« ZurückWeiter »
Mais qui le porroit si tolir
Cou m'est a vis plus bel seroit. (Floire et Blancheflor, ed. by Du Meril, Paris, 1856, 309–11.) Many more examples of this construction might be cited. It occurs frequently in Old French and even up to the end of the seventeenth century.10 It will be observed that qui in the examples cited above is used without an antecedent and serves to introduce a condition, being equivalent to a protasis. In such cases the conditional is used in the apodosis, if it occurs in the clause following qui. This type of conditional sentence refers to the future and hence it represents the condition as being possible. The same construction occurs in Latin," where it is introduced by qui and the subjunctive is used in both clauses: Qui hoc dicat, erret; cf. Haec qui videat, nonne cogatur confiteri deos esse. 12 In Hale and Buck's Latin Grammar $580 this construction is illustrated from Quint. 1. 5. 50: 'Qui dicat pro illo "ne feceris”, “non feceris”, in idem incidat vitium.'
It will be of interest to note here the frequent use of qui introducing a future condition from the point of the past. In this construction the subjunctive occurs both in the clause expressing the condition and in the conclusion.
Qi li veïst son maltalent vengier,
Bien li menbrast de hardi chevalier. (Ibid., 2707-09.) This type of conditional sentence is also found in Latin: Qui videret, urbem captam diceret, Cicero, Verr. 4. 23. 52; Miraretur qui tum cerneret, Livy, 34. 9. 4 (258).
A third type of conditional sentence introduced by qui in Old French is that referring to the present. In such cases qui is followed by the present indicative and the clause expressing the conclusion may contain
10 See A. Haase, Syntaxe française du XVII siècle, translated by Obert, Paris, 1898, p. 89. A survival of this usage is found in the modern French phrase comme qui dirait.
11 See Gildersleeve's Latin Grammar, revised and enlarged by Gildersleeve and Lodge, New York, 593.2.
1 Cicero, De Natura Deorum, 2.12.
a verb in the present or future indicative, or in the present subjunctive with the force of an imperative:
Qui s'amour en un seul leu livre
Qui leu l'ait e qui l'entende. (Ibid, 17735.) The hypothetical sentences under consideration are derived directly from the Latin as indicated above. They may refer to the present or to the future. They are never of the contrary to fact type, the condition expressed always being possible.
OSCAN DEKETASIO- **DECENTARIUS'
The magistrates described as degetasiús (n. pl. masc.) at Nola (Conway ID 93, cf. 94 = von Planta 124, 125) and as deketasiúí
, (dat. sg. masc.) at Abella (Conway 95 a 5 = von Planta 127) have gener
) ally been dismissed with a non liquet as to their precise functions. It is unfortunate that the etymology of their title is equally uncertain; for if that were precisely known it would, presumably, illuminate the nature of their office. But, the case being reversed, is it not reasonable to suppose that new light concerning the duties of a meddix degetasis would serve to establish, at least as being definitely preferable, one of the alternative etymologies? In etymology meaning is, after all, no less important than sound-change and word-formation. Buck (Gram. 229), after pointing out that a connection with either Lat. decem or decens is phonologically and morphologically possible, went on to add that there is a reference in the title 'to some organisation of the city's territory or population of which we have no precise knowledge'; and, similarly, Brugmann (IF 11.110), criticising the proposed connection with decem, objected to it, declaring its originator Bronisch eine derartige Bezeichnung der meddices nicht rechtfertigen zu können'. It is exactly this point which the present note is meant to elucidate.
There is in fact good reason for giving Bronisch's etymology pride of place. The medikeí deketasiúí núvlanúí was appointed by the people of Nola to assist in the deliberations of the representatives of his own town and of Abella who were elected to arrange for the joint administration and use of a temple of Hercules lying on the boundary of their respective territories (Conway 95, dated second half of the second century B.C.). From one of the other two inscriptions already cited (Conway 93, the date of which cannot, on account of certain peculiarities in the writing, be determined with exactness) it appears that there were two such officials at Nola, but not necessarily at the same time, for only one is mentioned on the third inscription (from Nola, Conway 94, known only from 18th century copies, date uncertain, but probably contemporaneous with the Cippus Abellanus) as on the first (Conway 95). The Nolan officials evidently had charge of certain sums of money; the money in the inscription Conway 94 is further described as having been raised by means of fines, how or why levied is not stated. This inscription is with great probability thought to have belonged to an altar, which will thus be comparable with the Pompeian sundial (Conway 43); the other Nolan inscription, if not actually cut on an altar, was at any rate dug up from under the ruins of an ancient temple.
