﻿136 ' THE AGE OF PETRONIUS ARBITER. 



Horat. Serm. 2. 3. 262: "Ne nunc, cum me vocet ultro, Accedam 1" and Pers. 5. 172: 

 " Quidnam igitur faciam"? ne nunc, cum accersat et ultro Supplicet, accedaml" both in 

 imitation of Ter. Eun. 1.1.4: "Exclusit; revocat. Redeam^ Non, si me obsecret." 

 Floi*. 3. 17: " Postremo Livius Urusus non tribunatus modo viribus sed ipsius etiam 

 senatus auctoritatc totiusque Italiae consensu easdem leges asserere conatus, dum aliud 

 captat ex alio, tantum conflavit incendium, ut ne prima illius flamma posset sustincri, et 

 subita morte correptus heieditarium in posteros sues bellum propagaret." Cic. de Fin. 1. 

 6. 19: "Quae cum res tota ficta sit puerUiter, turn ne efficit,* quod vult." Besides the 

 uncertainty of the text in many of these passages, it should be borne in mind that, even 

 in those in which the text is not questioned, the interpretation differs. Some explain 

 them by the omission of " quidem." Ruhnken takes this ground in his edition of 

 Rutilius Lupus (Lugd. Bat. 1768). Hand, in his excellent work, TiirseUhms sen de 

 ParticuUs Latinis Conwientarii (Vol. IV. p. 69), seems inclined to take the other view, 

 that in all these passages " ne " is used in an emphatic sense, and does not, therefore, 

 requii-e the addition of " quidem." The latter view is favored by a passage in Quiu- 

 tilian (1. 5. 38). Speaking of solecism, he goes on to say : " Per quot autem et quas 

 accidat species, non satis convenit. Qui plenissime, quadripertitam volunt esse rationem, 

 nee aliam quam barbarismi, ut fiat adjectione, ut Veni de Susis in Alexandriam : detrac- 

 tione, Ambulo viam, Aegypto venio, Ne hoc fecit : transmutatione, qua ordo turbatur, 

 Quoque ego, Enim hoc voluit, Autem non habuit." From this passage it would appear 

 that Quintilian considered the expression " ne hoc fecit" for "ne hoc quidem fecit," 

 a solecism. But strange to say, Quintilian himself is charged with this solecism, if it 

 be a solecism. Cf. 1. 12. 14: " Xam nee ego consumi studcntem in his artibus volo," 

 where some of the best manuscripts and editions (Cod. Goth, and Edit. Venet. 1494) 

 read"ne"; 6. 1. 47: " Ita neque ilium probaverim, qui inter clarissimos sui temporis 

 oratores fuit," where the Edit. Venet. has "ne"; 1. 2. 7: "Verba ne Alexandrinis qui- 

 dem permittenda deliciis risu et osculo excipimus," where there is another reading, " ne 

 Alexandrinis permittenda," without "quidem"; 2. 17. 27: "Quorum neutrum est 

 turpe, cum ex bona ratione proficiscitur : ideoque nee vitium," where some read " ne 

 vitium." The weight of evidence is, however, against this charge.f Without attempt- 

 be correct. This being the case, Hand {Tursell. Vol. IV. p. 71) has recourse to an interpretation of the 

 passage which I cannot admit; he says that " ne emisses" is not the apodosis of the sentence, but that the 

 apodosis begins with " sumpsisses," and takes "ne emisses" in the sense of " in order not to purchase." 

 If this were the idea of Cicero, he would have said " ne emeres," instead of " ne emisses." 



* Orelli reads, " ne efficit quidem." 



t But even if this charge of inconsistency had been made out, it would not be the only one of its kind. 

 It is not uncommon for men, even intelligent men, to be drawn, by the course of their argument, into asser- 



