THE LATIN PRONOUNS.

14461.7

THE LATIN PRONOUNS

IS : HIC : ISTE : IPSE

A SEMASIOLOGICAL STUDY

BY

CLARENCE LINTON MEADER, PH.D.,

INSTRUCTOR IN LATIN IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

•gjSr"-

Beto pork

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
LONDON: MACMILLAN co., LTD.

1901

All rights reserved

COPYRIGHT, 1901, nv
CLARRNCH LINTON MRADER.

ANN ARBOR PRINTING COMPANY

"THK INLAND PRESS"

TO

PROFESSOR EDUARD VOn WOELFFL1N

THIS WORK IS

RESPECTFULLY AND GRATEFULLY
DEDICATED.

PREFACE.

The general plan of the following book1 was out-
lined and the collection of material begun in Munich,
in the summer of 1898. By June 1899 such progress
had been made, that I found it possible to state my
results in a form sufficiently definite to enable Pro-
fessor W<">lfflin to make an abstract of the same for
publication in the eleventh volume of the Archiv fur
lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik. Since my
return to America in the fall of 1899, I have devoted
such spare time as the duties of my position have
allowed, to the further investigation of the subject,
and have been able not only to add important new
results to those already obtained, but to extend and
illustrate still more fully by varied citations the results
set forth in the printed abstract.

The original plan of the work provided for a chap-
ter on ille and one on idem. These would have
formed chapters II and III, the present chapters II,
III, IV and V becoming IV, V, VI and VII. As
they are not yet in a suitable form for printing, they
are omitted for the present. The results thus far
obtained in the study of the two pronouns are partly

n in chapter V.

1 In the summer of 1900 chapter I and Section A. of chap-

mftted to tht- . culty of tlu- I'nivi-rsity

in as a thesis for the degree <>: • -f Philosophy.

viii Preface.

The present work contains the results of a line of
investigation, in the conduct of which the historical
method has been followed. In this particular it differs
from all others that have been written on the subject.
The most important of the modern treatises, that of
Joseph Bach, extensive as it is (270 pages), makes no
effort to discuss the pronouns from this point of view.
It is confined almost entirely to the usage of the ante-
classical period, and has for its main object the estab-
lishment of the thesis, that in the scriptores prisci the
three demonstratives hie, iste and ille correspond to
the three persons of the verb respectively. The only
attempts of a historical nature that have hitherto been
made are in the form of brief notices, to be found, for
example, in Schmalz's Lateinische Syntax and in vari-
ous monographs on the Latinity of particular writers.
These rarely exceed a page or two in extent, and from
the nature of the case make no claim to being any-
thing else than fragments. Such works are, to be
sure, of very great value, and without them an his-
torical grammar in the proper sense of the word would
be impossible. Yet they have their limitations and
necessarily lack the perspective gained by following
the changing meanings of the words through several
centuries and by observing their relationships to each
other and to synonymous expressions.

The selection of Latin texts from which the mate-
rial for the present work was taken, is very full and
representative, and covers every period of the develop-
ment of the Latin language from Plautus to Isidore,
as may be seen from the list of sources printed at the
end of the volume.

Preface. ix

In the statement of the deductions made from this
collection of data, my object has been to adduce the
evidence for the existence of each usage, to trace as
far as possible its gradual development through all the
periods in which it is found, and to illustrate its vari-
ous aspects by typical examples. While attention has
been directed mainly to the post-classical usages, some
parts of the volume deal quite fully with usages of
the pronouns that are distinctively classical; and it is
hoped that the remaining chapters contain much that
will prove of interest and value for the full under-
standing of the Ciceronian and Augustan Latinity.
Throughout the entire work, the so called "regular"
or ' ' classical ' ' meanings of the words have been
treated, whenever some discussion of them was neces-
sary to the understanding of the later meanings; and
no pains have been spared to search out in the classical
writers the beginings of the later changes, or the con-
ditions out of which they grew.

The following chapters, however, are by no means
to be regarded as a complete history of the pronouns
under discussion. The changes dealt with have been

forth in broad general lines; and, although the
development of each meaning is traced from its first
appearance as far downward as possible, a detailed
analysis of the questions treated or of the passages

1 has rarely been entered upon. The forms of the
words have received attention, only when they have
materially affected the meaning. The magnitude of
the entire investigation has made it necessary to omit
the • h questions as the psychological

nature of the changes involved, the special conditions

x Preface.

to which individual authors were subjected, and the
influence of one author upon another. At almost
every step in the progress of the work important prob-
lems have arisen and glimpses of interesting fields
awaiting the student have often tempted me to turn
aside for a moment. Yet rarely has a brief space of
time been devoted to these minor questions. They
are reserved for the future. The wide and varied
reading both of the Latin texts and of the modern
authorities has in itself been no small task. Never-
theless it seems unwise to defer publication any longer.
It is hoped that the book, mere outline as it is, may
justify its existence.

One who has himself conducted a line of research
involving so many different problems and requiring so
extensive a collection of data as the present one, will
be the first to appreciate the difficulties of the work
and to overlook any defects that it may contain. All
friendly criticisms and suggestions will be gratefully
received.

I take this opportunity to express my thanks to
those who have aided me in my work. I can scarcely
hope to be able ever to repay the debt of gratitude I
owe Professor Wolfflin, who with unsparing gener-
osity and by the sacrifice of much of his valuable time,
aided me with continual encouragement and advice.
By placing his excellent library and other resources at
my service, he so facilitated my work, that I was
enabled in less than three semesters to accomplish as
much as would have required as many years under
less favorable circumstances. Likewise to my former
teachers, Professors Martin L. D'Ooge, Francis W.

Preface. xi

Kelsey, John C. Rolfe, George Hempl and Joseph H.
Drake, of the University of Michigan, I desire to
express my gratitude both for my collegiate training
in linguistics and for many valuable suggestions on
this book. Professor Rolfe and Dr. Henry A. San-
ders, of the University of Michigan, and Dr. George
V. Edwards, of Olivet College, have been so kind as
to read all the proofs, and have called my attention to
numerous defects that would otherwise have escaped
my notice.

Great as these obligations are, they can scarcely be
greater than those I owe my wife, who by her sympa-
thetic and intelligent appreciation of my work has
afforded me much assistance, and has been to me an
unfailing source of inspiration.

ANN ARBOR, MICH.,
Dec. 24, 1900.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I. IS.

PAGE.

Introductory, ....... 3

A. A in Poetry.

1 . Frequency of its Occurrence in the Scrip-
tores Prisci and Lucretius, in Catullus, the
Writers of Elegy and Idyls, in Epic Poetry,
in Satire and kindred Branches, in Didactic
Epos, 8

2. General Attitude of the Poets toward the
Word, 13

3. Attitude of the Poets toward the special
Forms of the Word: Preference for the
forms is, ea and id and Avoidance of all
other Forms. — Reasons for this Attitude, . 15

B. Is in Prose Literature.

1 . Legal and other Scientific Literature, . 28

2. History, etc., 30

3. Pompeius, Commentum in Donattim, . 32

xiv Contents.

CHAPTER II. HIC.

A. The Rivalry between Hie and Is.

1. Eo = Ideo, Hoc = Ideo, . . . -35

2. Eo with the Comparative and Hoc with
the Comparative, 48

3. Id est and Hoc est, 53

4. Ad id and Ad hoc, .... 66

a. = Praeterea, 66

b. Expressing Purpose, . . . 71

5. Ob id and Ob hoc, 73

B. The Correlations Hie— Ille, Hie— Hie, Ille—

Ille, etc.

1. Hie — Ille, 79

a. Relative Order of the two correlated
Clauses, 80

b. The adjectival and substantive
Forms, 82

c. The adverbial Forms, . . -89

2. Hie — Hie, 96

a. The adjectival and substantive
Forms, 97

b. The adverbial Forms, . . . 101

3. Ille— Ille, . . 105
Note on Ille, Hie and Is in legal Formulae, . 107

CHAPTER III. ISTE.

Introductory. — The Etymology and the classical
Meaning of Iste, 1 1 1

A. Iste = Hie.

i. Evidence proving the Usage, . . 116

a. Iste tuus, etc., . . . .116

Contents. xv

b. The Employment of Iste outside of
direct discourse, . . . . 117

c. The Collocations iste meus, iste nos-
ter, etc., 120

d. Iste Referring to Objects connected
with the Speaker, . . . .121

e. Iste Employed in Connections usu-
ally Reserved for Hie, . . 125

f. Iste and Hie refering to the same
Antecedent, . . . . .131

g. Iste— Ille = Hie— Ille, . . 132
h. Iste = OOTOS in early Latin Transla-
tions from the Greek, . . .137

i. The Evidence furnished by the Glos-
ses, ... 142

j . The Evidence of the Romance Lan-
guages, . . .143
k. The Testimony of the Roman Gram-
marians, 144

I. The incorrect Orthography Isthic, . 144

2. Geographical Extension of the Usage, . 144

3. Chronological Limits of the Usage, . .145

4. Relative Frequency of the Use of Iste and
Hie, 149

5. Semasiological Nature of the Change, . 152
B. Iste = Ille or I- 159

CHAPTER IV. IPSE.

Introductory. — The classical Usage.
A. Ipse = Idem.

i. The Phrases ipse qui, is ipse, ille ipse, hoc

and particularly id ipsum
and hoc ipsuni, expressing Identity, . 163

xvi Contents.

2. Ipse unsupported by another Pronoun, . 171

a. Ipse parallel with Idem or Unus, . 175

b. Ipse contrasted with Alius and Alter, 177

c. Ipse = Idem in short adverbial For-
mulae or Phrases, . . . 177

d. Ipse = Idem as proved^by the gen-
eral Context, 178

e. Ipse = 6 auros, . . . .180

f. The Evidence of the Glosses, . .182

3. Geographical Limits of the Usage, . 182

4. Chronological Limits of the Usage, . .183

5. Ipse = Item, 184

B. Ipse — Ille or Is, 184

CHAPTER V. THE DETERMINATIVE
AND THE DEFINITE ARTICLE.— SUMMARY.

A. The Determinative.

1. Ille - is, . . 193

2. Hie = is, 195

3. Idem = is, 196

4. Ipse = is, 196

B. The Definite Article, 197

1. Ille = Definite Article, . . .198

2. Is = Definite Article, . . . .198

3. Hie = Definite Article, . . . 199

4. Iste = (?) Definite Article, . . . 205

5. Idem = Definite Article, . . . 206

6. Ipse = Definite Article, .... 208

C. Summary and Conclusion, . . . 213

Sources, 218

Addenda and Corrigenda, . . . . 221

CHAPTER I. IS.

CHAPTER I. IS.

In the study of these pronouns we may profitably
begin with the determinative is. It is the simplest in
its elements (cf. *ol-so > ille, *e-p-so > ipse, *e-so-
to > iste, *ho-i-ce > hie),1 and in all the periods of
the Latin language it is the weakest in meaning of
the above mentioned pronouns (see Schmalz, Latein-
ische Syntax in I wan Miiller's Handbuch der kl. Alt,
II. 2, 3d ed. p. 444 : "es schliff sich auch als kleines
\V« irtchen sehr bald so ab, dass es uberhaupt fast ganz
ausser Kurs kam' ' ) . Traces of an original stronger
demonstrative force are not far to seek. We may men-
tion the familiar use of is qui in the sense approaching
that of talis ut (see Harpers' Latin Lexicon s. v. for
citations from Cicero, and add Sen. Contr. 3,3; Veil.
Pat. 2,82,2 ea adiit pericula, a quibus seruari se posse
desperauerat; Plin. Epist. 3,12,4; Gerber and Greef,
Tac. p. 709 d} "i. q. talis, eiusmodi"). Still
more clearly does this force of the pronoun appear
when it serves to introduce an ut-clause, as in Plant.
Capt. 934f.

Pater, et petere a te ego potero et di earn potcsla-
tL-in dabunt, [res.

Ut beneficium bene mcixnti nostro mcrito imiiie-

N art- tin- fU-rivati- pted by Stolz

.inatik, i-

4 The Latin Pronouns,

Such passages are rare in Plautus; a second instance is
Poen. 1186 eo genere. Later examples are: Nepos,
Them. 6,i(<r/". Lupus, Der Sprachgebrauch d. C. Ne-
pos p. no); Veil. Pat. 2,90,4; Plin. Epist. 6,6,8; 6,
14,1 ea conditione ne; Tac. Dial. 23,20 ita...ea...
is. . -ea. . .ea. . .is. . .ea. . .sic. . .sic. . . , ut...; Ann.
i,6,2o(see G. and G., Lex. /. <:.); Censorinus 1,6; Jus-
tin 37,1,7; Script. Histor. Augustae, Geta 7,4 etc.;
Tertullian, Ad Nationes i,7/>; Lactantius, De Opi-
ficio Dei 4,3; 12; Ambrosius, Exameron 2,3,n(27E);
Augustine, Epist. 22, qm bis; Alcimus Avitus 7(6),
p. 35,i2(P); Boethius, De Consolatione Philosophiae
i,6/r.,28. A stronger demostrative force, approach-
ing the normal meaning of ille, is also to be observed
in such passages as Plaut. Trin. 746

. . . .atque ea condicio uel primariast;
Amph. 781

Haec east profecto patera;

Caecil. Statius, 28 f. (p. 338.) (apud Cicero, De Sen. 25

and Nonius 1,20)

Turn equidem in senecta hoc deputo miserrimum,
Sen tire ea aetate ipsum esse odiosum alteri.

Cf. Virg. Aen. 3,393. In other instances the stronger
demonstrative force of the pronoun is evident from
the fact that the word it modifies is contrasted with
another (cf. Plaut. Stich. 239-241; Men. 574), or is
itself repeated (cf. Asin. 179; True. 122; Trin. 238;
Ovid, Met. 7,43^. With the demonstrative hie such
a repetition is very common in all periods both with
poets and prose writers (Plaut. Men. 132; Horace
often). Ille is not so often repeated in this way as

Is in Prose and Poetry. 5

hie. The repetition of the determinative is uncommon.
These and similar types of construction, in which the
determinative bears traces of a stronger force, are met
in all periods of the literature.

In dealing with the semasiological and syntactical
changes of this pronoun, it will be necessary, as the
sequel will show, to draw a sharp distinction both be-
tween the usage of the prose writers and of the poets,
and between the various subdivisions of these two
great branches, e. g., between technical prose, history
and oratory; between the epos (in the narrower sense),
satire, lyric poetry, etc. Within these smaller groups
again it will be advisable to distinguish the chronologi-
cal relations of the authors. There is entire justifica-
tion for thus classifying the Roman prose literature;
for, while a classification of modern prose literature
on the basis of the prominence of poetical or rhetorical
characteristics would doubtless lead to great confusion
and many inconsistencies, the case was entirely differ-
ent with the Greeks and the Romans. This is apparent
from the two passages Cic. De Leg. 1,5 opus (sc. his-
toriae) unum hoc oratorium maxinie; Quintilian 10,
1,31 historia est proxima poetis et quodam modo car-
men solutum. For further details on the style of
historical composition in antiquity see Norden, Die
Antike Kunstprosa 1,81-95. The poetical coloring of
IJvy, particularly of the first decade, will at once
occur to the reader, although it must not be over-
looked that the Augustan historian adopted a more

r style after he had completed the first decade, the
subject matter of which was poeticis ina^is decora
fatmlis qiiam incorrtiplis reruni ^estarnin monuineiitis.

6 Tfie Latin Pronouns.

It will also be recalled that the details of the complete
history of Rome which Cicero and Atticus contem-
plated writing conjointly, were so arranged that Atticus
was to establish the historical facts, while Cicero was
to furnish the rhetorical embellishments (cf. the corre-
spondence with Atticus for the year 45 and Plutarch's

Cicero 41).

A. IS IN POETRY.

We take up first the use of is in the poetical litera-
ture of the Romans, because it is here that we find
the most striking proofs of the weakening of its force
and its gradual disuse. The French editor Dacier ap-
pears to have been the first to call attention to the fact
that the expression eius atque in Horace, Ode 3,11,18
is unpoetical. The eminent Bentley in his note on this
passage says: "sed poetae epici, magno sane cum
iudicio, uocabulum hoc perpetuo mulctarunt exilio; ne
heroici carminis maiestatem humi serpere cogerent;
utpote singulis fere periodis recursurum, ni stilo subin-
telligerentur extrinsecus, neque praesentia sua uersus
inquinaret. inde est quod in toto Uirgilio ne semel
quidem occurrit eius, bis duntaxat in Ouidio, ut
Trist. 3,4,27." (a third, but doubtful passage is Met.
8,16) ".. .eo tamen peius noster (i. e. Horace), et quod
in carmine lyrico longe supra Ouidii elegos surgere
debuerit, et quod. . ." Adolf Kiessling's note on eius
in O. 4,8,18 in part confirms, in part contradicts and in
part expands Bentley's affirmation: "der sonst der
Sprache der Oden, wie iiberhaupt gehobenem Ausdruck
fremde Gebrauch von is (doch scheut die Elegie das
Pronomen nicht) mag hier durch den scherzhaften
Zug, der durch das ganze Gedicht geht, sich entschuld-

Is in Poetry. 7

igen lassen." Bentley does not comment on this pas-
sage. Kiessling brackets the stanza in which eius
occurs, 3,11,18. As for the reason that led the poets
to avoid this word, both Kiessling and Bentley hint
vaguely that it is unpoetical. Bentley seems to be
condemning only the form eius, while Kiessling' s state-
ment may be understood to include all the forms of
the pronoun. I know Dacier's attitude only from
Schiitz, 3d ed. (1889), p. 402. Grosrau, Sprachlehre,

:. H, Anm. 2 makes a somewhat more definite and
detailed statement: "Wie et id, idque auf den ganzen
Satz bezogen, so steht isque am Anfang des Satzes
scharf hinweisend bei Cicero, haufig bei Virgil, 1,215;
3,596; 4,203; 6,684 e* a?- Sonst haben die Dichter
httheren Stiles das Wort vermieden, da es nurformcllc
hung, kcinc cigcntliche Bcdcutung hat" (the italics
are mine). Quite a different reason is assigned by
Schmalz, /. c. "Is war den Dichtern unbequem, weil
es sich nicht gut in den Vers fiigt, und so meiden es
Catull, Virgil, Horaz, Lucan, auch der Metriker Ter-
entian, sichtlich." This statement seems to be a
somewhat misleading abridgment of Obermeier, Der
Sprachgebrauch des M. Annaeus Lucanus, p. 15:
"Ohne Zweifel war dieses Pronomen. . .zu unbequem
da sich seine obliquen Casus nur schlecht in den Hexa-
meter fiigten." The questions suggested by all these
inadequate statements are numerous and render im-
perative a careful examination of the entire problem.

In the investigation of this question it will be
. first, a ted above, to determine the

A-e frequency of is in ill 8 compared with

that in the prose writ-

8 The Latin Pronouns.

Proceeding chronologically let us begin with a
review of the usage of the early poets. Taking a
selection from their extant works and fragments large
enough to be representative, we obtain the following
table of percentages:1

hie is ille ipse iste idem

Comicorum fragmenta ed. Ribbeck 42 25 20 4 7 2%

Tragicorum " " " 33 30 16 10 65

Plautus, Captivi 40 26^ 16 3% 13 \%

" Casina 34 29 22 2% 12 i

" Menaechmi 43 20 i8K 4>i 12 2%

Trinummus 30% 33 i8& 7% 9 i%

average of the above 37 27^ 18% 4% «5i i%

Ennii fragmenta 38 23 17^ 10 3J4 7

This table is based upon the following total number of
occurrences of these pronouns: Comici 319, Tragici
187, Captivi 422, Casina 254, Menaechmi 372, Tri-
nummus 500, (excluding prologues); Ennius 153.

It will be seen from this table that the pronoun is
occurs more frequently than any of the others with
the exception of hie, and in one instance, that of the
Trinummus, more frequently than hie. Ennius' use
of is will be discussed more in detail below.

Lucretius in his usage of these pronouns holds a
place very near the archaic poets, a circumstance which
is of importance as furnishing further evidence of his
sympathies with these writers, and showing his de-
pendence upon them. In books i, 2, 3, 6 of his poem
the above pronouns occur in the following proportions:

hie 34, is 25, ipse 20, ille 14, idem 8, iste o. In

1 It has not been thought necessary to make the percentages
in the tables exact to a small fraction of one per cent. Accord-
ingly their sums sometimes slightly exceed or fall below a
hundred.

Is in Poetry. 9

Catullus, however, we find an important change. His
complete works give us:

hie ille ipse is idem iste

39 25^ I$y2 I2Z/2 4*/3 2*/i

with which cf. Caesar 20 9^ 14 50^ 6 ^

It will be observed that in Catullus is occupies the
fourth rank, being less frequently used than either
hie, ille or ipse. The Aratea, a translation made by
Cicero in his earlier years, although antedating Catul-
lus, shows a much stricter avoidance of the word. In
the fairly extensive fragments of the Aratea (about
550 lines) that have come down to us, is is met with
only three times: verse 250 (is), frag. XV (eius),
verse 315 (eum); while in Catullus (about 2000 verses,
many of them much shorter than Cicero's hexameters)
it occurs 42 times. This apparent inconsistency in
the usage of Cicero and Catullus disappears, however,
when we distinguish between thelatter's "Nugae" and
his longer poems in hexameters (No. 62 Uesper adest
and No. 64 Epithalamium Pelei). These two poems,
which make up about one-fourth of the Catullus-cor-
pus show but a single instance of is (64,122), since
the word eius is unquestionably corrupt in v. 109 of
the Kpithalamiurn.

ing thus determined the date at which is be-
gins to be less frequently used in poetry, we may now
proceed to distinguish the various branches of poetry
and to set fortli in tabular form the whole number of
occurrences of the determinative pronoun in ( a) satire,
(b) didactic epos, (c) elegy, (d) historical and heroic
epos, (e) ode.

10

The Latin Pronouns.

SATIRE (with related branches).
Horace,i Sat. and Epist. 31 instances to ca. 4000 verses, or i to 130 vv.

Persius 6

Juvenal 4

Martial " 5

475

3800

8600

i " 80
i " 950
i " 1720

DIDACTIC EPOS.

Cicero, Aratea 3 i

Virgil, Georgica 9

Manilius 24

Germanicus i

Epos Aetna I

Grattius, Cynegetica 2

Serenus Sammonicus i

Nemesianus 2

Auianus, Fabulae 2

550 verses, or

inst. to iSovv

2200 " "

11 " 245

4200 "

" " 170

950

11 " 95o

6;4

" " 654

^-40

" 270

IIOO

" IIOO

672

654 "

" " 327

Virgil, Bucolica
Tibullus 5

Lygd. and Paneg\ r. 2
Sulpicia i

Propertius8 13

Ovid, Amores 2

" Tristia, Pont. 66
Statius, Siluae 6

Calpurnius i

ELEGY and IDYL.
2 inst. to ca. 800 verses, or i inst. to 400

1900

Aeneid

Ovid, Metamorphoses

Lucan, Pharsalia

Valerius Flaccus

Statius, Thebais

Statius, Achilleis

Silius, Punica, B'ks i-iband 17

Ilias Latina

Dracontius, Carm. Prof ana

Claudianus

300

4100 "

2450 "

6250 ' '

3900 "

i " " " 760 "

EPOS (historical and heroic).

instance to ca.

380
200
300

315
1225

95

650

760

125 verses

165

!33°

220

320

1125

190

500

600

5000

JIn the same lines hie occures 350 times.

2 Propertius 2,24,51 is now read Hi or Ni instead of li.

Is /;/ Poetry. 1 1

It might at first thought seem to the reader that
the number of occurrences of is in Ovid's Ex Ponto
and Tristia is too large to warrant the assertion that
the poet avoided the pronoun. The relative smallness
of this number, however, is apparent at a glance, when
we note that on an equal number of pages of Caesar
the pronoun occurs about 800 times.

The following are the precise references to the
passages in which is occurs, only, however, for those
authors who employ the word but a small number of
times:

Persius 6,16 ob id. 3,95 quidquid id est. 6,65 quid-
quid id est. 2,71 id. 3,48 id. 5,97 id quod.

Juvenal 3,182 id uitium. 6,413 id uitium. 7,162
quidquid id est. 10,183 id.

Martial 2,30,5. 7,31,12. 14, 145,1; in all three cases
is or id at the beginning of a line. 3,1,1. 6,68,11; in
both instances the formula quidquid id est. In addi-
tion to these passages it occurs twice in the prose intro-
ductions. Friedliinder's index is misleading, since it
cites only two examples.

Virgil, Georgica 1,432 is. 2,23960*. 263 id. 3,252
eos. 289 e&. 510 eit. 4,89 eum. 334 earn. 430611111.

Germanicus, Phaenomena 32 eas.

Aetna 253 ea.

Gratius 224 eius. 363 id.

Serenus Sammonicus 1095 id.

Nenu^iamis, Cynegetica 212 quicquid id est. 298 id.
inns 2,2 cam. 20,5 is. (rariti lectio 40,4).
il, Hucolica 3,35 id quod. 9,37 id quidem.

Tilmllus i , 2,39 f is to. 6,25 eius. 10,66 is. 2,3,33
quisqn:

12 The Latin Pronouns.

Lygdamus 3,4,94 Isque. 6,12 eum.

Sulpicia 4,7,8 id.

Ovid, Amores 3,4,3 ea. 15,5 Si quid id est.

Statius, Siluae 1,4,53 ea- 6,49 quisquis is est. 5,
1,219 Is- 5>65 Quisquis is est. In verse 1,2,180 ea is
a conjecture of Bahrens for et, and, like Uerum id, at
(for uerum erat) 5,5,49, is not accepted by Vollmer.

Calpurnius, Eel. 4,12 Quidquid id est.

Lucan 1,171 is. 2,726 Non ea. 3,611 earn. 4,546
eum. 7,4o6(eo=propterea). 10,265 non id (uaria lec-
tio ita). The poorer MSS. show forms of is in 3,228.
6,733. 828. 9,538. 1062. The passages in the sixth,
seventh and tenth books are overlooked by Ober-
meier, /. c.

Statius, Achilleis i, 811(^2,137) Is

I lias Latina 22 eius. 640 idque.

Dracontius 5,271 Id quod. 6,57 Uix ea fatus eram.

ClaudianusXXXIII( = Proserp. 1,117). XXVIII,

558.

To these tables might have been added the Disticha
Catonis and the Carmina De Figuris and De Ponderi-
bus. These show one instance of is to every thirty-
five to seventy lines, a frequency easily accounted for
by the prosaic character of the subject matter and the
carelessness of metrical treatment. In Corippus it is
rarely used (examples: loan. 2,326 ea; 6,255 Uix ea;
8,33; 127 Uix ea; Laud. lust. 1,79). The same is true
of Cyprian's Heptatuch (Genesis 1039 Is qui; 1347 Id;
Deuteronomy 57(953) id). In view of the strictness
with which Cyprian avoided this word one should
hesitate long before accepting Mayor's conjecture of
is qui for ille qui Deuteronomy 124. 5( = io4of). In

Is in Poetry. 13

the poetical portions of Boethius, De Consolatione
Phil, it does not occur. On the avoidance of the word
by the Satirists see §orn, Der Sprachgebrauch des Eu-
tropius, 11,4. For Commodian see below.

The discrepancy between Ovid's Amores and his
Tristia is perhaps to be explained by the circumstance
that the former were written at Rome at the beginning
of his career, at a time when he was strongly under
the influence of his early rhetorical training, the latter
in exile in his later years, at a time when his style was
less careful. In putting forward this explanation,
however, we must not fail to remember that the Meta-
morphoses, which is the last poem Ovid wrote before
his exile, shows a comparatively frequent use of the
determinative.

Before inquiring in detail what the above tables
teach us concerning the use of this pronoun in the
poets, it remains only for me to point out the strik-
ing contrast between the usage of the early poets
discussed above (p. 8) and typical later poets. This
contrast is clearly brought out by the following table:

hie is ille ipse iste idem

icorum frag. 33 30 16 10 6 5

licorum fr, 42 25 20 472

Catullus 39 12 25 15 2 6

Virgil. Acn. Ill 49 5 23 14 3 5

Silius. Bks. VIII and IX 58 3 20^ 12 I 5^

Lucan.Hks.IIaii.ini 60*4 i 19 13 3 22j

Let us now see what the above tables teach with

reft: . the attitude of the poets toward this

pronoun.

14 The Latin Pronouns.

If the suggestions of Bentley and Grosrau cited
above are true (cf. the words "epici carminis maiesta-
tem — inquinaret" — "hoheren Stiles" — "kerne eigent-
liche Bedeutung' ' ) , we must in order to be consistent
in detail, assume that the higher forms of poetry should
be stricter in their avoidance of the word than those
branches which do not rise so lofty above the sermo
pcdcstris. Such a condition of affairs is precisely what
we find reflected very clearly in the detailed table for
Catullus above. We likewise find the determinative
all but banished from Horace's Odes, while it is far
less rigidly excluded from the Epistles and the Satires,
as the two passages above mentioned are the only ones
in the Odes in which is occurs. But, since the usage
found in the works of Ennius (see below page 16)
is slightly different, the evidence of such a distinction
is limited to these two instances. Virgil employs it
more rarely in his Georgics than in the Aeneid, though
on the general theory we should expect the contrary.
Juvenal in his Satires is much more sparing of is than
the writers of the heroic epos, Statius and Valerius
Flaccus, while Martial, the writer of epigrams, avoids
the word more strictly than any other Roman poet
except Claudian and Boethius. In fact each of the
branches distinguished above shows great variety
within itself. The average number of lines corre-
sponding to each occurrence of is varies in the

Satire, etc. from 80 to 1720

Didactic Epos from 170 to noo

Elegy and Idyl from 95 to 1200

Heroic and Hist. Epos from 125 to 1300'

1 If we include Claudian, 5000.

Is in Poctrv. 15

Any attempt to establish a general canon based on the
distinction of genera is therefore seen to be futile.
If we disregard the genera and undertake to determine
some principle based on chronology, we shall likewise
be unsuccessful in discovering a regularly operating
principle. However, in general, it is perfectly clear
that the post-Augustan poets and especially the later
writers, are much more strict in the exclusion of the
pronoun than the Augustan. Compare, e. g., Martial
(i X 1720)' with Horace (i X 130); Statius, Silvae (i X
650) with Tibullus ( i X 380) , with Propertius ( i X 320)
or with Virgil's Bucolics (1X400); L,ucan (1X1430)
with Ovid's Metamorphoses (i X 165); and Dracontius
(1X1200) with Virgil's Aeneid (1X125). In other
words, the rule of composition, for such we must call
it, was more strictly applied as time went on, and as
originality played an increasingly less prominent part
in Roman literature. We shall be impressed with the
comparative rarity of is in poetry, when we consider
that Caesar alone has over two thousand instances of is,
even omitting the forms hi and his, which in a large
number of cases undoubtedly represent original ii and

against Horace's 34 and Virgil's 75.
An examination of the usage of the poets with a
to determining whether they observed any dis-
tinction in the use of the special cases reveals some
striking facts. Certain forms of is are rigidly avoided,
while for others a strongly marked preference is shown.
This preference for certain cases is seen in some writ-
long before any tendency to avoid the word B

.Me. Knnins for example, if we are

1 /'. i., "in- in-4amx- ill 1720

1 6 The Latin Pronouns.

justified in making deductions from the somewhat
limited number of extant fragments of his works, ob-
serves a careful distinction in the use of the forms of
is, as employed in his Hexameters on the one hand and
in his Dramas, the tone of which approaches that of
the vernacular, on the other. In the fragments of the
Annals (600 verses) only the forms is, ea and eos and
the monosyllabic forms sam, sas, sos, sum occur, there
being in all fifteen instances. In the Satires (86
verses) only is occurs (four times). In the Fabulae
the word occurs about as often as in the Annals, but
with this marked difference: the form is is used only
once, ea only once, id four times, while the forms ei,
eum, eo, eis, entirely excluded from the Annals, occur
seven times, the forms with the initial sibilant being
entirely rejected. The facts are most evident in tabu-
lated form (based on L. Miiller's edition, 1884):

Ann. Sat. Fab.

Monosyllabic forms and ea 18 7

Other forms i (eos) 7

In view of the somewhat scanty fragments of En-
nius one might be tempted to regard the above men-
tioned conditions as a result of chance, did he not
find them strikingly confirmed by the usage of the
later poets. To make this clearer we here insert a
tabulated statement of the relative frequency of the
cases of is in the Augustan and post-Augustan poets
mentioned in the above tables with the exception of
the Tibullus-corpus, Propertius, Horace and Manilius,
who are not so rigid in the exclusion of the oblique
cases, and with the addition of Ennius' Annals, Ca-

Is in Poetry. 17

tonis Disticha, the Carmina de Figuris, de Ponderibus
and de VII Planetibus, Namatianus and Priscian's
Periegesis. For the sake of comparison with a stan-
dard prose- writer we adjoin in a parallel series the
figures giving the relative frequency in Caesar. Num-
ber of instances:

other
is (sam, etc.) ea id eum, earn eo, ea eos, eas forms total

Caesar 50 90 175 24$ 360 185 940 2045

Poets 104 150 112 22 15 5 2 410

For Caesar the occurrences are stated in round num-
bers and include the Pseudo- Caesarian Bell. Alex.,
Bell. Afr., and Bell. Hisp. The two isolated cases in
the poets are eius from Ovid, Ex Ponto 4,15,6 (omit-
ted in Heinze's text) and Ilias Latina 2,2. The above
figures yield the following percentages:

Caesar 21A ^A %1A 12 17^ 9 46 100
Plautus 15 5^ 30 19^ 7 3^ 19^ 100
Poets 25^ 36^ 27^ 5^ 3^ i^ Y2 loo

In this table Plautus is represented only by the four
plays tabulated above. The forms eius and ei (Dative)
make up seventeen per cent, of the nineteen and one-
half per cent, in the last column but one. If we now
include in the poets the totals for the Tibullus-corpus,
pertittt, Horace and Gratitis, the proportions re-
main still not very materially altered:

other
is ea id eu(a)m eo(a) forms

Occurrence^: iiS 152 144 36 22 20 492
24 31 29^ 7^ 4^ 4 100

We observed above that the detenu inative as a whole
voided by the poets. The la-t two tables show

1 8 The Latin Pronouns.

that in the handling of the special cases also careful
discrimination was made.

Certain forms of is have entirely disappeared,
others are rarely used, while still others have become
decidedly less frequent than in prose. On the other
hand a marked preference is shown for the monosyl-
labic forms is and id and for the pyrrhic ea. With
these three forms the poets have in fact developed a
number of formulae that find frequent employment.
Among the more common of these may be mentioned:
i 2 isque, idque. Ennius, Lucretius, Tibullus,
Virgil, Ovid, Statius, Silius.

3 atque is. Statius, Silius.

4 atque ea. Lucretius, Virgil, Ovid, Statius,

Silius.

5 uix ea (often followed by fatus erat). Virgil,

Ovid, Statius, Dracontius.

6 dumque ea. Statius, Silius.

7 quidquid id (is) est (es). Lucretius, Tibullus,

Virgil, Statius, Nemesianus, Avianus, Cal-

purnius.

Of these nos. 1,2,5,6 are of quite frequent occurrence,
there being nearly one hundred instances in all. None
of them, however, are found in Lucan. The form e£
shares with other pyrrhic words the peculiarity of
often filling the last two short syllables of the fourth
foot of the hexameter. Thus is formed the cadence
^^ — ^^ — ^ so common in our epics. Examples are:
Virgil, Aen. 2,17 ea farna uagatur; 3,505 ea cura nepo-
tes; 660 ea sola uoluptas; 4,379 ea cura quietos; 2,123
ea numina diuom; 3,100 ea moenia quaerunt; 12,216
ea pugna uideri; Ovid, Met. 6,154 ea cuncta placer ent;

Is in Poetry. 19

8,123 ea fabula: uerus; 15,64 ea pectoris hausit, etc.,
etc.] Statius, Thebais 2,73; 4,242; Valerius Flaccus
3,223; 455; 4,144; 6,18; 7,108; 8,43.

Compare with this peculiarity the observation made
by Edwards, The Ablative of Quality and the Geni-
tive of Quality in Latin, New York, 1900, p. 39, that
the Ablative of quality corpore stands nearly always
in the fifth foot of the hexameter, because of the im-
possibility in many instances of employing the Geni-
tive in this position. Whatever may have been the
reason or reasons that led the poets to distinguish be-
tween the Ablative and the Genitive construction,1 the

1 It is evident that the choice between these two construc-
tions, if determined simply by the technique of prosody, must
depend, in Virgil and the later writers at least, upon the charac-
ter (vocalic or consonantal) of the initial vowel of the following
word. As a matter of fact, in Lucretius 1,1-300 the dissyllabic

la with initial consonant that follow a dactylic word in the
fifth foot of the hexameter are about three times as frequent as
the words with initial vowels in the same position (in Virgil i,
1-300 the proportion is about two of the former to one of the
latter). There would accordingly be more opportunity on an
average to employ the Ablative, if the choice were determined
merely by the character of the following word. Is it not more
likely that the reverse would be the case, and that the character
of the final dissyllable would be determined by the use of the
Ablative or the Genitive in the fifth foot ? Or, if Lucretius was
forced to use a word like posse in the sixth foot, would he have
found any difficulty in writing 1,4-SS solidi reperiri corpori '
posse ?

Since writing the above, I have laid this question before Dr.
r.ls, who agrees with me that I. urretius was not constrained
by the metre to write corpore, referring to 2,53 rationi' potestas
and a.'.-j; niunini' diuae. He urges, however, and rightly
enough, that the influence of Lucretius, and particularly of Vir-
gil, » lent usage must have been great.

2O The Latin Pronouns.

appearance of the word corpore so often in the fifth
foot is easy of explanation. In the Latin hexameters
a dactylic word often forms the fifth foot (about 230
cases in Lucretius i , 1-300, Virgil i , 1-300 and Juvenal,
Satire i), less frequently in the first foot (about 80
cases in the same lines) seldom in the fourth (12
cases) and very rarely in the second and third (no
cases) . It is a question then of the diaeresis and the
penthemimeral caesura. Applying these conditions to
the pronoun is, we may readily conjecture that, if no
elision takes place (elision occurs very rarely; so Ovid
Met. 2,785 and Silius 7,160 — In both cases it also
precedes the diaresis), the form ea will stand only in
a foot that is followed by the diaeresis, /. c., in the
fifth, fourth and first often, in the third less fre-
quently, in the second very rarely. What we actually
find is that out of 86 instances of ea 48 fall in the first
foot, 28 in the fourth foot, 8 in the third and 2 in the
second. The excess of the occurrences in the first
foot over those in the fourth (we might have expected
the reverse) is accounted for by the frequent use of is
as a correlative. Thus out of the 201 passages in
which various forms of is occur in Ennius, the Tibul-
lus-corpus, Propertius, Virgil, Ovid, Lucan, Statins
and Silius, 118 fall to the first foot, 34 to the fourth, 25
to the second, 19 to the third, 5 to the fifth and none to
the sixth. This also explains the absence of is from
the sixth foot and its infrequent appearance in the
fifth.

In addition to the cases of is counted in the com-
parison drawn between Caesar and the poets the fol-
lowing instances occur in metrical inscriptions:

Is in Poetry. 21

id: Biicheler, Carm. Epigraph., nos. 767; 995,26;
1009 Quicquid id est; 1031; 1258 Idque (= C.
I. L. XII, 2098; VI, 12652; XI, 1273 (ex sche-
dis); VI, 6592; 23004); Hubner, Inscriptiones
Hispaniae Christianae ex Zamorae schedis.
eius: B. 765 (= C. I. L. XII, 2143).
ei (dat.): B. 489 (monosyllabic); 492 (iambic)

(= C. I. L. 111,10501; 754).
eo (for eum): B. 474 (= Ephem. Epigraph. IV,

p. 346, no. 936).

ea: B. 774 (= C. I. L. VIII,684).
Taking up the forms in detail, we may now observe
that the forms is and ea are among those less fre-
quently found in prose. This is also true of id, but
the contrast between the prose usage and that of the
poets is not so marked in the case of this form. Most
striking of all is the almost entire absence of eius in
the poets, which is used by the prose writers more
frequently than any other form, occurring, for exam-
ple, in Caesar upwards of three hundred times.
It is fairly common in Lucretius (55 times in books
1-3; 6) and Manilius (12 times), who often employ
it to fill the last foot of the hexameter. The only
other poets of those cited in the above tables, who
t are: Catullus 84,5; Tibullus 1,6,25; Propertius
o; 4,6,67; Horace, Satires 2,1,70; 6,76; Ovid,
Trist. 3,4,27; ex Ponto 4,15,6 (some manuscripts
have- huius — In Met. 8,16 eius is a questionable read-
: (Vratins 224. From tlii> count the ante-classi-
>oets and Connnodian arc- also omitted. The latter
culiarities in his use of the word, as
in his metrics in general. lie u>» - is, however. >par-

22 The Latin Pronouns.

ingly, showing the forms: is 4 times, ea 6 times, eius
3 times, eo 12, ear urn 5, eos 6, eis 3. Entirely miss-
ing from the poets are ii(ei) Nom. pi., eae and eis.
Omitting Commodian and the inscriptions mentioned,
earum occurs only in Catullus 63,54; Horace, Sat.
2,8,92; eorumonly in Horace, Sat. 1,4,80; eos only Pro-
pertius 2,21,7; Horace, Epist. 2,1,67; Virgil, Georg.
3,252; Aen. 1,413; Carmen de Pond. 72; eas Horace,
Sat. 1,10,14; ei (dat.) only Catullus 82,3; Ovid, Hal.
34. It is also worthy of comment that only the in-
stance in the Carmen de Ponderibus and those in the
inscriptions fall later than the Augustan age. This
clearly shows not only that the later writers in metre
avoided the word as a whole, but also that they were
more rigid in the exclusion of the oblique cases just
enumerated. As a matter of fact, in the entire post-
Virgilian literature under discussion there are only
five cases of eum, five of eo, one of eius, two of ei.
Three of these fall to Lucan.

Considerable light is thrown upon the reasons for
this attitude of the poets by the explanations of Wolff -
lin- Header in the Archiv fiir lateinische Lexiko-
graphie und Grammatik XI, 373 ff:

i) 'The nominative forms ii, ei, eae were indis-
tinguishable in pronunciation, and hence in metrical
value, from the Dative and from the Nominatives hi
and hae. The poets' ears could hardly have felt the
combination of sounds eae as an objectionable caco-
phony, since they frequently admit such forms as
meae, deae, etc. lis was avoided for the same reasons
as ii.'

