﻿THE AGE OF PETRONIUS ARBITER. 137 



ing, then, to settle the vexed question whether "ne" is used in the best writers for 

 " ne . . . quidem," or whether, when it does occur, it must be interpreted in some differ- 

 ent way, I have adduced a sufficient number of passages from writers of the best age, 

 in which " ne " is used in precisely the same sense as in the two above passages of 

 Petronius. This is sufficient for my purpose, inasmuch as I do not intend to defend 

 the purity and elegance of the language of Petronius, but merely to show that it con- 

 tains nothing that is inconsistent with an early period of its composition. 



C. 75. 8 : " nam ego quoque tarn fui, quam vos estis." This may be explained by 

 the ellipsis of " tenuis" after " tarn,"' an ellipsis which is not infrequent in the lauguao-e 

 of conversation. Cf Plant. Aul. 3. 6. 12: "Tarn hie scit me habere, quam egomet." 

 Ter. Eun. 4. 4. 50 : " Parmenonis tam scio esse banc technam quam me vivere." 



C. 58. 5 : " Xec sursum nee deorsiun non cresco, nisi dominum tuum in rutae foliiun 

 non conjecero" ; and c. 76. 3: "Xemini tamen nihil satis est." It is well known that 

 this accumulation of negatives, so common in Greek, occurs also in Latin, at least in 

 the less careful language of conversation. Cf Ennius Erechtheo, in Festus, p. 162: 

 "lapideo corde sunt multi, quos non miseret neminis." Plant. MU. Glor. 5. 18: "Jura 

 te non nociturum esse homineni de hac re neminem." A. Gell. 4. 1 : " Quid enim refert 

 mea ejusque quicum loquor, quo genere penum dicam, aut in quas extremas literas 

 declmem, si nemo id non nimis barbare fecerit?" Ter. Andr. 1. 2. 34: " Xe temere 

 facias, neque tu haut* dices tibi non praedictum : cave." Here may also be mentioned 

 the expression (c. 42. 7), " nemini nUiil boni facere oportet," unless it should be thought 

 more proper to consider it an individual solecism of Seleucus. 



C. 76. 3: " onera'si -^-inum, et tunc erat contra aiu-nm." The expression "auro con- 

 tra"' is undoubtedly the more common. Cf Plaut. Epid. 3. 3. 30: " Xon carust auro 

 contra." Yet "contra aurum" occurs in other writers also. Cf Varr. de R. R. 1. 2. 

 10 : " Hujusce inquam pomaria summa sacra via, ubi poma A"eneunt, contra auream 

 unaginem," Hand, in his Tursellinus (Vol. II. p. 120), attaching no weight to the 

 passage in Varro, on account of the unsatisfactory condition of the text, limits the 

 expression "contra aurum" to later ^^Titers ("recentiores"). 



C. 33. 5 : " tentemus tamen, si adhuc sorbUia sunt." Cf Ter. Eun. 3. 4. 7 : " Idque 

 adeo visam, si domi 'st." Ter. Phorm. 3. 6. 20 : " Vide opis si quid potes adferre huic." 



tions unsupported by facts. A striking instance is furnished by Cicero, Tusc. 1. 36. 88, where he says, 

 " Carere in male non dicitur," when he himself not only says " febri carere" (Ad Fam. 16. 15. 1), an ex- ' 

 ception which he himself admits, but " carere dolore" (De Fin. 1. 11. 38), " miseria- carere " (Tusc. 3. 13. 

 27), " malo carere " (Ibid. 3. 18. 40). 

 * Others read " hoc." 



