﻿THE AGE OF PETRONIUS ARBITER. 177 



" quonam genere," c. 26. 8 ; " digitos concrepare," c. 27. 5, and " concrepare aera," 

 c. 22. 6 ; " collegae," c. 29. 2 ; " colaphis objurgare," c. 34. 2 ; " methodus," c. 36. 5 ; 

 " pessime mihi erat, ne," etc., and " catastropha," c. 54. 3 ; " cpidipnis," c. 69. 6 ; 

 "omnium genera avium," c. 69. 8; " consurrexit et subsequi," c. 72. 4; "maledicere" 

 with the accusative, c. 74. 9; "post," c. 97. 10; " gubcrnacula," c. 102. 4; "intel- 

 lexisti," c. 106. 3; "a legato," c. 107. 9; " elegidarion," c. 109.8; " corrymbion," 

 c. 110. 1; "arce," for "in arce," c. 116. 1; " divitatio," c. 117. 1; " praecantatus," 

 c. 131. 5; "tarn magnum aeque," etc., c. 136. 13; "quoque," c. 141. 9. 



A consideration suggests itself which will lead a cautious inquirer into the subject 

 of the age of Petronius to attach little or no weight to these exceptional expressions 

 and forms. Even if it were an ascertained fact, that the non-occurrence of these forms 

 and words in other writers is not accidental, but that they were used by Petronius 

 alone, we should be no nearer to a solution of the problem. If these expressions oc- 

 curred in writers whose age is known, we might with some reason infer that Petronivis 

 belonged to the same age. But as the case is, these irregularities, whether barbarisms 

 or solecisms, may, for aught we know, have been the offspring of any time, an earlier 

 as well as a later. It is a well-known fact, that we not only find in different writers of 

 the same age expressions not in keeping with the character of the language of that age, 

 but we meet in the works of one and the same writer such inconsistencies. While it 

 may, indeed, be conceded that some, if not all, of these expressions impair the reputa- 

 tion of Petronius as a writer who is in every part of his work correct and elegant, they 

 afford no evidence as to his age, and neither strengthen nor weaken other evidence on 

 that point. They must be laid out of the case, however interesting they may otherwise 

 be as one of the characteristics of the language of Petronius. 



A more serious obstacle is presented by the second class of expressions, — those 

 which have the authority of later writers only. Their number is not so large as 

 that of the preceding class ; they are : the poetic use of the accusative, c. 29. 1, c. 60. 8, 

 and c. 82. 1 ; " amoliri invidiam," c. 97. 10 ; « nee . . . quidem," c. 13. 1, c. 102. 7, and 

 c. 132. 9; "durare in supplicium," c. 105. 11; " pharmacus," c. 107. 15; " stlatarium 

 bellum," c. 108. 12; " detumescere," c. 109. 5 ; " capillamentum," c. 110. 5; " condito- 

 rium," c. 111. 2; "blandum," c. 127. 1; " quasillariae," c. 132. 3; and " poenitentiam 

 agere," c. 132. 12. 



It is necessary to observe, in the first place, that the fact of the occurrence of these 

 expressions, so far as now known, in later writers only, is no conclusive evidence that they 

 did not previously form a part of the Latin language. On the contrary, I have shown in 

 the instance of several, as "stlatarium" and "capillamentum," that it is highly probable, 

 if not certain, that they existed at a much earlier period than the writers in which alone 