This point suggests one of the most interesting as

Is in Poetry. 23

well as most important problems of textual criticism.
The questions involved are a) at what time was the
phonetic identity of ii and hi, eae and hae, iis and his
(hiis also occurs) an accomplished fact ? b) how far
has this confusion operated at a later date to cause
corruption in the manuscripts of the earlier writers ?
Weissbrodt, De usu pronominum is et hie quaestio,
Progr. Bromberg, 1878,79 has shown quite clearly that
this confusion could scarcely have become general
before the end of the second century A. D. , although
isolated cases of hi for ii and of his for iis are found
much earlier. In the fourth and fifth centuries this
confusion was very common, if not universal. The
attempt of Hans Ziegel, De is et hie pronominibus
quatenus confusa sint apud antiques, Marburg, 1897,
to bring order into the chaos must be regarded as a
distinct advance. He endeavors to prove by the colla-
tion of certain manuscripts, that an unknown gram-
marian of the fourth or fifth century established some
rules for the guidance of authors or scribes in the
choice between the two sets of forms. Still his results
cannot be accepted until they receive confirmation by
the consultation of other manuscripts. If the question
were one of orthography and phonetics only, it would
be comparatively simple. It is, however, complicated
b)r considerations of semasiology. The weakening of
the force of hie, which will be treated in the following
chapter, had in the classical period so far advanced as
•nder the interchange of the two words no uncom-
mon occurrence. We may therefore not unreasonably
inquire, whether the writers, though perfectly aware
of the orthographical, phonetic and seinasiolo^ical dis-

24 The Latin Pronouns.

tinctions (however slight) between the two words,
nevertheless deliberately chose his and hi in preference
to iis and ii. One circumstance, which, so far as I
am aware, has never been noted, is of great weight: in
sentences of the type of Quint. 9,2,1 nam mihi de his
sen tenti arum figuris dicere in animo est, quae ab illo
simplici modo indicandi recedunt, other forms than his
and hi are of the rarest occurrence, while these two
forms are quite frequently met with (Compare, e. g.,
the readings in Cato, De Agricultura 1,4; 18,6; 52,1;
66,2; 149,2; 158,2). We feel called upon to lay con-
siderable stress upon this fact in view of the surprising
persistency with which modern writers on Latin gram-
mar cite instances of hi and his to prove the weaken-
ing of the meaning of hie. Very few writers quote
instances of any other form. This extraordinary per-
ponderance of the two forms hi and his would be more
naturally brought about by manuscript corruption
than by semasiological conditions contemporary with
the author, since such conditions would be likely to
aifect all forms alike and not simply the two just
mentioned. As no instance of iis or is (for iis) occurs
in the poets mentioned above except the dramatists, it
is very difficult to say whether the confusion in manu-
script tradition has affected their works as well as
those of the prose writers.'

2) 'The Nominative ei was coincident in form with
the Dative ei.'

3) 'The Dative ei varied between the monosyllabic
pronunciation (L,ucilius 4,4o(Ei coni. M.); 7,27; En-
nius, Fab. 204 (Miiller); Catullus 82,3), the iambic
(Ovid, Hal. 34 — L,ucan avoids the Dative 6,172 by

Is in Poetry. 25

using viro [Obermeier, /. r.]) and the spondaic (see
Ritschl, Opusc. II, 419, where are quoted twenty-two
examples from the comedians and seven from Lucre-
tius).'

4) 'The forms eum, earn, eo, ea, eos, eas varied
between the monosyllabic and the dissyllabic pronun-
ciation, and eorum, earum were pronounced with and
without synezesis.'

5) 'Eius is still more uncertain in its pronuncia-
tion. It is monosyllabic (Cicero, Arat. apud De Nat.
Deor. 2,109) or pyrrhic under the republic (cf. L,ach-
mann on L,ucr. pp. 27; 161), while the normal Augus-
tan pronunciation was trochaic.'

'To avoid such difficulties the poets excluded the
forms in question entirely from their writings.' On
the whole subject of the uncertainty and variety in
pronunciation of the dissyllabic and trisyllabic forms
of is see Bucheler, Lateinische Declination, index s. vv.

Positive evidence that the considerations just men-
tioned played a part in determining the poet to avoid
the use of these metrically inconvenient forms of is,
is found in the similar attitude of the poets toward
idem. The evidence collected by Bucheler, op. cit. s.

idem, eadem, etc., shows that we have no reason
for supposing that the confusion in pronunciation of
idem was any less than that of the determinative. On
the contrary, the transference of the accent would tend
still further to bring about the disappearance of the
initial vowel of the oblique cases (compare the form
of the Nom. inaac., sg. and pi. Dat.-Abl. pi. idem and

:n— the normal forms employed in the hexameter —
with the unroinpouiKkd ii, eis. iis, rarely or never

26 The Latin Pronouns.

employed by the poets). The reduction of these two
forms to dissyllables rendered their employment in
metrical writings possible, or at least unobjectionable;
and placed them, in fact, metrically on the same basis
with is and id. Accordingly we frequently find them
in poetry, while ii and iis are absolutely avoided. This
is in itself sufficient proof that the difficulty of metri-
cal treatment was the chief objection to the two simple
forms. In Catullus, Tibullus-corpus, Proper tius, Hor-
ace's Odes, Ovid's Ex Ponto, Martial and Juvenal the
following forms of idem occur, if we may trust the
indices: idem Nom. sg. and pi. 72 times; eadem Nom.
sg. pi. and Ace. pi., 38; isdem Dat.-Abl. pi. 7 times;
other forms, 13 (10 in Ovid and Juvenal.). Horace
is less strict in the use of idem, precisely as he is less
strict in the exclusion of is from his Satires and Epis-
tles. I have no doubt that the examination of Virgil,
Lucan, Silius, Statius and Valerius Flaccus would
reveal still greater caution on the part of these writ-
ers in the use of idem.

While there can be no doubt that these considera-
tions have played an important part in determining
the exclusion of the determinative and the pronoun of
identity from poetry, we must not overlook other con-
siderations. It was a true feeling for the language
that led Dacier to remark on the unpoetical character
of is, and that led Bentley (if his opinion was not
formed independently) to approve his judgment. The
determinative does express in most cases only "for-
melle Beziehung," but it is going too far to add, as
Grosrau does, that the word "keine eigentliche Bedeut-
ung hat." To be sure, the word often adds so little

Is in Poetry. 27

to the sentence that it may be dropped even in prose,
yet the usage of the poets shows that here, as in prose,
the word often has a more or less strong demonstrative
force, "he and no other," sometimes approaching talis
in meaning (cf. supra}, while, vice versa, it is less fre-
quently used as a simple correlative with qui. We
occasionally find it where in classical prose we should
expect ille or hie.

From correspondence with Professor Shorey, of
the University of Chicago, I learn that the same feel-
ing concerning the weakness of the meaning of certain
words underlies his note on Horace O. 4,2,33 and the
statement found on p. xix of the Introduction to his
edition of Horace's Lyrics.

This discussion would be incomplete and perhaps
misleading, if we should omit to state that even in
prose the forms ei (ii) Nom. pi. and eae are extremely
rare. In Caesar, for example, the two combined make
up only i2/3 per cent, of the entire number of occur-
rences of the determinative, in the Rhetorica ad
Herennium only i */$ per cent., in Curtius ^ per cent.,
in Florus */$ per cent., in Apuleius ^ per cent.,
while they are entirely absent from Fronto B'ks.
1-5. Is their scarcity due to their disappearance
orption) into the forms hi and hae, or to disuse
<1 by a weakening of meaning? The answer
must ]>end the solution of the problem stated on pages
;. It may further be added that even the form
would from the bare fact of its being Nom. pi.
1 rather infrequent use as a substantive either
in prose or TOTM < more often in the latter ), while both
hi and IKK- wouM often be understood from the per-

28 The Latin Pronouns.

sonal ending of the verb or represented by the relative
qui, quae. The form id, on the other hand, was
largely used in prose as well as in poetry (compare the
numerical prominence of the neuters hoc and haec),
yielding in the Rhetorica ad Herennium 25^ per cent,
of all instances of the determinative, in Florus 27, and
in Pronto (and M. Aurelius), B'ks. 1-5, 29 per cent.

B. IS IN PROSE LITERATURE.

Although the prose literature of the Romans does
not show peculiarities in the use of is so striking as
those just discussed, yet some interesting and valuable
facts may be learned from observing the attitude of
the prose writers. An examination of the monu-
ments shows that is is less and less frequently em-
ployed in proportion as the style passes from the cold
and unimpassioned scientific exposition (legal litera-
ture, Cato, De Agr., etc.} through the more lively
historical narrative into the impassioned tone of ora-
tory and rhetorical (declamatory) prose (Seneca). In
fact it is par excellence the pronoun of the curial style.
In all our preserved laws, formulae, etc., hie hardly
appears at all. When it does, it refers with few excep-
tions to the subject matter of the document itself.
Ille occurs previous to the year 48 A. D. only three
times in Bruns' Fontes. The passages are: lex Cor-
nelia de XX quaestoribus (81 B. C.) 1, 5 ollis homini-
bus in which case ollis seems to have the force peculiar
to formulae, ' ' so and so " ; lex a vicanis Furf ensibus
templo dicta (58 B. C.) 1. 3 comulateis olleis legibus
illeis regionibus (in which case it certainly bears the
meaning just mentioned) — cf. Hermes VII, p. 201,

Is /// Prose Literature. 29

where the style of this provincial document is dis-
cussed. In view of the extreme rarity of the word,
one is surprised to meet with it in the Laws of the
Twelve Tables 10,8 ast im cum illo (/. e., auro quo
iuncti sunt dentes) sepeliet. Aside from the question
as to how much the text of the laws has been modern-
ized, there is of course a possibility of corruption in
the manuscripts of Cicero, where the passage is pre-
served. If the text is sound, the demonstrative may
be justified by the contrast between the gold particu-
larly mentioned in the sentence just cited, and the
general prohibition neue aurum addito. Even after
the date above mentioned ille appears rarely in the
laws. In the S. C. Claudianum (48 A. D.), which
really has the form of an address and not of a legal
document, ille occurs four times. In the carelessly
written decretum proconsulis Sardiniae (79 A. D.) there
is an example; likewise in the S. C. Macedonianum
(69-79 A. D.), where illi stands simply for ei; in the
testamentum Galli (first century); in the testamentum
Dasumii (108 A. D.); in the lex arae lovis Salaritanae
(137 A. D.), in which occurs the above cited formula
ollis legibus ollis regionibus; in the epistula praefecto-
rum praetorio (168 A. D.), where illo = eo; in the lis
fullonum de pensione solvendo where illud quod — id
quod; in the gesta de aperiendo testamento (474 A. D.),
quod .... illud = quod .... id. It should be noted
that only few of these are public documents, which
keep closer to the- <. -la^k-al usage.

Turning now to the writers of scientific prose we
find the relative frequency of the six pronouns to be

30 The Latin Pronouns.

is hie ille ipse idem iste

Cato

59^

23^

3

2

ii

Vitruvius

64

22

ft

5*

8

Gaius

64

15

4

8

8

Dictys Cretensis

70^

13

2^

8^

4

Dares Phrygius

72

II

7^

6?£

2

*

In the first three cases hi and his are counted with hie
although there can be no doubt that many of them
should fall into the is-column. Owing to the con-
fusion between ii and hi, iis and his, 73 and ii would
probably be a more exact proportion for Dictys Cre-
tensis. In the case of Dares those instances of hi and
his which undoubtedly represent original ii and iis are
included in the 72 per cent. The last two writers are
added not as scientific writers, but because their per-
centages approach nearest to those of Cato, etc. They
may easily have used the pronoun is so largely in
order to give their writings a flavor of antiquity.
The historians in their employment of these pro-
nouns show some marked differences:

is hie ille ipse idem iste

6 /'B

7 «

Caesar

50^ 20^ 9^

Curtius

36 21 16^

Suetonius

553/i i3j£ 62/z

Justin

35 22 14^

Victor

50^ 22 9

12 Vz

ii 7 i

The pronouns ille and ipse are decidedly more fre-

Is in Prose Literature. 31

quent, — it could not be otherwise in historical litera-
ture,— while is has decreased. The less frequent
employment of is by Curtius and Justin could be easily
accounted for. The African Latinity of Florus and
his poetical coloring, for which see Archiv f . lat. Lex.
u. Gram. VI, iff. [Wolfflin], removes him widely from
these. He shows:

17 24 26 27^ 5^ #

With him, as with Catullus, is holds the fourth place
instead of the first, its position being usurped by ille
and ipse. He represents the extreme phase of a
movement, which has left clear traces of its influence
on the historical and particularly on the patristic
literature. A medial position is occupied by the fol-
lowing writers:

is hie ille ipse idem iste
% % % % % %

Seneca Rhetor 13% 35^ 35 6 3% 6%

Pliny, Epistulae 16 34 23 16 6j£ 4^

Macrobius, Som. Scip. 16 47 ii>£ 15^ 8#" 2

Boethius, De Consol. 23^ 35^ 2oj£ 13 3^ il/z

The facts told by these tables require no comment.
The following chapters will be found to describe in
detail the semasiological changes that explain, to a
large extent at least, the shifting of the predominence
in usage from one pronoun to another.

Concerning the weakening of is in particular, those

interested may consult Praun, Hemerkungeii y.ur Syn-

Vitruv j>. s^; Sorn, Der Sprachgebrauch des

Kutropiu>, part II, p. 3; and Hoppe, Pro-

:i, p. 8.

:i cite no writer in whose works is has so far

32 The Latin Pronouns.

been replaced by hie, ille and ipse as in those of the
grammarian Pompeius. In his writings it is confined
almost entirely to certain set formulae or phrases. As
a free and independent word it is nearly extinct. The
following table is based on the first 108 pages of
Keil's edition of Pompeius.

is hie ille ipse idem iste totals
Number of instances:
Caesar and
continuators 2.73(2045 830 382 525 277 5

749 304 140 189 101 2 1485

Pompeius 24 425 430 235 35 335 1484

Percentages:

Caesar, etc. 50^ 20^ 9^ 14 6 %

Pompeius i# 27^ 28^ 17^ 2# 22

The conclusions which are to be drawn from this
table are to be found in chapter III.

In reference to the disappearance of the individual
forms of is, little is to be said beyond the remarks on
the forms ii, iis, eae made above. It is well known
that in later Latin the form eum (neuter) made on the
analogy of ipsum, bellum, etc., usurps the place of the
form id, except in the phrase id ipsum (= Italian
desso) and probably a few other formulae. Examples
are cited by Geyer, Kritischeund sprachliche Erliiuter-
ungen zu Antonini Plac. Itin., p. 41.

CHAPTER II. HIC.

CHAPTER II. HIC.

A. THE RIVALRY BETWEEN HIC AND IS.

The encroachment of hie on the province of is is
most clearly demonstrable in the case of certain short
formulae or phrases, in which the neuter Nominative,
Accusative or Ablative is used to refer not to some
particular word, but to the general idea of the follow-
ing or the preceding sentence or clause. Such phrases
are eo (= ideo, propterea), hoc (= ideo, propterea),
both either with or without a following quia, quod, ut,
ne, etc.\ eo with the comparative, hoc with the com-
parative; id est, hoc est, both explanatory; ad id, ad
hoc with various meanings; ob id, ob hoc; postea,
postidea, (post id, post e£), posthac (post hoc, p. haec —
also postilla and ill£); eiusmodi, huiusmodi; and lastly
eo consilio, hoc consilio, the last two not being fre-
quently employed. These are all special cases tinder
the general principle stated by Kuhner, L,at. Gram.,
£ 1 1 8, 2 Anm. 7 and 8 (= vol. II, p. 455). The first
five pairs form the subject of the present section.

/. Eo=ideo, hoc— ideo.

The causal use of these two Ablatives is fully
developed as early as Plautus, not to mention the
doubtful passage in the lex XII tabularum 2,2 morbus
sonticus .... aut dies status cum hoste .... quid

36 The Latin Pronouns.

horum fuit uitium iudici reoue, eo dies || die || diffen-
sus || diffissus, Th. Mommsen || esto. Examples of
hoc = ideo are:
Pseud. 807 l Ilium (sc. coquum) conducunt (homines)

potius qui uilissumust.
Hoc ego fui hodie solus obsessor fori;

819 ff . Ei homines cenas

condiunt strigibus,

conuiuis intestina quae exedint.

Hoc hie quidem homines tarn breuem uitam

colunt;
Miles 850

. . . .ego promebam postea,
Hoc illi crebro capite sistebant cadi;

Hoc is here a probable and generally accepted con-
jecture of Brix 2d ed. for the MSS. hie. Cist. 319 ff.

Nam hasce aedis conductas habet meus gnatus,
haec ubi astat. [nominauit.

Hoc hanc earn esse opiniost: nam haec ilium
I cite these passages in full since they are the only
ones known to me in Plautus. Ussing ad Asin. 235
(= 248 U) says "hoc = ideo" but I cannot regard the
passage as an indisputable instance of the construc-
tion. Sentences of the type Stich. 127

Sed hoc est, quod ad uos uenio quodque esse

ambas conuentas uolo

(cf. Asin. 864; Merc. 711; Men. 1135) do not belong
here, inasmuch as the passage Rud. 1258

Illuc est quod nos nequam seruis utimur

T All citations from Plautus follow the larger revision and
completion of Ritschl's edition by I/dwe, Gotz and Scholl.

Eo = Ideo, Hoc — Ideo. 37

proves that this hoc is an Accusative. Slightly differ-
ent is Lucr. 6,379, where Wakefield (apud Munro ad
loc.} would take hoc in the causal sense. Munro is
clearly right in rejecting this explanation of the word.
In like manner the passage Miles 1321

Istuc crucior, a viro me tali abalienarier

shows that Stichus 9

sed hoc, soror, crucior:

Patrem tuom meumque ....
(13,14). . .nunc inprobi uiri officio uti

is to be excluded from this context. In Stichus 41

ego te hoc, soror, tametsi es maior,

Moneo ut tuom memineris officium

hoc is plainly Accusative. For Miles 297 see below
p. 40.

There is to my knowledge no instance of this
construction in Terence. Was the graceful imitator of
the Greeks led by his love of sermonis elegantia to
avoid the construction ? The only passage that I can
call into question is Phor. 804, and since the causal
hoc does not occur in the comicorum fragmenta, Kiess-
lingad Hor. Sat. 1,2,53 "wie Ofters in der Sprache der
Komodie" should read "wie vereinzelt bei Plautus."
A similar judgment must be passed upon Lorenz ad
Mil. 850 "hoc = 'darum'; derselbe Abl. Pseud. 807;
822 und ofters." The only other examples which
Hand, Tursellinus 111,92 and 93 cites as certain are:
Lucr. 4,555 (now 553); 660 (now 658); 624 (now 622);
. Geo. 2,425 (Uss. ad Plaut. Aul. 248 takes Virg.
Aen. 9,492 in this way); Plin. Epist. 2,19,3 hoc quod;
Seniiana schol. ant. litt. ad Eel. 10,18 (Duker pro-

38 The Latin Pronouns.

poses here ob hoc against the MSS). If to these we
add L,ucil. 6,29 (corrected by M tiller to hac); Catullus
44,13 (where cod. Oxoniensis reads li=hoc); Lucr. 4,
360; 6,274; 864 (in all these instances, as in the cases
cited by Hand, the word stands in the formula hoc
ubi1 at the beginning of a hexameter); 3,531 (where hoc
is a conjecture of Munro for the MSS. reading haec.);
Hor. Sat. i,2,53f; 1,6,41; 1,7,10; we shall see that one
may well question the correctness of Kiessling's pro-
cedure in making this construction characteristic of
the language of comedy.

The construction was doubtless avoided on account
of the phonetic identity of hoc Nom. and Ace. sg., hoc
Abl. and hoc Adverb ( = hue), which rendered the
form ambiguous. Careful writers could therefore em-
ploy the form only where the context left no doubt as
to its meaning. They could easily find substitutes for
it in the causal expressions ob hanc rem, ob hanc cau-
sam, de hac causa, hac causa (later also hinc) and the
like, or if necessary, in qua causa, qua de causa, quam
ob rem, etc. It was no doubt in part this feeling that
led to the juxtaposition of the Ablatives ipso, solo,
uno and the superlative maxime, although, of course,
no one would deny that these words at the same time
intensify or otherwise modify the meaning of hoc.
Another means of avoiding the locution was the phrase
ob hoc discussed below, pp. 73ff . Ter. And. 268 offers
ex hoc. The same purpose is imperfectly served by
the addition of a quod clause (causal), although in

1 Lucretius has similarly hie ubi at the beginning of a hexa-
meter in 6,446; 524; 836; (cf. Hor. Epist. 2,2,136). In Lucre-
tius 4,1093 hoc = "by this means."

Eo = Ideo, Hoc = Idco. 39

some cases this clause is itself susceptible of a double
interpretation, and more perfectly effected by the addi-
tion of a quia or a quom clause, which last form of
correlation had a precourser in the Greek rourw ....
dion, as exemplified in Antiphon -£/>} r. Hpw. $w. 3
rourat iffatOrjffav, Stort <e3> iipsuffavro.

The causal Ablative eo is slightly more common in
its simplest form than is causal hoc. A typical exam-
ple of this usage is Plaut. Trin. 363 f.

Nam sapiens quidem pol ipsus fingit fortunam

sibi: [malust.

Eo non multa quae neuolt eueniunt, nisi fictor

The remaining instances in Plautus are: Bacch. 298
Non me fefellit, sensi: eo exanimatus fui;

Bacch. 95; Capt. 837; 860; Cist. 7 (Ms); Poen. 288;
Pers. 276; Rud. 876; True. 85. Trin. 372 (not 371)
may perhaps be placed here. Truculentus 180 is
doubtless an interpolation.

Poen. 478 . . . .uiscum legioni dedi

Fundasque: eo praesternebant folia farferi

is beyond doubt the right reading, but eo is here an

Ablative of means. I believe Ussing's interpretation

of Asin. 435 (= 432U) eo = "than he" is correct, but

the parallels he cites are not appropriate and do not

prove the point. There are to my knowledge only

6 eleven certain instances in Plautus.

From Terence I can cite only the passage Hec. 238

i in oppido aibant turn esse: eo ad earn

non admissa stun.

The passage Adel. 620 offers an instance of eo denot-

40 The Latin Pronouns.

ing purpose or end, not cause. After Terence we first
meet this pronoun in the Ciceronian age. For even
assuming the correctness of the reading in Cato, De
Agr. 22,3 (see Keil's critical note ad loc.)y we must
interpret it with Gottfr. Grosse (translation of Cato,
Halle, 1787) and Holtze, Syntax, prise, script. 1,221
in the sense "for this purpose," "to this end" (Grosse:
"die kosten dazu betragen ...."). In fact, notwith-
standing the statement of Kiihner, op. cit. II, p. 745
(cf. Hand, Turs. II, 410) to the contrary, the usage is
well attested for Cicero himself and for Sallust. The
instances are: Cic. De Div. 2,46 f rater es; eo uereor;
De Nat. Deor. 2,30 quocirca sapientem esse mundum

necesse est, naturamque perfectione rationis

excellere, eoque deum esse mundum, omnemque uim
mundi natura diuina continere; De Fin. 3,16 fieri
autem non posset, ut appeterent aliquid, nisi sensum
haberent sui eoque se diligerent; Sallust, Jug. 42,1
nobilitas noxia atque eo perculsa; Orat. Phil. 13
(= Maurenbrecher Fr. 1,77,13) antea malum publicum
occulte, auxilia palam instruebatur, eo boni malos
facile anteibant. It does not occur in these two writ-
ers without the connectives et, que or atque. From
this time on eo occurs in its simple form in all periods
of the development of the language, at least down to
Boethius (De Consol. Phil. 3,3/^,4).

Here should also find mention the formula eo fit
ut, as in Cic. Acad. 2,66; De Leg. 3,39; Sallust, Cat.
52,23; 53,4. The familiar type of construction Plaut.
Most. 636

Quid eost argento f actum ?
along with hinc fit, inde fit, etc., would perhaps lead

Eo = Ideo, Hoc-Ideo. 41

one to suppose that the eo here expresses an idea of
separation or of source rather than one of cause. Yet
on the other hand, when we meet with such instances
as Plaut. Amph. 756

Eo fit quia mihi plurimum credo

(cf. Ter. Haut. 505, in which eo is correlated with a
causal conjunction), and such as Plaut. Cure. 61 id
eo fit, quia || ideo BEJ || , in which the subject of fit
is expressed, we are led to conclude that the probabili-
ties are at least as strong, that the Romans felt the
causal force of the eo in this formula.1

Those who wish to study this locution more in de-
tail may consult the following passages: Hor. Sat. i,
6,89; i,9,55; 2,8,65; Livy 2,48,4; 3,66,4; 71,6; 4,7,
n; 10,9; 5,16,4; 17,10; 20,9; 46,9; 6,5,5; 7,8,5; 19,
5; 8,8,8; 17,8; 9,11,11; 36,4; 40,9; 22,47,5; 29,1,20,-
20, i; 25,12; 30,42,16; (Observe that in lyivy this con-
struction is confined for the most part to the first de-
cade— Cf. Stacey, Die Entwickelung des livian. Stiles,.
in Archiv fur latein. Lexikographie and Grammatik
X (1898), p. 17-82); Velleius Pat. 2,67,4; Plm. Nat.
Hist. 24,62; Quint. 2,16,4; *7»7; 4,2,80 (Bonnell reads
aut); 119; 3,3; 11,3,29; for Tacitus (about fifty instan-
ces) see Gerber und Greef p. 351; Pronto 2^m(N);
Apuleius, Apol. pp. 500,17 (Paris edition of 1688);
509,2; 514,1; 525,8; etc., etc.\ Gellius 11,9,1; Censori-
nus, De Die Nat. 18,8; 8,5; 14,2; Victor, Historia
Abbrcviata 15,3; 38,5; 39,20; 40,8.

As in the case of hoc, so in that of eo, ambiguity
(since co may mean "thither," "to the end that"

1 Cf. also ita fit ut.

6

42 The Latin Pronouns.

— expressing purpose — or " hence," with illative
force) led to the infrequent use of the word, which
was avoided by differentiation, giving rise to the
forms ideo and eo usque. Still other expressions,
such as propterea, ob earn rem, ea causa, etc., and
later inde and ob id, contributed to the disuse of eo
causal.

From the foregoing, particularly from the infre-
quent occurrence of hoc, it is clear that we can speak
of a rivalry between hoc and eo in the simple forms
only in a limited sense. Both of these expressions
are more frequently used in correlation with a causal
or a conditional clause. In Plaut. Mil. 298

Primumdum, si falso insimulas Philocomasium,

hoc perieris.

hoc gathers up the cause just stated in conditional
form (cf. below p. 47). The only passage in Plautus
that can possibly be considered to exemplify the usage
is that quoted by Hand, op. dt. p. 93, Rud. 388

Hoc sese excruciat animi,
Quia leno ademit cistulam ei.

Munro also ad Lucr. 3,531 cites this passage as an
instance of causal hoc. The question may, however,
be raised whether hoc is here Ablative or Accusative.
A very close parallel is afforded by Trin. 1170

Quom ille itast ut eum esse nolo, id crucior,
the only difference being that this instance has the
passive (middle?) voice instead of the active. Another
type of construction which strongly confirms the
assumption that hoc is Accusative, is that found in
Stichus 9ff. cited above, in which an epexegetical

Eo = Idea, Hoc = Idea. 43

Accusativus cum infinitive stands in apposition with
the hoc. This is evidently also the view of Kiihner,
op. tit. II, § 126, 3,b, who cites Stich. gff., Mil. 1321

Istuc crucior, a viro me tali abalienarier,
and Capt. 597 (should be 600)

Crucior lapidem non habere me,

under the rubric "Der Ace. cum Inf. steht . . . . nach
den verbis affectuum." The construction does not to
my knowledge occur in Terence. In fact it is not
until comparatively late in the period of the Silver
Latinity that hoc....quia, etc., becomes at all fre-
quent. It is quite common in the Patristic literature
from Cyprian on, usually in the correlation hoc.. ..
quod, in which case ambiguity is usually avoided by
adding ipso. Cypr. Epist. 30,5^ qui ruerunt, hoc
ruerunt, quod caeca temeritate incauti fuerunt; 31,5^
iam hoc ipso quod non cessimus, uicimus; 6m nee hoc
animentur quia multi sunt, sed hoc ipso || ipsud T ||
magis reprimantur, quia non pauci sunt; Arnobius

2,2/> uel hoc ipso quod , quod ; Tertullian,

Ad Nat. 1,5^ cum tamen aliquos de nostris malos
probatis, iam hoc ipso Christianos non probatis; Am-
brosius Ex. 1,6,23(12 F) nam hoc ipso quod diuersae
eadem sint naturae, simplicem. . . .motum habere non
possunt. Passages from pagan writers are Script.
Hist. Augustae, Avid. Cas. 7,8; XXX Tyran. 26,7;
Boeth. De Consol. 5,6/^,45.

Owing to the frequency of the correlative use of
is, eo is far more common in this construction. It
occurs in Plautus (co....quod or quia): Asin. 620;
844; Bacch. 319; Capt. 70; 994; Cist. 237; 492;

44 The Latin Pronouns.

Pers. 785; 834; Rud. 24; 1114; Stich. 177; True.
272; Vid. 70; in Terence (under the form eo....

quod or eo quia): Haut. 787; Bun. 415; Ad. 698;

and in Cato, De Agr. 6,4 eo quia; 17,1 eo quia || ea
quae Jocundus || ; 37,1 quod.. ..eo. Here I would
place also the passage from the Origines cited by
Gellius 17,13,3 non .... eos . . . . eo postremo scribo
quin populi et boni et strenui sient, "I mention them
last not for this reason because they are not . . . . "
Gellius cites this passage in explanation of the quin
in the sentence non idcirco Isocrates causas non de-
fendit, quin id utile esse et honestum existumaret.
"Isocrates' reason for refraining from the pleading of
law suits was not that he thought it profitless and dis-
honorable." The usage is also found in Plautus1
Trin. 341

Non eo haec dico quin quae tu uis ego uelim et
faciam lubens:

Sed....

The construction represents the more usual non eo . . . .
quia non (compare Asin. 844), and is parallelled by
Ter. Haut. 554

Neque eo nunc dico, quo quicquam ilium sen-
serim;

Sed siquid, ne quid,

where an affirmative motive is stated, "I mention it
now not that (because) I may have noticed anything

1 On obtaining access, after much difficulty, to O. Kienitz,
De quin particulae apud priscos scriptores Latinos usu (Carls-
ruhe, 1878), I notice that he brings (p. 21 ) the passage from Cato
into connection with Plautus, Trin. 341.

Eo = Ideo> Hoc = Ideo. 45

in him, but....", and with reversed order of the
clauses, by Ter. Eun. 96 f,

Non pol, quo . . . .plus .... diligam,
Eo f eci : sed ....

A sed would naturally follow the two passages from
Gellius. The second one (which Gellius cites first)
bears on its face indications of being ' ' made to order ' '
by some rhetorician and not quoted from a work of
literature. This construction is not recognized in
Harpers' Lexicon, sub voc. quin. The correlation
eo .... quod, etc., further occurs in Rhetorica ad
Herennium 3,4,7/>; in Cicero's orations thirteen times,
in Nepos, Eum. 11,5 (see addendum, p. 219 infra)] in
Celsus, B'ks 1-5, seven times. Its association with
quod was so common (the two words being either sepa-
rated by intervening words or in juxtaposition), that
the words coalesced both in form and meaning (cf. Ital.
cio die < ecce •+• hoc + quod) so that eo quod (causal)
comes to be equivalent to quod (causal). This coales-
cence is convincingly proved by the circumstance that,
after quod, quia, quoniam take on the usage dico quod
(quia, etc.} es(se)t = dico esse, eo quod is also (in late
Latin) used in the same way — see S. Siluiae Perigri-
natio ad Loca Sancta 8,2 dicent eo quod, " they will
say that"; 8,5 retulit eo quod. Particularly instruct-
ive is the New Testament passage Mark 9,26(25),
where the following readings represent the original
(JUSTE roue TfoJUouc ^IY€IV $7i aittOavw.

i Vulgate: ut multi dicerent quia mortuus est (so
cod. Brixianus f and the majority of the ante- Hiero-
nyinian translations, with either est or esset).

46 The Latin Pronouns.

2 Cod. Veronensis b: dicerent eo quod mortuus
esset.

In the S. Siluiae Perigrin. the construction occurs
pp. 48,27; 49,12; 58,9; 63,31; 64,13 and, with the
infinitive, 66,6. In Justinian's Novellae eo quod is
sometimes used to render 8 tort. In 679-680 A. D. in a
judgment of Thierry III (printed in Lindsay, Hand-
book of Lat. Inscr. p. 127) occur the expressions
dicerit eo quod porcione sua . . . retenirit and dedit in
respunsis eo quod ipsa terra. . . . tenuerant. This coa-
lescence justifies what would otherwise appear to be
redundency in the excerpta ex libr. glossar. apud
Gotz, Corpus ¥,215,5 lampadas solstitium estibum
(sicl) .... ideo lampadas dicitur eo quod ex eo die
lampas solis . . . . (cf. Isidore. De Nat. Rerum 8,2 sol-
stitium autem aestiuum ideo lampas dicitur eo quod
....; Ktymol. 1,17,7 note a)- See also Bonnet, Le
Latin de Gregoire de Tours, p. 326. A similar cumu-
lation of causal particles occurs in Isidore, Origines
1,4,16 a.... in omnibus gentibus ideo prior est lit-
terarum pro eo quod ipsa prior nascentibus uocem
aperiat.

The gradually weakening eo was replaced, as has
been implied above, by ob id, ob hoc, ideo, idcirco,
propterea, ob earn rem (causam), and other causal ex-
pressions.

It is a matter of great difficulty, even if it is not
impossible, for us to know whether the Romans felt
any difference between the eo in the type of sen-
tences just mentioned and that exemplified by Plaut.
Aul. 240

Eo dico, ne me thensauros reperisse censeas;

Eo = Ideo, Hoc = Ideo. 47

and Ter. Phor. 745

Ho perperam olim dixi, ne uos. . . .

Effutiretis,

in which eo looks forward to a purpose clause instead
of a causal clause. The same difficulty arises in the
case of the two correlations hoc (Abl.). . . .quod and
hoc (Abl.) .... ut(ne). However the case may stand, it
is desirable for the purposes of modern grammatical
study to draw a sharp distinction between the two
constructions, and not to cite the latter type as an ex-
ample of causal eo or hoc, as is sometimes done by
modern writers.

This same uncertainty arises, when we inquire
whether the Romans were conscious of a difference in
meaning between the use of the Ablative in the form
eo (hoc) . . . .quia, and eo (hoc) ... .si (quia . . . .eo (hoc)
and si. . . .eo(hoc) ). If Nepos in a well known pas-
sage Hann. 2,6 used cum and si (apparently merely
varietatis causa) to express two similar sets of relation-
ships, with how much greater ease might a speaker
have passed (either consciously or unconsciously) from
eo (hoc). .. .quia to eo (hoc).... si! The construc-
tion occurs as early as Plautus (see Trin. 371(372?)
|| eo om. cod. F || ; Poen. 1194).

The answer to the question whether in these con-
structions hoc retains a strong demonstrative force,
while eo remains purely correlative, is one which must
have a more or less subjective coloring. Yet it is cer-
tain that hoc could not have been used extensively
(and we are justified in assuming; that it was used
more extensively in the colloquial language than in
the literary language) without sacrificing some, if not

48 The Latin Pronouns.

all, of its demonstrative force. This statement holds
true mutatis mutandis of the other formulae discussed
in this chapter. In the case of the others, however,
the rivalry of the two pronouns was sharper than in
the present case, and the tendency to confusion greater.

NOTE. — Id causal or expressing purpose and hoc
(Ace.) bearing the same meanings are of such infre-
quent occurrence that they need not be discussed here.
Hand, op. cit., does not mention them (he treats hoc
causal throughout as an Ablative). The only(?) cases
of this id in Plautus and Terence are: Plaut. Amph.
909; Capt. 680; Epid. 192; Mil. 1158; Terence, And.
157; 376; 4H; Hun. 150; 323 (scholia, ed. Schlee p.
101,5 "//] propter hoc"); 393 (scholia, p. 102,1 "/</]
propter hoc"); 829 (scholia p. 109: "id] propter id");
1005 (scholia, p. 112: "/#] ideo"); Hec. 368; Phor.
259; Adel. 791 (scholia, p. 160,15). See further
Kiihner, op. cit. II, p. 212, Anm. 3.

2. Eo cum comparative = hoc cum comparative.

The instrumental construction ' ' by this (so much)
the more, less," etc., and the Ablative proper (separa-
tion) construction are here to be distinguished. Hoc
(Abl.) plus ne facito is cited by Cicero from the lex
XII tabularum (see Scholl p. 153) in De I^eg. 2,59.
Both constructions occur with hoc and eo in Plautus
and Terence. The following are the passages:

A. Instrumental hoc: Plaut. Amph. 166 f .

dura hoc || hec codd. E F; haec Z;

corr. Angelius [| < magis > (add. Cam-
erarius) servitus est

Eo and Hoc with the Comparative. 49

Quod noctesque diesque adsiduo satis super-

quest ....
(254) Hoc adeo hoc conmemini magis, quia illo

die inpraiisus fui;
Ter. Eun. 220 f.

PHAED. Opus faciam, ut defetiger usque, ingra-

tiis ut dormiam.
FARM. Uigilabis lassus: hoc plus facies.

B. Ablative hoc: Plaut. Cure. 670 f.

.... Hoc prius uolo
Meam rem agere;
Pers. 764

.... Oh, nihil hoc magis dulcest;
cf. Rud. 279

Neque hoc amplius. . . .quicquamst;
Ter. And. 30 f.

____ Quid est,
Quod tibi mea ars efficere hoc possit amplius?

C. Instrumental eo: Plaut. Aul. 376

Atque eo fuerunt cariora, aes non erat;
. 298 f .

Uideo ego te Amoris ualde tactum toxico,
Adulescens; eo te magis uolo monitum.

Mil. 1080 Eo minus dixi, ne haec censeret me aduor-

suin se mentire;
Most. 763 f.

Nam ille eo maiore hinc opere sibi exempluui

petit,
Quia isti unibrain audivit cssc acstak-

so Men. 151; Merc. 971; Most. 902 a; Poen. 883; Rud.

9

50 7Jie Latin Pronouns.

92; Trin. 274; 856; (cf. Cist. 380 eo sum tardiuscula).
Ter, Ad. 698

Quia tarn misere hoc esse cupio uerum, eo
uereor magis.

D. Ablative eo: Plaut. Mil. 926

Ko potuit hercle lepidius nil fieri;
Ter. Haut. 62 f .

. . . . Annos sexaginta natus es,
Aut plus eo, ut conicio. . . . ;
Hec. 421

Dies triginta aut plus eo in naui fui.

Cato has only hoc, and always in the phrase hoc
amplius (= praeterea), De Agr. 57; 94; 142; 157,10.
In the Rhetorica ad Herennium, on the contrary, the
hoc does not occur, while eo is found eight times,
always as an instrumental.

From the very first we notice a discrimination
between these two pronouns; we find the instrumental
use predominant with eo, and the usage that is devel-
oped from the true Ablative predominant with hoc.
This is very conspicuous in the case of Plautus and
the Rhetorica ad Herennium. In Plautus there are
twelve cases of instrumental eo to one of the true Abl.
construction and two of instrumental hoc to three of
the Abl. construction.

The distinction is still more apparent in the writ-
ings of Cicero. We find the true Ablative eo only half a
dozen times in the orations, philosophical writings and
the letters Ad Familiares and Ad Quintum Fratrem (cf.
Acad. 2,35 quid eo levius? De Fin. 1,41 quid eo mise-
rius dici aut fingi potest? De Nat. Deor. 3,23 nihil est

Eo and Hoc urith the Comparative. 51

eo (sc. mundo) melius: nihil est eniin eo pulcrius). In
contrast with this we find eo over one hundred and
forty times as an instrumental. Similarly in Yarro,
Res Rust, eo = ''than this" only once, 1,18,3 eo
plus, but is used with the other meaning about fifteen
times. Varro's use of the word is somewhat circum-
scribed. He joins it usually with magis, minus or
facilius. Sallust likewise has in Jug. 80,6 eo amplius =
plures denis, but with the other force eighteen times.
Both Nepos and Livy (Books 41-45 are not included)
use it only in this latter sense, nine times and one
hundred times respectively. Celsus in books 1-3 fol-
lows Livy, using in all but one passage (i,pr. eo. . . .
magis quoniam) the relative quo instead of quia, quo-
niam, ne, tic.

With hoc we find the case entirely different. Cicero
differs from Cato in that he uses hoc with the com-
parative supported by or introducing quia, quod, etc.,
that is to say, in sharp rivalry with eo, in thirty-four
passages in his orations (see Merguet, Lex. sub voc. II,
p. 468, d, a), and in twenty-two passages in his philo-
sophical writings (Merguet, II, p. 154,5, d, a)- ^n tne
letters (only parti all}' collated) it occurs in both senses
(Ad Fam. 4,4,2 hoc ipso melior. . . .quod; 11,29,3 Qoc
milii tfratius facere nihil potes; — the same words in
13,66,2; 74; 79; 16,22,2). Sallust avoided hoc en-
tirely, always using ad hoc instead of hoc amplius and
hoc plus. Varro, Res Rust. 3,10,3 has hoc minus
and hoc plus Ablative. Nepos has it only three times:
Ale. 11,2 hoc amplitis; Timotli. 4,6 hoc plura....

1; Dat. 5,4 hoc maiore fore in discriniine, quod ....
Livy uKo only three times (books 41-45 are not in-

The Latin Pronouns.

eluded) 1,23,8; 36,25,4; 38,26,7; being in each case
translatable by "so much the." Celsus offers us 3,5
(= p. 83 D) hoc ipso peius.. ..quod; 8,1 (= p. 326)
quo latiora. . . .sunt, hoc hebetiora. The lack of a
stronger demonstrative force in the determinative
makes its use as an instrumental Ablative impossible
except in a few cases, while the weakening of the
demonstrative force in hoc makes possible its use in
the other sense.

The following passages will illustrate the close
contact of the two constructions:

Valer. Max. i>pr. meapar-
uitas eo iustius ad fauo-
rem tuum decucurrerit,
quo cetera diuinitas
opinione colligitur.

Plin. Nat. Hist. 8,1 quo

largiore aluntur lacte eo

tardiorem uisum accipi-

unt.
14,80 uinum omne dulce

minus odoratum, quo

tenuius eo odoratius.
Sueton. Cal. 15 inferias..

instituit, et eo amplius

(=praeterea) matri Cir-

censes . . .
Florus i, 24(2, 8), 1 8 partem

.... dari placuit eo li-

bentius, quod ....

rex, quo paten-
tia pueri magis delecta-
tusest,hoc||et hoc A2||
certius perseuerantiae
experimentum sumere
uoluit. cf. 3,6,1; 4,7,2.
10, 175 omnia animalia quo
maiore corpore, hoc mi-
nus fecunda.

23,40 quo generosius ui-
num est, hoc magis ue-
tustate crassescit.

Jul. 38 nummos, quos pol-
licitus olim erat, uiritim
diuisit, et hoc amplius
centenos pro mora.

i, 1 8(2, 2), 1 4 hoc inlustrior
noster(5r. exercitus),
quod ....

