MORGAN. — ON THE LANGUAGE OF VITRUVIUS. 479 



To pass on to Ussing's next point : ' Is it accidental that, after the 

 fashion of more recent authors, Vitruvius frequently transcribes the simple 

 future by erit ut? e.g. 7, 10: erit ut uterque liberetur. 130, 27: ita 

 erit uti possit turris insuper aedificari ; 144, 9 : tunc erit ut . . . jiant. 

 Drager, Hist. Synt. 2, p. 267, quotes a similar example from Apuleius, 

 Met. 2, 3 : nunquam erit ut non apud te devertar.' — This observation is 

 drawn from Praun (p. 51), who cites two other cases (28, 9 : tantum erit 

 uti . . . habeant ; 92, 16: erit ut emendetitur), and remarks that Vitru- 

 vius has only twice used the classical (though rare) present tense est ut. 

 There is however an earlier occurrence of erit ut than that of Apuleius ; 

 cf. Rhet. ad Herenn. 4, 41 : Sed non erit, tamquam in plerisque, ut, cum 

 velimus ed (sc. exornatione) possimus uti. We have, therefore, no evi- 

 dence of ' the fashion of recent writers ' in the Vitruvian passages, par- 

 ticularly when we consider that Apuleius is the only ' recent writer ' cited 

 in this connection, and that his use of erit ut is negatived. So is the use 

 in the Rhet. ad Herenn., while the Vitruvian uses are all positive. But 

 while the present tense est ut is usual in periphrases, we also hayefuit ut, 

 Cic. Gael. 48, and why then should we be surprised at erit ut (not exactly 

 paralleled elsewhere) in a writer like Vitruvius? 



Ussing proceeds : ' With regard to the comparison of adjectives, we 

 often find the comparative unnecessarily emphasized : maxime facilius 

 (3, 23), maxime tutiores (22, 15), maxime utiliores (38, 15), quo magis 

 ex meliore vino parabitur (180, 22), potius digniores (134, 1). Compare 

 nimium penitus (211, 7). Similarly Lactant. Instit. 1, 21, 10: maxime 

 dulcior. Commodian, Apolog. 5 : plus levior. Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 

 2, 46, 5 : plus iusto inflatiorJ — Here we may begin by pointing out that 

 the example with potius (134, 1) is not like the others on account of the 

 following quam, the context reading thus : iudicant . . . ipsos potius 

 digniores esse ad suam voluntatem quam ad alienam pecuniae consumere 

 summam. With this cf. Nepos 9, 5, 2 : potius patriae opes augeri quam 

 regis maluit ; Cic. D. 0. 2, 300: cum quidem ei fuerit optabilius oblivisci 

 posse potius quod meminisse nollet quam quod semel audisset vidissetque 

 meminisse. Next for the example with magis we have early parallels 

 in Plautus (e. g. Capt. 644 ; Men. 978, and see Wolfflin, Comparation, 

 p. 46) ; in the classical period in the Bellum Africum, 48, 3 : magis 

 suspensiore animo ; 54, 5 : magis studiosiores, and in the time of the 

 Emperor Claudius in Pomponius Mela 2, 86 : magisque et magis latior. 

 For maxime with a comparative I know of no instances before very late 

 Latin, but it ought not to surprise us in Vitruvius, because, as Wolfflin 

 has remarked (p. 47, cf. 63 ff.) in the case of the example from Lactantius 



