previous next

We find ille put for is sometimes, e.g. Mil. 21peiuriorem hoc hominem siquis noverit, aut gloriarum pleniorem quam illĭc (= is) est.” Editors are chary of allowing hic to stand for is in Plautus (for examples in Terence, see Bach, p. 364) and alter, Capt. prol. 19, 335, Men. 650. Certainly the notorious confusion of these Pronouns by scribes (especially i and hi, is and his) and in late Latin makes it difficult to be sure that the error is to be ascribed to Plautus and not to a copyist (cf. Seyffert: Studia Plautina. Berlin (progr.), 1874, p. 17; and especially H. Ziegel: deisethicpronominibus quatenus confusa sint apud antiquos. Marburg, 1897). And undoubtedly lines like Rud. 751nam huic alterae quae patria sit profecto nescio, nisi scio probiorem hanc (= eam) esse quam te, impuratissume”, Mil. 275, (see above, I. 8) are no evidence. But it is impossible to ignore the use of hoc for eo ‘on that account,’ e.g. Pseud. 808, 822, Mil. 850. (For other examples see Meader: Latin Pronouns, New York, 1901, pp. 36 sqq.). In Truc. 533his te dono” (contrast 531), the Demonstrative Pronoun marks the actual presentation. (On a like confusion of sic and ita see below, VIII. 2

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: