66 6 66 this theory. There is a remarkable passage in Aulus Gellius on this idiom (x. c. 14), which it appears to me cannot be explained unless by supposing that the supine and the infinitive "iri" were taken virtually as coalescing in one word, and, if they so coalesce, we have in fact and in form a desiderative verb. A. Gellius says, "Audio illi injuriam factum iri' audio contumeliam dictum iri'-vulgo quoque ita "dici, vulgo et istam esse verborum figuram jam in medio "loquendi usu-idcircoq. exemplis supersedeo. Sed 'con“tumelia illi' vel ‘injuria factum itur' paulo est remotius: exemplum igitur ponemus: M. Cato pro se contrà Cassium “ —‘atque evenit ita, Quirites, uti in hâc contumeliâ, quæ 66 6 'per hujusce petulantiam factum itur, rei quoque publica "medius fidius miserear Quirites'—sicut autem 'contume"liam factum iri' significat 'iri ad contumeliam facien"'dam' id est-operam dari quò fiat; ita contumelia mihi 'factum itur' casu tantum immutato idem dicit."" surely in "contumeliam factum iri," it is commonly assumed that "iri" being used as it is called "impersonally," the accusative "contumeliam" is governed by the supine "factum." How, then, can it become the nominative to "factum-itur," unless on the supposition that these two words are in fact one passive verb, of which the active would be "factum-ire"? The essence of a passive structure is that the object of the active verb becomes the subject of the passive, which would then be the case. In Pliny (xxxii. 47) we have of Crassus, nec fuit satis nisi totum Parthorum esurisset aurum," where "esurio" is an active verb, and we might say "esuritur aurum," like the " factum-itur (facturitur) contumelia" of Cato. Compare note 68, above, and the reference to the Lexilogus, b. ii. s. 260. 66 6 66 66 66 ео 66 But In favour of this derivation from "ire" may perhaps be added the existence of such a future as esuribo" (see Facciol. in v.). Against it, however, we have the change of into "io," though "ambio" affords a precedent for this as well as for a derivative from "eo," "ire," sometimes, though not always, using the participle present, the gerund, and the imperfect, according to the regular form of the fourth conjugation. Thus in Velleius Paterculus we find "insula quam amnis Euphrates ambiebat," though in Ovid (Meta 66 morphos. v. 360) the imperfect is ambibat, "ambibat Siculæ cautus fundamina terræ.” Perhaps, too, it may be said that if "esurire" were nothing more than " esum-ire," we ought to find the quantity of the i in "esuritor" different from what it is in the line of Martial (iii. 14)— "Romam petebat esuritor Tuccius." The verbal substantive ambitus, however, retains the short vowel of the supine, though the past participle itself seems to be long, e. g. "Jussit et ambītæ circumdare littora terræ." Ovid, Metam. i. 37. Claudium in Rufinum, 180. "Fallit et ambītos a principe vendit honores." If "circitor" be ever long, it is probably to be taken as a contraction of "circuitor." Compare "Quid mecum tibi circitor moleste." Priap. xvi. See Facciol. in v.; Zumpt, Lat. Gramm., ss. 228, 551, 218. The elision of the m of the supine offers little difficulty, though the insertion of the r in its place may cause more hesitation. In "prodesse" and "prodire" the letter selected for insertion in this manner is d, which was at one time occasionally interchanged with r. See Buttmann, Lexilogus, b. ii. s. 112, note on "Laurus," and b. i. s. 126. |