Id est and Hoc est. 53

Hoc amplius was a favorite and often employed
phrase (beginning with Plaut. Rud. 279), and was used
from Cicero (see Tull. 44; Phil. 13,50), and (?) Varro
(cf. Res. Rust. 2,10,9) on, in the sense of praeterea or
ad hoc. Instead of it, eo amplius appears unexpect-
edly in Suetonius (vid. sup.), Aggenus Urbicus, Ter-
tullian, De Pud. 5 ( = p. 226,20), Lucifer Caralitanus,
De Regibus Apostatis n ( = p. 61,24 H) and Gaius
2,172; 3,212. Instead of the usual eo secius, we meet
in Lucan 1,315 hoc secius, doubtless due to the poet's
strict avoidance of the determinative. Of the poets,
Lucretius alone, to my knowledge, uses eo with the
comparative. See 1,69 eo magis, with which com-
pare 2,125 hoc etiam magis; 2,826f. quanto. ... | ....
magis, hoc magis, and Virg. Aen. 5,94 hoc magis;
Geor. 4,248 quo magis. . . . , hoc acrius.

j. Id est and /we est.

Id est is doubtless the older of these two formulae.
Hoc est is met for the first time in Lucilius 9,32f.

.... in praeposito per

Pelliciendo, hoc est inducendo geminato L.
Id est occurs for the first time in Cato, De Agr. 57
(three times). The real rivalry between them begins
for us with the Rhet. ad Herennium and is, of course,
confined to prose. Although id est stands nowhere in
the work without a variant, yet the reading is scarcely
to be rejected in i,i6,26w and should probably be
retained in 1,6,10. Hoc est occurs seven times, serv-
ing always to define a general idea by i) stating its
ixment elements, as in 1,7,11;* Ime tres titilitates
tametsi in tola oratione sunt conpuraiidae, hoc est, ut

54 The Latin Pronouns.

atiditores sese perpetuo nobis attentos, dociles, beni-
uolos praebeant, tamen....; cf. 2,i4,2i/>; 2,30,48^;
3,8,15^; 3,9; i6p; or by 2) adding a result brought
about by the idea denned, as i,6,9/> cum turpem
causam habemus, hoc est, cum ipsa res animum audi-
toris a nobis alienat; 3,11,20 mollitudinem uocis, hoc
est, ut earn torquere in dicendo nostro commodo
possimus . . . . f aciet exercitatio; 4,1,1^ does not here
concern us (cf. Cic. De Nat. Deor. 1,98; Lael. 58;
De Fin. 2,91; Tusc. Disp. 2,30). Id est is used in the
same manner: i) 1,16,26^ inuenta ratione firma-
ment inn quaerendum est, id est, quod continet accusa-
tionem, quod adfertur contra rationem defensionis.
2) 1,6,10 si persuasus auditor < fuerit, id est, > si ora-
tio aduersariorum fecerit fidem auditoribus .... With
hoc est 4,1, ic may be compared id est 4,n/>; 2,26,40.
In Cicero we find convincing evidence that the two
phrases had fairly entered upon a course of rivalry
that was to last over five hundred years. It is clear
that Cicero carefully weighed the two formulae and
adopted or rejected each at different periods in the
development of his style. In his speeches down to the
year 56 B. C. occurs only one unquestioned case of id
est, Verr. 3,116, to which may possibly be added 3,67.
Concerning the sentence id est.... lex, in Frag. A,
VII, 29 (= B, 6,13 Orelli = pro Cornelio II, anno 65)
Sigon. apud Orellium II (1883), p. 72,12 says "sus-
tuli duas voces idest res, quae videntur in albo libri
positae fuisse eis vocibus declarandis 'cum ea feratur'
et locum hunc per se satis mendosum mendosiorem
reddunt." Hoc est, on the other hand, occurs Rose.
Amer. (anno 80) 87; 103; 117; Div. in Caecil. (anno

Id est and Hoc est. 55

70) 1 1 ; Impeachment of Verres (anno 78) thirty-seven
times; Tullio (anno 72) 50; Caecina (anno 69) eight
times; Cluent. (anno 66) 148; De L,eg. Agrar. (anno 63)
1,2; 2,31; Sulla (anno 62) 49; De Domo (anno 57) 78;
Piso. (anno 55) (65)66; Milo. (anno 52) 24; Phil, (anno
44); 2,70. This last example ( 'et consul et Antonius!' '
hoc est dicere: et consul et impudicissimus, et consul
et homo nequissimus does not strictly speaking belong
in the present category (cf. De Nat. Deor. 1,98 and the
similar examples referred to on p. 54 supra], since
hoc est dicere (cf. Ital. cioe dire) forms an independent
sentence, in which hoc clearly retains its strong demon-
strative force. In other words, fifty-three cases fall
before and during the consulate, four after it. None
are later than the year 52. To these fifty-seven we
should add sixteen instances of hoc est in the De
Inventione against one of id est. After the year 56
are found t\venty-four instances of id est in the ora-
tions, eleven of them in the Philippics. If Cicero was
consistent in abandoning hoc est in his later years, we
should expect to find only id est in his philosophical
writings, all of which fall in the fifties and the forties.
As a matter of fact, id est occurs over a hundred times,
hoc est only five times, four of these last being in his
work De Fin. (2,16; 98; 4,56; 71) and one in the De
Xat. Deor. (2,17). So also in his letters Ad Fam. hoc
occurs only twice 14,2,3 (anno 58); and 5,12,8
(anno 57). Id est stands 5,17,3 (anno 57) and in eleven
other passages dating between the years 50 and 43 *.

lents <lo not follow the onitor in this

particular. Hoc est was written by Asin. Pollio 10,32,2 (anno
43); Brutus, Ad Hrutuin 1,17,6 (at: Caecina 6,7,4 (anno

44).

56 The Latin Pronouns.

The same conditions are observable in the letters to
Atticus and to Quintus. In the De Oratore (an?io 55)
hoc est occurs 1,180; 2,66. If in this formula hoc
preserves to some extent its demonstrative force (and
Cicero's consistent attitude would suggest that to
him the two formulae were not strictly synonymous),
the suggestion may with some hesitation be hazarded
that hoc est, the stronger term, was found by Cicero
more natural when in the height of his energy and
power, while id est was a less forcible expression
which he adopted after his spirits were crushed by his
banishment. It may be objected to this explanation
that it would be valid chiefly in explaining the usage
in the orations and not so likely to hold true of the
De Inventione. If we bring the use of the Rhetorica
ad Herennium into connection with that of Cicero, an-
other explanation is suggested. The Auctor may have
been under the influence of the Greek ™yr^<m of his
sources, and may thus have determined the usage of
Cicero; or in view of the uncertainty of our knowledge
of the relations of Cicero and the Auctor ad Heren-
nium, it may be better to assume that the two writers
were independently affected by Greek influence, to
which Cicero's early training in rhetoric and philoso-
phy exposed him. It may be unnecessary to assume
the influence of any special book, since Cicero spoke
Greek fluently. In this connection it is interesting to
note that in the Archiv fur lat. L,exikogr. und Gram-
matik X (1897), p. 478, Prof. J. C. Rolfe confirms
(with additional evidence derived from the letters,
philosophical and rhetorical works) the conclusions of
H. Hellmuth (Acta Sem. Erlangensis i, p. i2of.),

Id est and Hoc est. 57

who, following up a suggestion of Wolfflin (Philologus
XXXIV, 144), points out that between the years 62
and 54 B. C. Cicero gradually passed in his orations
from the spelling abs te to ab te.

The consistency with which Cicero's successors in
Roman literature adopted his later practice speaks
well for the soundness of his judgment, and suggests
that id est was the normal and natural phrase. Varro
shows id est sixty -eight times, not including the doubt-
ful passages, two in the Res Rust. ([3,2,18; 3,16,3])
and four in the De Ling. Lat., Livy four times (9,19,
7 — Miiller here omits id est — ; 10,8,10; 37,15; 21, 10,
8) in books 1-40, Vitruvius twelve times (see Nohl's
index), Velleius Paterculus 2,23,6; 48,4; 63,3; Vale-
rius Maximus 2,4,1; 6,6,5; ^^Ext.2] 8,9,1; and Pe-
tronius offers seven instances (see Segebade u. Lom-
matzsch s. v.} while none of these writers use hoc est.

In Caesar and Nepos both phrases are wranting.
Sallust alone has an instance of hoc est: Jug. 31,20
(in an oration) uos autem, hoc est populus Romanus
. . . .satis habeatis. In the same oration in § 26 id est
occurs. The occurrence of hoc est in Catullus 83,6
is not surprising in view of the results that we have
reached in the first chapter.

A preference on the part of the writers of ' 'Silver
Latin" for hie over is makes itself felt from Seneca
the Klder on, in the reappearance of hoc est (cf. Sen.
Contr. i.i, 19). Id est occurs 9,4, 1 1 an hie pro patriu
fecerit, id est: an illo tempore.. ..; cf. io,/>r.i6; Kxc.
ir. 7,7. Ascon. Ped. in 1'isonianam 52 has IKK- est.
and in De Ben., De Clem., Ad Lucil. returns

to the later Ciceronian daage, -lowing 44 (-f-?3) cases

The Latin Pronouns.

of id est. In De Ben., De Clem., and Ad L,ucil. 1-25
hoc est does not occur. Pliny, N. H. books 2,3,6-15,
23-30 has hoc est 39 times, id est 20 times. Fronti-
nus, De Aquis 7 has id est; De Contr. Agr. p. 58,14
(I,) hoc est. Quintilian has id est: 3,7,15; 11,28; 9,
4,80; 1,9,1; 5,49; 11,12; 3,5,4; 5,10,86; etc.] hoc est :
3,7,1; 7,1,14; 8,2,20; 8,3,89 (a citation from Cassius).
Pliny's Letters show id est nine times, hoc est five
times; Panegyr. id est twice, hoc est eight times.

The following conspectus shows the attitude of the
later writers:

ID KST

HOC EST

Balbus, Ad. Cels.

page 100,10

None.

Hyginus Grom. De Contr.

Agr.

9 times.

None.

•' " De Gen.

Con.

5 times.

None.

" " De Lim.

Const.

None.

p, 170,4; 171,4.

Siculus Flaccus

Over five times.

Fronto [M. Aureli uerba]

p. 213 N.

Gellius, Noct. Alt.

ca. 46 times.

9 times.

Florus

10 times.

" De Virg. Or. an P.

Once.

Gaius

At least 29 times.

Suetonius

10 times.

3 times.

Aero ad Horat.

3,5,23-

3,5,24-

" " Verr.

3,116.

Decretum Commodi

Once.

Censor. De Die Nat.

16 times.

5 times.

Porphyr. in Horat.

355-f3i doubtful or spur-

i; 79 + 12 doubtful or spur-

ious.

ious.

Volus. Maecianus

xx; 14; 15; 29; 46; 6st>is;

9; 10; 12; 13; 15; 6t,quin-

fivts; J2*

quies; 69; 72; 73.

Script. Hist. Aug.

None.

Hadr. 10,2; Helius 2,6;

None.
None.

Macrin. 8,4; Max. II 2,4;

28,8.
Gord. 2,2; 3,2; 5; 33,1. Gord. 3,3.

Did, 8,9; Pescen. 7,6;
Ant. P. 2,8; 7,3; M. Aur.

5,5-
None.

Id est and Hoc est.

59

ID EST

HOC KST

Script. Hist. Aug.

Avid. Cas. [4,3.]

Avid Cas. [3,7.]

Gall. 11,3; 21,5.

Gall. 6,2; 19,4.

XXX Tyr. 24,5; 32,5-

None.

Heliogab. 4,2; 3; 17,4.

Heliogab. 24,3.

Alex. Scv. 15,3; 45,6; 61,2.

do. 6,2; 25,7; 39,6.

Aurclian 22,1.

Aurelian 32,4.

Frontinus

P. [16,4-]

Agennus Urbicus

p. 17,21; 25,9.

8,25; 23,24; 62,3; 63,12;

74,2: 77,7; 89,16.

Eutropius

One.

None.

Macrobius

At least 78 times.

Exc. Bob. V, p. 651 bis.

Boethius, De Consol.

2,7/r.n.

De Arith.

Often.

Often.

DeGeom.

Passim.

Passim.

Justinian, Novcllae (Au-

thentica)

Passim.

Passim.

Cassiodorius

At least 15 times.

Once.

Jordanes

Passim.

None.

Schol. Gronov. in Cic.

30 times.

P. 392.4i; 397.29 (Orelli).

Patristic Literature:

Min Fel.

6.

None.

Tertullian

20.

None.

Cyprian

II.

6.

Arnobius

10.

Once.

Lactantius

IX.

Once.

Firm Ma tern.

8.

4-

Ambrosius

8.

4-

Paulin. Nolan, l

12.

None.

Augustin. Epist.

Often.

Seldom.

Lucifer Car.

None.

7-

S. Silv. Peri.

"se*centies."t

"raro."t

Diaconi Lib.

116,5; 6; 13> 19; "8,6.

None.

Anton. Plac. It.

None.

184,3; ^88,14; 19;

190,20;

15; (ow. C.); 180,8;

; 163,7.

Adamanus

224,11; 228,1; 229, 5

, tie .

Faustus

n.

Hoc est dicere 5.

Plane. Fulg.

Often.

Fulg. Episc.

Sup. Theb. p. 182,3: 5; 10;

p. 183,9; "•

Alcimus Avit.

etc., 28 times in all.

The passages from the De Condic. Agr. are: pp.
114,8; 115,18 centuriae, id est plinthides, hoc est later-

1 Epist u lac 1-46.
•n indict.

60 The Latin Pronouns.

culi; 116,13; 25; 117,3; 120,8; 18; 122,16; of the De
Gen.Contr: pp. 125,14; 132,17; 133,1; [133,4]; 134.10-
In the case of the De Lim. Const, the evidence con-
firms the view of a separate authorship for this work
and for the De Contr. Agr. and the De Gen. Contr.
The references to Siculus Flaccus are: pp. 146,8; 154,
20; 155,22; 161,19; !63,25. Kalb, Roms Juristen p. 75
writes concerning Gaius ' ' Wohl von keinem Juristen
annahrend so haufig wie bei G." Et hoc est quod
uulgo dicitur occurs often, but hoc est as a parenthet-
ical explanative seems to be foreign to him. In Sue-
tonius id est occurs: Jul. 19; 56^); Oct. 26; 32; 88;
Galb. 3; Domit. 17; frag. p. 293; 305; and hoc est:
Tib. 24; Galb. 8; Vesp. u. In Acro's commentary
in Uerr. there are at least five further instances.
For the Decretum Comm. see Bruns, Fontes p. 229,26.
Hoc est is found in Censorinus, De Die Nat. 1,2; 8,6;
13,3; 14,10; 22,14. The figures for Porphyrio are
based on Holder's index (1893). On Cassiodorius see
Bayr. Gymn. = Blatt. 1898 (XXXIV),559. The fig-
ures for the Schol. Gronov. were privately communi-
cated by H. Stangl of Munich.

This collection of examples shows that from Pliny
the Elder on down to the seventh century both for-
mulae were current. The only prominent writers to
avoid hoc est are: Tacitus, Florus, Gaius, Macrobius
and Jordanes. Id est always remained the normal
form and with a few exceptions the one more fre-
quently employed. One might at first glance be led
to suppose that these conditions are reflected in or
confirmed by the definition "id est • hoc est" in Gotz,
Corp. Glos. IV, p. 350,27, in which id est serves as

Id est and Hoc est. 6 1

lemma, and might therefore be supposed to be the
more frequent expression. Yet the examination of a
number of glosses of the same collection shows that
the writer (or compiler) did not necessarily make this
distinction. Many definitions appear in double form.
Thus "ob • propter" and "propter • ob" are found,
each in its alphabetical order. The translator of Jus-
tinian's Novellae felt id est to be the normal form,
since in translating ruur&m he uses hoc est, but writes
id est when not under such influence, e. g., in trans-
lating dij (47,2^^.) and in interpolating an explanation
of a Greek word (29,5/>r. = p. 222,30 Schtfll) biocolytas
(id est uiolentiarum inhibitores). (On the contrary
Ignatius, Epist. ad Phil. 12 interpolates an explana-
tion of dvTiQeoz by means of hoc est. Here the codex
Petavianus reads id).

The final triumph of hoc est is testified by the Ital-
ian cioe (< ecce + hoc -f- est).

To show how very close the words approach each
other in meaning and usage, it is only necessary to
cite a few parallel passages. For Cicero reference
may be made to Klussmann, Tulliana (Progr., Gera,
1887) p. 6 if., who cites numerous instances without
calling attention to any difference in meaning. The
distinction with Cicero is, as we have seen above, in
the main chronological and not semasiological.

Pliny the Elder.

2,84. . . .quam diapason 26,103 .... phrcos tna~
harmoniam uocant , hoc lassion, id est fucus

uniuersitatem con- niarinus.

ceir

62 The Latin Pronouns.

1 1 , 266 . . . . nisi quae pul- 2,218.. . . pulsum uena-

monem et arterias ha- rum, id est spiritus,

beant, hoc est nisi quae magis sentiunt.
Spirent.

14,98 .... labrusca, hoc 8,174. . . .^innum, id est

est uite siluestri. paruum mulum.

Numerous similar parallels might be adduced from
Pliny.

Quintilian.

8,2,20 d&avoiyra, hoc est 3,5,4....de iure....de

quae uerbis aperta oc- re; illud rationale, hoc

cultos sensus habent. legale genus Herma-

3,7,1 .. . .quod genus ui- goras atque eum secuti

detur Aristoteles atque uocant, id est wpuxov et
eum secutus Theophra-
stus a parte negotiali,
hoc est icpaytiaTixy, re-

mouisse.

Aulus Gellius.

19,1,18 ra- Totavrat; Qavrafftas, id est uisa istaec animi
sui terrifica, non adrobat, hoc est ou ffu^xarartderac . . . . ;
5,12,5 'Marspater,' hoc enim est (cf. 17,8,2 id enim
est) 'Marspiter,' itemque louis 'Diespiter' appellatus,
id est diei et lucis pater.

Cyprian.

De Domenica Oratione 17 quomodo in caelo, id est in
nobis per fidem nostram uoluntas Dei facta est ut esse-
inus e caelo, ita et in terra, hoc est in illis credere
?*0/intibus fiat uoluntas Dei.

Id est and Hoc est. 63

Ambrosius, Exameron.

i,i,i(B) artificem ad ex- i,7,25(i3F) materia, id
emplar, hoc est ideam est 8^, sicut philoso-

intendentem. phi dicunt.

Censorinus, De Die Nat.

i ,2 rutv fj.ifftavy hoc est . . . . 18, 12 pentaeteridas ....
media. id est IV annorum cir-

cuitus.

Macrobius, Som. Scip. i, Ennius, Sac. Hist, apud
3,7 <pd»TaaiJLa uero, hoc Lactant. Inst. 1,11,46

est uisum. ZAN KPONOTid est La-

tine luppiter Saturni.

Priscillian.

6,107 = p. 79,8 ex agnis et haedis, idest ex duobus
in unum hominem nouum corporis et spiritus castifica-
tione suscepta pascha domini et pascha nostrum, hoc
est Christus in homine et homo inueniatur in Christo;
p. 102,9 (tf- Psalm 59,11) circumuersa mundi || Greek,
/TJ; I'aria lectio circumstantia || idest perfidiae terra
uincatur ut calciamento pedum domini, hoc est Euan-
gelio pacis ostenso distruatur Dagon.

Macrobius.
Sat. 1,23,7 s^ue ""^ Tu^ SatHfilvHUj id est xatoplvou^ seu

d?T() T<>r> ftfK.utJ.ivou, hoc est /j-spi^ofjii^ou.

Som. Scip. 1,5,17 in numeros pariter pares, hoc est in
bis quaterna, ut . . . . in numeros aeque pariter pares
diuisio qnoqne ipsa soluatur, id est bis bina bis.

Lex Romana Visigothorum.
Inst. Tit. 8,3), p. 332 (Haenel) agnati sunt per
uirilem scxuin . . . .coniuncti, id t>i roii-an^uiiR'i fra-

64 The Latin Pronouns.

tres, hoc est, de uno patre nati. item patruus, id
est, f rater patris, fratris sui filio agnatus est. ipso
modo sunt fratres patrueles, hoc est, qui etc.
Similar parallels are of frequent occurrence and it is
apparent that in many instances the writer has aimed
only to secure variety of expression.

The chief uses of id (hoc) est are the following:

1. To translate a foreign word. Examples

above. Add Tac. Ger. 40.

2. To give the application of a metaphorical

expression. Varro, Res Rust. 3,4,1.

3. To explain a L,atin expression by

a) giving a more familiar syno-
nym. Varro, Res. Rust. 2,4,17 f rendere . . . . id est

frangere.

b) i) stating all its component

parts. Auct. ad Keren. //. a. Cic. De Re Pub. 3,6
quare qui utrumque uoluit et potuit, id est ut cum
maiorum institutis turn doctrina se instrueret ....

2) vice versa stating a com-
mon characteristic of a number of particulars men-
tioned. Cic. Laelius 65 simplicem praeterea et
communem et consentieutem, id est, qui rebus isdem
moveatur, eligi par est.

c) stating one or more of the

component parts either i) any chance one cited to
illustrate the general expression: Varro, De Ling.
L,at. 5,93 artificibus maxima causa (sc. nominandi) ars,
id est, ab arte medicina ut sit medicus dictus; so 10,40,
where the formula approaches exempli gratia in mean-
ing, or 2) that element which is

Id est and Hoc est. 65

especially appropriate to the context, and to which the
writer directs particular attention: Tac. Dial. 3,21;
qcxtr\ 22, 8.. . .orationibus, quas iam senior et iuxta
finem uitae composuit, id est, postquam magis profe-
cerat, usuque et experimentis didicerat quod optimum
dicendi genus esset. 3) This often takes the form

of a correction of a general statement: Plin. Nat.
Hist. 2,131; Cic. Ad Fam. 14,2,3 quod de domo scri-
bis, hoc est de area. . . .

d) combining with a synony-
mous expression a statement of the ground (Cic. De
Leg. 2,27) or purpose (object to be attained) for an
action: Varro, Res Rust. 3,9,2. .. .ornithoboscion
instituere uolt, id est adhibita scientia ac cura ut capi-
ant rnagnos fructus.

e) correcting a false application

(intended to deceive) of a word by some other person.
The implication is usually "A or B call it so and so,
but if we should strip it of its fair appellation, we
should find it in reality to be so and so ' ' (cf. Kluss-

mann, Tulliana): Cic. Verr. 3,67 cum appari-

toribus, id est cum ui ac minis (Mu'ller reads eo for
id est); Milo. 24.... ad praeturam gerendam, hoc est
ad euertendam rem publicam, plenum annum et inte-
grum. In the reverse order in Verr. 5,114.

It seems desirable at this point to call attention to
the difference between id est and idque. They are
not discriminated with sufficient care in Gudemaifs
note on Tac. Dial. 3,21 (in his larger edition p. 78).
"In Germ. 40 id est = 'that is to sa\ •'. In other pas-
sage Ique': Ann. IV,n; 39; XIII, 45."
essential 'lifference between Germ. 40 and the

66 The Latin Pronouns.

passages Dial. 3,21; gextr\ 22,8 is clear from the
preceding analysis. Idque in the passages cited
introduces (like xai raora) words which describe the
circumstances under which an action takes place.
These are usually quite surprising or contrary to
expectation (hence not usually implied in the term
preceding idque, while with id est, etc., the definition
is rarely, if ever, contrary to what would be expected),
and to them especial importance is attached. They
are in no wise to be regarded as a definition or a trans-
lation of the first term, such as are introduced by id
est, hoc est, quod est (Z iff-tv).

4. Ad id and ad hoc.

In each of these phrases two meanings are to be
distinguished. They are used to express purpose and
as an equivalent to praeterea. In the latter sense ad
hoc is used to the almost entire exclusion of ad id.
Sallust, in whose works it makes its first appearance,
was especially fond of it (Constans, De Serm. Sail,
p. 132 "Peculiar! amore dilexit ac saepissime usurpa-
vit, quam locutionem Lawsius parum recte contendit
antiquorum imitationem redolere"). Certain pecul-
iarities of Sallust' s usage are possibly due to the
development of his style. In his Bellum Catulinae,
his earliest work, it is in five cases (A) correlated with
other adverbial expressions: 37 primum omnium —
deinde — praeterea — praeterea — ad hoc — ; 14,3 prae-
terea— ad hoc — postremo — ; 17,4 praeterea — ad hoc —
praeterea — ; 21,4 praeterea — ad hoc — ; 30,6 ad hoc —
itemque — . (B) Not thus correlated it stands four
times: 26,4; 31,3; 44,6; 53,3. In the Bellum Jugur-

Ad id and Ad Jwc. 67

thinum the latter, more independent usage predomi-
nates (6, i; 67,1; 85,4; 89,5; 96,2; 102,6), there being
only three instances of the former: 6,3; 75,5; 111,2
primo — praeterea — ad hoc — denique — ; the first two
having praeterea — ad hoc — , while ad hoc — ad hoc — is
used in 31,28. In his maturest work, the Histories,
only (B) occurs. In group (A) it is used either to in-
troduce a substantive or an entire sentence, the former
invariably extended by an adjectival modifier, which
is usually a relative clause. In group (B) it is not
until the Bellurn Jugurthinum that Sallust uses the
phrase to introduce a substantive. So 2,2 igitur prae-
clara facies, magnae diuitiae, ad hoc uis corporis et
alia omnia huiuscemodi breui dilabuntur, at . . . . ; cf.
17,6. This is the only usage which occurs in the His-
tories (Orat. Phil. 21; Fr. Hist. 3,77,7 < ad hoc > a
generally accepted conjecture of Kreysig, entirely con-
forms to the Sallustian usage). A transitional type is
Jug. 91,5-

Nepos does not use the phrase, but it again finds
favor with Livy, and was extensively used by later
writers, especially by the historians Velleius Pater-
culus, Curtius (at least eight cases), Tacitus (eight oc-
currences), Suetonius and Florus (twelve times), as
also by Pliny the Younger. The phrase is especially
appropriate to narration and description.

In books i-io, 21-40 of Livy's History (thirty-
eight instances in all) it is in no single instance (40,25,
4 is not to the point) correlated with praeterea or an-
• adverbial expression. It occurs both as intro-
ducing entire sentences (2,23,4; 6,12,6; 20,8; 9,24,6;
21,54,3; 55.7; 23,32,9; 28,35,2; 44,2; 5; 29,26,8; 30,

68 The Latin Pronouns.

17,14; 32,17,15; 33,4,4; 9,n; 35,i2,n; 38,5,5; 39,
53,4; 40,25,4) and substantives (2,59,11; 5,16,2; 8,12'
4; 23,22,3; 28,14,17; 29,4,6; 31,40,10; 33,i9,io; 34,
52,6; 36,40,12; 37,23,2; 38,17,4; 39,5,!6). Rather
loosely connected with the preceding words and form-
ing a kind of after-thought attached to the completed
sentence are 7,12,2 and particularly 30,34,1, in which
the added element may be regarded as a distinct sen-
tence with its verb suppressed for rhetorical effect.
Our Paduan historian somewhat extends the func-
tions of the phrase. He uses it to introduce an
adjective (21,52,10 sparsos et incompositos, ad hoc
grain's praeda plerosque . . . . ) and a participle (21,31,11
.... amnis .... pluribus .... alueis fluens, .... ad hoc
saxa glareosa uoluens nihil .... tutum .... praebet; 40,
9 ... .debilitati . . . . ; ad hoc praeusti artus . . . . ; cf. 6,
11,6; 32,17,15.) With him the substantive is rarely
modified by a relative clause, and in one passage (an
extremely rare case) the substantive stands entirely
alone (28,14,17). In Sallust the grammatical form of
the member introduced by ad hoc corresponds to that
of the preceding member. L,ivy boldly varies the con-
struction: 6, 1 1 ,6 . . . . inflate animo, ad hoc uitio quoque
ingenii uehemens et inpotens. . . . ; 5,16,2 multis simul
bellis, Uolscorum .... Aequorum .... ad hoc Ueientique

et Falisco. . . .bello occupatos; 33,19,10 cum classe

.... ad hoc leuioribus nauigii In certain pas-
sages L,ivy seemed to feel that this formula was not
sufficiently strong to meet his needs and has supported
it by etiam (33,9,11) and quoque (supra). In 23,22,3
it seems to be scarcely stronger than simple et. The
formula itself, however, serves as conjunction and is

Ad id and Ad hoc. 69

not, like praeterea (in Bell. Afr. 19,1; 25,2; 50,2; Afra-
nius 72), supported by et or que (as Caes. Bell. Gall. 3,
17,3; Bell. Civ. 2,35,5; 3,96,i) or used with the cor-
relatives cum . . . .turn (as in Cicero).

In the letters and Panegyricus of Pliny (fifteen
cases) we find a return to the Sallustian usage praete-
rea— ad hoc. He has further 9,2 6,8 f. et rursus — et
statim — .... ex eadem nota — simile his — et ibidem —
et — et deinceps — ad hoc — et mille talia .... New is the
order: ad hoc — praeterea (2,11,10). He employs pre-
dominantly the substantive, and was particularly fond
of the sentences like L,ivy 30,34,1. So: 2,14,1 raro
incidit (sc. causa).. . .insignis. ad hoc pauci (sc. nunc
causas agunt) cum quibus iuuet dicere; 2,11,10 con-
spectus augustissimus fuit. princeps praesidebat: erat
enim consul, ad hoc lanuarius mensis . . . . celeberri-
mus; Pan. 77^ ad hoc tarn adsiduus. . . .ut; i, 22,4
ad hoc quam parcus (sc. fuit). . . . ; 6,33,4.

The Tacitean examples are with a single exception
found in the Annals. The only peculiarity he shows
in his usage of the phrase lies in the order of the
words in Hist. 1,6,10 multi ad hoc numeri e Ger-
mania ac Britannia et Illyrico, quos. . . . , which, with
Ann. 12,20,5, offers the type of Livy 30,34,1. Ad
hoc postpositive, of which I can cite only the two
further examples Florus 1,24(2,8),! 6 elephantis ad
hoc inmensae magnitudinis . . . . ; Suetonius, Nero 46,
i terrebatur ad hoc euidentibus portends .... is quite
possibly due to the influence of the analogous use of
•erea. The main verb precedes it in Cic. Sex.
Rose. loo Audio praeterea. . . . ; De Leg. Agr. 2,32 dat
praeterea . . . . ; Chient. 81 accusatus est praeterea. . . .

yo The Latin Pronouns.

Praeterea in Cicero and Caesar is, in fact, as often
postpositive as it is initial. The order Adjective-
praeterea-Substantive (as above) was an especial favor-
ite (so Cic. Verr. 2,170 multarum praeterea ciuitatum

Numerous examples in Merguet's Lexica): so

also Verr. 5,34 cuiusquam pr. dedecus; Sex. Rose.
133 quid pr. caelati argenti and even Verr. 2,120
quod enim iste pr. genus. In all other cases Tacitus
uses ad hoc to introduce an entire sentence 12,34,1;
13,34,14; 14,24,3; 31,15; 15,4,5; 38,13-

Florus like Livy, is fond of breaking the monotony
of the exact grammatical conformity of the expres-
sions preceding and following ad hoc. Examples are:
i, 45(3,10), 25 ciuitatem, uallo sudibus et fossa induc-
toque fossae flumine, ad hoc XVIII castellis . . . . cir-
cumdatam. . . .domuit; 2, 21(4,11), 5 quippe a senis in
nouenos remorum ordines, ad hoc turribus atque tabu-
latis adleuatae .... ferebantur.

The two following correlations are new: 2,13(4,2),
40 nunc — nunc — ad hoc — iam uero; 2, 13(4, 2), 91 ad
hoc — nouissime — , to which may be added from Pau-
linus of Nola, Epist. 5,4(p. 27,13-17) praeterea — ad
hoc — postea denique .... The other instances from
Florus (he does not use ad id = praeterea nor ad hoc
to express purpose) are ij(i3),4; 24(2, 8), 3; (2,8),i6
(postpositive); 34(2,18X10; (2, 19), 3; 38(3,3),i3; 2,21
(4,n),6.

Of the synonymous expressions, hoc amplius was
the most extensively used. Super haec found favor
with both Plinys (see Nat. Hist. 3,138; 7,98 and Epist.
8,4,2; 4,26,2). Ad haec occurs from Curtius to Boe-
thius. Ad hue (with which adde hue could easily be

Ad id and Ad hoc. 7 1

confused, especially when the following words were
neuters) is very close to ad hoc in Sen. Nat. Quaest.
4,8 (other examples in Goelzer, Grammaticae in Sulp.
Sev. Quaest. p. 92, Anm. 4), but ultimately became so
weakened that Cyprian, Ad Dem. 12 could write adhuc
insuper, and Alcimus Avitus, Contr. Eut. Her. I, p.
25,15. .. .habemus hie adhuc amplius, quod mirari
oportet.

Ad hoc accedere (cf. Bell. Hisp. 41 turn praeterea
accedebat) and the like do not, strictly speaking,
belong here.

When ad id is used in this sense, it is followed, so
far as I know, by the relative quod, so that ad id
quod = praeter id quod.

To express purpose both phrases are extensively
employed. The rivalry between them had not appar-
ently begun in Cicero. In Verr. 3,188; De Re Pub.
1,58 hoc retains its full force as -puirurpirov, while ad
id is used by him normally with the relative quod.
Neither Caesar nor Varro have ad hoc, although
ir. Bell. Civ. 1,81 has ad id expeditiores (cor-
rected by Faern to ad iter), and Varro, Res Rust. 2/>r,5
ad id (i. e., ad agrum stercoranclum) pecus adpositum.
Nepos has neither. So the rivalry between the two
phrases begins with L,ivy. Aside from 1,8,4 ad id
hoinimim and 2,3,6; 4,54,5, in which cases it is fol-
lowed by the relative quod, ad id occurs in L,ivy
(books i-io) about sixteen times. Ad id regularly
completes the meaning of a past passive participle,
f. g., 1,10,5 fabricate ad id apte ferctilo; 4,37,4 ad id

72 The Latin Pronouns.

missi; 7,39,14 qui ad id missi erant; 5,24,4 trium-
uirique ad id creati; 7,12,9 ad id accitus; 9,13,2 dato
ad id signo; 9, 26, 16 ad id parum potentes. The intru-
sion of hoc in such contexts is seen by comparing any
of the above passages with 1,47,9 an^ iam ante ad hoc
praeparati. Parallel are also 5,52,11 collegium ad id
(i. <?., for celebrating newly introduced religious ser-
vices) nouum .... condidimus and 4,34,6 nee. . . .lato
satis ad hoc (/. e., ut classi pugnari possit) amne. In
2,42,5 and 40,48,4 id and hoc respectively are strength-
ened by ipsum. Contrary to what might be expected,
if hoc retained its full force, ad hoc does not in Livy
look forward, as does ad id (see 6,42,1; 7,30,4 ad id
ualere, ut....), to a following clause. This usage
occurs, however, in Pliny the Elder, books 9,13,23-30,
and it finds application not only as in Livy in conjunc-
tion with the participium passivum (9,122 ad hoc
products; 29,34 detonsam) or activum (9,77 ad hoc
sufficientibus) and adjectiva (28,42 efficaciorem ad hoc),
but also (with the indicative as well as the participle)
prepares the way for a following ut or ne (9,182 ad hoc
prodest, ne....; 27,146 ad hoc parens, ut....). In
10,1 ad hoc.. ..datis pinnis, ad hoc = praeterea. In
these books ad id occurs but three times (12,63 porta
ad id una paten te; 15,26 optima laurus ad id latifolia
siluestris; 28,193 efficacior ad id), always refering to
what precedes (cf. 9,86 ad ea). Pliny's preference for
ad hoc may be compared with his preference for hoc
est noted above. Conversely he uses ob id more
freely than ob hoc (see below).

Curtius appears not to have used ad id, but resem-
bles Pliny in the use of ad hoc, e. g., 4,8,4 ad hoc

Ob id nnd Ob hoc. 73

(sc. ut claustra Nili fluminis tueatur Polemon) XXX
triremes datae; 5,5,22 C ad hoc elect! sunt; 8,1,12
spatiosas ad hoc (/. e., ad feras uenandas) eligunt
siluas. Tacitus shows a decided preference for ad id
to express purpose. It occurs Ann. 1,81,7 suam ad id
curam; Hist. 2,22,9 contra praetoriani dispositos ad
id ipsum molares. . . .prouoluunt. Agr. 38,15 datae
ad id uires.

Florus has no instance of ad id expressing pur-
pose (neither does he use ad id = praeterea) . In 2 , 1 7
(4, 7), 13 he uses in id missus for ad id missus.

Later writers use both forms. In general ad hoc
is more common in the patristic literature.

Ad hoc looking forward to a following clause (con-
secutive) takes on the meaning of tarn (ita), as in
Lucifer Caralitanus, De Reg. Apost. j(= p. 51,22) ad
hoc sis post tanta funera tua superbus, ut aut audiens
nos Dei sacerdotes temet conuertas ad Deum.

5. Ob id and ob hoc.

According to Reissinger, Ueber Bedeutung und
Verwendung der Priipositionen ob und propter in
iilteren Latein p. 42 these two expressions occur for
the first time in Cicero; in the orations only ob hoc
(Caecin. 73 o rem praeclarum uobisque ob hoc reti-
ncndum, recuperatores || hoc omit. Tegernseensis || ), in
the philosophical writings only ob id (always strength-
ened by ipsum, and in De Fin. 3,63; Tusc. Disp.
I* Hi '3: 5>95 looking forward to quia or quod). In
De Leg. 2,12 id is a conjecture of Lambin. In Ad
1,9,16 ob id ipsum is taken up by in quo.. ..
ct. Sallu^t has c-t ob id Kr. Hist. 1,77,18

74, The Latin Pronouns.

(— Oral. Phil. 18) and in no other instance. No other
prose writer earlier than I/ivy uses the phrases. Ovid,
Met. 12,91 has ob hoc, and Horace, Ars Poet. 393
ob hoc.

As in the case of ad id and ad hoc, so with the
present formulae, the frequent use begins with L,ivy.
In books i-io, 21-40 ob id occurs thirteen times
(+ob ea three times), ob hoc five times (+ ob haec
eighteen times). Livy, however, distinguishes care-
fully in usage between these two words. In all but
two instances (25,16,3, where ob rests on conjecture
\cf. Fleckeisens Jahrb. 1881, 683], and 34,42,6 et cum
ob id se pro ciuibus Romanis ferrent) ob id is used to
modify an adjective (including participles): 5,29,3 se-
gnius ob id ipsum; 21,47,1 et ob id aptos; 25,13,7 cas-
tigatus; 23,13 ob id ipsum intentius; 35,7 quietis; 26,
13,6 diminuto; 28,2,2 occulta; 31,31,16 plures ob id
ipsum; 34,55,1 indictarum; 37,24,5 celerius; 39, 19, 5
f r audi esset . Ob ea is similarly used 8,15,5; 4°, I » 5 •
Ea, however, in 40,45,7 has a definite antecedent, pro-
digia. Ob hoc on the contrary is used only with the
non-adjectival forms of the verb: 25,37,17 ob hoc cum
omnia neglecta apud hostes essent; 30,30,28 non nihil
etiam ob hoc, quia. . . . ; 34,4,15 ne ob hoc ipsum con-
temnantur; 50,4 acclamarunt gratias se inter cetera
etiam ob hoc agere, quod; 39,4,7 donee consuli ob hoc
(proleptic) ipsum moranti Romam redire libitum esset.
Ob haec stands almost invariably at the beginning of
a sentence, and refers to the content of the preceding
sentence: 1,40,5 after three reasons are stated they
are summed up by ob haec ipsi regi insidiae parantur.
3,53,2 ob haec iis aduenientibus gratiae actae. 21,

Ob id and Ob hoc. 75

53,11 cum ob haec taliaque speraret (cf. 8,23,3 ob haec
cum); 9,45,8 ob haec uolgo in conciliis iactata; 37,48,
4 ob haec Aetolos sustulisse animos et adnuisse impe-
rata facere; 5,51,1 et ob eadem haec; 9,38,9; 10,21,
13; 21,50,11; 63,5; 27,30,1; 28,39,13 gratias actum

legatos misit; 32,22,12; 35,13,10; 37,34,8.

The only exception seems to be 28,39,15 non grates
tantum ob haec agere iussi sumus, sed. . . ., since in
10,31,8 libri ob haec aditi, the word haec refers to a
definite antecedent.

Seneca the Rhetorician in his use of ob id has kept
closer to the correlative use of id by employing it only
(he reads elsewhere id ipsum) when followed by a
causal or substantive quia- or quod-clause (twelve
cases: Contr. 1,1,13; J4i 4,6; 8,7; 2,1,20; 2,3,11; \\bis\
9,1,9; 10,5,15; Exc. Contr. 1,1). Ob hoc (ob hoc
ipsum four times) is always used with a verbal form,
nine times with damnare, accusare and petere (Contr.
i,i/>r. 1,8,15 II ob noc MSS. ab hoc corr. W. Miiller || ;
2,1,34; 2,6,4; 5^; 7,6,13^; 9,5.8; io,3,io<ob>
hoc || ob suppl. W. Miiller || ; n ob < hoc >. Exc.
Contr. 4,3 ob hoc quod; 4,5 ob hoc maxime quia;
14 ob hoc ipsum quod; 7,2,12 ob hoc ipsum quod;
10,2,17 ob hoc ipsum, without quod; 9,1,6 ob hoc
uidelicet ipsum ut . . . .).

Valerius Maximus (4,1,7 ne ob id; 8,1,12 cum ob
id; et ob id occurs: 2,10,7 (tne codices Laur. and Bern,
omit the et in this passage); 5,9,3; 6,1,7; I^Exter,
10; 8,14/^A ; . i ; 9,££*fer,3) and Veil. Paterc. 2,112,2
show only oh id. Curtius agrees with Livy in using
ob id with Adjectives and Participles, and ob hoc with
the non-adjectival forms of the verb: 4,16,7 niaiore et

76 TJie Latin Pronouns.

ob id tutiore circuitu; 8,14,19 humo lubrica et ob id
itnpediente; 4,16,23 auidum certaminis et ob id ipsum
incautius; 4,10,22 nepos paruulus, ob id ipsum misera-
bilis, quod. . . . ; 4,14,4 ob id ipsum, quod ignoti essent,
ignobiles esse; 7,2,2 horum ob id ipsum melior est
causa, quod ego .... suspectus sum; 3,5,9 laxataque
uis morbi ob hoc solum uidebatur, quia magiiitudinem
mali sentiebat; 6,3,13.. ..Dareum ob hoc uicimus, ut
seruo eius traderemus imperium; 4,10,31 ob haec ipsa
(i. e. conditions just described) amantis animus in
sollicitudinem suspicionemque reuolutus est; 9,8,24ob
haec. In 10,5,5 id is adjectival. The single instance
of ob ea is 6,8,3, a very unusual passage.

Pliny, Nat. Hist., books 2, 3, 6-15, 23-30, has ob
id over fifty times, ob hoc fifteen times. Typical illus-
trations of his usage are: Ob id: i) with Adjectives:
7,104 ob id. . . .utilis; 11,41 ob id. .. .simile; 11,249
ob id. . . .pernicibus; 9,9 Tiberio principi nuntiauit
Olisiponensium legatio ob id (proleptic) missa uisum
auditumque in quodam specu concha canentem Tri-
tonem; 2) with Verbs: 2,43 captus. . . .traditus; espe-
cially with verbs of naming: uocare (9,38; 109; 12,54),
appellare (11,244), cognominare (7,68; 8,33 ob idque);
15,13. Ob hoc: 9,89 consectantibus; 8,42 magna
his libido (sc. est). . . .et ob hoc. . . .ira; 11,99 appella-
tus; 2,146 quae ob hoc fingitur. Ob hoc occurs also
8,109; 122; 10,17; 212; 11,198; 13,28 <tf <z/.; et ob hoc:
12,45; ob hoc ipsum: 9,75. Both ob id and ob hoc are
used by decided preference with the non- adjectival
forms of the verb.

