An Attempt to determine the Controversy about the Construction of MACTE, and the Etymology of EQUIDEM, G. I. Vossius says in his work De Vitis Sermonis et Glossematis Latino-barbaris, Libri IX. Amstelodami 1695. p. 412.: "Macte Regina, vel uxor, filiave, non dixero, quia macte est vocativus a mactus, quod est contractus ex mage auctus, sive mace; nam veteres pro G utebantur C, ut liquet ex Columna Duilliana, et Vett. Gramm.: macta esset dicendum ávaλóyws, sed exemplo veterum destitutus, malim et illis abstinere." He writes thus in the Etymologicon Latina Lingua: "Macte esto pro mactus, h. e. cumulatus, auctusque; vocandi casus more Attico ponitur pro recto, quomodo apud Tibullum legas, pro Huc venias hodierne, hodiernus, et apud Persium Sat. III. Stemmate quod Thusco ramum millesime ducis, pro millesimus, et trabeatus." In the Aristarchus L. III. c. 47. p. 204., Stemmate quod Tusco ramum millesime ducis, imo Livius usus putatur accusandi casu L. II., ubi sic inducit Por- Macte Virtute esto, inquit, sententia dia Catonis: locutus autem Horatius exemplo Lucilii, cujus illud e Sat. L. 5. Macte, inquam, virtute, simulque his versibus esto, et Turpilii Boëthuntibus, Macte virtute esto, VOL. VIII. Cl. Jl. NO. XVI. Z item Pacuvii Duloresta, Macte esto virtute, operaque omenque approbo: vide Nonium Marcellum c. Iv.: quemadmodum autem in singulari dicitur macte, ita et in plurali est macti, idque tam nominandi, quam vocandi casu: Livius L. VII. Macti virtute, inquit Decius, milites Romani este: Plinius L. XII. c. 12. in Astrologiæ laudem, macti ingenio este cœli interpretes, rerumque naturæ capaces:" Again in p. 214.: "Quemadmodum vero nominativus pro vocativo, ita et vocativus interdum ponitur pro nominativo, nempe more Macedonum, et Thessa lorum, ut ait Priscianus, vel olum, et Bæotorum, quod Eustathius judicat: Virg. 11. Æn. Quibus Hector ab oris Expectate venis! pro expectatus, et apud Pers. Sat. III. [cited above]: Propert. L. 11. Eleg. 15. Lectule deliciis facte beate meis: sic macte esto, de quo antea dictum: et apud Ausonium, His opibus confise times: nec interea diffitendum, quodammodo in talibus locum etiam esse vocativo, imprimis in Maronis loco allato." Jos. Scaliger, in an Epistle to Franciscus Fortumanus, published by Casaubon in the Opuscula varia, holds the same opinion: the whole passage is cited by B. Faber in the Thes. Scholast. Erudit.: I shall make only the following extract from it: "Sed cur vocandi casu macte? in hoc quoque est Texvxov Grammaticorum; nam mactus esto dicendum erat, sed utriusque linguæ auctores ita loqui solent: Theocr. Aßis xge yέVOLO dicendum erat Bios:-Ausonius creber est in hoc genere loquendi : quare et macte esto pro mactus: propterea non mirum, si in Atticismo, xxx confunditur cum [r] ovoμaoring: cum contra hic videamus vocandi casum cum nominativo commutari : sic igitur dictum macte esto virtute." J. Brunsmannus, in the Particula Adverbiorum, exhibens Macte in Accusativo, et Vocativo funeratum, in Adverbio reviviscens juxta ac Faculam adverbialium Dictionum pro Adjectivis usurpatarum, Hafniæ, 1680,8. labors to prove that macte is an adverb, but I have never seen the tract. (1) Is Brunsmann prepared to show, as he ought to be, before his argument can have any weight with me, that there is no such participle, or adjective, declined like any other adjective, as mactus? (2.) Is he prepared to deny, as he ought to do in this case, the authority of the MSS. in the following passages, cited by Gesner? Liv. VII. 36. Macti virtute milites Romani este, Plin. 2, 12. Macti ingenio este cæli interpretes rerumque naturæ capaces, "sic editt." says Gesner, antique et Dalæc. item Hard. sed macte Elzev." Curt. 4, 1, 18. Vos quidem macti virtute estote, "in his," says Gesner, non est dubium quin sit nomen, aut participium adeo, macti este, i. aucti, ornati hac virtute este, crescite:" (3.) Does Brunsmann contend that there is no force in the argument for proving macte to be an adjective in the vocative case, that the poets do frequently thus use the vocative for the nominative? (4.) Is he dissatisfied with the examples, which have been produced? (5.) Is not the fact, that the last syllable of macte is uniformly made short by the poets, a strong pre 66 sumption, as M. Gesner in the Thes. Ling. Lat. admits, in the favor of the opinion which he controverts? (6.) Can he produce any indisputable passage, where we have macte-este, not esto? for such an indisputable passage would go a great way to establish his opinion. (7.) Is he aware of the principle, upon which the vocative macte is used for the nominative mactus in the phrase macte virtute esto, a principle, which has not been noticed by the critics, but which is the pivot, upon which the argument rests, I mean that macte is always Joined with a verb in the second person singular, macte-esto, where any verb is given at all, to which it belongs, as in all the other instances of vocatives used for nominatives cited above? (S.) Do not the apparent exceptions to this remark admit of an easy solution? the most formidable is the following from Livy 11. 