'Present participle' J.N. Adams, The substantival present participle in

Adams, 'Put-throw' J.N. Adams, 'On the semantic field "put-throw" in

Adams, 'Speeches' J.N. Adams, 'The language of the speeches in Tacitus'

Ahlquist H. Ahlquist, Studien zur spätlateinischen Mulomedicina

Alexander L.H. Alexander, Participial Substantives of the -ata

Allen W.S. Allen, Vox Latina (Cambridge 1965)

Anderson J.M. Anderson, 'Neutralization of phonemic opposition

Audollent, Defix. A. Audollent, Defixionum tabellae quotquot innotu-

Baehrens W.A. Baehrens, Sprachlicher Kommentar zur vulgär-

Bambeck M. Bambeck, Lateinisch-romanische Wortstudien i

Bastardas Parera J. Bastardas Parera, Particularidades sintácticas del

Battisti C. Battisti, Avviamento allo studio del latino volgare

Bendz G. Bendz, 'Sprachliche Bemerkungen zu Petron ' Eranos

Benveniste, Noms d'agent E. Benveniste, Noms d'agent et noms d'action en Indo -

Bieter F. A. Bieter, The Syntax of the Cases and Prepositions

Blaise A. Blaise, Le vocabulaire latin des principaux thèmes

Blase H. Blase, Tempora und Modi; Genera Verbi in G. Landgraf

Bloch and Wartburg O. Bloch and W. von Wartburg, Dictionnaire étymologique

Bonnet M. Bonnet, Le latin de Grégoire de Tours (Paris 1 890)

Bourciez E. Bourciez, éléments de linguistique romane ^ (Paris

Buck, Selected Synonyms C.D. Buck, ,4 Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the

Cameron A. Cameron, 'Demes and factions', ByzZeitschr 67

du Cange C.D. du Cange, Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis ,

Carlton C.M. Carlton, A Linguistic Analysis of a Collection of

Carlton, 'Lexicology' C.M. Carlton, Studies in Romance Lexicology , based

Carnoy A. Carnoy, Le latin d'Espagne d'après les inscriptions 2

Cessi, 'Miscellanee storiche' R. Cessi, 'Di due miscellanee storiche medioevali',

Cipolla, 'Ricerche intorno' C. Cipolla, 'Ricerche intorno all'"Anonymus Valesianus

Coleman, 'Vowel system' R.G.G. Coleman, The monophthongization of /ae/

Collin C. Collin, 'Zur Geschichte der Nomina actionis im

Cooper F.T. Cooper, Word Formation in the Roman Sermo

Cramer F. Cramer, 'Was heisst "Leute"? 'ALL 6 (1899) 341 ff.

Dahlen E. Dahlen, Etudes syntaxiques sur les pronoms réfléchis

Daube D. Daube, Forms of Roman Legislation (Oxford 1956)

Diez F. Diez, Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen ^ (Bonn

Eklund S. Eklund, The Periphrastic , Completive and Finite Use

Elcock W.D. El cock, The Romance Languages (London 1960)

Ernout , Aspects A. Ernou X, Aspects du vocabulaire latin (Paris 1954)

Ernout, Morphologie A. Ernout, Morphologie historique du latin (Paris 1 953)

Ernout, Philologica A. Ernout, Philologica (Paris 1946-65)

E-M A. Ernout and A. Meillet, Dictionnaire étymologique

E-T A. Ernout and F. Thomas, Syn taxe latine ^ (Paris 1953)

Fraen kel, Horace E. Fraenkel .Horace (Oxford 1957)

Frick C. Frick, 'Zur Textkritik und Sprache des Anonymus

Funaioli G. Funaioli, 'Der Lokativ und seine Auflösung',

Gaeng P.A. Gaeng, An Enquiry into Local Variations in