previous next

II. The Cases of the Noun.

The Latin of Plautus' time stands at a stage between the very early period, when the use of Prepositions to give force and precision to the meaning of the Cases was not much in evidence, and the classical period; just as classical Latin itself stands at an earlier stage than the encroachment of the Prepositions even on such cases as the Genitive and Dative.1 The primitive expression, e.g. salio monte ‘leap from the mountain,’ became first desilio monte, and finally salio (desilio) de monte. Plautine Latin may be said to be coincident with the transition from the second to the third type of expression. For its unclassical uses of a prepositionless case are usually found after a Compound Verb, e.g. although we find a few survivals of the primitive type, especially stereotyped phrases like “foro fugiunt” Pers. 435, “saxo saliat” Trin. 265, i malam crucem (rem) beside i in malam crucem (rem) ‘go and be hanged,’ as in legal Latin the stereotyped phrase tribu movere survived long after Plautus' time, and in both colloquial and literary Latin the quasi-adverbial rus ire, domo ire, etc.2 Invado, used of a disease, takes the Accusative (Trin. 28, Asin. 55), otherwise in and Accusative (Bacch. 711, Asin. 908, Epid. 670). Just as the meaning of a Case was eked out by the addition of a cognate Preposition, salio de monte, salio ex monte (or desilio, exsilio), etc., so was the meaning of an Adverb. Plautine Latin is rich in Adverbial compounds like in-ibi, inter-ibi, etc., e.g.

Nominative.

Under this heading may be mentioned a type of Parataxis, which consists in using two words in Apposition, instead of subordinating the one to the other. A good example of this characteristically Old Latin usage is Capt. 232 “nam fere maxuma pars morem hunc homines habent”, with maxuma pars, homines instead of maxuma pars hominum. The same notion could be expressed by the Adverbial Accusative (see 36), homines maxumam partem. Not far removed from this is the Old Latin phrase plerique omnes (e.g. Trin. 29) instead of plerique, ne dicam omnes or the like. Some ancient editors put a comma between plerique and omnes. On ‘id genus’ (homines), etc., not found in Plautus or Terence, see 36; on the pleonastic use of is with the Subject of the sentence, IV. 18 and on the use of the Nominative for the Vocative, see below, 52

Genitive

(A. W. Blomquist: de Genetivi apud Plautum usu, Helsingfors, 1892).

In Greek the Genitive has absorbed the Ablative. In Plautus the Genitive and Ablative have the same function in sentences like:

(For other types of the concurrence of Genitive and Ablative see below, 4, 15, 16）

A characteristically Plautine Genitive is what is usually called the Genitive of ‘Respect,’ e.g. Amph. 105 “quam liber harum rerum multarum siet”; Pseud. 746 “A. ecquid argutust? B. malorum facinorum saepissime”. We should express this by the Preposition ‘in,’ ‘easy-going in these matters,’ ‘talented in villainy.’ This notion of ‘in,’ ‘in respect of’ is expressed by the Ablative in sentences like Sometimes the ‘Genitive of Respect’ and the ‘Objective Genitive’ (e.g. “fugitans litium” Ter. Phorm. 623) are hardly distinguishable; thus in Asin. 855-7 “si huius rei me mendacem inveneris . . . amantem uxoris maxume”, it seems unreasonable to separate the functions of the two Genitives. Cf. Capt. 264 “quarum rerum te falsiloquum mihi esse nolo”. The Plautine Genitive with credo is called in some Grammars a ‘Genitive of Respect,’ in others a ‘Partitive Genitive’, e.g. We find it also with fidem habeo in Pers. 785 “quia ei fidem non habui argenti”, which favours the title ‘Genitive of Respect’; but the occasional addition of quicquam, quid associates it with the ‘Partitive Genitive,’ Asin. 854 “neque divini neque mi humani posthac quicquam accreduas”; Poen. 466 “quid ei divini aut humani aequomst credere?” Other Verbs with the Genitive that may be mentioned in this connexion are fallor, Epid. 239 “nec satis exaudibam, nec sermonis fallebar tamen”; also Verbs of incriminating, convicting, penalizing (like furti accusare, capitis damnare), e.g. Cf. Poen. 184 “dupli tibi, auri et hominis, fur leno siet”. With insimulo, the crime usually stands in Genitive, but we find Accusative in Amph. 859 “collibitum siet meo viro sic me insimulare falso facinus tam malum” (cf. Amph. 820, etc.). In the phrase animi sanus, laetus, etc., the Loc. is usually recognized. But we find in Plautus, e.g. Epid. 138 “desipiebam mentis, quom illa scripta mittebam tibi”, where mentis is clearly Genitive, although in Trin. 454 “satin tu's sanus mentis aut animi tui?”, the emendation has been proposed, tu sanus menti's.

