Научный архив: статьи

The article examines two expressions for the new moon in Latin, luna silens and luna sicca (or sitiens). Despite the unusual imagery behind the choice of these epithets, the expressions appear in unremarkable, technical contexts (mostly, in works on agriculture by Cato, Columella, Pliny the Elder) and denote this particular phase of the lunar cycle without any indication that the metaphors were perceived by speakers. The paper aims at explaining this paradox. It is shown that neither of these expressions was based on superstitions or popular lore. They reflected, in fact, an attempt to present the phase of the lunar cycle when the moon is invisible in contrast to other visible phases, which are easier to identify. Thus, luna silens was created by opposition to luna crescens “the waxing moon”, as denoting the moment before active, visible growth will begin. Luna sicca, on the other hand, was created by opposition to luna plena, “the full moon”, where the moon would be imagined as a vessel, gradually filled to its fullness by white light. Finally, luna sitiens was an expression, synonymic to luna sicca, created by analogy with luna silens. While these expressions were used as terms without any artistic effect, Augustan poets seem to have recognized their poetic potential and, on some occasions, put it to use (in particular, Verg. Aen. 2, 255 and Prop. 2, 17, 15).

The perfect tense in Greek which is used to denote a state of affairs in the present as resulting from a past action does not find an exact equivalent in the system of Latin tenses: when faced with the need to express this idea a Latin speaker could either focus on the expression of the state by using the present tense (whereby the connection with the past was not expressed and would only be inferred), or use the perfect, in which case the effect of the past action on the present was not directly expressed and could only be deduced (the so-called resultative perfect). The article analyses Latin speakers’ attitude to this difference between Greek and Latin verbal systems, in particular, on the basis of the evidence collected from Roman epistolography when the letter-writer felt that the idea he wished to express could most aptly be rendered by a Greek perfect and switched to the Greek solely for that perfect form. The corpus of texts used for this study included the letters of Cicero to Atticus and his Epistulae ad Familiares, the Letters of Pliny the Younger, Seneca’s Letters to Lucilius, excerpts of Augustus’ letters preserved by Suetonius, and M. Cornelius Fronto’s correspondence with Marcus Aurelius

It is a well-known fact that tmesis (independent use of the preverb from its verb) as a linguistic phenomenon was progressively eliminated from Ancient Greek, so that only residual usage is attested in the language of the Classical age. However, one verb, ἀναδραμεῖν, retained tmetic usage with the particle τε intervening between the preverb and the verb, ἀνά τε ἔδραμε, until late Antiquity (Appian, Eunapius). It is significant that this construction (on par with the non tmetic form ἀνέδραμε) was used in prose, which suggests that it was part of actual linguistic usus. The article examines the reasons behind the unique longevity of this tmesis. Following an overview of the occurrences of ἀνά τε ἔδραμεν in Herodotus, Appian and Eunapius, and the comparison of the use of the tmetic and non tmetic forms, the elements of the construction are discussed. It is shown that the survival of ἀνά τε ἔδραμεν must have been influenced by the semantic development of the verb (the root no longer denotes actual running, but springing to one’s feet or rapid growth), as well as the capacity of the preverb ἀνα- to appear independently of its verb (the deontic ἄνα). Finally, a possible shift in meaning of τε (as invariable part of the expression) is discussed. While it is impossible to pinpoint one single factor that determined the singular longevity of the tmesis ἀνά τε ἔδραμε in Greek, a combination of factors seems to have contributed to its survival