^{page 1 note 1} Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik (Munich, 1965), p. 689 Google Scholar.

^{page 1 note 2} Op. cit. 398 ‘Cic. und Caes. Subst, und Attribut nur sehr sparsam und meist durch einfache oder praepositionale Kasusbestimmungen, seltener durch das Verb finitum, voneinander trennen’.

^{page 1 note 3} Leseproben aus Reden Ciceros und Catos (Rome, 1968), p. 76 Google Scholar.

^{page 1 note 4} ‘Hyperbaton bei Cornelius Nepos’, Symb. Osi. XLV (1970), 67 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 1 note 5} Op. cit. pp. 68 f.

^{page 1 note 6} Op. cit. p. 71.

^{page 1 note 7} Op. cit. p. 73.

^{page 1 note 8} But in Cato's de Agricultura predicative adjectives usually stand alongside their substantives. See further below, p. 9 on Tacitus, and pp. 10 f. on the Vulgate.

^{page 1 note 9} Skard, however, draws no distinction between disjoined adjectives which are predicative and those which are not; see the passages quoted, op. cit. pp. 69 f.

^{page 2 note 1} Eranos XII (1912), 90 f.Google Scholar In some of Ahlberg's examples the attribute is predicative or appositive.

^{page 2 note 2} On the use of the device in genuine rustic Latin (the Mulomedicina Chironis) see below, v.

^{page 2 note 3} Cf. e.g. Sen. Contr. 2. 2. II illas tarnen omnis aetas honorabit, omne celebrabit ingenium.

^{page 2 note 4} See, e.g., Fraenkel, E., Iktus und Akzent im lateinischen Sprechvers (Berlin, 1928), pp. 162 ff.Google Scholar; Hofmann–Szantyr, pp. 690 f.

^{page 2 note 5} Occasionally the emphasis lies on the substantive: e.g. Cic. Plane. 30 hunc tu vitae splendorem maculis aspergis tuis?; Marcell. 2 cum viderem virum talem, cum in eadem causa in qua ego fuisset, non in eadem esse fortuna; Phil. 3. 22 in rebus tristissimis quantos excitat risus.

^{page 2 note 6} Cf. e.g. Fraenkel, op. cit. p. 164; idem, Leseproben, 75 f. Note that in 3 of the 7 examples quoted above from Cato the adjective is omnis.

^{page 3 note 1} The most frequent clausula in Cicero (from whom the example is taken): see the table given by Broadhead, H. D., Latin Prose Rhythm (Cambridge, 1922), p. 69 (type (c))Google Scholar.

^{page 3 note 2} On this clausula see Kroll, W., M. Tullii Ciceronis Orator (Berlin, 1913), p. 170 Google Scholar; cf. Broadhead, loc. cit., type (i).

^{page 3 note 3} See the passages which Cicero himself discusses at Orat. 232.

^{page 3 note 4} Broadhead, loc. cit., type (m).

^{page 3 note 5} The third most common clausula in Cicero: Broadhead, loc. cit., type (b).

^{page 3 note 6} A very rare rhythm: Broadhead, loc. cit., type (h).

^{page 3 note 7} The second most common clausula in Cicero: Broadhead, loc. cit., type (a).

^{page 3 note 8} Fraenkel, , Leseproben, 198 Google Scholar if. has not succeeded in establishing that the heroic clausula was more frequent in Cicero than has been supposed. He quotes only about 40 examples, whereas even the incomplete figures given by Broadhead show the more popular rhythms occurring over 4,000 times. To demonstrate the frequency or rarity of a clausula it is necessary to give comparative statistics.

^{page 3 note 9} In the examples discussed above the emphasis added by the hyperbaton is always tolerable, if dispensable; in most cases the adjective disjoined is of an emphatic type.

^{page 4 note 1} In definitions emphasis of the kind which can be neady underlined by hyperbaton is often sought. On the use of hyperbaton in the treatise, see in general Golia, G., Sprachliche Beobachtungen ţum Auctor ad Herennium (Breslau, 1935), p. 32 Google Scholar.

^{page 4 note 2} See Cic. Orat. 85, de Orat. 3. 205, Quint. 9. 2. 29.

^{page 4 note 3} See Laurand, L., Études sur le Style des Discours de Ciceron (Paris, 1936–1938), p. 346 Google Scholar.

^{page 5 note 1} On the frequency with which qui and quis are separated from their substantives, see Hofmann-Szantyr, p. 690.

^{page 5 note 2} See Laurand, op. cit. p. 307.

^{page 5 note 3} See Laurand, loc. cit.; Davies, J. C., CQ² XVIII (1968), 146 Google Scholar on the pro Marcello.

^{page 5 note 4} On the simplicity of its style see Davies, op. cit. p. 147; cf. idem, Latomus XXIX (1970), 729 ff.