Some of the Plautine ‘Genitives of Respect’ would, if found in an Augustan poet, be called Graecisms, e.g. Rud. 213 “hac an illac eam incerta sum consili” (cf. Ter. Phorm. 578 “quod quidem me factum consili incertum facit”; Ennius trag. 142 V. “suarum rerum incerti”). But the imitation of a Greek construction3 is as suitable for the literary style of Augustan poetry as it is unsuitable for the every-day language of Plautus. Their Italic origin is proved by their occurrence in other dialects, e.g. (Oscan) “manum aserum eizazunc egmazum” ‘manum asserere earum rerum.’ Similarly the use (especially in Tacitus) of the Genitive of the Gerund and Gerundive to express purpose, e.g. Tac. Ann. 2, 59 “Germanicus Aegyptum proficiscitur cognoscendae antiquitatis”, is found in Umbrian, e.g. “ocrer peihaner” ‘arcis piandae.’ It is therefore a native construction, and, although not found in Plautus, is once used by Terence, Adelph. 270 “ne id adsentandi magis quam quo habeam gratum facere existumes”. (On Rud. 247 “me laborum levas”, see below, 14).

The Genitive of Exclamation is another Plautine usage which is often, but probably in error, ascribed to the influence of Greek. Examples are very rare: In Mil. 1223 there is no need to change o fortunata muliĕr es of the MSS. into o fortunatae mulieris. The Accusative usually has this function in Plautus and always in Terence, e.g. Ter. Phorm. 134 “iocularem audaciam!” (see below, 47).

Nor can we ascribe to Greek influence (cf. ἄρχειν τινός, μεμνῆσθαί τινος) the Genitive with potior, memini, obliviscor (in Ter. Eun. 306 “oblitus sum mei”; in Plautus only with Accusative of thing, e.g. Cas. 104 “non sum oblitus officium meum”; cf. Livius Andronicus Odyss. 4 “te oblitus sum”). From Cas. 112 “hercle me suspendio, quam tu eius potior fias, satiust mortuum”, we might infer that potiri took the Genitive because it was the equivalent of potis (cf. Greek πόσις ‘lord’） fieri; and the same explanation has been offered of oblivisci, reminisci, meminisse, the equivalents of oblitus, memor, esse. The treatment of these three Verbs (cf. venit mihi in mentem, also commonere Rud. 743 “mearum me absens miseriarum commones”） scarcely differs from the classical usage (for details see Babcock in Cornell Studies xiv, 1901); but the Plautine use of potiri calls for remark.