Frontinus has nothing new to tell us.

Pliny the Younger uses ob hoc exclusively, once

Ob id and Ob hoc. 77

looking backward (5,19,6 sanguinem reiecit adque ob
hoc in Aegyptum missus a me. . . .), m all other in-
stances pointing to a following quod (causal), ne or ut.
The instances are 4,8,4 te quidem, ut scribis, ob hoc
maxime delectat auguratus meus, quod....; 6,1,2
reuertar, uel ob hoc solum, ut experiar an. . . . ; 7,3,3
tempus est te reuisere molestias nostras, uel ob hoc
solum, ne....; 7,7,2 te negotiis distinere ob hoc
moleste fero, quod. . . -non potes; Ad Traian. 29(38), 2
ipse enim dubito ob hoc maxime, quod. . . . ; 75(79), 2
quod in notitiam tuam perferendum existimaui ob hoc
maxime, ut....; 49(53),! est aedes uetustissima
Matris Magnae aut reficienda aut transferenda; ob hoc
praecipue, quod. . . .

Tacitus has only ob id (since he writes ob haec
instead of ob hoc) and this only in the Annals (cf.
Wulfflin, Phil. XXV,XXVI,XXVII): 3,42,9 lulius
Indus .... discors Floro et ob id nouandae operae aui-
dior; 3,75,9 sed Labeo mcorrupta libertate, et ob id
fama celebratior; 6,9,8 seu composer at quaedam in
Gaium Caesarem ut impudicum, siue ficto habita fides,
atque ob id conuictu principis prohibitus cum . . . . ;
6,8,2 ausus est. . . .M. Terentius, ob id reus, amplecti
(sc. Seiani amicitiam); 6,25,12 actae ob id grates de-
cretumque (sc. est); 14,60,7 actae ob id de ancillis
quaestiones . . . . ; 2,35,4 Piso- . . .ob id magis agendas
(sc. res) censebat, ut....; 2,66,9 Caesar .... Pompo-
nium Flaccum, ueterem stipendiis et arta cum rege
amicitia eoque acoommodatiorem ad fallendum, ob id
iine Mocsiae praefecit. Ob ea occurs Ann. 2,
87,3; 11,25,17. Ob haec occurs 12,65,3; 13,41,18;
14,64,10.

78 The Latin Pronouns.

Suetonius has both phrases. He felt id to be so
weak a word that he reinforces it with ipsum. Otho i
quamuis ob id ipsum (quod praepositos suos occide-
rant) promotes (sc. milites) in ampliorem gradum ....
sciret; Julius 8 colonias Latinas ad audendum aliquid
concitasset, nisi consules . . . . legiones paulisper ob id
ipsum retinuisset; Tib. 65 collegam sibi adsumpsit. . . .
quern longo interuallo absens ob id ipsum susceperat;
Galba 10. . . .adstante nobili puero, quern.... ob id
ipsum acciuerat, deplorauit temporum statum; Vitel.
14 quosdam. . . .ob id ipsum ("simply on the charge")
quod. . . . , interemit. The only exception is Dom. 10
impudicos probauerant et ob id (n)ullius momenti esse
potuisse. In the Lives of the Caesars there are three
instances of ob hoc (always et ob hoc): Aug. 94 Au-
gustum natum mense decimo, et ob hoc Apollinis
filium existimatum; Dom. 17 prof essus . . . . conspira-
tionis indicium et ob hoc admissus; Tib. 70 imitatus
(sc. Tiberius est) Euphorionem et Rhianum. . . .et ob
hoc plerique. . . .multa de his ediderunt; Frag. Gram.
3 et ob hoc repudiatus; 16 suspectus . . . . et ob hoc
remotus; Frag. Rhet. 5 uel magis ob hoc.

Of the later writers the following show only ob hoc
(or ob haec) :

Justin — in every case at the beginning of a sen-
tence— (ob hoc: 12,3,7 diebus natis; 16,1,5 gesturus;
obhaec: 12,6,15; 13.4,* 17,2,15; 20,2,5). Script. Hist.
Aug. (ob hoc: Hadr. 3,3; 10; M. Ant. 7,3; 14,5;
Verus 3,6; Hel. 3,8; Commod. 4,8; Pert. 7,2; Did.
Jul. 3,7; Sev. 9,10; Pesc. 2,3; Car. 3,3; 4,5; 8,3;
Geta 2,2; 4; Heliog. 9,2; Alex. Sev. 63,5; Maximini
11,8; Gord. 28,5; Gall. 2,2; XXX Tyran. 22,3; and

The Correlation hie — ille. 79

one further passage; ob haec: Alex. Sev. 50,2). In
this work atque ob hoc and et ob hoc are favorite
phrases, and ob hoc tends to gravitate toward the fol-
lowing ut or quod, etc,, in some instances standing at
the very end of its clause just before these conjunc-
tions. De Viris Illustrious (ob hoc: 11,2; 26,3; ob
haec: 33,10; 48,5; 56,5). Aur. Viet. Hist. Abbr. (20,
17 ob haec tanta; 39,41 ob ea).

Thus we see that within a period of four genera-
tions from their first appearance in the literature, these
two phrases, probably following the analogy of the older
phrases ob earn rem (eas res), ob earn causam, and of
eo, ideo, propterea, etc., developed a great variety of
usages. The present sketch is of course only an out-
line. Their history can be written only by viewing
them in connection with the other causal adverbs and
adverbial phrases. By the time of Pliny the Younger
both phrases had come to be so freely used that the
individual writers show great variety in their employ-
ment.

B. THE CORRELATIONS HIC — ILLE, HIC — HIC,
ILLE — ILLE, etc.

In these correlations we likewise find clear indica-
tions of a weakening of meaning of the pronoun hie
(as also of ille). For iste — ille see below pp. 132-137.
We begin with the correlation —

1. Hie — ille, since it was the normal form by
which contrasts were expressed, and was doubt less
developed as early as the other two phrases, since it is
as old as the words themselves. Such natural con-

8o The Latin Pronouns.

trasts occur not infrequently in Plautus and Terence
and call for no special comment. A word may not be
amiss, however, on the relative position of the ele-
ments introduced by these words. With the Auctor
ad Herennium it had become a matter of indifference
which of the two pronouns preceded, as is shown by
4, 19,26 membrum .... articulus .... inter huius generis
et illius superioris uehementiam hoc interest: illud
(the former, membrum) tardius. . . .uenit, hoc. . . .cre-
brius peruenit .... itaque in illo genere . . . . , in hoc
autem .... While it is true that the three sets of
contrasts huius — illius, illud — hoc, illo — hoc are not
strictly coordinate, yet illud — hoc and illo — hoc stand
in the same relation to huius — illius, as that in which
this last correlation stands to mem. — art. The order
huius — illius is readily accounted for by the widely
extended Roman practice of employing hie at the
beginning of a new thought to refer to an immediately
preceding idea, a usage similar to the normal usage of
is. Various reasons could be suggested that might
have motivated the change to the order illud — hoc.
Livy makes the same change 39,53,3 (Demetrius) ....
Perseus . . . . , hunc .... ilium . . . . ; ilium .... hunc (cf.
22,39,4 Terentio .... Hannibale .... hie .... ille . . . . ,
illo .... hoc . . . .). Cicero and Velleius Paterculus
seemed to find nothing objectionable in a sustained
series of these alternatives recurring in the same order:
Orat. in Cat. 2,25 ex hac parte . . . . illinc, hinc....
illinc, hinc .... illinc, hinc .... illinc, hinc .... illinc,
hinc .... illinc, hinc .... illinc, .... denique . . . . ; Veil.
Pat. 2,84,1 in hac parte. . . .in ilia, hinc. . . .illinc, haec
.... ilia, hinc .... illinc, .... denique .... Velleius has

The Correlation hie — ille. 81

clearly modeled his sentence on Cicero's, but has
improved upon it by introducing the agreeable change
from Adverb to Adjective. Pliny the Younger 9,7,3 f .

varies it still more: duae (sc. uillae). altera altera;

illam .... hanc, haec .... ilia: haec .... ilia; illic. . . .
hie: ilia .... haec: ex ilia .... ex hac .... The correla-
tion is rare in Cicero, notwithstanding the general
acceptance of Raschig's conclusion that it is common
in the orators and rhetorical writers. The Ciceronian
example is paralleled by Cyprian, De Cath. Eccl. Unit.
19 hie (sc. in lapso) . . . .illic, hie. . . .illic, hie. . . .illic,
hie .... illic, hie .... illic, lapsus .... ille, lapsus .... ille
.... The order ille. . . .hie recurs in Sallust, Cat. 11,2;
54,2; Jug. 85,2 (cf. Cat. 12,4 f; 58,14; Jug- 85,22),
who also has in Jug. 94,5 Romanis hostibusque . . . .
his, illis.... Both orders occur in Curtius, e.g.,
3,1,17 ilia .... haec 3,11,24 mater coniunxque Darei :

ilia haec....; 6,1,8 illi. . . .hi. . . . ; 4,17 illos. . . .

hos. . . . ; 10,2,16 illos. . . .hos. . . . ; 4,1,40 has aut illas
partes secuti. His natural order is thus seen to be
ille .... hie, since in the last passage he had no choice
but to follow custom, which had already established
the invariable order hie .... ille in the brief phrases
hie — illic, hie et (atque, aut, uel) illic, et (aut, uel) hie
et (aut, uel) illic for the adverbial forms as well as
for the substantive and adjectival forms of the pro-
nouns. In Tacitus the instances of the correlation
are about equally divided between tlie two orders. By
the later writers both orders are freely used.

In our di-rn^ion of the meaning of this correla-

we shall find it desirable to distinguish between

the adverbial forms on the one hand and the suhstan-

82 The Latin Pronouns.

tive and adjectival forms on the other. We take up
first the latter class.

In the examples thus far cited each demonstrative
retains its full and normal meaning. This is also true
to a certain extent of the so-called rhetorical usage of
this correlation, in accordance with which the two
pronouns are employed to refer to two antecedents
mentioned in the context immediately preceding, so
that they take on the meaning ' ' the former — the lat-
ter." The earliest extant example is, as is well
known, that found in a fragment of Accius (frag. 4
p. 137 Ribb.).

Tu pertinaciam esse, Antiloche, hanc praedicas,
Ego peruicaciam aio et ea me uti uolo:
Haec (sc. peruicacia) fortis sequitur, illam in-
docti possident.

From the semasiological standpoint this usage scarcely
differs from the normal usage of the pronouns, since
haec refers to the quality that the speaker wishes to
possess, while illam refers to that in which he would
have no interest. We may the more confidently
assume that, although for the most part, Accius gave
in his tragedies a fairly close translation of the Greek
original, he was not influenced in the present instance
by the Greek ouro? and 2xe?vo?, or even by 6 !*.&....
6 di to use haec — illam to express the contrast, since
the above passage bears on its face clear indications
of being an original contribution of the Roman poet.
If we now turn to Cicero's De Nat. Deor. 1,47 we
shall find for the first time in a Roman prose writer a
usage which implies an important change in the mean-

The Correlation hie — illc. 83

ing of the word: nam Cotta meus modo hoc modo
illud (sc. facit). In this passage neither pronoun has
a definite antecedent. The vague antecedent of hoc
does not stand any closer to the speaker's sympa-
thies, nor is it locally or temporally closer to him than
that of illud. In other words all deictic force of the
two pronouns is lost and they serve only to indicate
that the objects referred to are of different characters,
' 'one thing — another. ' ' They thus become synonymous
with alius — alius, (not alter — alter, which refer to two,
usually definite, antecedents), and like alius — alius, do
not imply that only two alternatives are possible (as
would aut hoc aut illud), but rather indicate that an
indefinite number of possibilities exists. This is per-
haps true likewise of Ciceros's L,aelius 13 qui (i.e.,
Socrates) non turn hoc turn illud ("not now one view,
now another"), ut in plerisque, sed idem semper (sc.
dicebat); although it must be admitted that in view of
Cato Maior 66, where speaking of the same question,
"is the soul immortal?" Cicero says atqui tertium
certe nihil inueniri potest, the choice seems rather to
be limited to the affirmation and denial of immortal-
ity. No such limitation can be assumed in Sallust,
Hist. (Orat. Phil.) haec atque ilia temptans.

Yet the phrase does not necessarily imply a large
number. Quite to the contrary in Yerr. 1,53 non
dicam illinc hoc signum ablatum esse et illud, hoc
dico, nullum te Aspendi signum, Verres, reliquisse;
and in De Leg. Agr. 2,55 uectigalia locare nusquam
licet, nisi in hac urbe hoc aut illo ex loco hac uestrtim
freqiientia it implies that although three or even more
alternatives are possible, yet the possibilities are few

84 The Latin Pronouns.

in number. In the former passage Cicero was not, of
course, thinking of any particular statue; that is to
say, the antecendents of hoc and illud are not definite.
Still the implication is "I do not mention this particu-
lar statue or that particular statue, though able to
refer to special instances." (Compare the use of qui-
dam refering to an antecedent, which, though definite
in the mind of the speaker — <?. g., quendam nomi-
nare possum "I might mention a certain individual"
— remains, through the intention of the speaker, indefi-
nite in the mind of the person addressed). In the lat-
ter instance the audience was familiar with the loca
ubi uectigalia locare licet, but it still remains a matter
of uncertainty and of unimportance to which locus
each pronoun refers. The phrase thus approaches
unus atque alter in meaning. De Inuent. 2,99 si hoc
atit illud fecisset aut ni sic fecisset implies neither that
the alternatives are few or many. A curious and rare
usage is Virgil, Eel. 7,21 in which hos (sc. uersus) and
illos (sc. versus) look forward to the remainder of the
amoebean poem. From the patristic literature we
may cite Cyprian, Ad Don. 3^; Arnobius i,np;
1 ,59, 23V; 24^; 2,i3/>; Augustine, Epist. 11,3 natura
.... in se habeat haec tria . . . . : primo ut sit, deinde
ut hoc uel illud sit (i. e., qualitatem habeat), tertio ut
. . . . ; then follow hoc uel illud, aut hoc quidem aut
illud, hoc uel illud, hoc uel illud, used as a single word
(like the Greek philosophical categories ~/><k T«, etc.).
Even when the number of alternatives is limited
to two, it may occasionally remain uncertain to which
antecedent each pronoun refers. For example, in Livy
2,51,9 his atque illis refer to two Roman armies. It

The Correlation hie — illc. 85

is impossible to determine from the context to which
each pronoun refers, and indeed it does not matter,
because neither army is nearer to the speaker in time,
place or interest, and hence neither should be definitely
specified by hie or ille. That is to say, we have now
reached a stage at which these pronouns have lost all
their demonstrative force and mean simply ' ' one — the
other" with no reference at all to a definite anteced-
ent. The same interpretation must be put on L,ivy
5,40,3; cf. 10,14,2. The usage was not frequently
employed by prose writers. Florus offers an example
2, 1 3(4, 2), 7 7 inter hos (sc. Caesarianos uel Pompeianos)
atque illos duces, if we are not to assume in the light
of section 5 hinc "on Caesar's side ".... hide "on
Pompey's side", section 14 ille ( Pompey ) . . . . hie
(Caesar) and section 48 illi (Pompey's cavalry).. ..hi
(Caesar's German infantry) that Florus' sympathies
were more with Caesar, and that in consequence of
this hos means Caesarianos. Hinc uel illinc (§ 44),
like the passage in question, remains uncertain. Com-
pare further Anon. Decl. in Catil. 121; Dictys Cre-
2 his aut illis; Placitus 3,3 aut hoc aut illo
modo; Arnobius, Ad Nationes 4,4^.

When the antecedent still remains indefinite, but
the number of alternatives is unlimited, each pronoun
serving simply to suggest one example out of any
number that might indifferently be chosen, we have
the weakest stage of meaning to which this corrella-
tion sank. Of the original elements of its meaning
there remains only the implication of a contrast, but
: here the contract is often not between the two
antecedents themselves, but l>et\vcen the activities they

86 The Latin Pronouns.

exhibit or certain qualities they possess. Even this
contrast has no emphasis laid upon it, but assumes the
form "two different objects exist" rather than the
form "the two objects are different." This usage is
largely confined to poetry, particularly to the epic
(in its widest sense), though not unknown to prose
writers. A typical example is Virgil's Aeneid 7,637^

Classica iamque sonant; it bello tessera signum.
Hie gladium tectis trepidus rapit, ille frementis
Ad iuga cogit equos clipeumque . . . . ;

</• 4,157

Gaudet equo, iamque hos cursu, iam praeterit
illos;

5.441

Nunc hos nunc illos aditus, omnemque pererrat
Arte locum.

Further examples are: Manil. 1,191 nunc his nunc
illis regionibus; Sil. Ital. 5,150 nunc hos nunc illos;
Stat. Thebais 2,589 hos. .. .illos; Orestis Tragoedia
852. Lucan, though a careful imitator of Virgil,
offers no instances, unless we may so interpret 6,277,
which perhaps falls under the preceding type. The
usage is found in the lyrics of Horace, e. g., 1,1,7-8;
et al. From the prose literature we may cite Florus
i, 1 8(2, 2), 35 in hos uel illos ictus mobilia rostra speci-
men uiuentium praebebant; Plin. Epist. 6,20,14 hi. . .
illi with preceding alii .... alii .... alii .... and follow-
ing multi. The indifferent character of this antece-
dent is clearly made manifest in such a passage as the
following: Virgil, Aen. 6,315

The Correlation hie — illc. 87

Nauita (sc. Charon) set tristis nunc hos nunc

accipit illos,
Ast alios longo submotos arcet harena;

Macrobius, Sat. 1,24,1 laudare hie memoriam, ille
doctrinam, cuncti religionem. It was this absolute
indifference of the antecedent that made it possible
for Horace to write in Sat. 1,1,112

neque se maiori pauperionum
Turbae comparat, hunc atque hunc superare
laboret

in precisely the same sense with Virgil, Aen. 4,157.
Finally a passage in which the words no longer stand
in parallel syntactical relation, Juv. io,i96f.

.... pulchrior ille
Hoc, atque ille alio, multum hie robustior illo.

As soon as it became possible thus to use these two
pronouns to refer to entirely vague and indefinite
antecedents, it became possible to extend the series
indefinitely by repeating either pronoun. Thus multi-
membral contrasts or series originated. Such a series
is found in Ennius (see below) and Lucretius 3,311
(the discussion is on the character of man as depend-
ing on the prominence in his nature of one or another
of the three elements)

. . . .procliuius hie iras decurrit ad acris
Ille iiK-tu cilitis paulo tcmptc-lur, at ille
TVrtitis accipiat quaedam cleineiitius aequo;

cf. Virg. Geor. 2,505-8 hie. . . .hie. . . .hunc. . . . ; Hor.

li-45 "ic. . . .illc. . . .hie. . . .hie. . . .hunc. . . .

quin ftiam illud aecidit ut cuidam . . . . ; cf. 1,4,276*. hie

88 The Latin Pronouns.

.... hie .... hunc .... Albius .... hie . . . . ; Ode 3,1,9-
1 3 Kst ut uiro uir .... hie .... hie .... ille . . . . ; L,ucan
7,774-776 ille. .. .ille. .. .hunc. .. .in hoc.... in Caes-
are. . . .; Stat. Sil. 2,1,213-17 hos. . . .hos. . . .his. . . .
his .... hos .... illos .... hos . . . . ; 2, 2,45-50 haec ....
ilia. . . .haec. . . .haec. . . . ; 4,3,50 hi. . . .hi. . . .illi. . . .
hi....; Theb. 4,2995. hi. . . .hi. . . .his. . . .his. . . .
his. . . .ille. . . .ille. . . .hos. . . .; Juv. 3,69f.

Hie alta Sicyone, ast hie Amy done relicta,
Hie Andro, ille Samo, hie Trallibus aut Ala-'

bandis,
Esquilias .... petunt ....

10,225 ille. . . .hie. . . .hie. . . .ille. . . .huius. . . . ; Clau-

dian 5,410!!. hi. .. .alii. .. .ille ille. .. .ille. .. .hie

. . . .hie. . . .hie. . . .hie. . . .

The use of the pronouns as indefinites in an ex-
tended series naturally admits varietatis causa other
indefinite nouns or pronouns into the series. So cui-
dam and uiro uir above. Similarly used are alius
(Lucan 2,183 *• hie. . . .alius. . . .ille. . . .), alter (Calp.

Eel. io,48f. hie alter ille ; Statius, Sil. 5,

3,1855. alter. . . .alter. . . .alter. . . .hi. . . .hi. . . .hi. . . .
illi. . . .), pars (Ovid. Met. n,29f. hae. . . .illae. . . .pars
. . . . ; ii ,486 pars .... pars .... hie .... hie . . . . ; Lucan
10,128-131 hos. .. .alios. .. .haec (sc. pars) .... pars
altera. . . .pars. . . . ; Stat. Sil. 3,1,118-125 his....illis

. . . .pars. . . .pater ipse ). Theb. 2,551 offers hos

.... illos .... nee paucos ....

So also the prose writers: Plin. N. H. 13,40 aliis
.... aliis, his .... aliis, .... quibusdam aliud .... aliud
.... (hi pairs) ita fiunt IXL, genera; Plin. Panegyr.

The Correlation hie — illc. 89

25<? aliqtiis .... alius .... hie .... ille . . . . ; Epist. 4,24,3
quidam .... alii .... huic .... hie .... alius .... ilium
. . . . ; Gellius, N. A. 1,9,9 alius. . . .item alius. . . .hie
. . . .ille. . . . ; Apul. Met. 2,29 (p. 66). The possibili-
ties of such a series are illustrated by Gellius, N. A.
Praef . 6-7 alii .... alii .... ille .... hie .... alius .... par-
tim .... quidam .... alius .... atque alius . . . . et item
alius .... sunt etiam qui .... sunt item qui .... sunt
adeo qui . . . . et . . . . et . . . . et . . . . (with nouns omitted)
est qui . . . . est qui .... et .... et .... est item qui . . . . est
. . . . est praeterea qui .... est itidem qui ... est qui
.... sunt item multi qui .... neque item non sunt qui
.... aut .... aut . . . aut . . . . et quaedam alia .... mul-
tasque .... nos uero

Instances of the insertion of a proper name in
such a series are very uncommon, the only ones known
to me being those from Horace and Lucan cited above,
while Plin. Epist. 4,24,3 concludes a series with nos
ipsos. In Horace, Epist. 2,2,59f. we read tu.. ..hie
.. ..ille; 91 ego (understood) is contrasted with hie.
Statius, Sil. 5,3,185 concludes a series with tu; 3,1,118
with pater ipse.

The attentive reader has doubtless already ob-
served that in this category no passage from a prose
writer has been cited in which hie and ille are unac-
companied by some other indefinite word, as well as
that the larger part of the indefinite bimembral alterna-
tives is made up of the brief expressions mine h. mine
il., iam h. iain il.

The corrcs]x>ii(lin^ adverbial correlations are of
much more frequent occurrence than the substantive
and adjectival. In Hand. Turs. s. w. hac, hue,

90 The Latin Pronouns.

is found a good collection of instances of these correla-
tions. They were used from Plautus on down to
the latest period. We distinguish: i) hie — illic, 2) hinc
— illinc, 3) hue — illuc, 4) hac — iliac. These phrases,
like those discussed above, show both the stronger and
the weaker meaning. Hue — illuc and hinc — illinc are
by far the more frequent forms; hac — iliac rarely
occurs, hie — illic only occasionally.

Hie — illic is first found in Plautus, Most 605,
where the slave in reply to the usurer's repeated de-
mands for his interest exclaims faenus illic, faenus hie
(that is, "faenus everywhere"). The phrase is already
used of entirely indefinite antecedents. Catullus 6,9

Puluinusque peraeque et hezc et ill^'c || sic Baehr.||
Attritus

testifies to the substantive usage exemplified by L,ivy
2,51,9 (cited above), which is found in the adverbial
form in Livy 8,37,6 nee hie nee illic. So Catullus 10,
21 n&que hie neque illic. Ovid. Met. 7,581

Hie, illic, ubi mors deprenderat, exhalantes
is like Most. 605 (see also Virgil, Geor. 1,54; 69 f.) In
Varro, Res Rustica 3,5,6 aut hie aut illic is definite.

2) Hinc — illinc is also first met in Plautus, Atnph.
229, in the form hinc et illinc, a superfluous epexege-
sis on uterque. Both adverbs here retain their normal
force, hinc meaning "on our side," illinc "on the
enemy's side," whereas in Most. 565 et hinc et illinc
means "on both sides" (indefinite).

a) Hinc .... illinc with asyndeton and not juxta-
posed: Lucr. 2,521 hinc flammis, illinc .... pruinis;
Virgil, Geor. 1,509; Petron. 83; 108; Curtius 6,11,16

The Correlation hie — illc. 91

hinc ignis illinc uerbera. . . . ingerebantur (sc. Philotae);
cf. 8,14,32 and Juvenal 10,44 illinc cornicines, hinc
. . . .agminis officia (observe the order).

b) With asyndeton and juxtaposed: Catullus
68a,i33(= 68b,93) hinc illinc (circumcursans); Lucre-
tius (of an indefinite antecedent); Ovid, Met. i,6i9f.
illinc | Hinc (chiastic sentence); Seneca, Medea 108
h. i. mittite carmina.

c) With copula:

Hinc rex et illinc Sen. Medea 516.

Hinc illincgue \\ illinc cod. A || Cic. Tim. 49.

Hinc atque illinc: L,iv. 3,5,1 (impetus facti);
26,39,19 (transferentes uela); 32,10,12 (uulneribus
acceptis); Petron. 48 (secuit); 32 (fimbriis h. a. i. pen-
dentibus).

Hinc ucl illinc: Tac. Annal. 2,6,7 adpelle-
rent naues); Hist. 3,47,19 (adpellere naues); Germ.
44,11 (mutabile h. u. i. remigio).

Hinc aut illinc: Liv. 7,8,1 (aufert); 9,32,6
(telum h. a. i. emissum).

d) With correlating adverbs or conjunctions:
Nunc hinc nunc illinc: Lucr. 2,2i4f. (nubibtis

ignes | concursant); 6,199 (fremitus — "thunder" —
per nubilu inittunt); Virg. Aen. 4,442 (n. h. n. fiati-
1ms illinc | .. . .certant) with the interlocked order.

Atquc hinc atquc illinc iiineros ad uolnera
durat Yirg. Geor. 3,257.

.; Hue — illuc. The two adverbs bear their full
original demonstrative force in Plant. Capt. 370

Ad te atque ad ilium: pro rota me uti licet.
Uel ego hue uel illuc nor tar quo imperabitis.

92 The Latin Pronouns.

With the weakened force it occurs Aul. 607

Hinc ego et hue et illuc potero quid agant arbi-

trarier.

The formulae in which it occurs are of about the same
range with those of the two adverbial correlations just
discussed, and may be grouped under the same gen-
eral heads:

a) Asyndeton — not juxtaposed:

b) Asyndeton — juxtaposed: Cic. Ad Att. 9,9,2^
cursem hue illuc uia teterrima; Sail. Jug. 60,4 (agitare
corpora); Ovid, Met. 2 (feror); Virg. Geor. 2,297 (aescu-
lus sustinet umbram); Aen. 4,363 (uoluens oculos);
5,408 (uersat); Manil. 1,199 (reflectat); Petron. 114
(uentus conuertebat ratem); Ilias Lat. 393 (coruscat);
Lucan 8,699 (truncus iactatur aquis); Stat. Achil. 200
(uolutat); Siluae 1,3,72 (prosternat); Theb. 2,602
(clipeum obiectans); 4,366 (uersans lumina); 733 (im-
pellat); 9,172 (frustra ruit auius); Sil. Ital. 17,137
(iactans — sc. equus membra); Plin. Epist. 2,i7,9(dige-
ret); Quint. 10,7,6 (salientes).

c) With copula:

Hue et illuc: Ad Herenn. 4,11^ (fluctuat);
Cic. Gael. 13 (torquere et flectere suum ingenium); De
Nat. Deor. 2,115 (casu et temere cursantibus); 101 (aer
effluens uentos efficit); De Off. 1,101 (rapit); Acad.
2,116 (trahuntur rationes); De Div. 2,80 (uolucris pas-
sim uagantes); De Nat. Deor. 3,68 (uersat); De Fin
2,99 (uersetis); Hor. 4,11,9 (cursitant); Celsus 2,15,8
(lectus manu impellendus); 8,1,35 (se inclinans); Sen.
De Ben. 5,5^ (hoc et illo — sic! — diducit); Med. 862
(h. fert pedes et illuc); Stat. Theb. 4,380 (h. tristis et

The Correlation hie — ille. 93

illuc. . . .pinum deiectat); 9,849 (h. fessus et i. | Muta-
bat turmas); 10,168 (acies h. errat et i.).

Hue atquc illuc. Cic. Quint. Rose. 37 (tergi-
uersantem); De Oratore 1,40 (intuens); 184 (uagare);
De Fiu. 5,86 (uerses); Bell. Afr. 73 (rapsaret); Sail.
Hist. 3, 48, 26 (M) (hue ire a. i. — order!); Livy 7,34,16
(sigua moueri); 5,8,8 (signa transf errent) ; Valer. Max.
6,8,7 (errantia); Petron. 37 (discurreret); 101 (uecta-
tur); Celsus 4,1,29 (ab utraque parte h. a. i. uolutum
intestiuum colon); Stat. Theb. 2,545 (h- ferus a- i- ani-
mum. . . .ferens); Gellius 2,6,5 (distrahitur — of the hu-
man mind); Dictys 3,3 (oberrans); Script. Hist. Aug.
Maximini 5,1 (discurrens, "the whole world over");
Jordanes, Get. 182.

Hue illuc^?: Celsus 5,26,14 (oculi mouen-
tur). In Plin. N. H. 37,83 the phrase is not well
authenticated.

Hue uel illuc: Ter. And. 266
Dum in dubiost animus, paulo momento h. u. i.
inpellitur;

Hue illuc?^: Celsus 6,6,36 (moueatur); 7,3,8
(discernit); 7,18,14 (conuersum — sc. fuit); 8,16,8 (se
dederunt).

d) With correlating words:

Et hue et illuc: Petron. 39 (quadrat).

6Whuc ncl illuc imjxjlluntur Celsus 7,7,3.

Nunc hue nunc illuc: Lucr. 2,131 (reuerti
| N. h. n. i. in cunctas undique partis);
Virgil, Aen. 4,285 (n. h. celercm n. diuidit illuc); 5,701
(N. h. indent is n. i. pectore curas
Mutabat u« •

94 The Latin Pronouns.

Manil. 2,904 (N. h. n. i. mutantis); 3,167 (mota); Sen.
Med. 938

(N. h. ira n. i. amor | Diducit);
Sil. Ital. 4,323

N. h. alterno, n. i., flamine gestant (sc. uenti).
Turn hue turn illuc: Cic. De Div. 1,120
(uolant alites); cf. Lael. 13 supra cit.

lam hue iam illuc: Florus 1,33(2,17)8 (missi
duces).

Dum hue dum illuc: Plaut. True. 38 (rete
or impedit) in its present condition is corrupt, if not
interpolated.

Modo hue modo illuc: Catullus 3,9 (circum-
siliens); 15,7 (praetereunt, — sc. in platea homines);
Cic. De Div. 2,145 (ducentium); Par. 14 (transferun-
tur); Tim. 48 (verb lost — lacuna in text).

4) Hac — iliac. Plaut. Rud. 213 hac an iliac earn
incerta (definite?); Ter. Haut. 512 Hac iliac circum-
cursa (indefinite); Eun. 105

Plenus rimarum sum, hac atque iliac perfluo;
Petron. 57^ (pedem opponerent); Tac. Agr. 28 hac
atque ilia rapti.

Multimernbral adverbial series are very rare yet
not entirely wanting. Stat. Silu. 1,6,67-74 hie....

hic....illic illic.. ..hie.. ..; Sil. Ital. 10,312 f.

hie .... hie .... illic || illuc codd. LFOV || . . . . hie ....
passim. . . . ; 403 f. hie. . . .hie. . . .illic || v. I. ibi || . . . .
It will be recalled that the earliest bimembral
series cited above in which the pronouns are used
indefinitely is found in Cicero, while the earliest pas-
sage in which the words mean "the former, the latter"
is in Accius, Joseph Bach (op. cit. p. 309) being fully

The Correlation hie — ille. 95

justified in regarding with Brachmann Plaut. Bacch.
395 as spurious. However, a trimembral series con-
siderably antedating Accius occurs in Knnius, Fab-
ulae 330 (M)

His erat in ore Bromius, his Bacchus pater, illis

L,yaeus ( ' 'some — some — others' ' ) .
Since the semasiological change undergone by hie
and ille in passing from a definite to an indefinite
antecedent is the same in the multimembral as in the
bimembral series, there is no reason for assuming that
the process was accomplished sooner in the one case
than in the other, unless it be that the repetition of
the same pronoun (made necessary in the multimem-
bral sentence) refering to different antecedents in the
same sentence (so his — his above) facilitated the change
in meaning. As a matter of fact, we find that in the
bimembral correlations hie — hie and ille — ille, the first
step toward this change is apparent in Plautus and
Terence (see below). On the other hand in the case
of the hie — ille type it is only in the short adverbial
expressions hie — illic, hinc — illinc, hue — illuc, etc.,
that we find in these two comedians the process
of the weakening of the meaning under discussion
an accomplished fact. That neither series (non-
adverbial) appears in Plautus or Terence is due simply
to the fact that these correlations are appropriate only
to description and narration, which are rarely found
in comedy. In view of this we shall probably not be
much in error, if we assume that the indefinite use of
the bimembral series wa> also possible to Kmiius, and
only the scantiness of the extant remains of his works
deprive^ Us of examples.

96 The Latin Pronouns.

As has already been suggested, the adverbial forms
appeared earlier in the literature and obtained much
greater currency than did the others. They may actu-
ally have developed earlier. Unlike the adjectival and
substantive forms, which stand for a material ante-
cedent the individuality of which is likely to be clearly
felt, they represent only more or less vague local or
temporal conceptions. In the great majority of in-
stances the locutions hinc — illinc, etc., serve to point
out that certain acts take place in two different places,
it being unimportant whether one is near and one far
away. The important thought is that the two points
where the action takes place are separate and distant
from each other. The distinctive meaning of each
word is thus easily lost, and the meaning of the locu-
tion as a whole becomes the important thing. Further-
more those adjectival and substantive locutions that
give indication of having been modeled on the adver-
bial forms, e. g., modo hoc modo illud, turn hoc turn
illud, hoc aut illo, his atque illis, hoc uel illud, hoc
aut illud, make up by far the larger number of in-
stances in which the correlation bears the indefinite
sense.

2. Hie — hie. The weakening of hie to an in-
definite pronoun is seen with equal clearness in this
correlation. There is, however, one important differ-
ence between the two locutions. In the case of hie —
ille the contrast is largely expressed by the difference
in the meaning of the words. In the present case the
contrast is not expressed by the words themselves,
they being identical in meaning, but either by gesture,
etc., or by the predicates affirmed of their antecedents.

The Correlation hie — hie. 97

Cicero's citation from Servius (Ad Fam. 9,16,4) hie
uersus Plauti non est, hie est has been made a locus
classicus by Wolfflin's discussion of it in his "Gemma-
tion im Lateinischen" (Miinchener Sitzungsber. 1882).
He characterises it as an imitation of the Conversa-
tionsstil comparing Horace, Ars Poet. 439

"Corrige, sodes,
Hoc," aiebat, "et hoc."

(on which Lucian Miiller, ad loc., misunderstanding
the classical usage, says "fur et illud"), and Sat.
i,i,ii2 hunc atque hunc (Miiller, "fur atque ilium").
The usage is further exemplified by Ars Poet. 45 hoc
amet, hoc spernat, and two such pairs Ars Poet. 363
and 365

Haec amat obscurum; uolet haec sub luce

uideri;
Haec placuit semel, haec decies repetita placebit.

In Ad Fam. /. c. and similar passages there is really
no weakening in the force of the pronoun, since one
object after another is laid before the critic, and each
one, as it is examined, becomes "this verse" (cf. Plaut.
Capt. ion Pater hie est, hie seruos — see also 1018
Pater hie est. Hie fur est). Closely connected with
this last type is Virg. Eel. 4,55-57

Non me carminibus uincat nee Thracius Or-
pheus,

Nee Linus, huic mater qiinmuis atque huic pater
adsit.

Orphei Caliopea, Lino formonsus Apollo;

and Aen. 8,357
«s

98 The Latin Pronouns.

Hanc lanus pater, hanc Saturnus condidit
arcem:

laniculum huic, illi fuerat Saturnia nomen.
This passage exemplifies the close contact in meaning
between hie — hie and hie — ille. Compare Tacitus,
Hist. 4,55,7 Tutor .... Sabinus ...., hie Treuir, hie

Lingonus, Tutor. . . .Sab The usage is rare in

late Latin, but is found in Script. Hist. Aug. Avid.
Cass. 2,8; Min. Fel. 40,4; Alcimus Avitus 5 (p. 33,2)
quidquid hie || illic Mommsen || nocuit, hie profecit;
quidquid tune fleuimus, nunc amamus.

Very instructive for the interpretation of Ad Fam.
/. c. are Ter. Ad. 417 f.

Hoc facito .... Hoc fugito.
Hoc laudist .... Hoc uitio datur,

where, as in Ars Poet. 363 and 365, two pairs of
alternatives are found, and Ter. Ad. 425 f .

Hoc salsumst, hoc adustumst, hoc lautumst

parum;
Illud recte.

where we likewise have two alternatives. The second
is il. recte; the first is trimembral, the three alterna-
tives as a whole being contrasted with illud recte, and
being logically equivalent to haec praue. This pas-
sage testifies to the existence of the usage at a time
long antedating Servius. It is paralleled by the famil-
iar passage Hor. Sat. 1,4,134-7 rectius hoc est. . . .hoc
.... sic .... hoc . . . . , where sic is introduced varie-
iatis causa.

In the last two passages, in which the number of

The Correlation hie — hie. 99

alternatives exceeds two, the antecedents have already
lost their individuality, and, as in the case of hie — ille
discussed on p. 85, the stress lies entirely on the
contrast between the predicates that are assigned to
them. The pronouns pass still further into the realm
of indefiniteness, when brought in such rapid suc-
cession before the mind that no time is allowed for the
mind to dwell upon each one. In many passages even
the contrast between the predicates, which is often
very slight, is left unstated, and the reader or list-
ener is left to infer from the mere presence of a copula
et, aut, etc.,} or from the general context, that two
distinct antecedents are referred to. Thus to be inter-
preted are: Ad Keren. 2,40 hoc aut hoc fecissem, and
Cic. De Invent. 1,99 hoc et hoc sit demonstratum; 100
uobis hoc et hoc plane factum est (cited by Krebs-
Schmalz, Antibarbarus I6, 593); Quint. 6,1,4 cum
sciret haec et haec; id. 3 responsurus sit aduersarius
his et his. [Hac et hac] in 9,4,129 is a gloss on fluit.
Cf. 4,4,8 ego hoc dico, aduersarius hoc, in which the
contrast is expressed by the two grammatical subjects.
In these passages, except possibly the last, it seems
unnecessary to assume that the speaker is thinking of
a definite object when he utters each "hoc", nor is he
on the other hand using them exactly as indefinites.
They seem rather to approach in meaning the familiar
legal formula illucl — illud "such and such". Further-
more there is no implication, except in 4,4,8 that only
two alternatives are referred to, so that we mi^ht
translate "for example, this or that."

Of the same type witli Livy 2,51,9 cited p. 84, is
Virgil, A en. io,9f

ioo T/ie Latin Pronouns.

Quis metus aut hos

Aut hos arma sequi ferrumque lacessere suasit,
in which it is a matter of indifference which hos re-
fers to Rutuli and which to Troiani; Persius 5,155
Huncine an hunc sequeris? (cf. Sil. Ital. 4,353^.

I/astly we may refer to the cases in which the
choice is not limited to two objects, the words coming
to mean ' ' one — another ' ' , plural ' ' some — others ' ' .
This usage is found chiefly in the hexameter poetry.
See Virgil, Aen. 6,773 f.

Hi tibi Nomentum et Gabios urbemque Fide-

nam,
Hi Collatinas imponent montibus arces;

cf. 7,5o6ff.

Olli . . • .adsunt, hie torre armatus obusto,
Stipitis hie grauidi nodis: quod cuique repertum
Rimanti, telum ira facit;

and 1,106 Hi. . . .his. . . . ; Geor. 4,84 f. aut hos aut
hos; Hor. Epist. i,i7,39ff. hie.... | .... |Hic....;

Lucan2,3ohae hae ; 252 f. Hos | Hos ;

3,687 | Hie | Hi ; 6,198-200 | Hunc |

Hunc... ; 7,375 f. haec. ... |Haec....; 8,196 | Hos
. . . .hos. . . . ; 10,489 hos. . . .hos. . . . ; Sil. Ital. is not
less fond of the correlation. For Statius see Thebais
2,246; 7iof.

The usage admits naturally of extension to three
or more members, as in Virgil, Geor. 2,505-8 hie. . . .
hie. . . .hunc. . . . ; Aen. 7,473f. hunc. . . .hunc. . . .hunc
....; Hor. Epist. 2,2,67 hie. . . .hie. . . .hie. . . .hie
. . . . ; L,ucan 2, 154-7 hie • • • • n^c • • • • hie • • • • ; Stat. Sil.
4,4,i5f. hos. . . .hos. . . .hi. . . .

The Correlation hie — hie. 101

From the prose writers: Florus 2, 33(4, 12), 52 hos
. . . .hos. . . .hos. . . . In New Test. Matth. 13,22
. . . . 6 niv.. ..6 di .... 6 di .... is rendered in the
codex Bobbianus (now Taurinensis k) hoc .... hoc au-
tem. . . .hoc autem. . . . , in all other existing MSS.
(the Palatinus e, an African translation, has a lacuna
at this point) aliud quidem .... aliud autem .... aliud
autem (or uero).... In the parallel passage 13,8
even k and e read aliut .... aliut .... aliut .... In
Matth. 8,9 the Vulgate huic .... alio .... represents

Like hie .... hie .... ille . . ..etc., this series also
admits indefinite nouns and pronouns. Curtius 9,9,
12 hi. . . .hi. . . .quidam. . . . ; Stat. Theb. 3,129-31
hae .... hae .... pars .... pars . . . . ; Lucan 10, 1 28 if . hos
.... alios .... pars .... pars .... inuentus .... fortior
aetas. Tacitus has a variety of such expressions,
especially in the Annals, e. g., 14,8,2 hi. . . .hi. . . -alii
....quidam....; 1,18,1 hi. . . .hi . . . .plurimi. . . . ; 2,
13,4 hie. .. .alius. .. .plurimi. ...; 4,50,2 his. .. .aliis
..-.et erant qui . . . . ; 13,39,14 hos. .. .alios. .. . mul-
tos. . .. ; Hist. 3,55,9 his. . . .alios ---- (cf. Ann. 6,1,9);
Sat. i,4,2yff. hie . . . .hie. . . .hunc. . . . Albius ---- hie
....; Sil. Ital. 17,482-5 hie. .. .hie. .. .hos. .. .horum
. . . .ipse Rhoeteius; Juvenal 1,46-49 hie. . . .hie. . . .
Marius. . . .