Now there is excellent evidence that the custom of offering tithes to Hercules was both widespread and ancient in Italy. The tradition was that Hercules himself had offered the tenth part of his cattle (Plut. QR 18; Dion. Hal. 1.40; Festus 270 L.; (Aurel. Vict.) origo gen. Rom. 6) and this tradition no doubt implies that the custom was very old. As much may be gathered not only from the more explicit statements of Paulus (ex. Fest. 63 L.) decima quaeque ueteres dis suis offerebant, of Varro (ap. Macrob. Sat. 3.12.2) maiores solitos decimam Herculi uouere, cf. LL 6.54, and from the frequent allusions in comedy (Naev.frg. 27-9 Ribbeck; Plaut. Bacch. 666, Stich. 233, 386, Truc. 561, Most. 984), but also from inscriptional evidence of Republican date, some of it from quite early documents. Especially to be noted are the words moribus antiqueis in the Titulus Mummianus from Reate (CIL I? 632, end of second century B.C.), recording the dedication of a tithe, accompanied by a separate gift, after the triumph of Mummius in 145 B.C. Latin inscriptions of the last century B.C. attest the existence of the practice in other parts of Italy during the close of the Republic, and perhaps earlier, as at Sora (CIL I? 1531), Tibur (ib. 1482), Aquila (ib. 1805), Carsioli (CIL IX 4071 a), Capua (CIL X 3956 ‘saeculi Augusti'), and possibly Tarentum (CIL I?, 1698, where d.f. is usually regarded as abbreviated for decuma facta). For the dialect-speaking peoples we have not only the three inscriptions already discussed but also the Tabula Agnonensis (Conway 175) which gives a list of deities who had a statue or altar or both erected to them in the 'grove of Ceres', amongst them a statue and altar in honor of Hercules 'Cerialis' (hereklúí kerriiúi), and the whole grove is described in the words hürz dekmanniúís staít. Here the word dekmanniúis must refer to the custom of offering tithes, whether it be taken as locative plural 'on the festival of the tithes' or as dative plural 'to the deities of the (sacred) tithes'. This was pointed out by Conway (Glossary, s.v.), but has not previously been noted in the present connection. In degetasis (-ius) therefore, quasi Latin *decentarius, the spelling with -g- is best regarded as due to contamination either with uiginti (or a corresponding Oscan form), as Buck suggested, or with digitus (cf. Gr. Ó teurafw), as Conway proposed. For in view of the evidence already quoted, we need hardly hesitate to connect deketasiúí with Latin decem (*dekentó-, cf. Umb. sestentasiaru), and the practice of offering tithes to Hercules both at Rome, as testified by the numerous references in the literature, though not by inscriptions (unless, as Mommsen conjectured, CIL VI 277 refers to the offering of a decuma), and also at several other towns in Italy (see above),
а with the appearance of the official described by this title on the inscriptions of Nola and Abella, one of which relates specifically to a temple of Hercules, and the other two, one on an altar, the second from a temple, are connected with some cult, though no deity is mentioned by name. Why fines were levied at Nola in such a connection we can only conjecture; but it may be that they were imposed for the non-payment of tithes. It is significant too that, like the treasury of the temple of Hercules belonging jointly to Nola and Abella, there was a wealthy treasury attached to the temple of Hercules at Tibur, enriched by successive dedications of decumae (CIL XIV 3679—thensaurus Herculis, cf. CIL I 1482) from which Augustus borrowed money in 42 B.C. (Appian BC 5.24).
There are several instances of triumphing generals of the last century of the Republic who offered decumae to Hercules and at the same time feasted the people handsomely (Plut. Aem. Paul. 17, cf. 19; id. Praec. Ger. Rei P. 20.4; Luc. 37; Sulla 35.1; Crassus 2, cf. 12; Appian BC 2.76), and it is now generally agreed that Mommsen was wrong when he attempted to explain this as merely an old military custom revived by Mummius (CIL I' pp. 149 ff.), on which view the tithe was simply a tithe of the booty gained in war and dedicated officially by the victorious general on behalf of the state. The story told in the Saturnalia of Macrobius (3.6.11) of the flutist turned trader dedicating one tenth of his gains to Hercules illustrates quite another aspect in which these offerings were made to the same god. It seems clear in short that there should be distinguished four different classes of decumae dedicated to Hercules (1) the early one, which was afterwards entirely forgotten, no doubt tithes of agricultural produce, first-fruits in fact; two later ones, offered respectively (2) by traders and (3) by successful generals; and (4) a general practice of dedicating tithes by anyone relieved from any difficult situation (e.g. CIL I? 1531). Oscan kerriiúi applied to Hercules in the Tabula Agnonensis probably refers to every kind of fertility, which must include the productiveness of the land and of live-stock.