^{page 5 note 5} It is not difficult for us to distinguish speeches written in simple style, such as the pro Quinctio and pro Tullio, from those in a more ornate style, but it would be over-subtle to attempt to distinguish those in the middle style from those in the grand style. The characteristics of the two styles were not firmly laid down. Gotzes, P., De Ciceronis tribus generibus dicendi in orationibus pro Caec, Manil., Rab.perd. adhibitis (Rostock, 1914), pp. 115 ff.Google Scholar, was not justified in concluding from a comparison of the Rab. perd. – which Cicero considered to be in grand style (Orat. 102) – with the Imp. Pomp. that hyperbaton was largely alien to the grand manner, though at home in middle style. Other equally elaborate speeches contain the device in profusion; and the evidence of the ad Herennium is not to be neglected. Cicero may have had a special reason for using a direct sentence structure in the pro Rabirio. Moreover the speech is short and therefore perhaps a misleading guide if considered alone. See further below, p. 13 n. 1.

^{page 5 note 6} See Laurand, op. cit. pp. 327 ff.

^{page 6 note 1} On the traditional simplicity of commentarti, see Cic. Att. 2. 1. 1.

^{page 6 note 2} See Eden, P. T., Glotta XL (1962), 76, 80 f.Google Scholar, and esp. 108 ff. (on rhetoric in Caesar).

^{page 6 note 3} See Schlicher, J. J., ‘The Development of Caesar's Narrative Style’, CP XXXI (1936), 212 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 4} It will be seen that the usage becomes something of a mannerism in Caesar's later books. It is never such in Cicero. Caesar's use of certain rhetorical tricks tends to be less austere and more monotonous than that of Cicero.

^{page 6 note 5} About one-quarter of the total number of instances in Civ. 2.

^{page 6 note 6} By Fraenkel, E., ‘Eine Form römischer Kriegsbulletins’, Eranos LIV (1956), 189 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 7} See Norden, E., Die Antike Kunstprosa² , (Leipzig, 1909), 206 ff.Google Scholar on the “puerile rhetoric’ of Nepos.

^{page 7 note 1} I am grateful to Mr E. J. Kenney for suggesting this possibility. For the influence of verse on prose under the Empire see Norden, op. cit. pp. 286 ff.; on the enclosing word order in poetry, see, e.g., Pearce, T. E. V., ‘The Enclosing Word Order in the Latin Hexameter, I–II” CQZ XVI (1966), 140 ff., 298 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 7 note 2} There is more variation in the declamations collected by Seneca the Elder. The device is relatively infrequent in the Controversiae, though there is a notable conglomeration of instances in an ἔκφρασις ascribed to Papirius Fabianus (2.1.13), but common in parts of the Suasoriae (e.g. the opening speech of Suas. 4), which gave more scope for florid rhetorical adornment. In controversiae argumentation inevitably bulked large, whereas in suasoriae ἐκφράσεις could be introduced more often (see Contr. 2 praef. 3).

^{page 7 note 3} It is also very common in the more ornate Christian writers (e.g. Jerome, Tertullian, Augustine).

^{page 7 note 4} A strange Plinian idiosyncrasy. In the highly embellished panegyrics of the later Empire it is found in profusion. Pliny's prose is in other respects very rhetorical (Norden, op. cit. pp. 318 ff.).

^{page 8 note 1} Nor can the order be ascribed to the needs of the clausula.

^{page 8 note 2} Certain writers, however, show caution: e.g. Seneca the Younger and Quintilian.

^{page 8 note 3} See Skard, op. cit. pp. 70 f.

^{page 8 note 4} See Ahlberg, op. cit. pp. 88 ff.

^{page 8 note 5} See Norden, op. cit. p. 203 n. 1; Ahlberg, op. cit. p. 99.

^{page 8 note 6} See Ahlberg, op. cit. pp. 99, 101 f. for examples.

^{page 8 note 7} Postponed past participial attributes, for instance, occur only 5 times in Cicero's Red. Sen., Quir., Dom. and Har. Resp. (in well over 100 pages, O.C.T.), and are no more common in the non-historiographical prose of the Empire (see further below, p. 9 n. 2). Cicero prefers either to use a relative clause instead of the attribute, or to place substantive and attribute together before or after the verb (e.g. Dom. 54, 107, 122, Har. Resp. 20).

^{page 8 note 8} But not, e.g., in the oratorical prose of Demosthenes.

^{page 8 note 9} Sallust was recognised in antiquity as an imitator of Thucydides: Sen. Contr. 9. 1. 13, Veil. 2. 36. 2, Gell. 2. 27.

^{page 9 note 1} It is worthy of note that at 14. 14. 4 Koestermann (Teubner) changes subegit Jonis ingentibus to donis subegit ingentibus without manuscript authority or explanation.

^{page 9 note 2} In certain other historical and biographical writers also the usage is somewhat more frequent than in the Ciceronian and Imperial periodic styles. It is likely that some of them were, like Sallust, moved to break from the Latin manner under the influence of Greek historical prose, in the formative (post-annalistic) period of Latin historiography. A Latin tradition would soon have been forged to work its influence on later historians. See Schlicher, J. J., CP XXVIII (1933), 297 ff.Google Scholar for some statistics illustrating the postponing of participles (of a variety of types) by Roman historians.

