divellebant (Ann. 3. 14. 6) for: effigies tractas in Gemonias divellebant. In: abdiderat sese atque aris invisa sedebat (Aen. 2. 574) for abdita in aede atque aris invisa sedebat, invisa has a double force, and aris may be taken either as instrumental or dative. In: nec veterum memini laetorve malorum (11. 280) laetorve seems for laetus.

More difficult to convert is the hendiadys in: atque idem fugientem haud est dignatus Oroden sternere nec iacta caecum dare cuspide volnus (10. 732-3), where Servius tells us that by sternere and caecum volnus dare Virgil conveys a single idea. So with: verso tenuis cum cardine ventus impulit et teneras turbavit ianua frondes (3. 448–9), where we might change the syntax to: tenui impulsae vento per ianuam apertam frondes tenerae turbatae sunt; and in the previous example perhaps sternere hasta clam coniecta may give the prose construction. But in spirat adhuc amor, vivuntque commissi calores Aeoliae fidibus puellae (Od. 4. 9. 10-12), while the two verbs express one idea, I have no thought of reducing them to one expression. I have ventured to give these few examples of hendiadys of the verb in the hope that I may call attention to this use of the figure, not because I think I am giving it adequate treatment.

XXXII

THE ELLIPSIS WITH QUE

In poetry an adjective belonging to each of a pair of substantives is often expressed only with the second, when to it there is subjoined the enclitic que which connects the substantives, and indicates that the adjective to which it is subjoined must be understood with the first as well. Troes trepidique Latini (Aen. 12. 730) is for: Troes trepidi trepidique Latini; the same is true of: Rutuli veteresque Sicani (7. 795), Mnestheus acerque Serestus (9. 171), Catillusque acerque Coras (7. 672), Chii veterisque Falerni (Sat. 2. 3. 115). So with common names: gemitu miseroque tumultu (Aen. 2. 486), ludo fatigatumque somno (Od. 3. 4. 11), per titulos memoresque fastos (4. 14. 4), tigres comitesque silvas (3. 11. 13), moribus hic meliorque fama (3. 1. 12), and with verbs in: fervet inmensusque ruit (4. 2. 7), metues doctusque cavebis (Sat. 2. 7. 68). Slightly more involved seems this figure in the following: at Messapus erit felixque Tolumnius (Aen. 11. 429), adiectis Britannis imperio gravibusque Persis (Od. 3. 5. 4), illa noto citius volucrique sagitta ad terram fugit (Aen. 5. 242), adsis o, placidusque iuves (4. 578), excutitur pronusque magister volvitur in caput (1. 115). In all of these the word to be supplied with noun or verb seems the same in form as that to which que is subjoined.

But often the word to be supplied is in a form changed to agree with the preceding noun, as in: moenia surgentemque arcem (Aen. 1. 366), pueri innuptaeque puellae (2. 238), insidias suspectaque dona (2. 36), clipeos mentitaque tela (2. 422), Spartam patriasque Mycenas (2. 577), crines incanaque menta (6. 809), fidem mutatosque deos (Od. 1. 5. 6), pro curia inversique mores (3. 5. 7), hortos egregiasque domos (Sat. 2. 3. 24). Slightly more involved are: Lycios fidumque vehebat Oronten (Aen. 1. 113), limen erat caecaeque fores (2. 453), scopulos avolsaque viscera montis (3. 575), craterasque simul pulcrosque tapetas (9. 358), iaculo celerem levibusque sagittis (9. 178), iaculo incedit melior levibusque sagittis (5. 68). Considerably more involved seem regna Neoptolemi referam versosque penates Ido