12. Juberem macte virtute esse, si pro mea patria ista virtus staret, "in quo," says Gesner, "consentiunt MSS., ut frustra mactum substituant vv. dd." and so Drakenborch (1738.) Vol. 1. p. 289. reads. Esse is here To esse, τὸ εἶναι : macte virtute is a formula, and Livy did not choose to depart from it: Seneca Ep. 66. says, Macte virtute esto sanguinolentis et ex acie redeuntibus dicitur: because plaudite was a theatrical formula, Cicero could not depart from it without the violation of perspicuity, as when he says in the De Senect. c. 19. Neque enim histrioni, ut placeat, peragenda est fabula, modo in quocumque fuerit actu probetur, neque sapienti usque ad plaudite vivendum: here plaudite is rò plaudite, To Elva plaudite, usque ad plaudite, "until the plaudite comes." have expressions of the same kind in English, we use to sing te deum,” "to say O be joyful," where the form "O be joyful," upon the same principle, is the accusative case after "to say." Thus Quinctil. L. VI. c. 2. Tunc est commovendum theatrum, cum ventum est ad ipsum illud, quo veteres Tragedia Comadiaque clauduntur, (r) plaudite: thus Ovid. Met. 3. 501. says, Dictoque (r) vale, Vale, 66 -inquit et Echo. We IT is a curious circumstance that so many scholars should be disposed to consider equidem as nothing but ego quidem, when instances the most indisputable have been produced to show that it is joined to verbs plural, and of the second, and the third person singular: their opinion is founded upon the remark of Servius, who, while he admits that equidem in other writers is not considered as ego quidem, says that Virgil uniformly joins it to verbs of the first person: and is it an improbable supposition that this may be the result of mere accident? I cannot admit this argument to be at all conclusive; and, to enable the youthful reader to form an opinion upon the subject, I shall lay before him the following passages: (1.)" Primum omnium miraris to equidem a Sectano positum (ut tibi videtur) haud bene morato more: falsus es grammaticorum præceptiunculis, quibus si adhæseris, nihilo plus proficias, quam si des operam, ut cum ratione insanias; quid enim illæ sunt nisi affaniæ, ac tricæ puræ putæ ? igitur scito non principi tantum In my notes upon this passage, I have cited no instances to prove this, but B. Brissonius De Formulis L. VIII. Parisiis, 1583, p. 853. has given various examples. modo persona istuc verbi adhærescere, verum et alteri, verum et tertiæ nec in versa tantum oratione, sed etiam in prorsa [prosa]: ad tuumne palatum Tullius? sane credo: en ipse ad Attic. Sic ages igitur: equidem id erit proximum Clodie: Porcius Cato ap. Sallust. in Cat: Quare vanum equidem hoc consilium est: vin' testem utroque antiquiorem? ́en Plautum Menæch. A. II. Sc. 3. Me. Quicum hæc mulier loquitur? Er. equidem tecum: recentioremne? habeto Persium Sat. 1. Per me equidem sint omnia protinus alba: apud eund. in media persona Sat. 5. Non equidem hoc dubites, amborum fœdere certo illud haud nescio ab ego et quidem conflatum esse equidem arrisisse non nemini Servius ad illud Æn. 1. Dimittam: Equidem per littora certos Equidem, inquit, in Virgilio ego quidem ubique significat: sed in aliis et pro quidem tantum ponitur: favent Gloss. Vet. ; nam interpretantur equidem, iyi pév: at nullus dubito dici equidem, quasi et quidem : sic etenim, et enim; etiam, et jam; etsi, et si: rejicitur autem altera littera ouvdeoμou et, cum euphoniæ, tum syllabæ corripiendæ gratia, ut metro consulatur: quod si producta prima usquam indigent poetæ, tum integre scribunt: Terent. in Heaut. omnium, quæ sub cœlo sunt, Latinissima fabula A. 3. Sc. 2. et A. 4. Sc. 5. Et quidem hercle forma luculenta, Et quidem jubebit posci: viden' rò equidem? audi Priscianum sexto decimo exeunte, Sciendum quod quidam equidem conjunctionem compositam esse existimant ab ego et quidem, sed errant ; simplex enim est: et hoc maxime ex ipsa quoque constructione orationis possumus intelligere: nam equidem facio, equidem facis, equidem facit, dicimus: porro si rò equidem valet ego quidem, ineptissime Cæsar Teggioσoλoye apud Sallust. in Cat. ibi, Equidem ego sic existimo, P. C. omnes cruciatus, &c., et ipse Sallust. in 1, De ordin. Rep., Equidem ego cuncta imperia, &c., p. 541. et p. 559. et 564.: cave sodes, ut ne id cogites: Terentius quoque in illa omnium mundissima, ut ipse profitetur in Prologo, Id equidem ego, si tu neges, certo scio." Em. Martini Epistolarum L. 11. 