^{page 9 note 3} See further Kohl, A., Der Saunachtrag bei Tacitus (Würzburg, 1959), pp. 10 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 4} See Peter, H., Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae I, pp. 207 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 1} On the style of the later books see now Tränkle, H., “Beobachtungen und Erwägungen zum Wandel der livianischen Sprache’, Wien. Stud. LXXXI (1968), 103 ff.Google Scholar Further work remains to be done.

^{page 10 note 2} See Sen. Contr. 9. 1. 14, Sen. Epist. 114. 17, Quint. 4. 2. 45, 8. 3. 29, 10. 2. 17, Suet. Gramm. 10. 2, 15. 2, Gell. 10. 26. 1.

^{page 10 note 3} See, e.g., Quint. 10. 1. 102 (on Servilius Nonianus), Tac. Dial. 23. 2 (on Aufidius Bassus and Servilius Nonianus), Agrie. 10. 3 (on Fabius Rusticus).

^{page 10 note 4} Cf. 8. 5.

^{page 11 note 1} See Löfstedt, E., Philologischer Kommentar ţur Peregrinano Aetheriae (Uppsala, 1911), p. 10 Google Scholar.

^{page 11 note 2} At 23. 5 (grattas Christo Deo nostro egi infinitas, qui mihi dignatus est indignae et non merenti in omnibus desideria compiere) it perhaps Stands in a prayer formula. For the formulaic character of the second clause, cf. ib. 23. 8. See also Act. Petr. c. Sim. 5 gratias egit domino, qui eum dignatus fuisset (in Lipsius, R. A., Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, Leipzig, 1891)Google Scholar.

^{page 11 note 3} In Geyer, P., Corp. Script. Eccl. Lat. vol. XXXIX Google Scholar.

^{page 11 note 4} By Pei, M. A., The Language of the Eighth-Century Texts in Northern France (New York, 1932), p. 357 Google Scholar. For the opposite view see Norberg, D., Syntaktische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete des Spätlateins und des frühen Mittellateins (Uppsala, 1943), p. 17 Google Scholar.

^{page 12 note 1} Page numbers are from Zeumer, K., Formulae Merowingici et Karolini Aevi (Hannover, 1886)Google Scholar (M.G.H., Legum Sectio V: Formulae).

^{page 12 note 2} Late Latin (Oslo, 1959), p. 6 Google Scholar.

^{page 12 note 3} See Löfstedt, B., Studien über die Sprache der langobardischen Geseue (Uppsala, 1961)Google Scholar.

^{page 12 note 4} Codice Diplomatico Longobardo, 2 vols. (Rome, 1929)Google Scholar.

^{page 12 note 5} Another elevated usage found constantly in the official language of both the Merovingian and Lombard documents is atque. It was not in popular use even in the time of Petronius.

^{page 12 note 6} See M.G.H., Legum Tom. IV, ed. G. H. Pertz, for the Edictus Rothari (A.D. 643), Leges Liutprandi (A.D. 713–35), and Ratchis Leges (A.D. 745–6).

^{page 12 note 7} See Hofmann-Szantyr, p. 406; Marouzeau, J., L'Ordre des Mots dans la Phrase Latine, I (Paris, 1922), pp. 13 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 12 note 8} Marouzeau, op. cit. pp. 87 ff.

^{page 12 note 9} See the examples given by Marouzeau, loc. cit.

^{page 13 note 1} If there was a danger that hyperbaton might give an impression of flippancy and insincerity, it is not surprising that Cicero should have avoided it in some of his more solemn and impassioned speeches (e.g. pro Rab. perd., in Cat. I). See above, p. 5 n. 5.

^{page 14 note 1} Frequencies in the other lives are: I, 3 examples in 26 pages; II, 6/7; III, 3/7; IV, 13/27; V, 8/10; VI, 3/12; VIII, 3/13; IX, 3/8; X, 2/21; XI, 7/11; XII, 5/13; XIII, 6/10; XIV, 3/6; XV, 2/13; XVI, 3/8; XVII, 11/27; XVIII, 20/54; XIX, 8/26; XX, 6/28; XXI, 5/16; XXII, 2/5; XXIII, 8/20; XXIV, 18/34. (Page numbers Teubner.)

^{page 14 note 2} On the question of authorship, see now White, P., ‘The Authorship of the Historia Augusta ’, JRS LVII (1967), 115 ff.Google Scholar; Syrne, R., Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (Oxford, 1968), pp. 176 ff.Google Scholar On earlier work, see also Momigliano, A., Secondo Contributo alla Storia degli Studi Classici (Rome, 1960), pp. 112 f.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 1} For the separation of gloria from its adjective, cf. XXII. 5.1.

^{page 15 note 2} For reddo as separating verb, cf. XII. 12. 8, XIII. 2. 11.

^{page 15 note 3} For modus separated from an adjective, cf. XX. 4. 3.

^{page 15 note 4} For addo as separating verb, cf. XVI. 6. 8. For dignitas separated from another adjective, see XVIII. 23. 6.

^{page 15 note 5} For miror as separating verb, cf. XXVI. 2. 2.

^{page 15 note 6} For utor as separating verb, cf. XXIX. 6. 4, XXX. 4. 6.