menei? (11.264), pila manu saevosque gerunt in bella dolones (7.664), succedam castris Tyrrhenaque regna capessam (8. 507), inmisitque fugam Teucris atrumque timorem (9. 719), totque maris vastaeque exhausta pericula terrae (10. 57), disce, puer, virtutem ex me verumque laborem (12. 435), spargite me in fluctus vastoque inmergite ponto (3. 605), sanguine cernis adhuc sparsoque infecta cerebro (5. 413). You will tell me that I am heaping up examples of this simple figure beyond all need; my answer is that in all eight of the more involved examples just cited Mackail has failed to translate it. Still more involved is it in frigus quo duramque famem propellere possit (Sat. 1. 2. 6), culpantur frustra calami, inmeritusque laborat iratis natus paries dis atque poetis (2. 3. 7), in both of which Lonsdale and Lee's translation misses the figure; Bryce sees it in the first, but misses it in the second. It is not common in the best prose; I cite from Livy: quos (clamores) nemora etiam repercussaeque valles augebant (21. 33. 6). We shall realize better the need of giving careful attention to this ellipsis when we examine the example of it in:

duri magno sed amore dolores

Polluto, notumque furens quid femina possit.
Triste per augurium Teucrorum pectora ducunt

(Aen. 5. 5-7).

Mackail translates: But the bitter pain of a great love trampled, and the knowledge of what a woman can do in madness, draw the Teucrians' hearts to gloomy guesses'. He misses the figure; as does Servius, who paraphrases: nam duri dolores magno animo polluto, id est laeso, et notus feminarum furor ducebat Troianos per triste augurium, scilicet ut crederent se interemisse Didonem. Forbiger's note: notum substantive est accipiendum, is repeated by Conington, Ladewig, Papillon, Page, and Sidgwick; but Sidgwick deserves credit for perceiving that this does not give perfect sense. He adds: 'The expression is tolerably clear, though not quite accurate; the grief is Dido's grief, and it is the thought of this that makes the Trojans anxious'. It is unfortunate that he should blame this lack of clearness and accuracy on Virgil's Latin, when it is his own lack of skill to translate Virgil's Latin that is at fault; he has missed the force of que in notumque, that should lead him to supply noti with dolores in the preceding clause. Virgil's expression is quite clear and accurate, and is much more adequate than what Sidgwick suggests; it is not the thought, but the knowledge of Dido's grief that makes the Trojans anxious. We should no more think of translating notumque

here as if it were merely notum and que 'and' than we should translate undique as if it were unde and que 'and'.

That this figure holds for mixtusque, though our English does not call for the repetition, is plain from: Teucri mixtique Sicani (Aen. 5. 293), Teucri mixtique Latini (11. 134), laetitia mixtoque metu (11. 807). But in avolsaque saxis saxa vides mixtoque undantem pulvere fumum (2. 609) and: aestuat ingens uno in corde pudor mixtoque insania luctu (10. 871) it seems best to resolve: mixtoque insania luctu into: et insania mixta mixto luctu, and: mixtoque undantem, etc., into: et undantem fumum mixtum mixto pulvere.

The figure is extended to three in: Mnesthea Sergestumque vocat fortemque Serestum (4. 288), Talon Tanaimque neci fortemque Cethegum ... mittit (12. 513). It is used with pronouns in: Demetri teque Tigelli (Sat. 1. 10. 90), sapiens vitatu quidque petitu sit melius causas reddet (1. 4. 115), nexantem nodis seque in sua membra plicantem (Aen. 5. 279) where it shows that nexantem cited by Priscian and Eutyches is correct, and not nixantem, the reading of many good manuscripts, and adopted by Ribbeck. We have it with adverbs in: licuit semperque licebit (A. P. 58), sedet aeternumque sedebit (Aen. 6. 617), forte sacer Cybelae Chloreus olimque sacerdos (11. 768), fama dediti benigneque excepti Segestis (Ann. 1. 59. 1), hic aliud maius miseris multoque tremendum obicitur magis (Aen. 2. 199). But defleo equidem filium meum semperque deflebo (Ann. 3. 12. 8) is not an example owing to the presence of equidem in the first clause balancing semper. We have it with a numeral in: Troiam nec fata vetabant... stare decemque alios Priamum superesse per annos (Aen. 8. 399), and with nouns alone or with appositives, adjectives, or genitives, as in: sed variat faciemque novat (Ov. Met. 15. 255), nox fabulaeque manes (Od. 1. 4. 16), suspirans imoque trahens a pectore vocem (Aen. 1. 371), tristitiam vitaeque labores (Od. 1. 7. 18).