The Verbs miseret, taedet, pudet, etc., govern the Genitive in Plautus' time, as they do later; also fastidire, e.g. Aul. 245 “abiit . . fastidit mei”, Turpilius 103, Titinius 94, Lucilius 293, 654 Ma. “fastidire Agamemnonis”, but the MSS. show the Dative in Stich. 334 “mihin (mein, edd.) fastidis?”; also cupere, e.g. Mil. 963 “quae cupiunt tui” (but also Acc, e.g. Mil. 1050 “quae te cupit”). Studeo, which we shall find (44 below) to be used with the Accusative as well as the Dative, appears with the Genitive in Caecilius 201 “qui te nec amet nec studeat tui”. Could we have a better example of the elasticity of Early Latin Syntax and of the danger of altering the traditional text of Plautus when an abnormal construction is exhibited? Of vereor with Genitive we have many examples in the Dramatists, e.g. Cf. “metuens sui”, Turpilius 157.

The Genitive has often the function of an Adjective, e.g. Mil. 502 “nisi mihi supplicium virgarum de te datur” (cf. v. 511 “nisi mihi supplicium stimuleum de te datur”). This Genitive of Description or Quality may stand alongside of an Adjective, e.g. Men. 269 “ego autem homo iracundus, animi perditi”. That the same function is exercised by the Ablative has been already remarked, e.g. Mil. 10 “fortem atque fortunatum et forma regia” (see below, 62); although cuiusmodi (with eiusmodi, etc.) is never replaced by quomodo, which is, as in classical Latin, appropriate to Verbs. Noteworthy is

The type of Genitive represented by lucri facere, a type variously explained in Grammars as ‘Genitive of Material’ and ‘Partitive Genitive,’ is much affected by Plautus. Here are some examples: The phrase damni facere occurs only in a context which admits of damni being a Partitive Gen, We find also the Accusative in these phrases: We find also ponere (addere, conferre) ad compendium, e.g. Cas. 517 “id ponito ad compendium.”

From this Genitive it seems but a step to the Genitive praesidi in Poen. 670 “trecentos nummos Philippos portat praesidi”, peculi in Cas. 258 “cui homini hodie peculi nummus non est plumbeus”, and the Genitive dotis in phrases like We find the Accusative dotem in

And from this Genitive again it is not far to that curious use of the Genitive of the Gerund seen in

Some find a Genitive, some a Loc. in the phrase boni consulere ‘to regard in a favourable light,’ Truc. 429 “quicquid attulerit, boni consulas.”

To the type scelus viri (e.g. Curc. 614, Pers. 192) belong Not unlike them is the Partitive Genitive in

The Partitive Genitive is as greatly affected by Plautus as by Cicero. He even prefers hoc negoti to hoc negotium in Trin. 578 (cf. Mil. 956) “dic hoc negoti quomodo actumst”; cf. Quid rerum is a common phrase, e.g. and ubi terrarum, nusquam gentium, etc., are as frequent in Plautus' time as they are later (cf. interea loci ‘meanwhile,’ postid locorum ‘afterwards’; minime gentium Merc. 419, Poen. 690). Of other Adverbs with the Genitive may be noticed Along with parum (i.e. parvum, Neuter Singular) we find its equivalent, parva res (cf. I. 5), Amph. 633 “satin parva res est voluptatum in vita?” Cf. Cist. 777 “gaudeo tibi mea opera liberorum esse amplius”. Plautus apparently uses both copiae est and copia est, operae est and (in Merc. 286) opera est, e.g.

This use of the Genitive is pushed to an extreme in phrases like

Noteworthy too is Ter. Eun. 408 “A. immo sic homost, perpaucorum hominum. B. immo nullorum arbitror, si tecum vivit.”

The ‘Partitive’ Genitive with largiter, adfatim borders on the ‘Genitive of Plenty and Want.’ Here, as we have seen, the Ablative competes with the Genitive -- cf. -- although different words seem to show a predilection for the one Case or the other. Thus From the other Dramatists may be cited Pacuvius 291 “postquam est oneratus frugum et floris Liberi”, Pomponius 101 “domus haec fervit flagiti”. Vitae seems to be Genitive in Stich. 18 “haec res vitae me, soror, saturant”.