The corresponding adverbial forms hie — hie, etc.,
in the sense of alibi — alibi, iV0a ;L{V — svOa dl, like the
adverbial forms hie — illic, have a much wider range of
usage than the adjectival and substantive forms, but
are far less frequently employed than the hie — illic

102 TJie Latin Pronouns.

type, and seem to be a later development. At least
they appear considerably later in the extant litera-
ture.

i) Hie — hicy etc., is rarely met, hinc — hinc being
used in its stead. Examples are Sil. Ital. 8,395^

2) Hinc — hie. See Hor. O. 1,34,14-16.

3) Hinc — hinc. Type a), hinc hinc juxtaposed and
used asyndetically, seems never to occur, except as
refering to one and the same antecedent.

b) Asyndetic and not juxtaposed: The two
adverbs may both modify the same verb or may be
used with separate verbs. The correlation appears
earlier in the former construction. The first examples
in prose literature, as is well known, are found in Livy.
Earlier than the first decade of Livy is Horace, Sat.
i, i, 1 8 hinc uos uos hinc discedite, which, so far as
I am aware, has always been interpreted in the general
sense: "Go ye each his own different way." I am
not inclined, however, to follow the traditional render-
ing, which takes hinc. . . .hinc in the sense of hinc. . . .
illinc, or more exactly either hac — iliac or illuc.. ..
illuc, but would for several reasons make hinc in both
instances refer to the speaker, Jupiter, and retain its
normal meaning "hence, hence, both of you." Livy
is therefore antedated in this usage not even by a
poet. Livy uses the words in most cases to bal-
ance a pair of nouns that stand in the same construc-
tion. The passage 1,13,2 hinc patres hinc uiros
or antes, is the earliest instance of the usage in Latin
literature. This same passage stands in Aurel. Viet.
1,2,9 hinc patres inde coniuges deprecatae. Either

The Correlation hie — hie. 103

Victor or the maker of the Epitome Liuiana1 felt hinc
— hinc as an unusual expression and altered it to the
more familiar and more prosaic hinc — hide. The
same type of construction is found 3,23,7 h. Uolscos
h. Aequos. 6,15,3; 8,35,8; 21,8,8; 22,47,2; 25,15,14;
25,29,3; 26,48,12; 28,9,13; 29,33,5; 30,19,8. In two
cases we have instead of single substantives a phrase
of two or more words correlated by hinc — hinc: 26,
37,2 hinc in Hispania aduersae res, hinc prospera in
Sicilia; 10,39,16 hinc foederum cum Romanis ictorum
testes deos, hinc iurisiurandi aduersus foedera sus-
cepti execrationes horrens. Later examples of such
an extended phrase are: Stat. Theb. 1,383^ Sil. Ital.
10,530-2; 2,273-5. The brief expressions in which
two substantives are correlated reappear in Curt. 9,4,
10 bis\ 5,10,9; 5,4,28; 8,13,11 (in the second and third
instances the substantive stands in the Ablative);
Lucan 7,533; 9,861; Sen. Dial. 2,2,1 (two proper
names); Stat. Sil. 1,2,235; Theb. 1,193 (two proper
names, each with an adjectival modifier); 3,564^ Sil.
Ital. 1,522; 4,38of; 550; 562; 5,44; 7,526; Juvenal i,
119 hinc toga, calceus hinc est. Slightly varied are
Sil. Ital. 1,561.

Hinc puer inualdique senes, hinc femina;
and 4,414

Hinc laeua frenos, hinc dextra corripit arma.
The phrase is very seldom employed to correlate

•iry A. Sander*, w:. .1 study of tin- Kpi-

.nn to speak with authority on the sulijeet. has

been unable to find any evidi-nre ritlu-r t<> prove or to disprove

the assumption that the writer of tin- Kpiloine made the change.

The balance of probability would ] it to Victor.

IO4 The Latin Pronouns.

two verbs: Manil. 2,4i9f; Lucan 10,5375.; Stat. Sil.
2,2,n6f.; Sil. Ital. i,222f.; 2,273-275.
c) With copula:

Hinc et hinc, widely separated: Lucr. 6,88f.
hinc....et hinc; in juxtaposition: Hor. Epod. 2,31
(trudit); 5,97 (saxis petens); Petron. 79^; Stat. Sil.
4,3,47 (coactis).

Hinc atque hinc stands almost invariably at
the beginning of a verse: Virg. Aen. 1,162 (rupes
minantur); 4,447 (heros tunditur); 12,431 (suras inclu-
serat); Germanicus, Arat. Phaen. 49 (torquet); Stat.
Sil. 2,2,14 (perrumpunt); Theb. 7,479 (natae); 12,759
(natauit); Sil. Ital. 4,274 (dederunt); 1,375 (instent).

Hinc. . . .at hinc (widely separated): Stat. Sil.

3.5.74*-

Hinc . . . . atque hinc (widely separated); Sil.
Ital. 17,251.

It is easy to see how hinc — hinc took on its indefi-
nite meaning. In the passage from Horace's Satires
cited above, both groups of persons are bidden to
depart from the speaker. Perhaps there is no notion
in the speaker's mind of the direction which each
person addressed is about to take. On the other
hand it may be an essential part of the speaker's
thought that they depart in different directions. In
proportion as this second thought is more or less
prominent, in just so marked a degree does the phrase
take on the meaning "to one place — to an (the) other."
As a rule, however, in the examples cited above, the
word hinc has entirely lost its special implication of
movement in a direction away from the speaker, and
is already synonymous with an indefinite hie.

The Correlation ille — illc. 105

3) Hue — hue. The two words imply, of course,
motion toward the speaker. This meaning offers a
serious bar to the process of development just out-
lined, that takes place in the case of hinc — hinc.
Nevertheless the phrase did take on an indefinite force,
and although our earliest example (Catullus 61,34

Ut tenax edera hue et hue
Arborem implicat errans)

considerably antedates Livy's hinc — hinc, it is paral-
leled by Lucretius hinc et hinc (6,88 f.), which phrase
may have exercised no weak influence toward hasten-
ing its development. Examples of the usage are very
rare. I know of only six: Hor. Epod. 4,9

. . . .ora uertat h. et h. euntium;

Sen. Med. 385 (recursat); Stat. Sil. 1,3,38 (hue oculis,
hue mente trahor); Sil. Ital. 9,360 (it seges nutans);
614 (iactas).

4) Hoc — hoc, like hue — hue is a poetical usage, and
very rarely met. Naevius, Astiologa; Propert. 1,3,14;
Horace, Epist. 2,2,75; Virgil, Aen. 1,467^; Stat.
Theb. 9,762. I know of only one instance in prose lit-
erature, Pompeius, Comment, in Donat. p. 105,31 (K).

Adverbial series of three members are found: Luc.
i , 176-181 hinc. . . .hinc. . . .hinc. . . . ; Sil. Ital. 1,185-
187 do\ 5,198 do.

•1. Ille — ille. As our discussion of the two cor-
relations just dismissed has been rather full, we
he present one very briefly, the more so
because it shows about the same range of meaning
with the others awl is of quite infrequent occurrence.

16

io6 The Latin Pronouns.

Parallel to the construction hie uersus Plauti non
est, hie est is Terence, Phor. 332

Quia enim in illis fructus est, in illis opera ludi-

tur.

The same usage is found in Cicero, Rose. Amer. 59
(cited in Miihlmann's Thesaurus) quaesisse, num ille
aut ille defensurus esset; De Inuent. 1,98 [illud
docuimus, illud plane fecimus]. Suetonius (Jul. 41)
quotes from Julius Caesar, commendo uobis ilium et
ilium. Martial 7,10,1 f. offers ille uel ille; while Ma-
nilius 2,185

Ille senescentis ueris, subeuntis et ille,
in which a definite antecedent is referred to, is paral-
leled by Quint. 2,8,11 in illo....in illo....; 3,6,93
ille. .. .ille. ...; 11,3,168; Lucan 4,636^; ille (An-
taeus) ---- | Ille (Heracles); cf. 612; Plin. Epist. 1,23,
3 uel ille cui adessem uel ille quern contra; cf. 6,29,15
Miseni illud ruisse. . . .illud ardere; Juv. 10,91 illi. . . .
| Ilium....

The type represented by Virg. Aen. 10,9 (hie. . . .
hie) is closely paralleled by Sil. Ital. 4,3175. Itali
---- Tyrias ---- alas. | Aut illi ---- | Aut illi.

With entirely indefinite series it occurs in Manil.

Audire ut cupiant alios, aliosque uidere,
Horum odio, nunc horum idem ducantur amore,
Illis insidias tendant, captentur ab illis,
an important passage, as showing ille — ille entirely
synonymous with hie — hie and alius — alius. Further
examples are: Sen. Sent. 9,2,16 nemo paene sine
uitio est: ille iracundus est, ille libidinosus; Petron.

The Correlation illc — illc. 107

123,226. In the light of these passages Wolfflin's
proposal to read in Tac. Ger. 14,11 f. ille. . . .ille in-
stead of illam .... ilium can meet with no objections
on the score of the meaning of the phrase ille .... ille.
Pompeius, Commentum in Donat. has on p. 204, y(K)
et ilia breuis est et ilia; p. 205,16 et illud et illud.

Trimembral series occur in Petron. 115 and Juv.
2,93; 95-99-

NOTE TO CHAPTER II. — The rivalry between hie,
is and ille is also apparent in the usage of these words
in legal formulae of the types:

a. Ilia die, ilia hora ab urbe sum exiturus (in imi-
tation of the style of imperial edicts), Script. Hist.
Aug. Alex. Sev. 45,2; cf. Arnob. 4,i9/> cum legitis ex
illo patre atque ex ilia matre deus ille est proditus.

b. Earn alitem, ea regione caeli et eius dei nuntiam
uenisse, L,ivy 1,34,9.

c. Ex hac familia in hanc familiam.

The writer finds it necessary to postpone the dis-
cussion of these usages to a later date, when he shall
have a fuller collection of data at his disposal. They
are, of course, intimately connected with the formulae
hie — hie and ille — ille just discussed.

Another correlation hinc — inde should not be over-
looked in this connection. The writer hopes in the
near future to publish a history of this phrase and
throw new light upon the development of the other
correlations discussed in this section, both by compar-
ing them with hinc — inde and by continuing the study
of their development down to the seventh century.

CHAPTER III. ISTE.

CHAPTER III. ISTE.

The weakening in the meaning of hie, necessarily
brought about by its frequent use as a substitute for
is, resulted in an effort, unconscious of course, on the
part of the users of the language, to find another
word to take its place. Ille, with its strong demon-
strative force, was too remote in meaning from hie to
serve this purpose. So recourse was had to iste.
Since this last pronoun was very extensively used as a
substitute for hie (which it eventually almost entirely
displaced), it may very properly be discussed immedi-
ately after hie. The usage iste = hie forms the main
subject of the remarks of the present chapter, at the
conclusion of which, however, it will be necessary to
call attention to two other peculiarities in the usage of
the word.

While no general agreement has been reached as
to the etymology of this pronoun, there can be no
doubt that there is much fuller consensus of opinion
on the point than existed a few years ago. In 1870
Johann Kvicala in his Untersuchungen auf dem Ge-
biete der Pronomina, ( = Sit/un^sber. d. Wien. Akad.
1870, p. 137), induced by the extensive use of the
word as a deuTCfwr/nTn-,, urged the identity of the -te
in i*te with the ablative of the personal pronoun tu.
He seems to have found no supj)orters to his view,
although Nettisil in Archiv f. lat. Lexikogr. u.

ii2 The Latin Pronouns.

Gramm. VII, 579 ff. argues for ti, dative. It is not
necessary, as von Planta following Danielsson has
pointed out (Grammatik der oskisch-umbrischen Dia-
lecte II, 423), to assume this etymology, in order to
explain the peculiar character of iste. Spanish esso
(from ipse) is used as a deurepoTpirov implying contempt.
(Cf. also pp. 1565. below.) No more satisfactory is the
proposal cited in the third edition of Neue's Formen-
lehre, 11,396, from Stolz, Lateinische Grammatik, p.
216, that the second element of iste is the suffix -pte.
In the second and third editions of his grammar Stolz
returns to the view concerning the last element of the
pronoun advanced by Corssen, who (Ueber Aussprache,
Vocalismus und Betonung der lateinishen Sprache II,
843, 2d edition) writes: "Das dem. Pron. -tu-s, -ta-,
-tu-d, von dem selbstandig die Accusative-formen
turn, tarn mit adverbialer Bedeutung erhalten sind,
ist enklitisch an die Nominative Form i-s des Pro-
nominal-stammes i- gefiigt in i-s-tu-s, iste." This
element, according to Danielsson, Pauli's Altitalische
Studien, III,i58ff., represents in the Nom. sg., masc.
and fern, an original -so-, -sa- (cf. Brugmann's Grun-
driss, 1,426, Anni. 2 — this note does not appear in the
second edition). The first two letters of iste are
resolved by Schweizer-Sidler, Gram, der lat. Sprache
1,122, 2ded., into i-, pronominal root and so-, sa-, pro-
nominal stem, and the final syllable, is explained as
representing original -se, -so "nach dem Neutrum und
den iibrigen Casus ins Masc. und Fern, des Nom. sg.
eingedrungen." This last derivation, which connotes
a later origin for iste, is the most satisfactory from a
semasiological standpoint; and best accounts for the

Iste OS tisurepOTptrov. 113

strong demonstrative force of iste, that has enabled it
to maintain until today (cf. Spanish este) its distinct
deictic character.

It may now be regarded as beyond dispute that
one of the most important elements of the meaning of
iste, in the ante-Augustan periods at least, is its dis-
tinct reference to the second person, i. e., to something
having a direct connection with the person addressed,
or (which for our present purposes is practically the
same thing) conceived by the subject to have such a
relation. Joseph Bach, whose examination of the
usage of the demonstrative pronouns in the archaic
period is very thorough, maintains that the word
occurs in no passage in this period without bearing a
distinct reference to the second person. It is further
claimed that in Cicero the word always has this force.
On this point see Landgraf's note 366 c on Reisig's
Yorlesungen iiber die Lateinische Sprachwissenschaft
I II ,97 f., where Kvicala, op. tit. — particularly p. 133
—is cited with approval.

One of the most palpable bits of evidence that
seems to prove the correctness of this view, is the atti-
tude of the Roman historians toward the pronoun.
In Caesar, for example, the word occurs only once (B.
G. 7,77), and then in an oration inserted in his narra-
tive. Similarly it occurs only in direct address in
Sallust, since in Frag. Ili-t. 1,49 (Maurenbr.) the
i m istam urbem seem to be a portion of
tlie address of a Samnite to his fellows. The same is
true of Nepos, Curtius and Livv i at least in books
1-40). In the Helium His]). 9.1. i>ia is a conjecture
for t 'ional ita, and ha-, been changed to ilia in

'7

114 The Latin Pronou?is.

the best modern editions. In contrast with the histo-
rians, we find that Cicero in his orations, letters and
dialogues and Varro in his dialogue on Agriculture
make very extensive use of iste. This goes to show
that the writers of historical narrative had little occa-
sion to employ the word. That the same is true of
ordinary exposition, is clearly proved by the use of
iste in the Rhetorica ad Herennium. In this anony-
mous treatise iste occurs upward of ninety times. Of
these instances only four fall to the first three books,
while the other eighty odd are found in the fourth
book. The explanation is simple. The fourth book,
which treats of elocutio, is largely made up of illus-
trations of various figures of rhetoric, and these ex-
amples, with few exceptions, are drawn from orations
or are imitations of the oratorical style. We must
not forget that at the beginning of the fourth book the
Auctor ad Herennium lays great stress on the fact
that he employs his own illustrations and not those
cited by others, counting, apparently, as his own those
which he translated from the Greek (cf. 4,7,10, where
he especially takes credit for translating the Greek
technical expressions used in rhetoric) . In this con-
nection I cannot refrain from making the suggestion,
that the Roman teachers of rhetoric are to some ex-
tent, and perhaps largely, responsible for the very
extensive use made of this word by the orators. Any
one who reads attentively the large number of made-
up examples of figures of rhetoric in the Auctor, can
scarcely fail to be convinced of this. Iste becomes
inseparable from them and recurs with a mechanical
monotony. Compare also the frequent repetition of

htc as Ssursporptrov. 115

iste in the first ten chapters of book 4 of this work,
where it refers in each instance with disparaging force,
to those whose views are combatted by the Auctor.

In view of these facts, and of the pedagogical
convenience of the ordinary rule of grammar which
makes hie, iste and ille correspond to the first, second
and third persons respectively of the verb, it is not
surprising to find the statement repeated in all our
school grammars. It remains on the whole true, but I
shall propose below, page 158, an important modifica-
tion of the rule, and shall call attention to the neces-
sity of discriminating between the use of the word in
direct address on the one hand, and its use as a dsurpo-
-<>'-<>•; on the other. Still, notwithstanding the truth
of the general statement in so far as it refers to the
"Golden," or, at least, to the Ciceronian Latinity, but
it is misleading, and in fact censurable to imply by
one's silence that the usage of the so-called Silver
Latin is identical with that of the Ciceronian period.
Schmalz forms the only exception to the general prac-
tice and his modifications of the rule, — depending as
he was obliged to do on second-hand information, —
are far from exact. The only and the earliest exam-
ple of iste = hie cited by the erudite Kiihner in his
Grammatik der Latein. Sprache II a, 454, is from St.
istine! — a striking commentary on the state of
the historical grammar of the Latin language in 1878.
An examination of the whole subject is therefore
neces>ary, the more so, since an appreciation of the
meanings of this word is essential to a proper
understanding of the works of several of the "Silver"
writers, especially Celstis, Seneca the Younger and

n6 The Latin Pronouns.

the poets. In the following discussion of the subject,
the evidence for the meanings of iste is adduced in
several distinct groups, within which the citations are
arranged so far as possible in chronological order.

A. ISTE = HIC.

The earliest evidence of a weakening of the force
of iste as a deurepurptrov is found in the collocation iste
tuns, ista tua (cf. Koziol, Stil des Apuleius p. 78),
iste uester, etc., which occurs as early as Plautus. In
Amphitruo 285 Mercury says to Sosia

Ego pol te istis tuis pro dictis et male factis,

furcifer,
Accipiam.

Thirty-one similar instances are mentioned by Bach,
op. cit. pp. 2i6ff. The usage once established, we find
it in Accius' Telephus 8; in Varro, Res Rust. 3,2,5;
in Cicero (in the orations iste tuus twenty-seven
times, iste uester seven times; in the philosophical
writings iste tuus nine times, iste uester nine times;
see Merguet's Lexicon), in Catullus 71,3; 81,3; 116,7;
in Livy 4,4,7 nobilitatem istam uestram; in M. Aurel.
{apud Fronto, Epist. 1,3) Frontonem istum tuum and
in the Christian writers Firmicus Maternus 21,2 deus
iste uester; Cyprian, Epist. 31, iw ista tua caritate;
Arnobius 2,51*?; Planciades Fulgentius, Mitol. i, pr.
22(M) (= p. 12,14!!) ne tu istarn tuam satyram.. ..
credas; Gord. Fulgentius 8(= p. 156,14!!) quae sunt
ista tua, Deus, secreta mister ia.

At a later period the Romans found it necessary to
juxtapose the form tibi to the word iste, in some in-
stances at least, in order to secure a more distinct
reference to the second person. Such, at least, is the

Iste — hie. 117

explanation of the Italian codesto ( = ecc[um] -f- tibi
> ti -histu[m]).

As long as iste was used for emphatic reference to
the second person, its usual usage would naturally be
confined to cases of direct address, to conversation, for
example, to orations and letters, or in general to
passages written when the interest of the author was
fixed upon the person addressed, or at least when the
latter occupied a position in the author's consciousness.
The appearance of the word in other connections than
these must be taken as an indication that there is absent
from the consciousness of the user any such element
in the idea group that is associated with the phonetic
symbol iste; in other words, that iste is no longer

There is possibly such an instance in Catullus 41,3

Ameana puella ....

Tota milia me decem poposcit,

Ista turpiculo puella naso.

There seems to be no reference to the second person
in this passage, for, although in line five the poet
addresses the friends of the young lady, he turns
abruptly to them and apparently has no thought of
them in the first four lines. If there is no reference
to the friends, we should then have to assume that it
is the reader to whom he appeals. If this is the case,
tilt usage would illustrate the argument set forth on
p. 156 below. Horace in Sat. 1,4,130!!. uses istinc in
the sense of a meis uitiis. The passage runs

. . . . mediocribus et quis
<>scas uitiis teneor; fortassis et islinc

-tulerit longn aetns, liber ninicus.

n8 The Latin Projwuns.

We may not, however, in this passage regard the word
as used with the absence of all reference to the second
person, since the phrase quis ignoscas containing the
indefinite second person may be taken as an indication
that Horace feels himself in close touch with his
reader. There is in Virgil only one passage in which
the word occurs outside of direct address, namely, 10,

504-

Turno tempus erit, magno cum optauerit emp-
tum

Intactum Pallanta et cum spolia ista diemque

Oderit.

The passage is a comment of the poet himself on the
ruthless slaughter of Pallas (cf. verse 502 nescia mens
hominuin . . . . seruare modum). The dark prophecy
gives coloring to the entire sentence, and while the
main cause for it is the death of Pallas, yet the taking
of the balteus, referred to by the words spolia ista, is
inseparable from the whole, and in my opinion ista
decidedly heightens the effect that the poet, rising to
a lofty dignity of tone characteristic of the orator, is
desirous of producing. This may be regarded as an
almost certain case of the use of the word outside of
direct address, since little weight can be attached to
the reading jpJA of the Mediceus. There is likewise
but a single passage in Manilius in which iste is used
in this way, namely, 1,492-4.

Quis credat tantas operum sine numine moles

Ex minimis caecoque creatum foedere mundum ?

Si fors ista dedit nobis, fors ipsa gubernet.
As the indefinite second person excuses the use of the
word in Horace, so may the rhetorical question and

hte = Hie. 1 1 9

the subjunctive gubernet justify its use here. These
are the only passages of this kind that I have found
in the poets up to the time of Tiberius (I have omitted
to examine some of Ovid's writings, e. g., Ars Ama-
toria, Medicamina Faciei, Halieutica).

Velleius Paterculus 2,7,3 cannot be made use of,
since istius is here a conjecture of Cludius for Amer-
bach's ipsius. Illius would be more in accordance
with the classical usage. As iste occurs no where else
in Velleius, I prefer not to accept the reading. This
being the case, the earliest prose writer to employ the
word outside of direct address is Valerius Maximus,
who offers no less than ten instances: 4,3/>r. (in a pas-
page expressing contempt); 4,3,6 (contempt); 2,8,7
(regret); 7,1,2 (censure); 7,8,6 (falsehood); 8,1,3 (un-
desirability); g,i$pr. (disapproval); 5,1,11 (praise);
6,$Ext. i (praise); 2,2,8 (high praise). There are in
addition four passages in Velleius in which the use of
iste may be regarded as justified by its occurrence in
rhetorical questions. They are 5,3,2^; 5,6/>r. ; $£Ext.
4; 9,1,5. Celsus has followed in the foot-prints of
Velleius, but has gone farther. Particularly striking
is 8,12 (= p. 354,16 Dar.) reposito osse, si cum dolore
oculorum et ceruicis iste casus incidit, ex brachio san-
mittendus est. Cf. also i,pr. (pp. 2,1; 3,1; 5,23;
6,6; 12; 9,29; 11,16; 17; 20 isti . . . . ipsi). Instances
of tliis usage from Seneca the Younger are cited by
Hoppe, Program, Lauban, p. 8, with the words: "Her-
vomiheben ist bei Seneca der h-itifige Gebrauch von
iste, ohi. lessen besondere Bedetitmitf bewahrt

\vird." Pliny the Elder does not differ essentially
from his predecessor in polyhistory, u may be seen by

I2O The Latin Pronouns.

reference to the following passages: Praef. 28; 2,85;
139; 141; 7,132; 9,129; 10,137; 13,23; 125; i4>9;9i;
115 || ita cod d ||; 27,8; 28,6; 8; 229; 29,11; 24; 30,
10; 13; and is followed by Martial (1,84,3), Quintilian
(see: 9,4,32; 2,40; 10,3,24), Tacitus (Agr. 40,10; Ann.
16,16,7 — the only instances in Tacitus) and Florus
(2, 13(4,2), 13).

We may now proceed to establish its usage as a
TCftwTOTptTov, i. e., as a synonym of hie, and then dis-
cuss the chronological and geographical limits of the
usage and consider the semasiological character of the
changes in meaning involved.

There are at least ten further lines of evidence,
that make the existence of an iste npwrorptTov certain.

In the first place we find as early as Catullus (see
Schmalz on Reisig's Vorlesungen III, Anm. 366 bb)
some pronoun of the first person (usually a possessive)
modifying the same word with iste. Examples are:
Catullus 17,21

Talis iste meus stupor ni/ uidet, nihil audit,
Ipse, qui sit. . . ., nescit;
Virg. Aen. 11,165

Nee uos arguerim, Teucri, nee foedera nee quas
lunximus hospitio dextras: sors ista (i. e., the

death of Pallas) senectae
Debita erat nostrae.

Euander is here speaking, and addresses the Trojans.
This practice is quite common in the correspondence
of Pronto and in Apuleius. From the former may be
cited: 1,2 ista mea fortuna . . . . istam necessitatem
meam.. ..ista mea uerecundia (the words of Marcus

hie = Hie. 121

Aurelius); 1,7 orationem istam meam (in a letter of
Fron to himself ). Apuleius offers us: Met. 1,11 sermo-
nes istos nostros; 2,3 meis istis manibus; 6,22 (cited
by Goelzer, Gramm. in Sulp. Sev. Quaest. p. 90,
Anm. i) istud pectus meum. In a letter of the em-
peror Aurelian to Probus, apud Script. Hist. August.
Prob. 6,6, the soldiery spoken of as decimani mei are
shortly afterwards referred to by isti. Further exam-
ples are: Cyprian, De Oper. et Eleem. 20 £ in istis
muneribus meis; and Sulp. Sev. D. 176,3 regio ista
nostrorum. This usage is rare during the pre- Au-
gustan period and is there confined to the poets.

There are other cases in which the reference of this
pronoun to the first person is equally clear, although
no possessive pronoun is added to it. It often refers
to something in the vicinity or even in the possession
of the writer or the speaker, or to something in which
the speaker has a special interest. This application of
the word is found in Seneca the Younger, Lucan,
Pliny the Elder and his nephew, Juvenal and Pronto,
not to mention the later writers. The elder Pliny in
his dedication to Vespasian (sec. 18) refers to his work
by the neuter plural substantive ista. His nephew in
a letter to Caninius from the author's country home
(2,8,1 ) writes, stadia ultissimus isle successus adfatim
erunt, where iste sucessus means "this, my retired
villa." RuuschniiiK, De Latinitate L. Ann. Sen. Phil.
p. 70, cite^ instances of this usa^c from Seneca. Juve-
1,67 writes iste dies "today" for hie dies or hodie,
and 6,295 (perhaps in order to avoid confusion with
hinc immediately preceding and following i istos colles
= the seven hills of Rome, /'. c., "our seven hills",

18

122 The Latin Pronouns.

in 9,131 called his collibus. In 14,179, where we

read

"Uiuite contends casulis et collibus istis,
O pueri !' ' Marsus dicebat .... senex,

istis is of course capable of being interpreted in its
normal sense. In the correspondence between Marcus
Aurelius and Fronto this usage becomes quite com-
mon. Fronto writes p. 183 (N) dum istius doloris
expers uitam degerem, meaning the pain which he
himself suffers in his sickness. In the letter De Ne-
pote Amisso (p. 236*?) he writes casibus miserrimis
adflictus sum .... Plura scribere non possem isto in
tempore. Probably no writer of the second century
went so far in this particular as did Apuleius. Espe-
cially clear are Met. 1,18 iugulum istum dolui, "my
neck ached"; 2,14 f rater meus sub istis oculis miser
iugulatus est, "before my eyes". An interesting par-
allel is afforded by Met. 2,5 omnem istam lucem mundi
and Plautus' lucescit iam hoc.

It is here desirable to cite a passage from Ober-
meier, op. cit. p. 15, since it stands in need of some
little correction. "Iste hat bei Lucan die iibrigen
Demonstrativa geradezu verdrangt. Denn es steht
sogar regelmiissig statt hie bei Verhaltnissen, welche
die redende Person betreffen; z. B., 3,126... .mit ista
potestas bezeichnet der Volkstribun Metellus die
eigene Wiirde, 5,287

Nil actum est bellis, si nondum comperit istas
Omnia posse manus

die Aufriihrer meinen die eigenen Hande, 5,588
. . . .proderit undis | Ista ratis,

Iste = Hie. 123

der Kahn, auf dem sich der also sprechende Caesar
befindet, 6,242 . . . .gladio. . . .isto der Caesarianer weist
auf sein eigenes Schwert, 8,122.... 6,158 ...328
bello.. ..in isto, d. i. in dem gegenwiirtigen Kriege,
und so findet sich eine Menge Beispiele. Da noch Ver-
gil iste nur in Beziehung auf die 2te Person gebraucht
(Reisig, Vorlesungen, S. 361)," (Should read 'Haase
zu Reisig' . Landgraf also seems not to know of the
passage Aen. X, 504 cited above), "in der Prose aber
dieser Gebrauch von iste statt hie nicht vor dem Phi-
losophen Seneca erscheint' ' (See on the contrary the
passages quoted below from Celsus, Valerius Maxi-
mus and C. I. L., I, ist ed. No. 818), "so muss
Lucan einer der ersten gewesen sein, welche iste statt
hie anwendeten." Further, p. 18 "Mit iste — ille be-
dient er sich des Ausdruckes einer viel spateren Zeit."
To this last statement Weymann in Archiv III, 575
enters no objection. The expression is as old as Vale-
rius Maximus (see below). Touching the first two
sentences of Obermeier's statement it maybe remarked
that iste is not so common in Lucan as it is in Virgil,
and is far less frequent than hie. Concerning the fact
that iste stands only four times in Lucan outside of
direct address see below.

The later pagan writers do not make such exten-
sive u>e of iste as do Apuleius, Pronto and Gellius,
who is discussed below. Instances, however, of the
use of iste as Wfmtrpvrw are not uncommon. We may
cite as illustrations the anonymous Declamatio in Cati-
linam S6, where cursinn istuin niolentae orationis
means "the rushing course of my eloquence" ; Balbus
Gromaticus p. 91,10 iste liber, "my book"; p. 94,5

124 The Latin Pronouns.

mensura ista. . . .de qua loquimur. In a letter of Pro-
bus apud Script. Hist. Aug. Probus 16,5 ab istis locis
means "from Isauria, where I am" — this passage could
in Cicero mean nothing but "from the place where you
are" — ; Script. Hist. Aug. Firmus 1,2 istam descrip-
tionem, "a narration like mine"; Tacitus 13,4 (isto =
Tacito); Macrobius, Sat. 1,7,19 regionem istam — "this
land' ' , i. e. , where we live — quae nunc uocatur Italia,
regno Faunus obtinuit. Similarly in Sat. 5,13,3 and 6
iste refers to the Roman poet Virgil, Macrobius' coun-
tryman, and may be translated "our poet", while in
the second paragraph preceding, Homer is referred to
by ille, and a few pages before, the two are contrasted
by the words hunc — ilium. The so-called Gronovian
scholiast on Cicero's oration for Roscius Amer. 17 uses
usque ad istam narrationis partem in the sense "up to
the present point in my address."

The patristic literature, like Fronto and Apuleius,
makes rather more extensive use of the word in this
meaning:

Min. Felix 18,11 iste sermo, "this expression";

19,15 ista quae nostra sunt, ' 'our persuasion' ' ;
40, i dum istaec igitur apud me tacitus euoluo;

Cyprian, De Hab. Virg. i$p isto in loco, "at this
point in my address' ' ;

Tertullian, De Idol. 19^ in isto capitulo, "in this
chapter' ' ;

Commodian 1,25,19 isto libello, "my book";

Ambrose i,8,32F nobis excursus iste processit, ut
probaremus . . . . ;

Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 1,2,1 uoluminis istius,
"my volumen";

Iste — Hie. 125

M. 25,3 ista {— mea) laudatio;

27,6 opusculum istud (= meum);
D. 1,18,2; 2(3), 16; E. 2,Setsaep. al. In this
connection consult Lonnergren, De Syntaxi S. S. p.
10: "pronomen quod est iste celeberrime adhibet, ut
ad agentem personam referatur, quod genus loquendi
apud infimae aetatis scriptores uiguisse constat."

S. Silv. Peregrinatio p. 87,27 hie omnes conuenire
in isto loco; 85,29 hodie nocte ista;

Cassian. Inst. 5,1 quintus nobis iste liber produci-
tur;

Hilarian in his Tractatus in Psalmos often refers
to the particular psalm under discussion by the pro-
noun iste, e. g.y 2,2m. On the other hand in Int.
Psalm. 10 he writes hie psalmus.

To these citations we may add those having the ad-
verbial forms istic and istinc. The earliest instance,
to omit Horace, /. r., is Juvenal 3,29, where istic
means ' 'here in Rome' ' . He is followed by Marcus
Aurelius, Ad Frontonem p. 34w(N) istic noctibus
studeo; Pronto p. 2i2(N) in orationibus . . . . sedulo
curamus .... sed contra istic (i. e. , in the branch of
literature with which I am now occupied); Apuleius,
Met. 2,20 Immo uero istic ("in this city") nee uirtuti-
1ms ullis parcitur. Instances from Cyprian may be
found by consulting Hartel's index. From the con-
servative juristic Latin, Heiiiiuinn, in his Handlexi-
con s. v. iste cites istic from Dig. 29,2,71,9 (a quota-
tion from Ulpian).

le from this group of instances, there exists a
large number of passages, in which iste appears in
inrmully reserved for hie. Vakiriu< Mnxi

126 The Latin Pronouns.

mus, for example, in passing from one group of anec-
dotes to another regularly refers to those just related
by the plural haec, and to those which follow by the
form ilia. This usage occurs, for example, in books
five and six, and is exactly paralleled by Cic. Ad Fam.
12,2,2. In two instances, however, he departs from
his usual custom and writes ista instead of haec. In
3,8,2 we read ista (i. e., the anecdotes just related)
quidem seueritatis, ilia (the following) uero pietatis
constantia admirabilis; in 5,4,3 auribus ista tarn prae-
clara exempla Romana ciuitas accepit, ilia uidit oculis.
Lucifer Caralitanus writes interchangeably in De Reg.
Apost. 2,3-5 hunc Hieroboam (p. 43,26), istius....

Hieroboae (p. 44,3), istum H. (44,18), isti H.

(45,25). In the B class of the Scholia Terentiana
published by Schlee we find frequently recurring ista
secum loquitur and haec secum loquitur. Jordanes,
in Romana 23 reads sub istius regni tempore, although
more often he writes huius regis tempore (so 18). Com-
pare also 26 hoc regnante with 46 sub isto rege.

The frequently recurring phrase <>ur»s 6 x «*//»? has
its counterpart (chiefly, of course, in the patristic
literature) in iste mundus. Although hie mundus was
the classical and usual form, yet even in Manilius
(cited above) we find the neuter plural ista used as a
synonym of it. Iste mundus occurs first in Cyprian,
Ad Dem. 19011 isto adhuc mundo et hac carne con-
stituti, with which we may compare, 25 in isto adhuc
mundo. Other examples are:

Ambrosius, Ex. i,4,i4F. Pharao principem istius

mundi (A) omnium nationum primum est Amaleck

.... Uide ne principem huius mundi accipere debea-

hie = Hie. 127

mus; cf. i, 8,3 i E in iudicio istius mundi || istis (mundi
am. N) || ;

Paulinus Nolan. Epist. 5,7(p. 29,29) istum mun-

dum;

Filastrius, Heres. Liber 31, (3)2, etc.;
Hilarius Pictav. Tractatus in Psalm. 118, Lamed,

8 mundi istius;
Cassianus, Institutes 4,14 istius mundi. "saepis-

sime hie mundus", Petschenig in indice.
Further examples may easily be found by consulting
the indices to the various volumes of the Vienna Cor-
pus Script. Eccl. Roman. From the pagan literature
we may cite Censorinus, De Die Natali 4,4 sempiterno
isto mundo. Similar to this phrase are:

Min. Fel. 1 1 , i moles ista, "this heaven we behold' ' ;

34,5 ista moles = hie mundus;
Commodian i,3,if.

Cum Deus omnipotens exornasset mundi na-

turam

Uisitare uoluit terram ab angelis istam;
Min. Fel. 2i,n ista generatio;
Commodian 1,26,25 istius saeculi;
Augustine. Epist. 25,3^ uitae istius;
Cyprian, De Mortal. 8 mortal itas ista communis;
s istic in hoc mundo;
19 istinc de hoc mundo;

In tl. - no distinction between iste and

hie based on the presence of any idea of depreciation

or contempt in the former can be established. Indeed

>< infrequently found referring to the Savior

himself. See the ancient Latin version of the inter

128 The Latin Pronouns.

polated epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians 5. No
objection can therefore be raised on this ground to
Plasberg's interpretation of me isto nomine ditans in
Anth. L,at. 664 (Riese), "the name of Christian" (cf.
Khein. Mus. 54,149); nor to Thomas' "nomen Christi"
or "discipuli tui" (op. cit. p. 316).

Sentences of the type of Nepos, Them. 1,1 Themi-
stocles, Neocli filius, Atheniensis. huius . . . . (cf. Alcib.
1,1; Chab. 1,1 Chabrias Atheniensis. hie quoque in

; Sallust, Bell. Cat. 5,1 Catulina, nobili genere

natus, fuit magna ui et animi et corporis, sed ingenio
malo prauoque. huic ab adulescentia .... ; Nepos,
Epam. 4,1; Eum. 12,3; 4) occur as early as the epi-
taphs of the Scipios (see C. I. L. Vol. I, Nos. 31 f.

L • CORNELIO • L • F • SCIPIO

AIDILES • COSOL • CESOR

HONC OINO • PLOIRVME • COSENTIONT R(omae)..\

cf. C. I. L., I,ioi i. 1012. Wilm. 573) and continued to
be a favorite of the writers of history and biography
(see Sallust, op. cit. 6,1; 18,4; 23,1-2; 25,1; 2; Bell,
lug. 35,2; and 65,1-3; Veil. Pat. 2,41,1; cf. 1,2,2
and Fritsch, Der Sprachgebrauch des Velleius, Arn-
stadt, 1876, p. 18; Valer. Max. i, 8 Ext., 8, etc.\ Florus
i,i(3)>i; (5), 2; (7), 2; i, 4(10), 2; i, 25(2, 9), 2; 28(2, 12), 3;
2, 2(14), 2; 10(22), 6(hi); Sueton. Rhet. 2; Gram. 18;
Trebellius Pollio, saepe\ De Uiris Illustr. 32,3; Victor,
Hist. Abbr. 15,1; 18,1; 31,1). For our present pur-
poses it is a matter of comparative indifference whether,
as has been suggested by an eminent German L,atinist,
this usage developed under the influence of the style
of the Laudationes Funebres, in which hie would natur-

Iste = Hie. 129

ally and normally be used to refer to the person of the
deceased over whom the discourse was pronounced, or
whether it is to be regarded simply as the use, in a
special type of context, of this pronoun to refer to an
antecedent not actually present, but present only in
the thought or imagination (cf. Priscian III, pp. 142 f.
(K) hie. . . .etiam de absente possumus dicere, ad intel-
lectum referentes demonstrationem). OUT<>S was used
in precisely the same way by the Greeks, in the shorter
biographical notices of prominent writers (it seems not
to occur in Plutarch's Biot UapdMyXoi}, e. g., in the
Bios Io<fuxllot>s printed with Dindorf's Scholia, and in
Suidas' Lexicon, s. vv. 6ooh<; and Owpuxiw* et al. The
thorough establishment of the usage in Latin litera-
ture is testified to by its occurance as late as Isidore,
De Ortu et Obitu Patrum §§5; 9; 10; 12; 18; ig(tris);
22; 35; 36; 40 et alias. In spite of its extensive use,
however, it was obliged to share its position with iste,
which Isidore wrote instead of hie not infrequently,
e.g., §§8; n; 52. Isidore also writes indifferently
Distat autem hie locus and § 5 Distat autem locus
iste. Possibly the influence of his sources here plays
some part, as he quotes them extensively ad littcmm.

Instead of the usual hoc modo and huius modi St.
Augustine, Epist. 7,2,3/> writes isto modo, "as fol-
lows", and Hilar. Tractat. in Psalm. 2,2^ istius modi.
Aulus Gellius employs istius modi more than twenty
times and in connections implying praise as often as
in those which indicate contempt. In many cases one
niitfht write for it hums modi apparently without mar-
ring the sense.

Claudius MniiKTtus writer, for "de ea re hie am-

»9

130 The Latin Pronouns.

plius non dicam" now (V. g.y p. 123,19^) hinc alias and
now (seep. 31,6) istinc alias (cf. Vogel's index s. v.
istinc). Precisely so also Ennodius: istinc alias p.
5,23; hinc alias pp. 52,7; 128,13; 140,14; 224,16;

297.29; 3i7»7-

Further compare Plautus, Men. 799 hinc stas, illim
causam dicis with Claud. Mamert. p. 134, 15 E illinc
stare et istinc dicere.

In Valerius Maximus 3,2,3 we read hactenus istud
instead of the usual hactenus hoc. Lastly we may
call attention to the appearance in Celsus i,pr.
(p. 9,29 D) of the phrase post ista instead of post haec,
which occurs as early as Cicero, Fr. A, III,22(Bait.
and K.), and later in Cyprian, De Domin. Oratione
27^; Arnobius 4,36; Commodian 1,29,3.

The falling of all essential lines of demarcation
between the two words is attested by the passage in
Pompeius, Comment, in Donatum p. 122,34!?. de dua-
bus syllabis quattuor hi sunt: pyrrhicius, spondaeus,
trochaeus, et iambus, de tribus VII isti sunt: tribra-
chus, molossus, ^/r....de quattuor XVI isti sunt:

proceleumaticus There are similar passages in

Filastrius, Heres. Lib. 33,3 dicunt et dogma ponentes
ista, "the following", and Jordanes, Get. (33)170 quo-
rum ordo iste ac successus fuit: primum Gyzericus,

sequens In Macrob. Sat. 6,7,1 ista = "the

preceding." It is of interest to note that estu is used
in this way in the Iguvian Tablets lib, 23 estu iuku
habetu, "hanc inuocationem habeto", Breal, Les Ta-
bles Eugebines p. 274; "istam orationem habeto",
Biicheler, Umbrica p. 148. Filastrius in transitions
repeatedly interchanges the two, thus, 30 post hunc;

Iste = Hie. 131

31 post istum; 32 post istos; 35 post istum; 36 Cerin-
thus successit huius error! ; 38 post istum; 40 post
hunc; 41 post hunc; 42 post istum; 44 post hos, etc.

