170 Atistin Morris Harmon, 



a dactylic-trochaic cadence — they differ from one another only in the 

 number of trochees that follow the dactyl.^ The longer forms, in 

 consequence of this similarit}', might well be used out of responsion, 

 and the lack of it is certainly not a suflicient reason for expelling 

 them from our text. 



Coming now to the four cadences A, B, C and D, listed as irregular, 

 we may sum up their status in saying that the}^ were certainly 

 avoided by Ammianus and probably avoided altogether. 



None of these cadences is of such a sort as to be naturally un- 

 common. In a text in which no attention is paid to rhythm (there 

 are few, if any, such among the ancient authors, but a modern 

 writer of Latin will do for a test) all of them must needs occur 

 very frequently. But in Ammianus, taken all together, they are less 

 frequent in our text than the cadence IV, which would naturally 

 be very rare. This fact can only be interpreted as evincing a strong 

 disinclination on the part of Ammianus to employ these cadences. 

 It justifies us in the statement that his rhythm is as much charac- 

 terized in a negative way by their avoidance as it is in a positive 

 way by the abnormal frequency of the cadences I, 11 and III. 



Under these circumstances it is natural to draw the inference that 

 the cadences in question were avoided altogether, and that their 

 appearance in our text is to be attributed to corruption. And in 

 fact a study of the individual passages in which they occur makes 

 it evident that not one of the four cadences can be called valid 

 with any degree of certainty : on the contrary it is extremely prob- 

 able that they are each and all corrupt. To put the reader in 

 possession of sufficient evidence on this point I submit a full list of 

 the instances found in Book XXI and in my collection of sentence- 

 endings. ^ 



' Tims I pnndere veiiit = dactyl -|- trochee, III poudere cjrcum- 

 veiiit =^ dactyl -\- 2 trochees, V poiidere ci'rcumveniretur = dactj^l -|- 3 

 trochees; II pondere veniet = dactyl -\- 1^2 trochees (or dactyl-dactyl), 

 IV pondere circumveniet = dactyl -j- 2 7^ trochees (or dactyl -trochee- 

 dactyl), VI pondere circuravenientibus = dactyl -j- 3 '/a trochees (or 

 dactyl-trochee-trochee-dactyl). 



^ Cases from the former som-ce are cited in the order In which they 

 occur, with references to page and line of this treatise; those from the 

 latter are grouped according to the cadence represented, and the refer- 

 ences are to page and line of Gardthausen's edition. V = Vat. Lat. 1873, 

 of which all other existing codices are copies. 