A similar concurrence of Genitive and Ablative is seen with another Adjective, dignus, for we find once in Trin. 1153 “non ego sum salutis dignus?”; possibly too with the Adjective cupidus, for the Ablative (Dative?) is attested in Pseud. 183 “vino modo cupidae estis.”

Along with the Genitive of Price, e.g. pluris (minoris) aestimare (cf. “pluris preti” Bacch. 630), “huius non faciam” Ter. Adelph. 163, we find plure (minore) in Republican Latin (cf. Charisius p. 109, 10 K. “plure aut minore emptum antiqui dicebant”; see Wölfflin in Archiv lat. Lexikographie 9, 107), an Ablative, like magno (parvo), although it may also be a Locative; for -ĭ (later -ĕ) was the Locative suffix with Cons.-stems, as -ei (later -ī) with O-stems (see 29).

The Genitive (or Locative) nihili of nihili facere, etc., becomes an Adjective in the phrase homo nihili; cf. “non homo trioboli” Poen. 463.

This Genitive (or Locative) of Price is found with refert, e.g. Rud. 966 “nihilo pol pluris tua hoc quam quanti illud refert mea”. The phrase in Pseud. 809 is curious: “me nemo potest minoris quisquam nummo, ut surgam, subigere” (i.e. ‘hire my services,’ said by a cook).

The ‘Objective Genitive’ has been already mentioned (4). In Asin. 77 sq. the Verb takes the Dative, the Verbal Noun the Genitive, obsequi gnato meo . . obsequium illius. Interesting Plautine examples of this Genitive are Truc. 145 (cf. 223) “rei male gerentes”, and the obscure “iuris coctiores (doct.?)” Poen. 586.

Of the ‘Possessive Genitive’ these examples are noteworthy: With a Genitive like Capt. 583 “est miserorum ut malevolentes sint”, may be compared the use of the Possessive Pronoun, e.g. non meum est ‘that is not my habit’ (cf. IV. 2). We also find officium in this type of expression, e.g. Truc. 436 “non amantis mulieris, sed sociai unanimantis, fidentis fuit officium facere quod modo haec fecit mihi.”

On the Genitive with par (as with similis), see below, 26

Dative.

(H. Peine: de dativi apud priscos scriptores usu. Strasburg (diss.) 1878.)

The Dative in Early Latin plays much the same parts as in the classical period. That peculiarly Latin usage, the Predicative Dative, is much affected by Plautus. Noteworthy examples are:

of Verbal Nouns of the Fourth Declension may be noticed: The Nominative often competes with the Predicative Dative, e.g. Only miseria est (e.g. Mil. 68), flagitium est (e.g. Mil. 694) seem to be used; but both lucro est (e.g. Mil. 675) and lucrum est (e.g. Merc. 553), exitio est (e.g. Bacch. 953） and exitium est (e.g. Bacch. 945 “exitium, excidium, exlecebra fiet hic equus hodie auro senis”; cf. 947, 1054; Ennius trag. 46 V. “eum esse exitium Troiae, pestem Pergamo”). Cordi is not Dative but Ablative; cf. Cist. 109 “in cordi est tamen.”

As examples of the Dative of Purpose may be noticed quoi rei ‘why?’ ‘for what purpose?’ (passim) and (with the Verb auspico） Other examples of the Gerundive (cf. decemviri legibus scribundis, etc.) are, e.g. The aetati agundae of Trin. 229 is equivalent to the ad aetatem agundam of v. 232:

“utram aetati agundae arbitrer firmiorem.
”

“utra in parte plus sit voluptatis vitae ad aetatem agundam
”

(for a similar use of the Genitive of the Gerund. see 5 above). From phrases like Pers. 792 “ferte aquam pedibus”, Most. 308 “cedo aquam manibus”, we cannot dissociate Curc. 578 “linteumque extersui”. This use of the Dative of Verbal Nouns of the Fourth Declension was much in favour in the homely Latin of the camp (e.g. receptui canere ‘to sound a retreat’) and of the farm (e.g. in Cato's and Varro's books on husbandry we find phrases like: “oleas esui optime condi” Varro R. R. i. 60).