4. T. 1. p. 33. Ed. 2a, Amstelodami, 1738. (2.) M. Martinius in the Lexicon philologicum entertains the same opinion, but merely quotes the words of Priscian. (3.) Vossius, in the Aristarchus, sive De Arte Grammatica L. vi. c. 26. p. 362., has the following words: "Equidem ex ego et quidem confiatum esse scribit Servius in Æn. 1., sed Priscian. in fine sexti decimi duplici telo hanc jugulat opinionem: unum est quia etiam [equidem] cum ego conjungitur, ut in illo Sallustii in Cat. equidem ego sic existimo, cui simile hoc in Jug. in Orat. Micipse, Equidem regnum ego vobis trado firmum, et similiter dixerat Plautus Amph. A. 11. Sc. II. Ego equidem ex te audivi: alterum est, quia jungitur verbis secundæ tertiæque persona: secundæ, ut apud Persium Sat. v. Non equidem hoc dubites :— tertiæ vero, ut apud Catonem in Originibus, Equidem principatus originis semper Scythis debetur: et Cic. fortasse. [Vossius here gives us a long marginal note, with references to different passages of Cicero for this use of equidem, in all of which he says that we may adopt a different reading, and thus elude the difficulty: so that Cicero, as well as Virgil, seems to have regarded equidem in the light of ego quidem: Gesner, in the Thes. Ling Lat. says, “Nemini equidem auctor sim, ut Ciceronis exemplo tueatur equidem, non pro ego quidem positum, quo intellectu solenniter utitur:" but, on the other hand, it is to be observed, that it is very difficult to get at the truth with respect to writers in prose, because equidem having been for so many ages considered, upon the authority of Servius, by almost every editor, critic, and commentator, as merely ego quidem, wheresoever they meet with any thing, which seems to militate against this etymology, they generally cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war; and yet we have undisputed instances in writers of prose: metrical considerations, however, have prevented us from laying sacrilegious hands upon the poets] "Epist. xxvI. L. 13. ad Att.: et certius illo Propertii L. 11. El. 31. Hic equidem Phœbo visus mihi pulcrior ipso: his adde quod etiam jungitur plurali, cum prima quidem persona, ut ap. Sallust. in Orat. Catonis, Jampridem equidem nos vera rerum vocabula amisimus; cum tertia vero, ut ap. Plaut. Epidico, sc. quid est pater: Adolescentem equidem dicebant emisse: et Pers. Sat. II. Per me equidem sint omnia protinus alba: quæ pluribus prosecuti sumus, quia quantivis pretii argumentum illud. esse videtur, quod Maro religiose illud observarit, ut ne alteri jungeret, quam verbo singulari primæ persona: nos præter ea, quæ diximus, simplex esse putamus, vel, si compositum est, valere et quidem, ubi et vim prope [this I should be disposed to dispute, if I were not afraid of extending my note to too great a length] eam habet, quam in illo Maronis En. I. (4.) "Equidem ego sic astumo-Guelf. 6. Et quidem sic ego, 7. ego quidem sic, qui ordo forte fuit in Remensibus, Vinar. 1. Equidem sic ego, Basil. 3. equidem P. C. sic exist. a quo exulat ego, uti ab Struviano et Incert. 2.: equidem ego male composita videbantur, quia vulgo quidem ex ego et quidem conflatum arbitrantur: sed cur non ex et quidem, vel atque idem conflatum dixere? et dubitavere de veriverbio isto dudum eruditi: nec videas illud, ubi Noster c. LII. n. 16. quare vanum equidem hoc consilium est. [We have here the following Note: "Equidem omnes codd. habent: ut corrupti sint, vereri non debuerat Pierius ad Virg. 11. Æn. v. 77.: nam de ego quidem vana est cogitatio"], et ibid. n. 11. Jampridem equidem nos vera rerum vocabula amisimus: quidquid vero hujus sit, habes ego quidem 1. de Rep. Ordin. c. III. et II. c. 5. citat etiam Servius ad 1. Æn. v. 580. Ciceronem, qui scripserit ego equidem cæteras tempestates; etsi in nupera editione expresserint ego quidem, plane contra mentem Grammatici, qui isto exemplo docere voluit equidem non pro ego quidem, sed tantum pro |