Of not less interest are those passages in which
iste and hie stand in one and the same sentence refer-
ring to the same antecedent. Examples are not infre-
quent. The earliest are in Celsus 2,2^ ille solicitari
debet, cui haec noua sunt; aut qui ista numquam sine
custodia tuta habuit; 5,28(p. 215, 12 f. D) sed ut haec
maximi effectus sunt, si cui ista non adsunt. . . . ; 3,6
should not have been cited by Matthias, Index 5. v.t
since the his may here represent an original iis or eis.
So also Valer. Max. <3,\\Ext.^. The same correlation
occurs in Pliny's Nat. Hist. 2,85 incomperta haec
et inextricabilia .... si cui libet ista altius persequi
(though we should not fail to observe that ista is here
u^L-d of a depreciated antecedent and seems almost to
be equivalent to talis). The order of iste and hie is
reversed in Lactantius, De Ira Dei 5,8 speciose ista po-
pulariterque dicta et multos inliciunt ad credendum, si
qui haec sentiunt (it may here be questioned whether
haec does not stand for ea); and Hilarius, Tractat. in

m. 2,i3/> iste irae sermo et haec indignationis

perturbatio. A return to the other order is found in
Calpurnius, Eel. 1,9 f.

Hoc. . . . , Corydon, nemus, antra petamus
Nta patris Fauni;

and the anonymous Declam. in L. Serg. Catilinam 85

exciu-nttir hi ]X)]mli isc. Cartha^inienses, Xumanlini,

•ui>uin diuinitiis, ritqm- istac urlK-s re<k-ant in

statnm m-tusti^siniai.- dignitatis; //. Aug. Epist. 108,11.

Of the various formulae used by the Romans to

132 The Latin Promuns.

express contrasts, perhaps none were better suited to
their purposes or obtained more general currency, than
the familiar hie — ille (cf. supra, pp. 79-96). We
should therefore expect it to resist strongly the en-
croachment of a rival on its sphere. Nevertheless, as
early as Valerius Maximus, we find that iste — ille is
beginning to make headway against it, as was seen
above.

We must, however, be on our guard against taking
the mere presence of iste in contrast with ille as in
itself sufficient evidence of its coincidence in meaning
with hie. This error has not infrequently been com-
mitted; yet a contrast between ille and iste in its class-
ical sense is, of course, quite as possible as one between
tu and ille or iste and hie; and such contrasts are
occasionally found. Iste — ille occurs, for example, in
L,ivy 3,47,7; 22,60,27, and iste — hie in Plautus, Rud.
808 alter istinc, alter hinc; Cic. Ad Fam. 2,11,1 ista

uestra haec nostratia (cf. 3, 10,3; 6, 18,5 and De

Re Pub. 1,31). Again it is equally conceivable that a
contrast be drawn between these two words, in which
iste has neither its normal classical meaning nor its
later meaning "this." Such an instance we believe to
be afforded by Seneca, Epist. 47,4(= 5,6,4), although
at the same time conceding that there is room here for
considerable diversity of opinion as to the exact mean-
ing of iste (cf. istos qui in § 2 of this same letter). For
the period of the "Silver Latin," at least, we should
not interpret iste in the correlation iste — ille as *pw-
TOTpi-rov, if there is not colateral evidence sufficient to
prove that iste approaches the meaning of hie. In
the passages cited above from Valerius Maximus, there

hie = Hie. 133

is colateral evidence enough to establish this usage.

The earliest example after this known to me is from

Lucan 9,417!!.

.... Nam cum communiter istae
Effundant zephyrum, boreae latus ilia sinistrum
Contingens dextrumque noti, discedit in ortus,
Eurum sola tenens.

Here istae approaches hie in meaning, since it refers
to Africa and Europe, the continents nearer to Rome,
whereas ilia refers to Asia, the more remote. Simi-
larly Martial 4,49,10 says of his reading public, lau-
dant ilia (Greek literature) sed ista, "my epigrams",
legunt, and Quintilian 8,5,24 in drawing a contrast
between the earlier, ruder attempts of the Romans at
oratory and the elaborate speeches of his own time
refers to the former by ilium horrorem dicendi and the
latter by istam nouam licentiam. I can cite no exam-
ple from any prose writer between Valerius Maximus
and Quintilian, though some cases may exist in Celsus
or in Pliny's Natural History, books 4,5,16-22,31-37.
Later writers are not so chary:

Gellius 20,1,4 non enim minus cupide tabulas istas
XII legi quam illos XII libros Platonis de legibus.

Macrobius. From the Saturnalia, compare 5,2,15

illic (in the Iliad). .. .hie (in the Aeneid); 17 ille

, Homer) hie (Virgil) with 5, 13,3 Homerus. . . .sig-

nauit. . . .at isle (/. *., Virgil); 21 ille cum marine motu

ct littoreos fluctus.. . .dcscribit, hoc iste praeteruolat.

Script. Hist. Aug. Balb. 7,7 (a comparison between
Balbu> and Maximus) alterum seuerum, clementein
altcruni, 1x>mim ilium, istuin o>n>tantem, ilium nihil
largifiiteni, huiic amiu-iik-m o>]>iU omnibus; an i

134 The Latin Pronouns.

cially interesting passage as showing iste .... ille in
correlation with alterum. . . .alterum, although both
refer to definite antecedents.

Itin. Antonini Plac. p. 174,1 in ista uel ilia ripa.

Ammianus Marcellinus 16,12,47 Alamanni robusti
et celsiores milites. . . .dociles: illi feri....hi quieti
. . . . ; animis isti fidentes, grandissimis illi corporibus
freti. Observe the chiastic order.

Codex Parisinus of Placidus Glosses (apud GOtz,
Corpus Gloss. V, p. 113,26) longe distat • ab illo sapi-
ente • iste indoctus.

Jordanes, Get. 10(66).

This correlation is especially frequent in the patris-
tic literature. It occurs as follows:

A. Parallel with hie. . . .ille:

Orosius, Adv. Pag. 2,2,10 Babylon Roma

ilia (the former — the more remote in space) ... .ista,
ilia. . . .haec. . . . ; 7,2,2 illud (sc. Assyriorum — the
more remote in space) primum, hoc (sc. Romanum)
ultimum imperium; illud .... istud . . . . ; illi . . . . , isti
. . . . ; illam . . . . , istam ....

Alcimus Avitus, Contr. Eutych. Haeres. i (p. 19,
33 Peiper) illic . . . . , hie . . . . ; illic . . . . , istas ....

Fulgentius, De Aetat. Mundi 2, p. i36f. illic (more

remote in time and interest) , hie (nearer in time

and interest) . . . . : illic . . . . , hie : illic, hie :

illic , hie Ille legem accipit, ne comedat car-

nem in sanguine, iste legem suscipit, quo. . . .carne

saturetur et sanguine (cf. p. 137 below). Ilium ,

istum ....

Ambrosius, Ex. 6,i,iE neque enim eadem dicendi
condicio, quae canendi et luctandi; cum in illis (the

hte = Hie. 135

latter) ludus offensionis, in isto lapsus mortis sit. illic
si pecces, spectantum fastidium est, hie damnum est
audientum. In this type of sentence there is no con-
nection of importance between the writer and the ante-
cedent of iste, so that the correlation under discus-
sion approaches in meaning alterum .... alterum

Other examples of it are: Optatus 6,6 (p. 154,21 ff.);
Faustus, De Gratia 2, 3 (p. 63,11 ff.) ilia ("the former")
.... haec .... ilia .... ista .... ilia .... haec; Ale. Avit.
p. 26,28 illi (the latter — Bonosiaci). . . .isti (the former
— Entychiani) .... Photinus . . . .hie. ...(/". Fulgentius,
De Aetat. Mundi 8, p. 156,18. These passages show

that ille iste .... and iste .... ille .... underwent

the same course of development as hie ille dis-
cussed above (see pp. 79-96). A particularly clear
example of iste refering to an indefinite antecedent is
found in the description of St. Martin exorcising evil
spirits, inserted in Snip. Sev. Dial. 2(3^6,4 turn uero
cerneres miseros diuerso exitu perurgueri : hos ....
quasi de nube pendere....: at in parte alia uideres
. . . .uexatos et sua crimina confitentes. nomina etiam

prodebant: ille se louem, iste Mercurium fate-

bantur. postremo cunctos .... cerneres .... cruciari.

It will l>e further observed that in the passages
here cited it seems not to be a matter of importance
whether the correlation ille — iste or ille — hie precedes.
In Oros. 2 the former ]< in 7 the latter. In

Ale. Avit. ]>. 19 the order illic — hie illic — istos is
employed, on page 26 the : order; while in

:ti< AT. supra cit. ilia — haec ilia — ista ilia — haec
occu

When tlie correlation ille — iste occurs unacconi-

136 The Latin Pronouns.

panied by a coordinated ille — hie, the order ille — iste
is about twice as frequent as iste — ille, if the examples
cited in this paper (twenty-six of the former, thirteen
of the latter) may be taken as a fair representation of
his average usage.

B. In the following there is no such correlation
with hie — ille:

Ale. Avit. Epist. XXIX(2y), p. 59,21 (letter of
King Sigismund to Pope Symmachus) istic (here in
Gaul) . . . . illic (there in Italy). The classical usage
would have been hie. . . .istic. ... So p. 94,12 illam
plebem refecistis gaudio, istam ditate rescripto.

Ennodiusp. 55,31 ille praesto fuit indicibus (locally
more remote) iste .... ille .... iste .... Note the
order ille — iste.

Stilp. Sev. Dial. 1(2), 6, 7 ilia (the Queen of Sheba—
the more remote in time) .... ista (the wife of the Em-
peror Maximus, who served St. Martin).

Filastrius §67,18 non isti (the present nation of
Jews) sed ueteres et periti illi.

Ale. Avit. Contr. Eut. Haer. i(p. 21,12) in illo (the
former — the Old Testament) . . . . , in isto (the New
Test.) .... The two words are used in the same sense
but in the chiastic order in op. tit. p. 25,27 obeuntem
(sc. Christum) ille (the crucified thief) contremuit,
regnantem iste (Eutyches) fastidit. iste ille. . . .

Ale. Avit. ex Horn. Lib. p. 115,8 iste (Christus)
. . . . , ille (diabolus) — the nearer and the more remote
in interest.

In Sulp. Sev. Dial. 1,24,2 illi refers to the saints
lauded by Postumianus — the more remote in the inter-
est and sympathies of the writer, while iste refers to

Iste — Hie. 137

St. Martin, whose cause Sulpicius is advocating. Cic-
ero would certainly have written here isti. . . .hie.

Ennodius LI (= Epist. 2,14, p. 68,14) ad ilia (the
latter — temporal honors) .... ista (the latter — confes-
sionis praeruia) ....

In the following cases ille and iste bear the same
meaning as in Ambrosius, Ex. 6,1,1 E, etc.:

a) Order iste— ille:

Lactantius 1,11,26 sed finxerint ista quae fabulosa
creduntur: num etiam ilia quae de diis feminis deo-
rumque conubiis dicta sunt ? In this passage there
is less disparagement of the antecedent of iste than of
the antecedent of ilia. Cf. Hilar. Tractat. in Psalm.
2,9^; Ale. Avit. ex Horn. Lib. p. 114,3 iste (the lat-
ter). . . .ille (the former). The closer external resem-
blance of isti to illi may have led Fulgentius Plancia-
des to prefer it to hi in a passage (Mitol. 2,70), in
which he strives to attain the greatest possible pho-
netic correspondence between the two clauses: Epi-
curei . . . . , Stoici . . . . ; isti libidinem colunt, illi libi-
dinem nolunt. Cf. De Aetat. Mundi 2, cited on p. 134
abov

b) Order ille— iste:

Firm. Mat. 2,3 Osiris iustus (sc fuit) Tyfon furio-
. . . . ; ideo ille (the former) colitur, iste uitatur.
Ambrosius, op. cit. i,8,3oF illae (the former).

(the latter) .... So Augustine, Epist. 4,2 m and
Ale. Avit. ex. Horn. Lib. p. 145,14. In Knnod.
CCCXCVII (= Epist. 8,20), p. 282,30 iste refers to
the la^t mentioned antecedent, ille to the former.

Still more tangible evidence- of the linage iste =
hie is found in the old Latin translations of Greek

138 The Latin Pro-nouns.

writings. Of chief importance are the Epistles of
Ignatius, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Novellae of
Justinian and the Bible. Of these the second and the
last are doubly valuable, because of the existence of
at least two distinct Latin translations of portions of
of each of them.

In the Greek text of the Pastor Hermae forms of
OUTOS occur about three hundred times. In about
three-fourths of these instances both of our Latin
translations render the Greek pronoun by some form
of hie. In forty-five instances one translation has
iste and the other hie. In five instances both have
iste. Only three of these last cases, however, have
come down to us without variae lectiones in the manu-
scripts: Visiones 3,3,2, where both translations read
isti and istae, and Mandata 10,1,3, where the Pala-
tine has similitudines istas and the Vulgata quaesti-
ones istas. In the three other instances the editio
princeps of the Vulgate has forms of hie. Aside from
these passages iste occurs in the Vulgate only six
times as a translation of OUTO?.

(cf. the following page.)

139

M

HP

I 1

o

g ^

a

»

a -a -a . s

g 3 '•"

1-8 2

§ = 9 '3 * S

Q 4) V «Ci _H ***

r« ti ±J '*S

00 H W ^^ fl J-t

9 S ' Si r-\ ^

-g d .2 w -g

« ^ a c s ^

9 -M cd t/i

— ^) ^_i ^_i -^ . _ 0>

140 The Latin Pwnouns.

In the Palatina iste occurs more frequently (forty-two
times + Sim. 9,22,3, where Gebhardt and Harnack
print suam instead of istam).

Next in chronological order follow the examples
from the New Testament. Iste is frequently used in
the four Gospels and almost exclusively to represent
OUTOS. In Matthew all the manuscripts of the ante-
Hieronymian translations, so far as they are preserved
to us, agree in eleven instances with the Vulgate in
rendering OUTOC by iste. In other instances one ren-
ders by iste the other by hie. In many cases both
show hie. The following illustrations will give an
idea of the relations of the manuscripts to each
other :

Matth. 7,28 T0t>C M^OUS TOUTOUS.

uerba haec Vulg.

sermones istos k. The symbols here used are those
regularly employed to designate the MSS of the ante-
Hieronymian translations of the New Testament: a =
Vercellensis (saec. IV-V), a2 frag. Curiensia (saec. V),
c Colbertinus (saec. XI), d Bezae Cant. (saec. VI), e
Palatinus-Vindobonensis 1185 and Dublinensis (saec.
IV-V), f Brixianus (saec. VI), f1 Corbiensis I (saec.
VIII), f2 Corbiensis II (saec. V-VI), h Vaticanus
Claromontanus (saec. IV-V), i Vindobonensis 1235
(saec. VII), k Taurinensis, olim Bobiensis (saec. IV-V),
1 Reh(not Rhe)digerianus (saec. VII), q. Monacensis
(saec. VII), r Dublinensis Usserianus I. See N. T.
Graeceed. Tischendorf, 8th edition, Vol. Ill, prolego-
mena, by Caspar Gregory and N. T. rec. Wordsworth
and White I, p. xxxi.

hie = Hie. 141

Matth. 18,10 cvoc rutv fjitxptiv rourwv. Unum ex his
pusillis Vulg. pJeriquc. istis E, Q, f , e, q.

19,20 r«vra raDra. omnia haec or haec
omnia Vulg. omnia ista e, q, 1.

25.45 'v' TVUTWV ribv lka%iffru>v. unum de
minoribus his Vulg. istis f ', f 2.

25.46 iiteleuffovrat ourot. ibunt hi Vulg.
isti h.

To these must be added six other passages in which
only d reads hie (10,23; 12,41; 42; 13,56; 18,14; 19,
i), the hie being due probably to a corrector's hand.
Luc. 13,16 rourou isto Vulg. caet. c, e, f, f2, i, 1,
q, r. hoc a, a2, d.
In Ignatius' letters the following cases occur:

Epist. ad Magn. (interpolata) 3 ov yap rourov} rov
j3A.£7:6/j.evov irkava rec, aXXa. rov adparov xapa-
^o^t'Ceraf, rov ^ dovo^vov .... non enim
istum uisibilem quis spernit, sed ilium
imiisibilem in eo contemnit, qui non po-
test ____

ad Trail, (interpol.) 7^ rourwv. istis (=dia-
coni).

ad Phil, (interpol.) 5 T«W? fa xa} ILO.?^ OUTOC,
<>.... quomodo igitur magus est iste (sc .
Christtis) || Usser and his predecessors
ille ||, qui.

cj. ad Phil, (interpol.) 6 TTCWC. . . .«WTO? ffeus 6. . . . ;
quomodo .... deu^ iMr j| Tsscr and his
predecessors ille || qui.

In Justinian's Xovellae i^to is occasionally, but not
frequently, u-c-d to translate '

142 The Latin Pronouns.

We may also compare the Vocative o isti (= o uos)
in Arnobius 4,8^ (p. 147,10) (cf. also 1,41^; 2,13; 36;
4,iy/>) with Aristophanes, Nubes 1502 OVTOS, ~i TTOCSI?;
Finally Planciades Fulgentius, Mitol. i,7(= p. 21,2)
translates tuton phone by istarum uox. As his pur-
pose is only to give a Latin equivalent of the Greek
words per se, without reference to any special context,
the citation gains greatly in value.

Similarly the grammarian Dositheus, apud Keil
¥11,376-436, in his parallel paradigms of Greek and
Latin pronouns, gives both hie and iste as equivalents
for ouroq. See especially p. 402,21 ff.

I am not aware of any semasiological changes un-
dergone by OVTOS in the course of the post-classical
period, that could seriously detract from the value of
the citations here made to establish the prototritonic
character of iste.

Side by side with these translations stand the
glosses, which for the most part are now conveniently
accessible in Gotz's Corpus. The following defini-
tions are taken from them:

Vol. II, p. 390,32 (cod. Laudensis) ouro? hie iste is
p. 390,33 " OUTOI hi isti ei

p. 457,49 " rouro id • hoc istud

p. 452,6 " TavTi] hac istac

p. 92,57 (cod. Parisin. 7651, pp. 1-212) iste

IS ouroq

Vol. IV, p. 87,13 (cod. Vat. 3321 saec. VII) histic hie
p. 87,26 " " " hicste (for hie ste =

hie iste) hicine istum

p. 88,17 (fod. Vat. 3321 saec. VII) huiusce-
modi huius modi istius modi

Iste = Hie. 143

p. 88, 18 (cod. Vat. 3321 saec. VII) hunine (for

huncine?) istum uero

Vol. V, p. 109,23 (cod. Par. 1298 saec. XI) his - istis
p. 108,7 " " " hec - ste
p. 110,12 " " " huncine - istum uero
p. 110,13 " " " huius modi • istius

modi
p. 300,23 (Glos. Amplonianum II saec. IX)

hie iste
p. 305,21 (Glos. Amplonianum II saec. IX)

istic hie

The variant readings h istud and hoc istud of C
and F in L,ivy 3,52,6 doubtless owe their origin to
glosses.

The last certain line of evidence which we have to
cite is afforded by the Romance languages, several of
which have preserved modified forms of iste with the
meaning "here" and kindred meanings (cf. Korting,
Worterbuch, Nos. 2770,2771,4438).

este Spanish, Catalanian, Portuguese.

ist Rumanian, Old French (only in oaths).

est Provenyal.

ecce + iste = acest Rumanian.

cist Proven9al.

icist Old French.

cet, ce Mod. French.

ecc [um] -f istu [m] = questo Italian.

= kt^l Rhctian.

= aquest Proven val.

= aqueste Spanish, Portuguese.

Italian: cn-tni. costei, costoro, cotesti (from eccu

144 The Latin Pronouns.

[m] + ti < tibi -f isti), cotestui, -ei. The last three
are applied only to the second person (see p. 117
supra), stamattina, stasera, stanotte.

To one who reflects that the Romans of the later
empire were thoroughly familiar with this usage of
iste, the well known definition of Priscian (Keil III,
142 f .) can offer no difficulties: demonstratiua uero ut
'hie', 'iste' uel 'ille.' sed interest, quod 'ille' spatio
longiore intellegitur, 'iste' uero propinquiore, 'hie'
autem non solum de praesente, uerum etiam de absente
possumus dicere, ad intellectum referentes demonstra-
tionem. This shows that the native grammarians felt
that hie and iste had a very close resemblance in
meaning. In fact they so far confused them, as actu-
ally to use in paradigms the forms of iste instead of
hie as a substitute for the Greek definite article. See
below p. 205, and cf. Servius, Commentum in Dona-
turn p. 410, i6(K).

Possibly some inferences affecting the present dis-
cussion might be drawn from the incorrect orthogra-
phy isthic. Was this introduced by the ancient Ro-
mans themselves under the erroneous supposition that
istic was a compound of iste and hie ? Such a suppo-
sition might easily be founded on the close resemblance
that they felt to exist between the two pronouns.

As for the geographical extension of the usage iste
= hie, we find it in Rome and in other parts of Italy
(in the works of Palinus in Milan, Cassiodorius, Knno-
dius and Jordanes), 'in Sardinia (in those of Lucifer
Caralitanus), Sicily (in Firmicus Maternus), Africa
(in Cyprian, Tertullian, Arnobius, L,actantius, Ambro-
sius, Augustine, Fulgentius), Mauretania? (in Pompe-

Iste = Hie. 145

ius [Maurus] ), Spain (in Prudentius, Orosius, Isidore),
Aquitania (in Ausonius?, S. Silv. Peregr., Prudentius,
Sulpicius Severus, Itinerarium Burdigalense) , South-
ern France (in Cassianus, Hilarius, Salvianus?, Alci-
mus Avitus), Dalmatia (in the inscriptions: C. I. L.
Ill, i, Xo. 2628; Suppl. No. 9259 — Saloni) and Pan-
nonia (inscriptions C. I. L. III,i, 3351 — Alba Re-
gia — ; 4185 — Savaria?). This general survey reveals
the inexactness of the current notion that the usage
iste = hie is peculiarly African Latinity. The fre-
quency of its use in Africa (cf. Schmalz, Lateinische
S y n tax 3d ed. p. 444) is in my opinion to be accounted
for simply by the close approach of the style of the
African writers to the conversational tone. We know
that their literature was mainly addressed to the less
highly educated.

Chronological limits of the usage. Since the Ro-
mance words quoted above stand as living testimony
of the usage iste = hie in the latest period of the
Latin language, it remains only for us to determine
the date of its first appearance. Valerius Maximus is
the earliest author cited in this chapter as having the
usage iste = hie, to whose writings we can assign a
definite date post quern non. Five of the ten instan-

he offers us occur in books 2-5, and as the pro-
emiuni of book 6 was written l>efore the death of
Julia, they fall before the year 29 A. D. There is no
reason for doubting that the dates of the composition
and pub'. .,f the different books followed each

t in the present numerical order of the books.
The passage 9,11 was written immediately after the
fall of Sejanus. The instances in books 7 and S would

146 The Latin Pronouns.

therefore probably fall between the dates 29 and 31
A. D. The date of Celsus is not definitely known.
If he was born about 2 A. D., he could have written
the De Medicina before 29 A. D., in which case he
would be a slightly earlier witness to the usage than is
Valerius Maximus.

As the extant works of these two authors were
written some eighty years after Caesar, and as their
rhetorical training was entirely different from his, it is
somewhat surprising to note that several editors of
Caesar, among them Dinter (p. 127) and Kiibler (p.
142), print as an ad liter am citation from Caesar's
De Analogia the words found in Pompeius, Com-
mentum in Donatum p. 144,20: duae sunt Albae, alia
ista quam nouimus in Aricia, et alia hie in Italia,
uolentes Romani discretionem facere, istos Albanos
dixerunt, illos Albenses. The words discretionem and
dixerunt (for nominauerunt), as well as the position of
the participle arouse suspicion as to the genuineness
of the fragment, but the introductory words of Pom-
peius, ait sic Caesar, would lead one to assume, as
Dinter does, a word for word citation. Yet an exam-
ination of Pompeius' manner of introducing his cita-
tions shows us that we must not take his formal state-
ment too exactly. To illustrate, on p. 188,38 he cites
with the words sic ait Probus' words that do not at all
agree with the corresponding passage of Probus (p. 82,
i6K), and similarly p. 102,9 and 165,18 he assigns
words to Terentianus and Donatus which differ greatly
from the extant passages of these authors. The edit-
ors are therefore certainly wrong in assigning the
words to Caesar, and the lexicographers Menge-Preuss,

Iste = Hie. 147

Meusel and Merguet are equally in error for including
the word in their respective lexica.

I'n fortunately we are not able to reach so definite
a conclusion as the foregoing in the case of a fragment
of Accius' Annals preserved in Macrob. Sat. 1,7,37

Eumque diem (sc. Saturni) celebrant: per agros

urbesque fere omnes

Exercent epulis laeti famulosque procurant
Quisque suos; nostris itidemst mos traditus

illinc
Iste, ut cum dominis famuli epulentur ibidem.

There are no clear indications that this passage is
indirect discourse. The general tone is entirely con-
sistent with a descriptive passage forming a part of
Accius' own narrative. Furthermore, iste refers to a
Roman custom which is contrasted with a Greek
one (illinc), and to which the pronoun hie would natu-
rally be applied. I would gladly prove here, were it
ible, that Accius used iste in the present passage
as a substitute for hie, that his readers might not be
confused by instinctively feeling hie, so close after
illinc, as an adverb and perhaps think it an error
for line.

Two passages antedating that in Caesar remain to
be discussed. Both are inscriptions. The first is
found in the C. I. L., Vol. I, ist. ed. p. 208, No. 818.
It is said to date from the last years of the republic or
the first years of the empire. It is a curse pronounced
iil*m a person named Rhodine, and engraved upon a
tablet, which was thrown ujxm a grave. The
expressions that bear on our discussion are: quomodo

148 The Latin Pronouns.

mortuus qui istic sepultus est, nee loqui nee sermonare
potest, seic Rhodine apud M. Licinium Faustum mor-

tua sit, nee loqui nee sermonare possit seic R.

accepta sit et tantum ualeat, quantum ille mortuus qui
istic sepultus est. All are familiar with the usual
forms, hie sepultus est, hie iacet, hie situs est, etc.
We might then be inclined to assume that iste here
stands for hie, an assumption that would be con-
firmed by the occurrence of hoc in a similar dira (C. I.
L. No. 819) and by the fact that in a corresponding
Greek inscription '/» )T^i'(=T«6rwo?) is used (see Rhein.
Museum IX, 367, — Lenormant). In addition to this,
iste also occurs in a number of epitaphs of the
imperial period in the expressions iste lapis (C. I. L,.
111,3351; 2628), titulus iste (VI, 1 7505) and the like.
We may further observe, that the formula hoc monu-
mentuni heredem non sequitur, so often inscribed on
tombs, has a close parallel in Martial 1,116,3-6

Hoc tegitur cito rapta suis Antulla sepulcro,
Si cupit hunc aliquis, moneo, ne speret agellum:
Perpetuo dominis seruiet iste suis.

Yet it must not be overlooked that the document
under discussion, while a curse, is yet in form a prayer
to some divinity, who stands to the speaker in the re-
lation of second person. From this point of view the
istic of our inscription might be regarded as normal.
Be the case as it may with the present inscription, iste
never succeeded in wholly displacing hie in this form-
ula. This maybe inferred, not only from the presence
of the latter adverb in the Romance languages, but
also from the fact that iste occurs almost exclusively

hte = Hie. 149

in metrical inscriptions, where its use may have been
occasioned by the exigencies of the verse.

The other inscription referred to is found in C. I. L,.
i, No. 820. It contains the phrase IN ITVSM ANNUM,
which Gamurrini, the finder of the inscription, ex-
plains as an error of the stone-cutter for ISTVM. The
phrase would therefore represent in hunc annum. If
iste = hie occurs in carefully written literature in or
about the year 30 A. D., there is nothing unreason-
able in the assumption that it occurred in conversation,
and hence might occur in non-public inscriptions, fifty
or sixty years earlier. We cannot accordingly ap-
prove of Mommsen's condemnation "aus sprachlichen
Griinden" of Gamurrini' s correction. See Hermes

IV,282.

The length to which this usage has been dwelt
upon in the present chapter might leave on the reader
an impression that iste in the later periods of Roman
literature had quite usurped the place of hie. Here,
however, as is often the case in language development,
the birth of the new does not imply the death of the
old. Although weakened in meaning, hie maintained
its position; and even down to the eighth century, we
find it numerically stronger than iste. That the re-
was true of the sermo cotidiauus may be inferred
with some degree of certainty from the very frequent
use of iste in documents, the tone of which approaches
that of cnnvei>ation. One striking instance strongly
confirms this inference. Pompeius, the grammarian,
probably a native of Matiretania, wrote in the latter
half of the fifth(?) century his commentary on P

,i U>ok which contains numerous reminders of the

150 The Latin Pronouns.

conversation in the school room, and the style of which
undoubtedly stands very near to that of the spoken
language. He alone of Latin writers reverses the
relative standing of hie and iste. On one hundred
and eight pages (Keil, pp. 95-203) the nominative hie
is not found at all. This and the other peculiarities
in the use of these two pronouns can be best exhibited
by means of a comparative table:

hie iste

Masc. sg. Nom. (hie — iste) o 24

Fern. sg. Nom. (haec — ista) ca. 7 39

Neut. sg. Nom and Ace. (hoc — istud) 235 i

Neut. pi. Nom. and Ace. (haec — ista) 33 80

All other cases 28 192

Adverb (hie — istic) 15 o

In this table there are of course included only those
cases of iste and hie in which the words are used as
free elements, i. e., not in stereotyped formulae, in
which words often continue a formal existence, al-
though really obsolete.

What has taken place appears to be entirely nor-
mal. Differentiation has led to the rejection of hie
substantive and adjective, and the retention of its pho-
netic equivalent exclusively in the adverbial function,
while iste has come into use for the former noun func-
tions of hie. In the fern. sing, also ista has notably
encroached upon haec, (possibly following the analogy
of the masc. sg.), and in the other cases, with the
exception of the Nom. and Ace. neut, sg. and pi., the
encroachment is still greater. The plural haec, which
in all periods was used very largely, has made a much
stronger resistence, while hoc (Nom. and Ace.) has

hie — Hie. 151

kept the field to itself. The only instance of the neu-
ter (it is not spelled istum, but istud, after the anal-
ogy7 of illud) is found on page 185, line 28. This last
result is just what we should have expected, for even
in Cicero the forms hoc and haec as substantives exceed
in number all other cases combined. That the phe-
nomena exhibited in the above table are no passing
phase nor a peculiarity of a particular writer, is shown
by the evidence of the Romance languages, in which
the forms hoc and hie (Adverb) always remained in
use, as the Italian words qui, "here", and ci6, "it",
from eccum-f-hic and ecce-f-hoc respectively, amply
testify. It is true that modern Italian also possesses
questo, which, although grammatically masculine, is
applied to neuter objects. It must have come into
use after hoc and ecce+hoc lost the character of a
-'irptTw. The same rejection of istudfc] in favor
of hoc, attended by a decided preference for Noni.
iste over Nom. hie is found in the A and B classes of
Scholia Terentiana published by Schlee, particularly
in the "explanationes praeambulas" to each scene.
Istud, p. 102,23, is perhaps due to the source from
which the compiler drew his scholia, just as istuc,
p. 160,22, is due to the influence of Terence. The
form ista for haec frequently occurs, just as in Pom-

In the preceding discussion there have been cited
in tlu- main only ; - in which iste occurs outside

of direct discourse, yet from those authors who wrote
later than Suetonius occasional - have been

cited of the opposite character. In justification of this
it maybe said, that, although the occurrence of iste

152 The Latin Pronouns.

outside of direct address is evidence that it does not
serve as dzuTzpurp'.Tov, the converse is not true. Indis-
putable instances of iste = hie in direct discourse are
cited from Lucan on p. 123 above. There are two
cases of iste in Cicero's dialogue De Senectute which
seem to me to bear no reference to the second person.
In section 29 etsi ipsa ista defectio uirium (the words
of Cato) the words defectio uirium contain a sentiment
which is in no sense to be connected with Scipio or
Laelius, to whom Cato directs his remarks, since in
sect. 15 the idea is distinctly attributed to some third
parties, vaguely suggested by the subjunctive uidea-
tur. These same indefinite persons are likewise con-
ceived as the authors of the cibi et potionis auiditas
implied in ista in section 46. It is true, that they are
the advocates of ideas and arguments combated by
Cato, and hence they are, in a certain sense, in the
position of opponents to him. Nevertheless it is only
Scipio and Laelius who, strictly speaking, can be re-
garded as standing to Cato in the relation of persons
addressed; for, although the Aristotelian dialogue
gives the two collocutors but little opportunity to
speak, Cicero never for a moment allows his reader
to lose sight of the conversational character of the
composition (cf. De Amicitia 4 ipse mea legens sic
afficior interdum, ut Catonem, non me, loqui existi-
mem). It would not be difficult to find other instances
of this class in Cicero's dialogues. We can see no
reference to the second person in Terence And. 215

Ad haec mala hoc rnihi accidit etiam: haec
Andria,

htc = Hie. 153

Si ista uxor siue amicast, grauida e Pamphilost;
Haut. 530 Istuuc seruolum

Dico adulescentis;
Eun. 823,4 Iste Chaerea.

QuiChaerea? Iste ephebus frater Phaedriae;
nor in Plaut. Curculio 465, where there is no good
reason for associating the sychophant with the audi-
ence, whom the choragus is addressing. This is also
true of iste in True. 340; 349; Aul. 702; Pseud. 1053;
Mil. 128 and other passages. In these cases, there is
usually some degree of contempt implied either in iste
or in the context. We should hesitate, nevertheless,
to affirm, that in all the cases cited iste approaches hie
in meaning. Some of these passages, with over fifty
others, are mentioned or discussed by Bach, op. tit. pp.
257-226. It must be admitted that Bach's explana-
tions are often ingenious, but he deduces little positive
evidence to prove his points. He shows how iste may
in each case be interpreted as a deurepdrptrov, but not
that it must be interpreted as such. In the absence
of more conclusive proofs the matter must remain
uncertain.

As iste is a very strong demonstrative, it usually
refers to or modifies words upon which for some rea-
son especial stress is laid. It is therefore not surpris-
ing to find it normally refering, particularly in the

,ver" Latinity, to the main object under discussion.
By no writer is it more frequently so used than by
Auhi> ("iellius, who is esjKrcially important to us for
the li.^ht he throws uix>n the meaning of the word (cf.
also G.iiuv i ,50).

We now approach t! interesting and most

154 The Latin Protwuns.

important, though at the same time the most difficult,
and in a sense the most unsatisfactory section in the
discussion of this pronoun, namely, that which treats
of the semasiological nature of the change iste > hie.

The difficulties that face us here arise partly from
the non-existence in the present case of several lines
of evidence which are usually of the greatest assist-
ance in tracing changes of meaning. First and fore-
most, we do not know the etymology of the word with
sufficient certainty to base an argument upon it.
Secondly, we possess no exact definitions of the word
by the earlier Romans. Furthermore, we can receive
but little light from the analogous pronouns in other
languages. The suggestion that ouro? contains in
its second syllable the same element that forms the
second syllable of iste, is debatable; and even if iste is
identical with Umbrian estu, — which is highly proba-
ble, if not certain, — the scanty remains of the Umbrian
dialect do not supply us with enough data to deter-
mine the exact meaning of the Umbrian word. We
cannot therefore be certain whether the classical mean-
ing of iste is a primary or a secondary meaning; and
if secondary, we cannot know how far it stands re-
moved from the primary. Under these circumstances
we can scarcely attempt more than to suggest what
seems to be a plausible explanation of the nature of
the change from the classical meaning to the later one.
Even this may seem overbold.

Since the classical writers use the word almost
exclusively as a deureporptrov, we will suppose that its
use as a demonstrative of the first person is developed
out of its classical usage, and is not concentric with it.

hte — Hie. 155

The relation of the antecedent of iste to the second
person may vary greatly in character and degree of
intimacy. It may be either very close or very loose.
It may, for example, be one of ownership or of posses-
sion or of mere proximity. It may be simply one of
interestedness, more or less keen, or of mere attention.
Furthermore this relation may have no existence out-
side of the mind of the speaker. Such an object has
in almost every instance a more or less intimate local
relation with the first person also. This springs from
the circumstance that, iste being confined for the most
part to conversational use, the persons communicating
are usually in each other's presence. Since moreover
the object is the mutual object of conversation, it
occupies also a large place in the speaker's interest;
and this interest is the more likely to be very keen,
because, as stated above, the strong demonstrative
force of iste leads, for the most part, to its use in
refering to antecedents upon which particular stress is
laid, (see p. 153). Hor. Epist. 1,6,67 and Sat. 1,4,13
cited above seem to me to exemplify this usage, and to
them we may perhaps add Cic. Ad Fam. 2,7,4 cum te
tribunum plebis isto anno fore non putarem.

By a very slight change (unconscious, of course) in

the attitude of the speaker, iste may be employed not

to refer to something actually related to the second

person, but to bring some object into relation to the

second person. This use of iste awakenes in the per-

•• >sed an interest in the object. This chunge

could arise from a slight anticipation on the part of

the s]>eaker. He has before his mind an object, in

h he desires to interest another, and conceive

156 The Latin Pronouns.

already accomplished the effect which in reality will
immediately follow his mention of that object. Noth-
ing is more common than such an attribution of our
own feelings and sentiments to others. In this case
the interest of the speaker in the object is at least as
great as that of the person addressed, and iste in this
way gradually loses its character as deursporptrov^ and
comes to mean approximately "ecce hie." If this
explanation is true, we may also add that the fre-
quency with which secondary subordinate ideas were
associated with iste facilitated this change.

But there is another point of view, from which we
may regard this change, and by which an explana-
tion of the meaning of iste is offered that often appeals
to me more strongly than the foregoing. Let us
assume for iste the etymology of Schweizer-Sidler
(see above, p. 112), which involves the further
assumption of a very strong meaning for iste. Let
us also bring the meaning of iste into connection with
that of OOTOS and ouro<n, with which it will probably
also contain common etymological elements. In this
way we shall be led to posit for iste, in the classical
period, a very strong deictic force. Its function will
then be, to direct sharply and pointedly the attention
of the person addressed to some object, upon which
the speaker's mind dwells with keen interest, and
either to communicate to the second person the knowl-
edge of the existence of this interest or to awaken in
him a similar interest. If we were to seek for a par-
allel in a modern language, we should find the German
locutions dies da and das da to correspond roughly to
iste, although with considerably weaker deictic force.

Istc — Hie. 157

On the assumption of this etymology and meaning for
iste, it is not difficult to explain the classical and post
classical usages.

In the first place we shall not be constrained to
assume a necessary association of iste with the person
addressed; nor shall we be forced, in consequence of
this, to distort and misinterpret such passages as those
from Cicero's De Senectute cited above (p. 152).
Delicate "Nuancen" of meaning no longer need to be
called in to eliminate such examples of iste as seem to
disprove its universal character as fteurepoTptrov.

Furthermore a keen interest of the subject1 in the
object (the antecedent of iste) implies that the sub-
ject has determined, or is in the process of determin-
ing, the relation of that object to itself, i. e., to its
life process. It follows as a corollary to this, that iste
with its context asserts (directly or by connotation) a
predicate of the object. This predicate varies with
the varying relation of object to subject. It may be
disparagement or commendation, contempt or praise,

etc. , or wonder, arising from an undetermined atti-
tude. The great numerical excess in classical prose
of instances in which iste implies contempt, is easily
accounted for. The only forms of literature extant in
this period, in which it is frequently used, are oration^
and philosophical dialogues, in which iste, refering

illy to something connected with the person ad-

sed, is, of course, used of an antecedent held in
omtcmpt, scorn, disparagement, etc.

in, on this hypothesis we can easily account

1 The wor t" here means the person from

•houvjht precedes.

158 The Latin Pronouns.

for the extensive use of iste as deurepoTptrov. Iste as a
strong deictic pronoun can be used only in cases of
direct address, when the speaker and the listener stand
face to face. Hie is still a strong demonstrative, and
sometimes is itself used with deictic force (cf. Cic. De
Sen. 4 saepe ---- admirari soleo cum hoc C. L,aelio).
The same is true of ille. But ille is a remote demon-
strative and hie a near demonstrative, while iste (as
deictic pronoun) is neither.1 Accordingly hie and ille,
so long as they retained their respective forces un-
weakened, sufficed to designate objects either near to
or remote from the speaker, while iste tended to asso-
ciate itself with objects that fell under neither of these
two categories; and, chiefly in the language of the
orators and of the disputants in sharply conducted
dialogues of an argumentative character, it proved
itself highly valuable as an instrument for expressing
the contempt of the speaker for all that was associated
with his opponent. I am not inclined to think that in
conversation iste was applied as exclusively to the
second person as it is in our extant literature of the
"Golden" age. In fact, I have no doubt, that could
we enjoy the boon of listening for a day to the con-
versation of an ancient Roman family in their every-
day life, our notions respecting the restriction of the
application of this word to contexts in which it con-
notes contempt or refers to the second person, would
undergo remarkable changes.

Lastly, on this hypothesis the development of iste
into a npoiTOTptrov is simply explained. When hie lost

1 See, however, the limitation of this statement toward the
end of the following paragraph.

Istc = Hie or Is. 159

it protritonic force, just as in English the word "this"
is losing its reference to the first person, the Romans
unconsciously began to employ new means for point-
ing out the nearness of objects to the speaker, just as
I felt it desirable to write on page v above the words
"the present work" instead of "this work", which
would mean id opus or is liber, not hoc opus or hie
liber. Two of these new means maintained them-
selves many centuries side by side; namely, ecce hie,
ecce haec, etc., and iste (later ecce iste or eccum istum;
see below p. 214 f. For the relation between them see
below p. 205. The pronoun iste with its strong deictic
force, being used in cases of direct address, was applied
to objects which, like those referred to by the German
da, were in plain sight or in the presence of the
speaker. It was therefore used for the most part of
objects that would have been referred to by hie, had
this last still retained its stronger demonstrative force;
and so naturally fell into the place of hie, just as ille
naturally succeeded to is (see below, p. 194).

B. ISTE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR ILLE AND IS AND
FOR THE DEFINITE ARTICLE.

During the period of the "Silver" Latinity, the

pronoun iste is occasionally found referring to objects

-te from the speaker and from the person ad-'

-ed. As has teen suggested above, the strict

* by no means precludes

its use to designate such objects, and this usai^c must
have increased in rani^e when istc began to lose its
or when it connoted a strongly char-
acterised predicate, such as the idea of contempt.