We have it with the verb in: sic potenti iustitiae placitumque Parcis (Od. 2. 17. 16), recedentis trilingui ore pedes tetigitque crura (2. 19. 32), insanum te omnes pueri clamentque puellae (Sat. 2. 3. 130), fractas utinam tua tela sagittas si licet extinctas aspiciamque faces (Tib. 2. 6. 16). We have it twice in at hic si plaustra ducenta concurrantque foro tria funera, magna sonabit cornua quod vincatque tubas (Sat. 1. 6. 42-4). The figure is extended from two to three in: quid refert morbo an furtis pereamque rapinis? (Sat. 2. 3. 157), in cicere atque faba bona tu perdasque lupinis (2. 3. 182), and in: fervidus tecum puer et solutis Gratiae zonis properentque Nymphis (Od. 1.

30. 6). The examples I have noted, where the word to be understood is either formally or substantially the same as that expressed, give a fair idea of its ordinary range.

It is easy to see that ve, so often confused with que, often takes its place in this figure. We have: aut super Pindo gelidove in Haemo (Od. I. 12. 6), ne noster honos infractave cedat fama loco (Aen. 7. 332), non Seres infidive Persae (Od. 4. 15. 23), lateris (miseri) miseri capitisve (Sat. 2. 3. 29), non me Lucrina iuverint conchylia magisve rhombus aut scari (Epod. 2. 50), illa tamen se non habitu mutatve loco (Sat. 2. 7. 64), uter aedilis fueritve vestrum praetor (2. 3. 180), quis udo deproperare apio coronas curatve myrto? (Od. 2. 7. 25), non Pyladen ferro violare aususve sororem Electram (Sat. 2. 3. 139), qui . . . si illud idem in rapidum flumen iaceretve cloacam (2. 3. 242). It is natural to expect that vel will be used like ve; and we read: partem vel tolleret omnes (Ep. 1. 6. 43), quem virum aut heroa lyra (dulci) vel acri tibia? (Od. 1. 12. 1), vel Baccho Thebas vel Apolline Delphos insignes (1. 7. 3).

Que is the oldest Latin copulative, and as it is the most usual in poetry, it is natural to find it the conjunction most common in this poetic figure. But it would be strange if et did not follow its analogy here. We find et subjoined like que to the word to be supplied in the first phrase in: (quos) doctos ego quos et amicos prudens praetereo (Sat. 1. 10. 87), (vivunt) campestres melius Scythae... vivunt et rigidi Getae (Od. 3. 24.9-11). But et is usually placed just before the word to be thus supplied. We have it with adjectives in: mittimur Elysium et pauci laeta arva tenemus (Aen. 6. 744), ille te mecum locus et beatae postulant arces (Od. 2. 6. 21), Typhoeus et validus Mimas (3. 4. 53), divitum mensis et amica templis (3. 11. 6), laudem et optatum... decus (4. 14. 39), Brontesque Steropesque et nudus membra Pyracmon (Aen. 8. 425), messes et bona vina date (Tib. I. I. 24), ut opus et alii proelium inciperent (Ann. 1. 63. 7), and with an adverb in eam rem volutavi et diu disputavi (Pl. Most. 87). We have it with a noun in: otium et oppidi laudat rura sui (Od. 1. 1. 16), and with verbs in: et tunicae manicas et habent redimicula mitras (Aen. 9. 616), horrendum et dictu mirabile (3. 26), purus et insons ... si et vivo carus amicis (Sat. 1. 6. 70), at bene si quis et vivat puris manibus (1. 4. 68), audire et videor pios errare per lucos (Od. 3. 4. 7), Plotius et Varius, Maecenas Vergiliusque, Valgius et probet haec Octavius (Sat. I. 10. 82). But we have examples of et not placed either immediately before or immediately after the word to be supplied, as