The old ritual word macte was only vaguely understood even in Republican times. As is well known, the ancient critics connected the word with magis, magnus, and explained it as magis auctus. A glance at Walde's Wörterbuch reveals that many attempts have been made in modern times to solve the mystery; but the formidable equipment of the modern philologist has yielded little better results than the popular etymology of the ancients, the most favoured view to-day seeing in mactus the PPP (...) of a verb mago with macto as the frequentative which replaces it. The supposed semantic development of this verb, originally meaning ‘to increase’, has been set forth by Warde Fowler in a well-known passage, to which recent authorities have accorded their assent and praise: ‘the vitality of the deity … was really increased by placing on the altar the organs of life of the victim’. But this is a solution which ignores half the problem: macte and mactare are used not only of the deities but also of the victim. One can perhaps understand lovem mactare as ‘to magnify J.’, but not even by the most superficial analogy can we find a transition from here to the meaning typified in mactare vinum. Yet this is one of the most frequent usages of the word. So deep a gulf lies between the two semantic spheres of the verb that some scholars have sought to find in it two different verbs. But this is a counsel of despair which the editor of the Thesaurus dismisses with a non recte. We must agree, then, with Hey that the modern explanation is ‘sicher eine unrichtige’ and with Meillet-Ernout that there exists ‘aucune étymologie claire’. It is, therefore, surprising that so ill-founded a preconception should lead investigators to ignore or even dismiss important evidence which the ancient authorities offer for the solution of this problem. (shrink)

The very ingenious and closely reasoned article of Mr. L. R. Palmer seems to us to deserve examination, the more so as we totally disagree with his views, both from the point of view of etymology and that of Religionsforschung. To put his conclusions briefly, he supposes mactus to be derived from a hypothetical verb macio, signifying ‘bespatter, sprinkle’; mactus then would properly mean ‘sprinkled’, and might also be used of the substance which was sprinkled or poured, thus accounting for (...) the double construction of the secondary verb mactare. In particular, Mr. Palmer supposes that macte uirtute alludes to the blood with which the warrior thus addressed is besprinkled, and so to his tabu condition. To the whole of this construction we object, holding that the old derivation from the root MAG is correct and that mactus signifies ‘increased’, ‘made greater or stronger’, mactare properly ‘to put someone in the condition of being mactus’, and by an easy transition ‘to sacrifice a victim’. (shrink)

For decades, a remarkable number of publications have been devoted to the so-called Epistulae ad Caesarem. Most have focused on the question of whether they are authentic or forgeries, and only a few have analysed them as a source for valuable historical evidence. This paper intends to demonstrate that the letters could certainly have been written in the middle of the first century BCE and that Sallust could indeed be the author. The letters, particularly Ep. 2, show that there were (...) alternative political agendas and provide a better understanding of Sallust as a politician and historian, as well as of the political debate surrounding the outbreak of the civil war and Caesar’s rule. (shrink)

In vol. xxxii of this Journal, pp. 220 ff., we published a rejoinder to Dr. L. R. Palmer's ingenious article in which he derived macte, mactare, and macula from a hypothetical verb *macio ‘to sprinkle’. We objected to this construction, holding that the traditional derivation of macte from the root of magnus was more satisfactory, and discussing in some detail the evidence brought forward by Dr. Palmer in support of his theory. Alas! Dr. Palmer has taken our criticism neither (...) kindly nor seriously, and, while accusing us in his spirited reply of using ribaldry instead of argument, he is himself rather selective in answering our objections. Both this circumstance and the fact that his article contains a number of mistaken assertions compel us to restate our case. (shrink)

In vol. xxxii of this Journal, pp. 220 ff., we published a rejoinder to Dr. L. R. Palmer's ingenious article in which he derived macte, mactare, and macula from a hypothetical verb *macio ‘to sprinkle’. We objected to this construction, holding that the traditional derivation of macte from the root of magnus was more satisfactory, and discussing in some detail the evidence brought forward by Dr. Palmer in support of his theory. Alas! Dr. Palmer has taken our criticism neither (...) kindly nor seriously, and, while accusing us in his spirited reply of using ribaldry instead of argument, he is himself rather selective in answering our objections. Both this circumstance and the fact that his article contains a number of mistaken assertions compel us to restate our case. (shrink)