160 The Latin Pronouns.

When the word began to lose the character of a pro-
noun of the second person, the use referred to became
still more natural. Many difficulties in the way of
explaining the usage are done away with, when we
assume that the classical meaning of iste is not its
original one. Down to at least as late as the second
century of our era, the word retained a strong demon-
strative force and was used, as suggested above, in call-
ing attention to objects in which for some reason much
interest centered. As it came in this way to connote
a predicate, the particular character of which depended
upon the context and varied with the attitude of the
subject toward the antecedent of iste, it was not infre-
quently used in the sense of talis. So closely did it
approach this word in meaning, that we find it prepar-
ing the way for a following result clause (like is — see
p. 3 supra — and hie); while Aulus Gellius (19,1,18)
goes so far as actually to translate rctr rotaora-: <pavraffia-
by uisa istaec (observe the deitic -ce appended).
While this implication of a predicate greatly facilitated
the application of iste to objects remote from the sub-
ject and the person addressed, it at the same time
sharply distinguishes iste from ille, which only ex-
ceptionally connotes such a predicate. It is therefore
inaccurate to identify iste in meaning with ille.

The first century A. D. marks the most radical and
rapid changes in the meaning of iste, and it is to
the literature of this period, especially to Seneca the
Younger and the poets, as also to Aulus Gellius, that
we must primarily look for the evidence on the sub-
ject. Pending my further study of the subject I may
refer to the scattered remarks to be found in the fol-

Iste = Hie or Is. 161

lowing books: Goelzer, op. tit. p. 89; Ebert in the Acta
Sem. Erlangensis 11,327; Obermeier, op. tit. p. 16;
Rauschning, De L,atinitate L. Ann. Sen. Phil. p. 70.
As a consequence of the frequent use of iste as a
substitute for hie, it followed the same path of deteri-
oration in meaning with that pronoun, and sank to
the mere function of a determinative (this does not
imply, of course, that it did not retain also in some
connections a strong demonstrative force until late in
the history of the language — cf. the strong demonstra-
tive force retained by is; see supra pp. 3f). A close
approach to such a usage is found in Celsus 8,i2(= p.
354,16), cited supra, p. 119. Such passages are fre-
quent from Celsus on. In fact the word so far deteri-
orated that in the later periods, as will be pointed out
in the last chapter, it was used as a substitute for the
definite article. See p. 205 for further remarks on the
subject.

CHAPTER IV. IPSE.

CHAPTER IV. IPSE.

For the classical usage of the intensive pronoun,
I may refer to the excellent discussion of Niigels-
bach-Miiller, Lateinische Stilistic § 91. The main
features of the classical meaning and construction are
preserved at least as late as the seventh century of our
era. At the same time there were developed certain
usages quite distinct from these. The later meanings
of the pronoun may be roughly indicated by the equa-
tions: ipse = idem, ipse = ille or is, ipse = Definite
Article.

A. IPSE = IDEM.

The narrow limit which defines the spheres of the
ideas represented by these two adjectives, is exempli-
fied in the following early English citations:

Till she was slayn right in the selve place.

—Chaucer, Frankl. Tale i6i7o(= nyoGT).
Than hit semet, for-sothe, that the selfe woman
Wold haue faryn liym fro.

—Destruction of Troy 13828 (E. E. T. S.)
To shoot another arrow that self way
Which you did shoot the first .

—Shakespeare, Merch. of Venice, 1,1,148.

In English we say, "the same object," "the very

object," "the self-same object," "the very self-same

In the Latin language also these two words

1 66 The Latin Pronouns.

approach each other very closely in certain construc-
tions, even in the classical period. A remarkably
instructive parallel may be drawn between the two
passages:

Enn. Ann. 8 (M) terra- Cic. De Sen. 72 sic
que corpus quae dedit hominem eadem optime,
ipsa capit. quae conglutinauit, natura

dissoluit.

In the immediately preceding lines Cicero had said,
opus ipsa suum eadem, quae coagmentauit, natura
dissoluit. Ennius means, "that very (same) terra";
there is here no contrast between terra and something
else; we have rather the statement, that two acts pro-
cede from one and the same agent. "It is the earth
that both builds up and destroys the human body."
Compare the conditions presented in this sentence with
Kiihner, Ausfiihrl. Gramm. 11,457 "Das Demonstra-
tiv idem . . . . wird oft gebraucht, wenn einem und
demselben Gegenstande, von dem schon eine Bestim-
mung ausgesagt ist, eine andere neue Bestimmung er-
theilt wird." It is true that the relative clause con-
tributes here in no small degree to the expression of
the conception of identity; yet it is equally true that
the relative clause receives no slight support from ipse.
The difference between the function of the relative
clause here and in such a sentence as legionarii per
nonnullas horasuim hostium soli sustinuerunt; tandem
aduenit ipse imperator, qui sese adhuc in tabernaculo
continuerat, is that in the latter instance, it adds a
new predicate to a grammatical subject already clearly
characterised or described; in the former case, the
clause adds a predicate that is essential to the under-

Ipsc — Idem. 167

ding of the antecedent. Sentences of this type
are not common in classical Latin. One example is
found in the Lex Quinctia de Aqueductibus quoted by
Frontinus (printed in Bruns' Fontes luris Romani
Antiqui, 6th edition, p. 114,47) ipsorum qui permisis-
sent curatorum nomina (cf. the passage above from
Ennius) means "the very ones," i. e., "the same ones
who had granted permission" . This law dates from
9 B. C. During the second century, however, the
usage is more frequent and from Tertullian on occur
numerous instances of the construction ipse qui = idem
qui. The relative clause sometimes precedes, but it
more often follows ipse. In addition to the passages
cited under sect, i, we may quote De Pudicit. 13 (p.
246,1) ipsam stibstantiam damnans, per quam excide-
rat; cf. De Resurr. Cam. i ipsos. . . .exurit, quos. . . .
nutrit iisdem ignibus et promerens; Serv. ad Geor.
1,39 Proserpina ipsa est quae et Luna; S. Siluiae Pere-
grinatio 4,5 (p. 42,7) montes ipsos, quos ingressi
fueramus pridie sera; sed non ipsa parte exire habe-
bamus, qua intraueramus, ct al. ; Cassian. Conl. 18,16,
8 ipsa. . . .lues est, de qua dicitur per prophet am:

•anus, De Gub. Dei 4,11 ipsi in nobis mores sunt,

qui in seruolis nostris; so also 5,6; Epist. 9,18; 19; all

of which passages are to be found cited in Pauli's

index. In Salvian. Ad Eccl. 2,8 with licet ipsum

vords quod alius accipit must be supplied.

In the index to Petschcni^'s edition of the Passio VII

Monachoruni is cited sect. \2 ( ucrba iufauiuli cnins-

datu } cum ip^is sum in timore Dei comiersatu^ cr.m

idero passioncin su^cipere, cum quilm^ credo

me et futuram gloriam imicnirc; and Helm in his

1 68 TJie Latin Pronouns.

index to Plane. Fulg. cites Mitol. 2,pr,65(M) ipsum
(sc. Deum) proferat qui ista contribuit. In this in-
stance the use of ipse may, however, be justified by
the character of its antecedent. From the last half of
the sixth century (570) we read in Antonin. Plac. 15
(p. 170,1) stat in ipso statu in quo fuit.

At least four passages may be cited in which the
relative clause precedes ipse. They are, besides Tert.
De Spectac. 21, Commodian, Apol. 322.

Per quod prius hominem prostrauerat morti

malign us,
Ex ipso deuictus;

Schol. Gronov. ad Cic. Rose. Amer. 117 apud quern
. . . .praemium .... ipsum potuisse occidere Roscium
(cited by Landgraf ad loc.} cf. Greek -<*/>' w. . . .aurov-
Augustine, De Civ. Dei 5,21 qui Mario (sc. regnum
dedit) , ipse Gaio Caesari ....

Lastly under this head we may refer to Symma-
chus, Epist. (p. 267,12), although this passage is sus-
ceptible of a different interpretation (ipsorum = ?
eorum) .

Among the pagans Macrobius also shows the usage
(cf. Somn. Scip. 1,10,9 ipsa corpora, quibus).

Of more frequent occurrence than either of these
constructions are the collocations is ipse, hie ipse, ille
ipse, iste ipse, expressing identity, all of which are
known to Plautus and Terence, and are found in all
periods of the Latin language. (See Niemftller, De
pron. ipse et idem apud Plaut. et Ter., Halle, 1887, p.
3 if.) Clear examples are: Cic. Lael. 16 id ipsum
cum tecum agere conarer, Fannius anteuertit. Phil.

Ipsc — Idem. 169

2,74 quin his || "iis malim" — Orelli || ipsis temporibus
domi Caesaris percussor ab isto missus || inmissus
Wulfflin || deprehensus dicebatur, "at the same time";
Lucr. 1,433

Nain quodcumque erit, esse aliquid debebit id
ipsum ;

Caesar, Bell. Gall. 6,37,1 hoc ipso tempore et casu;
Bell. Alex. 52 eoque ipso die; Veil. Pat. 2,125,4 in id
ipsum. . . . incendium ; for Tacitus see Ger. und Gr. p.
693, col. i; Florus 1,8(13), 19 illam ipsam; Hilarius
Pict. Tract, in Psalm. n8Iod,6 eo ipso in tempore.
Of these phrases the neuter singular id ipsum gained
the greatest currency. At a later period it was often
used as a translation of rd auro, e. g.y i Cor. 1,10
Tra/oaxaAai tie U/JLOLS .... fva TO auro /t^re 7rdvre£ obsecro
.... uos .... ut .... id ipsum dicatis omnes (new ver-
sion "that ye all speak the same thing"). In Matth.
5,47 ru iwro — id ipsum, whereas in 46 TO aur6 is ren-
dered sic. The above Latin translations are taken
from the ante-Hieronymian texts. The Vulgate reads
hoc in both the passages from Matthew. Other New
Testament examples are to be found in Ronsch, Itala
und Yulgata pp. 424 f. This mode of translation is
not confined to the New Testament, being found also
in Ignatius. Kpist. ad Philad. (interpol.) 10 in id
ipsinn < so also Sec. 6; Ad Philip, i; Ad

Magn. 7 (interpol.). It found a rival in hoc ipsum,
which occurs in Ignatius. Kpist. Ad Smyrn. ( inter-
pol.) 5; Ad Trallianos (interpol. 9, where mMv is
1 by hoc ipsum. In Ad Philip, i in hoc ipso
canone repre <«><Jn. In the Authenti-

c-inn of Justinian. \ovcl. 22,1 I ; 22,29/>r. rou a-<r,.' .tlhl

1 70 The Latin Pronouns.

are represented by hoc ipso and hoc ipsum. The
usage was doubtless encouraged by the Greek collo-
cation abTo TOUTO (cf. Novell. 22,14 noc ipsum; $8pr.,
2 de hoc ipso; et a/.) and rauro TOUTO (pp. cit. 22,
47,2; in 22,30, however, rauroD TOUTOU is correctly
rendered by hoc idem). The Greek phrase TO iv was
frequently used as synonymous with TO auT6 in such
passages as Ignatius, Epist. ad Philip. 2,2, where
TO ?v ypovouvTes is rendered by unum sentientes (with
TO Zv expressing identity compare the Latin expressions
unum atqtie idem, unum idemque, in use from Cicero
on — cf. Lael. 92 — and especially common after Sue-
tonius and Apuleius) . Even as early as the time of
Aulius Gellius id ipsum had come to be so completely
identified in meaning with idem, that it was able to
take the place of idem in a phrase so widely used and
hence so stereotyped as unum atque idem. (See Aul.
Gell. 6 (7), 2 1, 2 unum atque id ipsum tamen in utro-
que uerbo ostenditur.) This usage is paralleled by the
Greek lv xai TO aur<5, which occurs at least as early as
Aristotle (see Bonitz, Index Aristot.) It would be
equally justifiable to assume, that the Greek 6 auT6q was
the main influence that led to the origin of the usage.
The thoroughgoing adoption of this word by nearly
all, if not by all the Latin writers, precludes us from
assuming that <f aoT6^ had any greater influence than
that of encouraging the usage. That o CLUTOS did exer-
cise a strong influence in this latter direction, par-
ticularly on the Patristic literature, cannot be doubted.
We have noted the phrase in Arnobius, Lactantius,
Ambrosius, Augustine, Cassianus, Hilarius of Poitiers,
Alcimus Avitus and others.

Ipse = Idem. 171

Parallels to these phrases in other languages will
readily suggest themselves, as the German derselbe.

In all of these collocations the demonstrative pro-
nouns, like the definite article in 6 aMs, derselbe and
"the same," aid materially in the expression of the
idea of identity, which is frequently still more defi-
nitely set forth by the addition of a relative clause.
Good examples of this form of construction are Bell.
Alex. 73 eum ipsum locum cepit, in quo Mithridates
secundum proelium aduersus Triarium fecerat; 70 id
ipsum commemorarent ofHcium; in which both the
relative clause and the correlative pronoun contribute
to the expression of identity (cf. Veil. Pat. 1,14,3 eo
ipso anno quo; 2,125,4 his ipsis . . . . gladiis, quibus;
Yal. Max. 4,5,6 inter ipsum illud tempus, quo; Celsus
7,4,4(p. 268 D); Sen. Contr. 1,2,12 (Gallionis uerba}\
Quint. 10,2,3).

On the use of ipse alone in the sense of idem,
there is but scanty information to be found in the
standard text books. Neither Kiihner nor Drager
mention it. Schmalz in Reisig's Vorlesungen, III,
Anni. 369 (p. 102) makes only one brief statement:
"Manchmal muss es" in der spiiteren Latinitat "die
Stelle von idem vertreten, c/'r. Koffmane, Geschichte

Kirchenlateinsp. 137, wodieser Gebrauch fur Com-
modian festgestellt wird." In his Histor. Stilistik (in
Miiller's Handbuch II, i8, 1900), which was published
twelve years later, he cites no earlier example than

^•tfnr 1.125 ipso anno = eodein anno. According
to Sittl and \Volfflin the n African.

Tlie earliest instance I know of a passage in which
an unsupported ipse approaches idem in meaning is

172 The Latin Pronouns.

Varro, De Ling. Lat. 9,84f. sic as et unum est et

multitudinis habet scnsum infinitum ("the plural asses
does not indicate a definite number, as does duo,
decem, etc"}\ dicimus enim asses (indef. pi.), quos
cum finimus, dicimus dupondius et tressis et sic porro.
sic uidetur mihi, quoniam finitum et infinitum habeat
dissimilitudinem, non debere utrumque item ( = eodem
modo) dici, eo magis quod in ipsis uocabulis ("in the
same words " ) , ubi additur certus numerus in miliariz's
|| militaris Florentinus || aliter atque in reliquis dici-
tur; nam sic loquontur: hoc mille denarium, non hoc
mille denari0nMN || sic L,. Spengel; denarii F. || et haec
duo milia denari;/*; || sic uolg.', denaria F || , non haec
d. m. denariwu/M || sic Christ et L,. Spengel; denarii
F 1 1 . We may thus paraphrase this passage : ' The
word as is singular and has an indefinite plural' — i.
e. , the plural asses in and of itself gives no indication
of the number of asses meant. 'Now when we make
the number of asses definite, we use the words du-
pondius, tressis, etc. Accordingly, since there is a dif-
ference between the definite and the indefinite plural
in this word, the two should not be expressed by the
same form. A. justification for making such a distinc-
tion is found in the usage which dictates that, when
in the same words a numeral is added to the word milia,
making the number of the thousands definite, a special
form of the Genitive plural, not analogous to the regu-
lar forms, should be employed. That is to say, usage
demands hoc mille denarium, not denariorum; haec
duo m. denarium, not denariorum.' If the emenda-
tions of Christ and Spengel are correct, Varro implies
that we should say multa milia denariorum, but decem

Ipse = Idem. 173

milia denarium . This same distinction should apply on
the principle of analogy to sestertium and sestertiorum,
nummum and nummorum, talentum and talentorum,
medininum and medimnorum, etc.\ and, as Varro him-
self points out, the distinction was normally made in
the words treuirum, duumuirum, etc., in which expres-

- the shorter form of the Genitive plural was em-
ployed, although the longer form was elsewhere em-
ployed. We may not translate, ' 'even in these words' ' ,
a force often carried by ipse, for Varro is not compar-
ing the compounds of as, with any other words. His
only point is either ' ' It is precisely in these words I
am discussing, that a distinction is observed," or "in
one and the same word the distinction is observed."
In either case Varro is asserting that two facts are
true of the same thing, that is, according to the first
alternative we are dealing with two distinctions of the
plural forms of compounds of as, which distinctions
may be set forth in the proportion:

asses : dupondius, tressis, etc. :: denariorum mult a

milia : denarium haec duo milia

In this case in ipsis uerbis "in the same words"
means "in compounds of as." According to the sec-
ond assumption, we are dealing with a discrimination
in the Genitive plural that is met with in one and the
word, /. *., denarium; or in the same words re-
spective' , denarius, sestertius, etc. In both
these cases the word uocabulis causes some difficulties,
perhaps only apparent, which are not removed even
by the interpretation >ni;Kr^ted above "even in tlu --e
Is". If in this passage the word Ins stood before
holar would find anything abnormal in

174 The Latin Pronouns.

the passage. However there is no documentary evi-
dence that a word has been lost. The passage is
important as being the earliest instance in Latin litera-
ture of the encroachment of ipse on the sphere of
idem.

A close parallel to the second interpretation pro-
posed above is found in Pompeius, Comm. p. n8,7(K)
nee dicas mihi, positione fit longa (sc. the last sylla-
ble of cano before Troiae in Virg. Aen. 1,1). non :
nam liquida non iuuat nisi in ipsa parte orationis ("in
the same pars orationis," i. e., with the lengthened
syllable). Compare p. I26,25(K) in eadem parte
orationis.

In a passage in Manilius (i ,698) , mentioned by Sittl,
Locale Verschiedenheiten der latein. Sprache p. 115,
Orbemque ex ilia coeptum concludit in ipsa.
Ipsa in this passage rests on the authority of the best
MSS., while ilia (adopted by Scaliger — Paris 1579,
Heidelberg 1590, Leyden 1609 — from the older edi-
tions) is found only in the poorer MSS., among them
Leidensis 3 (= Voss. 2).

I am unable to cite instances of this usage from
writers between Manilius and Suetonius. A clear
instance is found in the latter, Oct. 94 Augusto uiso
.... affirmauit ipsum esse cuius imago secundum qui-
etem sibi obseruata sit. Possibly the use of ipse is
here justified by its reference to Augustus, the auros.
Compare Nero 24 aurigauit .... etiam decemiugem,
quamuis id ipsum in rege Mithridate reprehendisset.
From Minucius Felix Sittl, /. c., cites 11,4?; 7 and
Landgraf on Cicero's Roscius Amer. 132 cites 4,4
ipsius sectae homo, where Halm proposes superfluously

Ipse = Idem. 175

to read istius. We may add in this connection the
instructive passage 30,4 Romanis (sc. ritus fuit) Grae-

cum et Graecam, Gallum et Gallam uiuentes ob-

ruere, hodieque ab ipsis. . . . luppiter homicidio colitur.
At least six distinct lines of evidence may be
distinguished, in which the character of ipse as a pro-
noun of identity is clearly demonstrated by the context,
i. Ipse appears parallel with idem and unus either

a) in one and the same sentence, or

b) In the same type of context, but in distinct

sentences.
For type

i a) Tertullian opens the series with the passage,
De Spectac. 21 sic ergo euenit, ut qui in publico uix
necessitate uesicae tunicam leuet, idem in circo ....

exuet; ut et qui . . . . , ipse ; et qui . . . . , idem . . . . ,

in which ipse is parallel with idem. He is followed
by the versio vulgata of the Pastor Hermae, praef.
pastoris uisionum numero quinque, mandata eiusdem
numero XII, similitudines ipsius numero X; Arnob.
4,22/> eodem .... eodem .... eodem . . . . , ipso .... ipso
....; and Pomp. Comm. i2y,32(K) ergo eadem erit
ratio in illis pluribus, quae in tribus syllabis, ipsa in
VI syllabis, ipsa etiam in VIII.

I}^t- ^lands parallel with unus in Optatus 2, 15(p.
50,8) etenim cum Africanos populos et orientales et
ceteros . . . . pax una coniungeret et ipsa unitas....;
cf. 5, i (p. 121,17) denique et apud uos et apud nos
una est ecclesiastica conver^atio, communes lectiones,

!ii fides, ipsa fidci instruments, eadem mysU
in which sentence it is apparent, that no more serious
influence than the desire for variety, has led the writer

176 The Latin Pronouns.

to employ four different words to express the idea of
identity. Nor are the resources of the Romans ex-
hausted with these four words idem, ipse, unus, com-
munis, as Optat. 5, 4 (p. 126,23) shows: permanent
(sc. Trinitas et fides credentis) semper immutabUes et
immotae-, trinitas enim semper ipsa1 est, fides in sin-
gulis una est. This passage has also an especial value
as illustrating another point of contact in the general
meanings of ipse and idem. We might here translate
the last phrase: ' The trinity is always precisely
itself ' , in the same way in which we may speak of a
man being himself under all circumstances. We mean,
of course, not that the trinity is itself in contradis-
tinction from some other thing, but that it, under all
circumstances, displays the same fundamental charac-
teristics, as is shown by the words that immediately
follow: uim suam semper retinent ambae.

i b) For the use of ipse parallel to idem but in
different sentences we may note the following types of
construction:

in quoting a second or third citation from the same
writer the usual form of expression employed was
idem dicit (Varro, De Ling. Lat. 7,98 apud Plautum
.... (99) apud eundem. So Gellius, Macrobius, Au-
gustine, Speculum passim. Instead of this we find
ipse in Optatus 3,3 (p. 80,21); 3,5 (p. 85,23)—
although these two passages admit of a different inter-
pretation— in Filastrius, Heres. Lib. 121 (= 149), 8
ideo et Dauid de ludaeis dicit: "deleantur " et

1 Cf. Ant. Plac. Itiner. 42(p. 188,10) ipsam uirtutem semper
operaretur, cited by Geyer in his index under the rubric ipse
= idem.

Ipse — Idem. 177

ipse iterum: "et in...." Compare with these the
titles of the poems of Ennodius (ed. Vogel) 190 a
ALITER DE EODEM; i9ob ALITER DE IPSO; 190 c
ALITER DE IPSO.

In the above citations the words idem, unus, etc.,
almost without exception precede ipse. It seems
hardly probable that this is pure accident. I should
rather be inclined to regard it as a justification for the
use of ipse in a sense which it does not usually bear.
In this way the reader is prepared in advance for the
unusual meaning of the word.

2. In other cases the identification of ipse with
idem is made clear by a contrast in varying forms with
alius. This group of passages is opened by Minucius
Felix 11,7 (words of Caecilius) uellem tamen sciscitare
(the discussion is about the resurrection), utrumne
cum corporibus || an sine corporibus add. Halm || , et
corporibus quibus, ipsisne an renouatis resurgatur?
sine corpore? hoc, quod sciam, neque mens neque
anima nee uita est. ipso corpore? sed iam ante dilap-
sum est. alio corpore? ergo homo nouus nascitur,
non prior ille reparatur. Similarly Ambrosius, Exam.
2,2,5(24d) (section 4) et dixit deus: fiat firmamentum
. . . .prius consideremus quid sit firmamentum, utrum
::n sit quod in superioribus caelum appellatiit an
ali ud. Ipse is contrasted with alter in Ennodius 212,
6(= cann. 2,94)

Alter te doininus, sed manet ipse labor.
Alius mu>t be read between the lines in Serv. ad Virg.
Geor. 1,45* lux? ad fulurae serenitatis pertinet si^nuin:
11:1111 M de i]>M> die dicas, stiilti>siiiiiiiii

3o completely did ipse take on the mean'

178 The Latin Pronouns.

idem, that it has even crept into certain local, temporal
and other adverbial phrases and formulae, although
such combinations are usually the last to allow any
encroachment on their spheres. We may mention
from S. Silv. Peregrin, in ipso loco (2,2), in ipso
itinere (7,6), in ipsa ecclesia (25,11). Commodian,
Apol. 823 gives us

Exurgit interea sub ipso tempore Cyrus;
Ale. Avit. Poem. 4,86 tempore sub ipso; Jordanes,
Get. (60)307 in ipso tempore; while ipso tempore
without a preposition appears in Optatus 2,2 (p. 39,
6); Viet. Vitensis, Hist. Persecut. Afr. Prov. 1,43
(= 1,14) ipso enim Geisericus praeceperat tempore
(observe the separation of ipso from its substantive,
also noticeable in sect. i9(= 1,6) ipso gestum est tem-
pore); and in Jordanes, Rom. 38.

Ipsa autem die occurs in S. Silv. Peregrin. 25,11
(p. 76,29) and in ipsis diebus, in Cassianus, Inst. 3,
12 and Conl. 21,20,3.

Instead of the normal eiusdem modi or eodem
modo we find in Filastrius, Heres. Lib. 122,1 (= p.
87,24) ipso modo.

4. There are numerous other passages in which the
general context shows that ipse is used as a pronoun
of identity, although there is no clear parallelism with
special words such as idem and alius. Such are Com-
modian 2,16,9

In ipsis uersaris iterum;
Apol. 829

Ipse redit iterum sub ipso saeculi fine,
and, with an accompaning similiter, in Ps-Hyginus,

Ipsc = Idem. 179

De Limit. Constit. p. 207,10 prime lapide inscribe-
mus DM KM. ab hoc deinde singulis actuariis limiti-
bus similiter per ipsos inscribemus DM limes II, KM
limes II. Other examples are Commodian 1,6,1

louis tonat, fulminat ipse,

(here ipse may be justified by its reference to Jupiter) ;
Script. Hist. Aug. Firmus 3,3f. idem (sc. Firmus) et
cum Blemmyis societatem .... tenuit .... naues quoque
ad Indos. . . .misit. ipse quoque dicitur habuisse duos
dentes elephanti. Yet in this last case there may pos-
sibly be implied in ipse a contrast between the general
traffic carried on by Firmus' boats and some of his
private acquirements through commerce. Ipse is
found twice in succession in Pompeius, Comment, in
Donat. p. 1 99, 24 (K) Uirgilius scripsit bucolica, ipse
scripsit georgica, ipse scripsit Aeneida. It is not
unlikely that Pompeius found this citation (for the
words are probably not Pompeius' own) in Donatus.
Similarly in Commodian we read 2,29,17

Cum ipsis et epulas capitis et pascitis ipsos.
In the following four instances the context proves the
usage ipse = idem with especial clearness: Optatus
i,27(p. 29,3) in ipsa causa .... duorum laborare; Au-
Kii^tine, De Civ. Dei 2,— (p. 103,19 D) III • IV
et IV III ipsum faciunt (cited by Landgraf, ad
Schol. Gronov. ad Cic. Rose. Amer. 132, p. 76);
Car. De Reg. Ap. i,9(p. 18,9) Sabellius. . . .fuerit
ausus dicere ipsum sibi et Patreni L-SSC et Kiliuin et
Spiritum Sanctum (For various reasons I would here
i direct Greek influence); Pompeitis, op. n'/. p.
205,1' K • ipse e^t casus in istis: et cuias noiiiinatiuus

180 The Latin Pronouns.

est et cuiatis nominatiuus est; Placidus, Lib. Glos-
sarum ed. Gotz V, p. 133,17 pinus ipse plurari (sic!)
singular! que numero; Placitus, De Medicinis ex Ani-
malibus, 24,5 uolturis iecur totum cum sanguine ipsius
tritum .... caducos emendat might be taken to mean
"of the same vulture", (exactly the same usage 30,4),
did not the phrase strongly remind us of the frequency
with which Pliny the Elder employs ipse to mark
an entirely superfluous contrast between an animal or
a plant itself and some part of the same animal or
plant or with some thing connected with them.

Further citations are: Optatus 3,5(p. 85,23); 6,4
(p. 151,4); in both of which passages ipse should per-
haps be interpreted as an equivalent of is, although
Ziwza in his index cites them as ipse = idem; Filas-
trius 6,1; 60,2; Cassianus, Inst. 5,40,1; Contr. Nest.
3,7,4; 4,6,7; 13,3; Jordanes, Getica (35)182; Rom. 32.

The conservative style of the jurisconsult! did not,
as it seems, admit the usage. Kalb, Roms Juristen
p. 140 knows only one instance from the Digest, a
citation from Marcian (D. 49,1,5,4), and we cannot
be certain that even this is not the result of the liber-
ties which the compilers of the Digest took with their
sources.

5. The old Latin translations of Greek writings
are as useful to us in writing the history of ipse as they
were in discussing iste. Idem appears in them as the
regular translation of & aur6s, yet the confusion be-
tween ipse and idem led frequently to the employment
of the former as a translation of rf auros; and in the
process the correspondence in meaning between 6 <zu-
TOC and ipse may have been an important factor of

Ipse — Idem. 181

influence. The painstaking literal character of the
old translations may still further have encouraged the
tendency. The rendering of TO abro by id ipsum has
already been mentioned. To the instances cited on p.
119, we may add Pastor Hermae, Mand. 10,3,3 f^^fifva
iit\ TO aoro Versio Palatina: commixtum in id ipsurn
(notice that id has lost all reference to any particular
antecedent). Versio Vulgata: writes simply mixtum.
The usage is also found in the Vetus Interpretatio
Latina of the Epistle of Barnabas (5th century A. D.).
Ignatius, Epist. ad Magnes. (interpolata) 6 renders
6 auras dia/j.ivet by ipse permanet, and Ad Trail, (inter-
pol.) 6 translates raoruv. . . .ilvat (sc. Myoufftv) i:aripa xa\

ulov xai TrveD/ia dftov by ipsum dicunt esse Patrem, ipsum
Filium, ipsumque Spiritum Sanctum. The words
cited above from Lucifer Car. 1,9 are a literal transla-
tion of this passage. From the Pastor Hermae, Vis.
3,1,2 is gleaned also OUT^ T|? VUXT} (observe the order of
the words), Versio Palatina: ipsa nocte. Vers. Vul-
gata: eadem nocte (cf. 3,10,7). A single example
from the New Testament will suffice, L,uke 10,21 £v
av7% Tij wpa in ipsa hora, Vulgate, caet. b, c, d, e, f, fa,
i, 1, q, r; eadem a, a2; ilia E, P m(f , R. The Authen-
tica of Justinian do not stand on the same high level
of purism with the Digest. In the former ipsa ap-
pea:

Novella 22,l8(p. 158,30 Sch.) tx rtiv aurwv alriwv

=ex ipsis causis;

4O(p. 175,25) TOUT anrat': xuivais . . .6x010.$

= ipsis poenis. . . .<p
<</• P- !75.33) Tii» ™Tiv ?tv™P

= eaiuk-in cjnam and p. 176,7 iisdem poenis);

1 82 The Latin Pronouns.

25pr.(p. 196,4) t* Tc

= ex ipsis occasionibus;
29, 1 (p. 219,34) iifi rr^ avrr^ rd£e<w?

= in ipso or dine.

On the contrary, apparently under no special condi-
tions that do not hold as well in the cases just cited,
6 aMs is rendered by idem 24,1 (p. 190,38) in idem;
25, i (p. 197,17) in idem; 26,1 (p. 203,29) in idem;
30,n,/>r.(p. 234,16) idem; 28,4,2(p. 216,6) subeodem;
29,5,/>r.(p. 222,35) eandem; 49,/>r.(p. 288,15) in idem.
A more careful examination of the usage of the Au-
thentica would doubtless reveal some interesting facts.

Along with these translations should be mentioned
the two passages cited by Kalb, op. cit. p. 140 from
the Lex Romana Uisigothorum. These passages are
translated from Gaius into Spanish Latin: Gaius, Inst.
3,151 donee in eodem consensu perseuerant = Lex
Rom. Uis. 2,9,17 ipso; Gaius 3,10 = Lex Rom. Uis.
2,8,3; Gaius 3,90 = L. R. U. 2,9,1.

6. Lastly comes the definition of the glossary Cod.
Vat. 33210*:. Vll}apud Gotz, C. G. L. IV, p. 89,1:
idem • ipse.

On the geographical extension of the usage the
range of authors cited above throws some interesting
and valuable light. We note first that the usage
occurs in the works of the following African writers:
Minucius Felix, Tertullian, Arnobius, Lactantius (?),
Ps-Cyprian, Commodian, Optatus, Augustine, Passio
VII Monachorum, Victor Vitensis, Cerealis, Fulgen-
tius Planciades, and in Mauritania(?) (Pompeius [Mau-
rus]). It is surprising that Apuleius is missing from
this list. Koziol does not find the usage in his works.

Ipsc = Idem. 183

Florus, the historian, was also doubtless an African.
Although he uses ipse more extensively than any other
Latin writer, he does not know it in the sense of idem.
So great is the frequency of this usage in Africa that
some scholars have been led to regard it as of African
origin and as particularly characteristic of the African
Latinity.

Next after Africa stands southern Gaul. To the
extreme west belong the Peregrinatio ad Loca Sancta
assigned to Saint Silvia, (also perhaps Antonini Pla-
centini Itinerarium) and the Lex Romana Uisigotho-
rum, 506 A. D. Still farther to the north is Hilary of
Poitiers, and eastwards are Cassianus, Salvianus and
Alcimus Avitus. From Sardinia conies Lucifer Cara-
litamis with one single instance. In northern Italy we
have Ambrosius, Filastrius, Ennodius and Jordanes;
in central Italy Varro the Lex Quinct. de Aqueduct.,
Marcian (?), Ps-Hyginus, De Limit. Constituendis,
Servius, Placitus (perhaps influenced by a Greek
source, perhaps by Pliny), and Macrobius. To these
should be added the Scholia Gronoviana ad Cic. and
the glossary Cod. Parisinus 3321.

In other words the usage is thoroughly established
in the western Mediterranean basin. A careful study
of Prudent ins, Orosius, Merobaudes, Idacius, Euge-
nius, r.raulius and Isidore would perhaps establish it
for Spain.

foe the chronology, the earliest indications have-
been discussed above. It appears in Africa certainly
between 217 and 222 (Tertullian, De Pud.), possibly
shortly after 203 ( De Resurrectione Cam.) or even
.ty to t" m earlier, if those scholars are

184 The Latin Pronouns.

right who assign to Minucius Felix a date prior to
Tertullian's Apologeticus (published in the year 197
or shortly after.) In Aquitania, south eastern Gaul
and Sardinia, the fourth century marks the begin-
ing. An anonymous manuscript in Einsiedeln, dating
from the end of the eighth or the first half of the
ninth century and containing a collection of inscrip-
tions, may be cited as a late instance of this usage (C.
I. L., VI, i, No. 1199 a. b.)

In the compound istum -f- ipsum the usage has
yielded the regular Italian pronoun of identity stesso.

We would naturally expect ipse, after it became so
fully identified with idem, to show the same weaken-
ing that idem shows in its adverbial use in classical
Latin. Such a passage is Minutius Felix 1,4 sic solus
in amoribus conscius, ipse socius in erroribus (ipse =
item).

B. IPSE = ILLE OR IS.

The essential character of ipse in classical Latin is
found in the fact that it almost invariably connotes a
contrast (cf. Nagelsbach-Miiller, /. c.) In the classi-
cal Latinity this contrast is usually strong and the
antecedent of ipse is consequently brought very promi-
nently before the reader, while the object with which
it is contrasted sinks into the background. Driiger,
Histor. Syntax I2,8i, however, remarks: "erst seit
Curtius, der das Pronomen mit besonderer Vorliebe
anwendet, finden sich Stellen, wo dasselbe das Subject
ohne besondere Hervorhebung bezeichnet, zum Bei-
spiel, 3,1,8 nisi intra eos (sc. dies) auxilium Dareus
ipsis misisset." Similar in purport is a statement of
Lonnergren, De syntaxi Sulp. Sev. (Upsala, 1882, p.

Ipse = Hie or Is. 185

10). Krebs, Antibarbarus (5. v. ipse) defines the
time limit of this usage by the extremely vague word

hfiesstich."

At the very outset we must realise the danger of
confusing this usage with that discussed in the previ-
ous section. There are many passages in which it is
very difficult, or even impossible, to decide whether
ipse stands nearer to idem, to ille or to is. For exam-
ple Frontinus, De Limit. 2 (p. 33,20) si fuerit....
tiallis quae conspectum agentis exuperet, per ipsam
metis ad ferramentum adpositis erit descendendum,
one would be rather inclined to assume, that ipse bears
the meaning of is. Possibly some of the passages
cited on pp. 167, 168 should be transferred to this
section. A most perplexing case is Acta Apost. 16,33.
Runsch, Collectanea Philol. p. 186 cites this passage
from the Gigas Bibliorum Holmiensis sumens eos ipsa
hora noctis with the explanation ''ipse fur is und ille."
On p. 101, however (= Vollmollers Roman. Forsch. II,
287 he explains this ipse as equal to idem and compares
22,13, where the above mentioned text and the Canta-
brigensis offer ipsa hora, the Vulgate, however, eadem
hora. Since the Greek text here reads aurjy rjj &pat
while in 16,33 tne Greek text has ixeby rj £/>«, and
the Cod. Cantabrigensis correspondingly reads ilia,
and Laudianus has ea and Lucifer Caralitanus, De non
Parcendis in Deum Delictis p. 268 has eadem, one cer-
tainly cannot fail to be bewildered. The passage
illustrates witli remarkable clearness the freedom that
prevailed in the usa^e of the pronouns in the third
and fourth centuries of our era.

Even earlier than Ctirtiu* there are passai;e^ in

1 86 The Latin Pronouns.

which ipse implies no strong contrast, as in Catullus
64,66 f.

Omni a quae to to dilaps# e corpore passim
Ipsius ante pedes fluctus salis adludebant.
Moreover there is no sufficient reason for interpreting
ipse in the sense of "the mistress,'' the Pythagorean
auras. The epic poets in general, who could not make
free use of is, showed a decided preference for ipse,
and by their frequent employment of the word, doubt-
less paved the way to its depreciation in meaning.

There is a second passage in Varro, Res. Rust. 3,
10,7 quotienscumque sumpserunt (sc. anseres ad sagi-
nandum), locus solet purgari, quod ipsae || ipsi Ju-
cundus || amant locum purum, neque ipsae ullum, ubi
fuerunt, relincunt purum. The context does not
admit of the translation 'not even these,' for there
is no contrast here. The only possibilities are either
to take ipse as an equivalent of idem, or as a some-
what strong personal pronoun.

To the above mentioned passage from Curtius
should be added 4,3,12 where the much discussed
MSS. reading ipsas may be defended as a strong per-
sonal pronoun: tris (naues) ante ipsa moenia oppo-
suerunt (sc. Tyrii), quibus rex inuectus ipsas dem-
ersit.

Pliny's Nat. Hist, offers several peculiarities. Very
weak indeed is the contrast between dies earum (sc.
halcyonum) partus and auis in 10,89: dies earurn
partus maria qui nauigant nouere. ipsa auis paulo
amplior passere. Very similar are the passages 28,
48; 25,74 (ipsius duo genera); 29,101 fimum gal-
linacium .... inpositum et wur/s aranei caudae cinis

Ipse — nie or Is. 187

ita, ut ipse, cui abscissa sit, uiuus dimittatur. In
Pliny's Epist. 8,20,4 mihi ostenditur subiacens lacus
nomine Uadimonis: simul quaedam incredibilia narran-
tur. perueni ad ipsum, the contrast between incredi-
bilia and lacus is weak and unnecessary. Gerber and
Greef cite eight passages from Tacitus under the rubric
"ui quadam imminuta" : Hist. 4,11,11; 84,25; Ann.
1,1,12; 3,46,5; 68,6; 4,16,17; 68, 10; 12,47,11. Six
are from the Annals, which show Tacitus' freest style.

In view of the extensive use of ipse = idem in
Africa, it is not surprising that we should find ipse —
is in Apuleius, Met. 2,11 (p. 47,18) quod dictum ipsius
('of his wife') Milo risu secutus, "grandem", inquit
....; and Florus 1,22(2, 6), 58 ille Italiae, hie Hispa-

niae uictor sed et colloquium f uit inter ipsos de

legibus pads. Possibly ipse in this passage is justified
by its reference to the leaders of the two armies.

The usage is found in the earliest of the patristic
writers. Minucius Felix 3,1 minorem ad te quam ad
ipsum infamiam redundare. There is, to be sure, a
contrast here, but not between two objects that are
closely associated. We should, however, usually hesi-
tate to interpret the word in this way when its ante-
cedent is Christus or deus.

From this point on examples may be easily found
by reference to the excellent indices in the volumes of
Vienna Corpus of Ecclesiastical Writers and the Monu-
menta Hist. Germaniae. See also Ronsch, Collect-

I Philol. p. 186.

There can be no doubt that anr»z in the sense which

Millie eases often bear, contributed not a little to

the development of this usa^e of ipse, not only in the

1 88 The Latin Pronouns.

Latin translations of Greek writings, but also in the
entire Patristic literature, which was subjected to a
very strong influence of the Greek. From the numer-
ous instances of ipse = awr<J<: that these writings offer,
we select the following:

Ipse — Ille or Is.

189

es sedere

8

.2

•4-1

I

.2

a

t/2

5
1

negotiis.

1

a

i

graphical

t/5

^ (

^

A

•M

V

o s~^

rt

3

<U

rt

D

—

A .£

*->

T3

t/J

T3

rri

i »

•*-> *i-t

rt

be

1

*a

g
g

a>

—
^

'53

a

0

c

§

S

•§

(U

s

1

^
Q

.§> ^

a
§

0>

S

</)

<D

a
2 •
8 =

£°

.2 -

H|

0 c3

s

S
—

•

C
"55

&

I

^

3 'S

.2

S
8

.§•>

:-i '

i^

^.

•3-

^

>j

« o>

,n,

*^*

u>

1

3k

'3

i

1

B

k

.^>

1

I ^i

i z

*s «

3f>

.*-*
X
a>

— -

1

i

4
t

i

i

1 'i

§
si

>0

/•-N *"

^'5

1

•M

^

1

'1

w

•s,

(S

4P.

«o
tn

xafftffat . . .

tn

}
£

M
CO

1

jo

a «1

o"

—

•§

cd

S 2
^p >
^S "^

•c =» =;

^ '3 »3

^^ ^

•^ « «

^

(£
oo =»*

a'"§

>

>

S

^

S

a

a

u

1

rt

.&•

S

3

8

•d
a
o>

.2

.5

rj

a

<L>

c

a

a

rt

1

'^

s

*4-

.2

C

*C

53

rt

i>

"5

'^-

<L>

^

a

|

2

•S

g

P,

,

§

|

«
o

i

a;

ffi

^

1

i

g

eorum.

05

6

"3

1

a
•£

S g

S '55

</>

1

a

!

8

•3

&«

t;

c

a)

5

"3

190

The Latin Pronouns.

rt

PM

§1

•8

i

» i

8 rt G

, G

.2 Q

£ J 8 ^

&

bJO

i

a =

s o

s .

rt ^3 U. ~ w

^ *5^« g -d ^ '53

^ . be O sr

« 'I C ^ ^ 4? 1

§ 2 *r C W rr i§

•jf ^a £ * a £ !

^ o-o|.|o i

"Vo o
I 8

85 8—5

8 **i

w

t3 8

= < S a 3

8-B

*j **
S '8-

I I s-

I

I

r

i

w 3

• 3

rt a cj

i

M

* I §

rt ^J. rt

CHAPTER V.

CHAPTER V.

HIC, ISTE, ILLE, IS, IDEM, IPSE, IN THE FUNCTION OF

THE DETERMINATIVE AND OF THE DEFINITE

ARTICLE. — SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.

In this chapter I shall discuss briefly from another
point of view the subjects treated in the preceding
chapters, showing how the Romans made the pronouns
serve the functions of the definite article and the de-
terminative, and in conclusion shall add a few general
statements necessary to the proper appreciation of the
arguments set forth in this book.

The six pronouns is, ille, idem, ipse, hie and iste
are so closely inter-related in meaning and usage, that
a full understanding of the development of each of
them must be based upon a due consideration of all
the rest. In order to present each pronoun in its
proper perspective and to set forth, at least in broad
outline, its relationship to the others, I shall be

^ed in the following paragraphs to state some of
the results obtained in my study of the pronouns ille
and idem. The details, however, of the arguments

vhich these roulN are based, must necessarily be
omitted (see Preface, p. \

Probably none of the ^ix pronouns mentioned ap-
proach each oilier so closely in meaning as do the

determinative and the remote demonstrative. They
37

194 The Latin Pronouns.

are both used mainly to refer to definite antecedents,
both are rptrorptra^ and both may be used, and are fre-
quently used, in referring to an object remote from the
speaker, in space, time or interest. Accordingly it is
not surprising that, as the pronoun is gradually lost
its force and sank to a syntactical element which car-
ried but little independent meaning, and as the need
was felt for some other means of expressing the mean-
ing formerly carried by is, recourse was first had to
ille. It needs no arguments to prove that in Plautus'
time ille had in general a much stronger force than the
pronoun is. The legal literature, the language of
which is always conservative, and Cato's De Agri-
cultura ((/. supra p. 28 f.) supplies us with an approxi-
mate standard for estimating the average prose usage
of a period considerably antedating the years in which
they were actually written, e. g. , of the time of Plautus.1
Nevertheless, conspicuous indications in Plautus' lan-
guage point to the beginings of later and weakened
meanings of ille. On this point see Bach, op. cit. p.
296. The deterioration of ille was in large part a
consequence of its use as a substitute for is, but was
doubtless materially hastened by the extensive use
which the orators made of it, and by the tide of
rhetorical influences that set in from Greece with the
end of the third century B. C. and rose to so strong
a flood in the "silver" age. In the period last men-
tioned the proportionate increase in the use of ille over

1 Provided, of course, a later recension has not materially
affected the usage of ille and is. Since such a recension must
have been made before Pliny the Elder wrote, I hold it for im-
probable that the pronouns were much changed.

file = Is and Idem = fs. 195

- very conspicuous, as may be seen from the tables
on pp. 30 and 31 above; and this numerical predomi-
nance of ille implies a corresponding weakening in
its meaning.

In the form ille qui particularly it made headway
against is; but there are other phrases, in which ille
would have been impossible or at least inappropriate
as a substitute for is. Hence recourse was not had
exclusively to it. Next after ille the pronoun earliest
called into requisition was hie (see chap. II). Not
that the two demonstratives were synonymous. It
was their very difference in meaning that made possi-
ble the use of both of them as substitutes for is at the
same time, while vice versa, the actual use of the two
in contexts formerly reserved for is tended to reduce to
a minimum this difference in their meaning. For ex-
ample, as soon as hie came to be used of objects that
had no closer relation to the subject than that of occu-
pying a place in his sympathies or interest, it could be
used of objects remote in space and time, to which at
an earlier stage in the development of the pronoun,
only ille could have been applied.

The above statements apply, mutatis mutandis, to

idem, which was used as early as Nepos (see Lupus,

op. tit. p. no) in connections in which the idea of

identity is clearly implied in the context and where

the use of a special word to point it out is superfluous.

a sentence i> well illustrated by the German

(especially Swi» i usage: Er nahcrte sich dein Hanse

uiul ginj; an deniselhen vorbei; and the English: 'We

lined the system, and found the same to be. . . . ,'

or the- Latin of N'epus. Kpam. 10,4 Thebus et ante

196 The Latin Proiwuns.

Epaminoudam natum et post eiusdem interitum, cited
by L,upus; cf. Dion 2,3. The types of context in
which idem could replace is are, of course, less numer-
ous than in the case of ille. Idem qui for is qui was
common. Idem as a substitute for is, found especial
favor with the historians, chiefly during the period of
the "silver" Latin, and to some extent even later.
Idem, like is, became entirely obsolete in time, and
ille and ipse took its place.

The use of ipse as a determinative has been
touched upon above (see pp. i85f.). The nature of
the change in meaning is analogous in all the fore-
going cases. The meaning becomes less specific, and
consequently the range of the application of the word
continually widens. Just as ille gradually lost the
character of a remote demonstrative, and came to be
used, not to call attention to the remoteness of an
object, but to refer to the given object simply because
it was remote; and just as hie and idem similarly lost
the character of a near demonstrative and pronoun of
identity respectively; so the implication of a contrast
gradually passed out of the complex of ideas repre-
sented by ipse. This change begins to make itself
apparent in our extant literature about the same time
as the corresponding changes in hie and idem, but the
substitution of ipse for is does not become common
until comparatively late. F'or iste = is see pp. 158 f.

Of these five competitors for the position of is,
idem seems entirely to have disappeared from use
(unless it exists in the Ital. desso), hie has succeeded
in maintaining itself only in the neuter reinforced form
ecce-hoc (French ce, Ital. ci6). Ipse succeeded in

TJie Definite Article. 197

establishing itself over a large territory, yet, even ipse
either shares its domain with ille, as in ancient times,
or takes on the special meaning of the Spanish eso1,
Ille therefore, which was the first pronoun to claim
the place of the determinative, maintained its pre-
dominence from first to last.

In the cases just discussed the substantive use of
the pronouns prevailed. The peculiarities they show
in their development as adjectives are not less inter-
esting. They all, with the possible exception of iste,
tend to deteriorate to mere definite articles. The fol-
lowing paragraphs are nothing more than a few notes
on the various aspects of the problem. A full discus-
sion would necessitate an extensive study of the his-
tory of the definite article in other branches of the
Indo-European languages; and I have not time at
present to undertake such a study.

'Since writing this, I have received the Arcliivio Glottologico
Italiano XV,;,, on pp. 303-316 of which Ascoli discusses the rela-
tion of the modern derivatives from ipse to their classical proto-
type. On p. 306 he affirms that the expression 'kku-epso (he
thus writes it to avoid committing himself either to original
eccnm-ipsnin or atque-ipsum), not only in the Spanish eso, but in
I the Romance territory in which it occurs, is used as a
pronoun of the second person ("ha .seinpre quella fun/ioiie die
ii set-undo persona', cioe di codesto").
• this affirmation, which is of far reach-
without more specific proof than Ascoli brings
: of the literature that makes up our
: mation on these jmpular idioms, is such that one
great danger of being misled in forming conclusions ou
such a point as this.

0 note with much r incut on p. 314 : I,n

•Cars. W e pure nel sen so. bench."-

attenuato. ::ie d'ides:1

198 The Latin Pronoims.

The use of ille as a definite article has long been
recognized and attention has frequently been called to
such constructions as Medea ilia (= y Mijdeta), which
is also extended to appellatives (cf. Nepos, Arist. 1,2
testula ilia and the accepted reading of Tac. Germ.
14,1 if. cited above, p. 107), ille alter (as old as Plau-
tus), ille octauus, etc., ille + a substantivized partici-
ple (cf. Hor. Sat. 1,1,115 — a passage that offers a
clearer instance of ille = article than illis quaesitis in
Hor. Sat. i,i,37f.)i a"d citations by the score, begin-
ning with the locus classicus Cic. Aratea, apud De Nat.
Deor. 2,114, might be adduced in which ille, in Latin
translations of Greek writings, stands as an equivalent
of the Greek article.

As was stated in chapter I, is was the weakest in
meaning of the six pronouns under discussion, and in
fact differed in many instances but very slightly from
the use of the definite article in the modern English
and German languages. This is true in particular of

such sentences as Cic. Lael. 2 memini .... in eum

sermonem ilium (sc. Scaeuolam) incidere, qui turn fere
multis erat in ore, ' I remember that Scaevola men-
tioned the subject that was. . . .on the lips of every-
one.' The demonstrative force here retained by eum
can be no stronger than would be expressed by an
attenuated English "that," should we substitute it for
"the" in the above translation. It particularizes the
substantive and points it out as one that is to be
further defined immediately. By doing so it serves
the function of a definite article. The construction is
not so common as one might at first be inclined to sup-
pose. There are only about half a dozen instances in

Hie and the Definite Article. 199

Cicero's Laelius. The examples in Tacitus are mostly
found in the Dialogue on Oratory1.

It naturally follows from the above, that when ille
began to take the place of is, it also took on the func-
tion of the article in such sentences as the above.
The change was going on in the first century of the
empire, as the works of Seneca the Younger testify.

Hie seems not to have been very extensively used
in this weakened sense. Expressions like L,upercal
hoc .... ludicrum L,iv. 1,5,1, and nuptialem hanc uocem
Liv. 1,9,12 correspond to the type Medea ilia, but are
of comparatively infrequent occurrence. In the two
examples just cited, there is no particular contrast
implied in hoc, and I should be disinclined to assume
a strong demonstrative force for the word, although
it unquestionably retains clear traces of its normal
meaning.

Two further questions concerning the use of hie as
an article must be mentioned here. They both have
their origin in the use of hie as a substitute for or, ^,
TO, etc. In the one case hie is found in Latin transla-
tions of Greek writings, where the Greek text shows

Article; in the other case hie is used by Roman

::marians in paradigms, where in the Greek para-
- the definite article is employed.

•:ce the publication of Kaulen's Handbuch

der Vul^ata, Main/., iSjoU/ the attention of

-:ially been called to the use of

forms of hie, representing irtide, in various

'For is- '.rtich- sc" .iK«> k<mM-li, It.ila und Vul-

gata: das Sprarhidiom drr I 'rrhristliclu-n It.ila und drr k.itho-
tdition, M.iihurtf, 1075, p. 423.

2oo The Latin Pronouns.

early Latin translations of the Scriptures. Hermann
Ronsch has shown himself more industrious than
others in the collection of such examples. In his
Itala und Vulgata, pp. 420-422, under the rubric
"Artikelgebrauch von hie,'" he has printed a long list;
and in his Semasiologische Beitrage zum lateinischen
Worterbuch, zweites Heft, Leipzig, 1888, p. 17, under
the lemma "hie = Artikel," he supplements the
earlier list by twelve further examples. The form of
the rubric he employs certainly implies that he supposes
hie not to be simply a Latin substitute for the Greek
article, but its equivalent in meaning. Kaulen /. c.
plainly says, hie und is haben in manchen Stellen
schon ihren deiktischen Charakter verloren und sind
zu blossen Artikelbezeichnungen geworden .... Fur-
thermore, since Rttnsch in his later book uses the sign
of equality in the sense of "means" (cf. p. 16 "haben-
tia = ea quae habentur" and "gracilis = fein, diinn"),
we must conclude that he had not changed his views
on the subject in the interim between the publication
of the two books. I must confess, however, to grave
doubts of the correctness of his judgment on this
point, for the following reasons:

Rttnsch has himself so arranged his citations that a
moment's examination of them reveals the fact that
sixty-eight out of his ninety- three examples, i. e.,
about three-fourths of the entire number, present,
under one form or another, the locution hie mundus
(corresponding to the Greek 6 *off/i«s) . Now no one
who has read the Latin Patristic literature extensively
can have failed to note the very frequent occurrence of
this expression. The contrast between the present

Hie and the Definite Article. 201

world and the future life had become a part and parcel
of the religious experience of the early Christian.
The Church Fathers continually dwell upon this con-
trast, and hie mundus, or still stronger iste mundus
(cf. supra, p. 125), which clearly expresses this con-
trast, was as familiar to their ears as is "this world"
to those of the modern divine. In fact, hie had be-
come a standing epithet of mundus, and while not so
inseparably bound up with its substantive as hoc was
in the word hodie, and as hanc afterward came to be
in the expression ad hanc horam, from which the Ital-
ian ancora is derived, hie was nevertheless intimately
associated with it. We shall accordingly be justified
in assuming that in translating 6 x6ffjjLo<; the ancients
were influenced rather by a natural tendency to reduce
every mention of the word mundus to the traditional
form hie mundus, rather than by any desire to give an
exact semasiological equivalent of the Greek article.
In short, the mere existence of hie in this expression,
in which it implies a contrast, removes it in meaning
from the sphere of the article.

Let u> now examine the remaining twenty-five
instances cited by R<"nseh.

Tlie citations 2 Cor. 7,10 huius saeculi (cod. h),

2 Cor. 5,1 huius habitations (codd. h. IWrn. Amia-

timis. Toletanusj and 2 Mace. 7,9 apud. Cyprian, Ad

iinatum 11 liac prae^enti uita. fall into the same

jury with hie muiulus, although it must frankly

be admitted that the addition of praesenti in the last

case i^ indicative of some weakening in the force of hie

as a near demonstrative. Yet it lia> not become sim-

: tide, In If it had, we should

28

202 The Latin Pronouns.

expect now and then to meet ouroq 6 x6ff/j.os in the un-
heard of Latin garb iste hie mundus.1

In Luc. 17,17 hi decem (cod. e, according to
Ronsch; — he should have added: a,b, c, d, f 2, i,q, s;
cod. D reads owrwf, for «5r«i). The occurence of hi in
so many different versions forces the conclusion that it
is due to the existence of a «5r«« in the Greek text,
although only cod. D cum man. sec. and codd. All show
it now, and although it may have arisen from a mis-
understanding of ou% <>t in the original text.

In the citation from Apoc. 20,6, apud Primasius,
Commentum in Apoc., in hac prima resurrectione, it is
clear that the Greek phrase awny y dvaVra/rt? y it/>wTij in
§ 5 immediately preceding the Latin phrase cited, led
to the insertion of the pronoun hac. Whether it was
intentional on the part of the translator, or was due to
a confusion of the two phrases either in his mind or
that of a later copyist, is a matter of indifference.

It was likewise no desire to give an exact render-
ing of the Greek article, that influenced the makers of
the translations of Phil. 3,16 contained in codd. Boern.
and h and the translator of Barnabas, Kpist. 4,5 to use
forms of hie in translating forms of TO aoro by hoc
ipsum. This phrase, running side by side with id
ipsum, and bearing the meaning of idem, was a stereo-
typed expression like hie mundus (cf. supra p. 167).
Certainly the uetus interpretator of the letter of Bar-
nabas did not intend hoc to stand as an equivalent
for TO in the passage cited, as is shown by the circum-

1 This statement may be venturesome, since our manuscripts
would in such cases probably show istic or isthic (cf. supra p.

Hie and the Definite Article. 203

stance that no where else in his translation does hie
represent o, rly TO, etc. To be sure the phrase hi qui
occurs twice in chap. 8, where it must be regarded,
however, as an orthographical variant for ii qui1, and
in a few cases, e.g., 1,5; 2,1; 2,4; 5,5; 9,5 (hoc est);
10,4; 10,7 (hoc est); 10,11 (hoc est); 12,3; 13,2; 15,6;
it is inserted in the Latin translation2, where the
Latin idiom requires it, although there is no corre-
sponding expression in the Greek text. Yet it nor-
mally3 translates «wr«?* or rd^s6. Hie certainly retains
in this work some traces of its classical force. Other-
we should not find huius temporis6, instead of
htiius nunc temporis, representing r«D vov xatpou in 4,1;
nor would haec sabbata in 15,8 represent rd vov ffdft-
". In view of all this it is extremely improbable,
that, while scores of opportunities for translating the
article by hie occur in the letter, the translator should
have availed himself of only one of these.

Four further passages mentioned by Ronsch (Mich.
1,13; 7,20 huic lacob; Hos. 2,8; Psalm 96,1) show
hie t>efore an indeclinable proper name, where it serves
to indicate the grammatical case and gender of the
substantive: while in 7,20 huic Abrahae follows the
analogy of huic lacob that immediately prececl>

hoc nunc (Greek, dno rou vDv) occurs four times

1 Nir rallels iiii^ht he cited (cf. su/>ra pp. 23-25).

lally tlu- forms hoc or haec.
'There are forty-five instances.

}>y istr in only one passage, 10,4.
oils from the Scrip:
*t/. I. ivy i.?C>.2 nona haec ina^nificentia.

•rr^]x>n«N o(l<H- to Kt'imirni (i.e.

Im*fo,

2O4 The Latin Pronouns.

in the Verona Psalter.1 The hoc is here the result of
an attempt to get around the difficulty that the Rom-
ans found in using an adverb as the object of a prepo-
sition.

The phrase principes huius populi (for a^/ovre? TOO
Aaou) in Act. 4,8 seems to be a Biblical reminiscence
(cf. Isaiah 1,10 apud Barnabas, Epist. 9,3 principes p.
h. = ap%. r. A. r.; Dent. 4,1 in op. cit. 10,2; Jer. 2,12
in op. cit. 11,2 p. hie = & -*. OUT«?.

Of the remaining nine out of the ninety-three
cases, four show some form of hie applied to an actu-
ally existing, material object, which is in the presence
of the speaker and to which he directs the attention of
his listeners. All four passages are direct discourse;
and in all, the context permits the interpretation of hie
in its classical sense, or even with deictic force.

The remaining five passages are Mich. 1,13 huic
filiae(?) (cod. Fuldensis), in which the text is doubt-
ful; 3 Ksdr. 8,15 (should be 33?); Act. 4,37, in which
there seems to be most justification for taking hie as
an article; 11,22, where hie maybe interpreted as a
resumptive "this," and is closely paralleled by Livy
1,21,4 ad id sacrarium, for ad eius or huius sacraritim;
and Act. 19,23.

So RUnsch's ninety- three examples of "hie ~ Ar-
tikel" reduce themselves to at most five, and even
these are not beyond question.

I have gone into this detailed discussion of the sub-
ject, in order to point out, first that we must not

lThe references are 113,18; 120,8; 124,2; 130,3. In the
Vulgate also it represents the same Greek phrase in Psalm. 112,
2, a passage overlooked by Ronsch.

Iste aud the Definite Article. ' 205

only be very careful in our use of the evidence afforded
by these early translations, but that we must accu-
rately distinguish between the use of a Latin word as
a substitute for a Greek word and as a semasiological
equivalent of it; and secondly that in the present case
the evidence that the translations offer for the use of
hie as an article is very scanty.

As to the second question mentioned above, we
cannot regard the technical use of hie in paradigms,
as in any sense indicative of a weakening in the
force of hie, much less as proving it to be synony-
mous with the definite article. If any arguments
were necessary to establish so patent a truth, we might
refer to the fact that its occurrence in Varro, De
Ling. Lat. 8,22 and 9,52 implies its use at an earlier
date, when hie certainly retained its full force as a
near demonstrative. It is in no sense a definite arti-
cle, but merely a convenient device for indicating
the gender and case of a word.

If hie was seldom used as a definite article, it natu-
rally follows that iste was even more rarely so used;
because-, as we have seen above (see chap. Ill), iste
had a much stronger demonstrative force than did hie,
and naturally came to take the place of the latter.
Consequently the use of iste as an article, if it was
so used, must have occurred long after hie sank
to that stage. We find this view fully confirmed by
the evidence of the texts. I have found only three
instances of the use of iste in Latin translations rep-

•iting the Or. i first is found in

tlie \\TMO Palatina of the Pastor Hennae. Sim. 0,14,2

r in Luthan: 'hr. f. kirch.

vtuv

206 The Latin Pronouns.

Wiss. 1885, p. 98) where the Greek reads

TWV yuvatxcov aTtoftdMwffi rd £pYa, T^v $? TtapOiv

TTJV 8uva/jLtvt the Versio Palatina reads si abiecerint
omnia opera mulierum illarum, et istarum uirginum
resumpserint potentiam; the Versio Vulgata, however,
reads just the same, except that it substitutes potesta-
tem for potentiam, and harum for istarum. Plainly
both these translators were led to use the near demon-
stratives harum and istarum1 by a desire to contrast
mulierum, the women who personify pleasure and sin,
with uirginum, who personify the potestates filii Dei.
He refers to the former by illarum, since they are
remote from his sympathies. The second passage is
Pastor Hermae, Vis. 3,3,1 ri iffrtv rd Tr/od^aro/ Pala-
tina, quae sint res istae ? ; Vulgata, quae sunt hae res ?
Hae and istae were written here under the influence of
the preceding haec, and refer to objects near the
speaker. But they were certainly very weak, even
though they retain traces of a stronger meaning. In
Ignatius, Epist. ad Tarsenses ex Philippis i iniquo-
rum istorum^roiv detvwv; but istorum implies contempt.

These three passages cannot justify us in assuming
that iste was very largely used as an article. Its use
in modern Spanish with the meaning "this," also
makes this view improbable.

We now turn to the consideration of idem as a
definite article. It was .pointed out above (pp. 196,
193) that is served sometimes as a definite article and
that idem was weakened in meaning until it became
practically synonymous with is. The use of both is
and idem an article is shown by the nineteen cases

1 Istarum is, of course, used here in the sense of harum.

Idem as Definite Article, 207

in which they represent the Greek article in the Latin
translations of the Pastor Hennae. All but four of
these passages are found in the ninth Parable; two are
in the eighth and two in the fifth. Both the Palatine
and the Vulgate translation of the Pastor show the
usage, eleven cases falling to the former. The in-
stance in Sim. 5,6,5 is especially noteworthy. The

Greek text reads O.UTTJ y 0"«/>^, & % xaTtaxTjffs TO TrveD/za TO

6. xoXireoffaiJ.ivrfV oZv ouv auri^v xaA&t; xdl dyvws xai
cdffaffav rw TTVE (j[j.art. The Versio Palatina
translates: hoc ergo corpus, in quo deductus est spi-
ritus sanctus, paruit eidem spiritui ..... nee omnino
eundem spiritum maculauit. 6. unde cum idem cor-
pus recte atque caste eidem spiritui paruisset ....
The Versio Vulgata has : hoc ergo corpus, in quo
deductus est spiritus sanctus, seruiuit ei || sic cod. V;
illi ed. pr. Cott. Dress. || spiritui.. .., neque omnino
maculauit spiritum ilium, cum igitur corpus hoc
paruisset omni tempore recte atque caste .... Note
the alternation of forms of is and ille with eundem.
In this way idem in the Palatina corresponds to
: ille of the Vulgata in 8,1,2; 9,6,3; 9,9,4; while
this relation of Palatina and Vulgata is reversed in
9,7,7 and 9,n/> <in this section, ilia was printed in
ed. pr. of the Vulgata). In only one passage (9,9,4
in eodem campo that quoted above do both

tran^lati' v idem. In six passages, 8,2,8; 9,1,6;

9,2,3; 9,4,3; 9,10,2; 9,10,3; the Palatina has idem,
while ti; ! no attempt to render the

'her cases, 9,4,4; 9,7,4; 9,8,5; 9,11,6;
the • '! the two translations is reversed in this

208 The Latin Pronouns.

particular. In most of these passages it is clear that
idem not merely stands as a substitute for the definite
article, but is synonymous with it.

It is a well known fact that ipse developed into a
definite article in some parts of the territory of the
Romance languages (cf. Meyer-L,iibke, Gramm. der
roman. Sprachen II, 129 f).

The earliest positive evidence of the usage is found
in the translations of the Pastor Hermae:
(See following page.}

Ipsc = Definite Article.

209

'~J

11

i

a

2
1

1 i

efl

PH
t/)

"~" €

1

«

1

i

a

turris.

d

3

G

'a

§

ft

& a

*j rt
^ (y

g

1

3k

•

<A»

g

b

3-

P- V/i

15 -

fe

I

tr

g

|

o -x"

II

o

*g

1

Ol

*o

^>

% ?

o

a

J

-4->
•£

4-

. *

210

The Latin Pronouns.

3

.s

I

d

•"

ai8g|

<V t/l <U -^

rt 2

3 5

l!.s

§3*
Ssl

lll'Kl

'o

a « c in

§« s.a

g^^

a

s.

s

a

» •-•

5 -3

ud

l

* ta

a 2

•" «

S B

rt r^
,0 .^

- &

rt •/. —

3 is a

^^ (/) py^

3 | g

I §'s

S % 3

rt £li 'S

Ipse = Definite Article. 211

Hieronymus seems to have kept his translation free
from this remarkable construction. It is found, how-
ever, in the earlier translations both of the Septuagint
and of the New Testament. There are citations in
Ronsch, Itala und Vulgata p. 423 from 3 Esdras 8,15;
45>* 5°; 71; 92- In the Collectanea Philol., p. 186 (=
Z. f. 0. Gymn. 1877), the same scholar cites a passage
from the Acta S. Timothei p. 12,57 (ed- Usener, 1887)
ipsis quae diximus superportis (roFc ixtyepo pivots) palis
et lapidibus. I am convinced that in passages of this
kind, in which the Greek definite article followed by a
participle is rendered into Latin, the Romans must
have felt the ipse as rather nearer in meaning to is
than to the article. It was their almost invariable
practice to render 6 -f- participle by is .... qui .... or by
ille. . . .qui. . . . In Ignatius, Epist. ad Phil, (inter-
polate) 4 ipse omnia euocans et mouens, representing
6 Trdvra xalwv xtvtiv, the use of ipse is justified by its
antecedent. In the interpretatio uetus of the Epistle
of Barnabas there is no example.

Commodian, Apol. 657 reads

In nuptiis fucrat inuitatus matre cum ipsa.
IK ix- Dombart <;•/</. Index, s. v.) takes ipse "pro
articulo." Yet we may well doubt whether ipsa is
not here justified by the frequency with which it is
used by children to designate their parents. In like
manner, Arnobius, Ad Nat. 1,2, f. ib reruin ipsa quae
dicitur apj>ellaturqiie natura, seems to be an equivalent
to y • <s'>«'.;. and may perhaps be explained like

the passage from the Acta S. Timothei.

In Lactantius' De Opificio Dei i]»i- i^ repeatedly
used in describing the stnu-tuiv of the- human body

212 The Latin Pronouns.

with an extremely weak force, and seems closely to
approximate the definite article in meaning.

Pompeius, the Grammarian, who shows so many
peculiarities in the use of the pronouns, offers us a
curious passage p. i33,27(K) si dicas, "Tityre maxi-
me," T. m. duo sunt dactyli, ecce nihil superest. sed
ipsi pedes finiunt ipsam elocutionem. Similarly Plan-
ciades Fulgentius, Mitol. 3,9 (p. 76,8) uox uero habet
gradus symphoniarum innumeros, quantum natura
donauerit ipsam uocem ut habeat arsis et thesis quas
nos Latine. Further see Placitus, De Medicinis ex
Animal. 2,5; 17,14.

Meyer- Liibke finds traces of the use of ipse as an
article not only in Sardinia (cf. Beger, L,atein. und
Roman. Berlin, 1863, pp. 51. 54), but also in the
Balearic Islands (Mallorca) and on both sides of the
Pyrenees (Ampurdan and Gascogne). We may con-
clude, by viewing Meyer-L,iibke' s statement in con-
nection with the occurrence of the usage in the west-
Aquitanian Itinerarium Burdigalense and the Pere-
grinatio Sanctae Siluiae from southern Gaul, that ipse
= ^ obtained a fairly firm footing in southern Gaul,
quite a little further to the eastward. Furthermore
two documents in the Bibliotheque Nationale (one
from the year 679-80 and the other a document of
Pepin's time from Aubin, district of Telle, dated 750)
bear witness to the existence of the usage farther
north. Hilary of Poitiers, although having ipse =
idem, does not seem to know the usage, perhaps be-
cause he made efforts to keep his style closer to the
classical usage, which his early training in Rhetoric
would naturally lead him to do.

Summary. 213

If now we put together all the changes here treated,
and such others as I myself or others have noted, but
which are for various reasons not discussed fully in
this book, we obtain the following general view:

is (demonstrative) > talis

> is (determinative)

> definite article

> obsolete1

Is was replaced by ille, hie and ipse; also, but less
extensively, by idem, and occasionally by iste.

ille > talis

> is (determinative)

> definite article

As a demonstrative ille was replaced by the com-
pounds eccum-illum ( — Italian quello) , ecce-ille
(— French eel), which were themselves further rein-
forced by [il]la[c]; cf. Engl. "that there."

idem > item

> is (determinative)

> obsolete

Idem was reinforced or replaced by the expressions

hie idem (which for phonetic reasons could not long

have maintained itself in the nom. pi. masc and fem.),

idem, ille idem; is ipse (especially in the form id

:m), hie ipse, iste ipse (and later istuin ipstim,

which yielded the Italian stesso), idem ipse (which,

according to Dietz yielded Italian desso, also explained

1 This means that as a free and independent word it passed
out of use.

214 ^^ Latin Pronouns.

as id ipsum), ille ipse; ipsissimus, met-ipsismus (=
French meme).

hie > talis

> is (determinative)

> definite article

> obsolete

Hie in its pronominal use was replaced mainly by
iste, which still remains in Spanish; ecce-hoc (= French
ce, which has itself so far depreciated in meaning that
it is reinforced by both ci < ecce-hic and la < iliac)
and eccum istum, from which is derived Italian questo,
which is itself sometimes reinforced by qui < ecce hie.

iste > talis

> ille

> hie (demonstrative) > hie (determinative)

= is (determinative)

> (?) definite article

Iste as deuTEpdrptrov was replaced by eccum-ti(for tibi)-
istum, Italian codesto; and, if the statement of Ascoli
cited above, is correct, by ipsa, ipso (for ipsum). As
•Kpotrdrptrov it was replaced by ecce-iste (French cette)
and eccum-istum (Italian questo).

ipse > idem (expressing identity)

> ille or is (determinative)

> definite article

> obsolete (in some localities)

Ipse was replaced by the compounds id ipsum, etc.,
met-ipsimus.

The changes discussed in this book are frequently,
if not usually, designated in scientific works by such
expressions as "confusions of meaning," "barbar-

Conclusion. 215

isms" and " Verwilderung," terms which are mislead-
ing, inexact and obscure. Such terms imply, more-
over, that the person who uses them has either con-
sciously or unconsciously assumed that there is a fixed
standard of usage in language. It may seem to some
scholars that a protest against this careless use of
words, is a work of supererogation. Not at all so;
because the very use of such expressions implies that
the classical consciousness is not yet entirely emanci-
pated from false notions respecting the superiority of
Ciceronian Latin and the "corruptions" of later Latin,
notions that have been rife since the days of Lauren-
tius Valla's De Linguae Latinae Elegantiis, and even
earlier. Many are still seeking for a "standard of
usage" suited, for example, to students of Latin prose
composition.

I must protest against the use of the phrases ' 'con-
fusion of meaning," "Verwilderung," etc., to desig-
nate such changes as ille > is, iste > hie > is, and
others; and I may make my position clear by one or
two illustrations. Take the sentence from Tertul-
lian, De Spectac. 21 sic ergo euenit, ut qui in publico
nix. . . .tunicam leuet, idem in circo. . . .exuet; ut et
qui <• . . . . , et qui . . . . , idem .... No reason-

able person would suppose that, when Tertullian com-
posed these lines, there- existed in his mind any confu-
to the respective meanings of ipse and idem,
:ii would arise in the mind of an English

kin^ person on reading the paraphrase: 'The

man who on the street would scarcely remove his

would do so without hesitation in the circus; and

t h e v e r y \ while h e who . . . . '

2i 6 The Latin Pronouns.

Tertullian had occasion to express the idea of identity
in three successive coordinate and symmetrical sen-
tences, and he chose to employ two different words to
express that idea. Their very difference, as he appre-
ciated their meanings, was doubtless the factor that
determined his choice. The other parallel sentences
cited on p. 173 supra should be explained in the same
way. On the contrary, cases in which a foreigner,
with only an imperfect acquaintance with the Latin
tongue, employs a word a la Mrs. Partington, must, of
course, be viewed in an entirely different light. Yet
even such instances have usually a very great scientific
value.

Accordingly it is to be understood, that when the
expressions "synonymous," "of the same meaning,"
etc., are employed, in this volume, they are used in the
sense of the preceding paragraph; and that due allow-
ance must always be made for chronological, local and
individual peculiarities. In addition to these, possible
influences of a writer's sources must be weighed. In
the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh centuries in par-
ticular, when originality of thought was so rare in the
Roman empire, the writers of books were much given
to making ad I it t cram excerpts from earlier works, and
have frequently incorporated into their own produc-
tions idioms of extraneous origin. Where such an
influence has not been operative, that is to say, where
an author uses two words as does Tertullian in the
passage cited, there invariably exist differences in the
elements composing the groups of ideas to which the
words respectively correspond, although, at the same
time they have important elements in common.

Conclusion . 217

In conclusion I must make one further point clear.
The shifting in meaning that we observe words to
have undergone is, as we know, in every case the
result of a cumulative series of unconscious and im-
perceptible deviations from a former meaning; or to
speak more exactly, each time a word is employed it
becomes really a new word, the old disappearing in
the new. Accordingly it becomes a matter of prime
importance in studying the nature of changes in mean-
ing, that we should direct our attention especially to
the minutest perceptible gradations of meaning, citing
such passages as illustrate them most clearly. Such
stages form, so to speak, "connecting links" between
the earlier and the later meanings.1 From this point
of view, it is more important that we should study
these minute gradations attentively than that we
should emphasize unduly the differences that exist
between two widely separated stages. Yet, since it
has been my purpose, throughout this book to prove
the existence of distinctly marked new meanings of
the pronouns, rather than to show how such meanings
have come into existence, my method of presentation
has often more closely resembled the lexicographical,
which aims to show that certain distinctly differing
mea- dst, rather than the semasiological, which

to show how such meanings arise.

*C/. Stockk-in. ncclciitiuitfswuiKk-l der Worter, Munclu-n,
1898.

SOURCES.

The following Greek and Latin texts have been used in the
preparation of this work. The editions followed in making
citations are for the most part those used in the preparation of
the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, a complete list of which is
printed in Vol. I,i of that work (Leipzig, 1900). The excep-
tions are indicated in the following list by the addition of the
editor's name. If the author's name is followed by no mention
of his works, it is to be understood that his entire extant works
are represented. Thoroughly reliable complete indices and
lexica have been largely depended upon for those authors (indi-
cated by an asterisk1) where such exist; but even in such cases
larger or smaller parts of the given author's writings have been
read in addition.

Plautus ( cf. supra p. 36). Terence, ed. Fleckeisen, 1897.
*Scaenicae Romanorum Poesis Fragmenta. *Ennius. *Uete-
rum Historicorum Romanoruni Fragmenta, 1870 and 1883 .*Cato,
De Agricultura, ed. Keil, 1882. *Rhetorica ad Herennium.
Cicero, *orations, ed. Miiller, 1894, 1896, 1898; *philosophical
works, ed. Miiller, 1889, 1898, 1898; Brutus and De Oratore I,
ed. Friedrich, 1893; and the letters, ed. Miiller- Wesenburg,
1896, 1895. *Caesar. * Pseudo-Caesar. Nepos, ed. Halm, 1871.
Sallust, ed. Jordan, 1887. Varro, Res Rusticae, ed. Keil, 1884.
Catullus. Lucretius, B'ks. 1,2,3,6, ed. Munro, 1893. Livy, ed.
Weissenborn-Muller, 1888-1892. *Vitruvius. Seneca. Vale-
rius Maximus, Velleius Paterculus, ed. Ellis, 1898. Celsus,
1-2,1. *Tibullus. Propertius, ed. Rothstein, 1898. *Horace,
ed. Keller and Holder. Virgil, ed. Ribbeck, 1894, 1895. Ovid,
Ibis, ed. Ellis, 1881; other works ed. Merkel-Ehwald, 2d edi-
tion. Manilius, ed. lacob, 1846. Frontinus, Strategemata,

lAll other indices, e. g., FriedlSnder to Juvenal and Martial, and Korn
to Ex. Ponto, etc., have been found incomplete.

Sources. 219

. i and 3. Frontinus Gromaticus. Curtius, ed.

1897. Persius, ed. Conington-Nettleship, 3d ed., 1893. Seneca,

Dial. i-io. Pliny, Nat. Hist. 2,3,6-15, 23-30. Pliny the

Younger, ed. Keil, 1886. Tacitus, ed. Miiller, 1890. Fronto,

• , 1867. Apuleius, Metamorphoses, i-io; Apologia, in

part, ed. Van dor Vliet. Florus. Suetonius. Aulus Gellius.

Justin. Lucan, ed. Francken, 1897. Statius, Siluae, ed. Voll-

inor. 1898; Theb. and Achil. as in Thesaurus, L,. L. Silius,

1-10,17. Martial, 1-7 read, ed. Friedliinder, 1886. Juvenal,

es 2,6,9 ed. Biicheler, lS93'» Sat. 1,3-5,7,8,10-16, ed. Mayor,

1888,1893. Censorinus, De Die Natali. Scriptores Historiae

Au trustee. Eutropius. Auctor De Uiris Illustrious, Tauchnitz.

'.ins \"ictor, Origo, ed. Sepp. Declaraatio in Catilinam.

nus I'rbicus. Balbus. Hyginus. Siculus Flaccus. Dares.

•s, 1-3. Pompeius Grammaticus, 108 pages. Ammianus

Marcellinus, 1-6. Macrobius, Saturnalia 1-5; Soraniura Scipio-

nis pp. 476-526. Boethius, De Consolatione Philosophiae. His-

toria Apollonii Regis Tyri. Scholia Terentiana, ed. Schlee,

1893. Poetee Latini Minores Vols. 111,1V.

Of the Patristic writers the following, (all1 in the Corpus

Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Romanorum Vindobonense) : Mi-

nucius Felix. Tertullian. Cyprian, 1,2,4-13; Epistulae 1-43.

prian pp. 283-325. Commodian. Arnobius 1-4.

Lucius Caecilius, De Mortibus Persecutorum. Finnicus Mater-

istine, Kpistulae 1-31. Sulpicius Severus. Priscil-

Fulgenti: Helm. Alcimus Avitus, ed. Peiper, 1883

(= Mon. Germ. Histor., Auct. Ant. VI, 2) opera 2 32, and fr. VI,

; >mil. Libris. Itinera Hierosolyinitana Vol. I. Kugippus,

rini. Translations of Greek writings: Barnabas and

Ilarnack Zabn, 1^75, 1876. demons

bOC Ilonnao (Vulgata ed. Hil-

; -73, and Palatin a r-1. C,i -l)har.lt Ilarnack, 1877). Ire-
3, 1 1 ion my mi (all of Matthew

and parts of the other Gospels h ully compaivd

with tin- < . Mial and the texts of the Ante-IIieronymian

tnnslatif Colhertinus (c), Sangalle-

172 and bib. Vadiana 70 (n, o, p), Ambi Bernen

-pt at otherwise noted.

220 The Latin Pronouns.

Vindobonensis 502 (v) . This list of versions is concluded on
p. 139. I have used the following versions only in so far as
they are incompletely accessible in Sabbatier's citations: Cor-
beienses (f1, f2), Sangermanenses (g1, g2), Augustine's Speculum
has also been made use of to some extent. The Uersio Authen-
tica of Justinian's Novellae Constitutiones I-XX has also been
compared with the Greek original.

The following writers have been read in larger or smaller
selections: Varro, De Lingua Latina. Petronius. Valerius Flac-
cus, ed. Langen, 1896. Gaius, ed. Huschke, 1886. Porphyrio in
Horatium. Boethius, De Musica; [De Arithmetica] . The fol-
lowing Patristic writers in the C. S. E. R.1: Lactantius, Institu-
tiones. Novation. Ambrosius. Hieronymus (Migne). Rufinus.
Prudentius. Paulinus of Nola. Optatus. Filastrius. Ruricus.
Faustus. Corippus, ed. ParLsch, 1879 (— Mon. Ger. Hist., Auc.
Ant. III). Augustine, uaria. Hilarian, Tractatus in Psalmos.
Pelagius. Orosius. Vicentius. Prosper. Merobaudes (Migne).
Salvianus. Claudian, ed. Birt., 1892 (= Mon. Ger. Hist., Auc.
Ant. X) Victor Vitensis. Fortunatus. Idacius (Migne). En-
nodius, ed. Vogel, 1885 (= Mon. Ger. Hist., Auc. Ant. VII).
Isidore (Migne).

I trust that I have overlooked no modern authority of
importance. I have been greatly helped in the collection of
my material by the citations illustrating the use of the pronouns
to be found in the appropriate sections of various monographs
on the Latinity of particular writers. No list of these is here
given, since they may be found in Schmalz's Lateinische Syn-
tax, especially pp. 202-213. The more important receive par-
ticular mention in their appropriate connection in the body of
this work.

Except as otherwise noted.

ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA.

p. 24, 1. 30. Cicero, Tusc. Dis. 3,28, quotes Enn.
Fab. 204 ei rei sustuli; but Seneca, De Consol. 9,30,
following the natural tendencies of his period, alters it
to huic rei sustuli.

p. 38, 1. 6. The position of hoc in L,ucr. 3,531
does not favor Munro's conjecture.

p. 41, 1. 26. In Gellius 11,9,1 cod. B omits the
explanatory sentence in which eo stands.

p. 44, 1. 17. Read-. Non eo || ego cod. C || haec.

p. 45, 1. 12. Read-. 3,4,7/> || nos eo cod. E-, non eo
modocodd. H P H C; non in eo modo cod. B || ; in

p. 45, 1. 13. In Nepos, Chab. 1,2 Fleckeisen, keep-
ing the MSS. reading ducem, supplies eo frustratus est
quod after cateruis.

p. 57, 1. 16. Read-, instances besides 101 and 102,
where Biicheler does not adopt it, (see

p. 65, 1. 3. Read-. 9 extr. (This passage is by some
regarded as spurious); 22,8;

p. 68, 1. 2. Read-. 5,16,2 ad hoc Veientique ||
:iti quoque codd. recc. ct cdd . pleraequc ||. So also
in 1. 25.

p. 71, 1. 21. Read-, expeditions (Kami's correc-
tion to ad iter expeditiores is accepted by Kiibler), and

pp. 74/. To the instances of obid in L,ivy add:
42,5,4; 45,16,6; 23,19; 24,3; to those of ob haec add:

10,15. Hyginus,

222 Addenda and Corrigenda.

Fab., has ob id 21 times, ob hoc 4 times. To the in-
stances of ob hoc from Pliny, Kpist. add 1,10,11 and
8,22,3. See Reissinger, op. tit., part II.

p. 81, 1. 5. Read\ hanc; illam.. ..hanc: haec,

92, 1. 10. Read-, teterrima; L,ivy 7,34,9 (signa
uertunt); Sail.

p. 122, 1. 28. Read-, istas || ista ami. Guyetus ||

p. 128, 1. 20. Read: 23,1-2 huic homini; 25,1
huius uiri; 2;

p. 183, 1. 8. Read: stands Spain (Isidore) and

p. 1 88, 1. 6. Read:

O

to

O

•H

§ w

*I

3§

O

Q)

•8

0

s -

o

D
U-

O
ui

:

University of Toronto
Library

DO NOT

REMOVE

THE

CARD

FROM

THIS

POCKET

Al'MU- 1 li l

-MAKTIN CO. 1 (Mini)