Not far removed are phrases like

The equivalence of the Dative to the combination of a Preposition (ad, in) with the Accusative (see VII. 2), which led to the ‘Auxiliary’ formation of the Dative in the Romance languages, is prominent even in Plautus' time. Thus we find dare ad, e.g. while mitto is used with the Dative in Capt. 692 “te morti misero”. But in Ter. Andr. 70 “ex Andro commigravit huic viciniae”, we should probably read huc viciniae, like hic viciniae Phorm. 95. A truer anticipation of Virgil's “it clamor caelo” (Aen. 5.451) is Ennius Ann. 94 V. “praepetibus sese pulchrisque locis dant” (of the vultures seen by Romulus; cf. Ann. 401).

The Dativus Commodi too is as common in Plautus' time as later, and provides a quibble in Capt. 866 “A. esurire mihi videre. B. mi quidem esurio, non tibi”. Our Grammars describe as a ‘Dative of Reference4’ that similar use of this Case in lines like Trin. 971 “neque edepol tu is es neque bodie is umquam eris, auro huic quidem” ‘so far as this gold is concerned.’ It comes very near the function of the Ablative (with ab) after a Passive Verb in one or two places, e.g. Epid. 154 “ubi tibi istam emptam esse scibit” (cf. the old legal formula emptus mihi esto pretio, and see G. Landgraf: Beitraege zur historischen Syntax der lat Sprache. Munich (progr.), 1899).

This Dative is associated with Adjectives, e.g.

Sometimes the Dative exercises the function of a Genitive, e.g. With esse the Dative is always used with cognatus, patronus, etc., but without esse, the Genitive We find both pater est alicuius (e.g. Capt. 4, 974) and pater est alicui (e.g. Capt. 633, 1011), etc. (For details see Landgraf in Archiv lat. Lexikographie, 8, 66.)

The Dative of Possession is equally common. The Verb sit is suppressed in the phrase vae victis Pseud. 1317 and in the formula for toasts, e.g. Pers. 773 “bene mihi, bene vobis, bene meae amicae!” (On the use of the Accusative in toasts, see below, 46）

Much the same Verbs govern the Dative in Plautus as in Cicero, e.g. credo, ignosco, impero. We have the full construction, Dative of Person and Accusative of Thing, in lines like But we find both Accusative and Dative with

Vito has Dative in Plautus:

But the Accusative is found, e.g. Rud. 168 “fluctus devitaverint”. Ausculto with Accusative means ‘I hear,’ with Dative ‘I obey’5; so editors change me of the MSS. into mi in Trin. 662 “nisi mi auscultas atque hoc ut dico facis.”

The distinction between the function of the Dative (Indirect Object) and the Accusative (Direct Obj.) is seen with timeo in Ter. Andr. 210 “si illum relinquo, eius vitae timeo; sin opitulor, huius minas”; and with the two uses of ludos facio (1) with Accusative ‘to make game of,’ even in Passive, e.g. Bacch. 1090 “hocine me aetatis ludos bis factum esse indigne!” (2) with Dative ‘to honour, divert one with a comedy,’ often approaching the other sense, e.g. Most. 427 “ludos ego hodie vivo praesenti huic seni faciam, quod credo mortuo numquam fore.”

A like freedom of construction with Genitive or Dative appears in some Adjectives, e.g. par, usually with Dative, e.g. Poen. 376, but with Genitive in Rud. 49 “ei erat hospes par sui Siculus senex” (parvi MSS.), Accius 465 “quodsi ex Graecia omni illius par nemo reperiri potest”. But editors are perhaps right in rejecting all cases of Dative with similis; for the evidence for this construction is weak (see my note on Capt. 582). Studiosus takes Dative in Mil. 802 “qui, nisi adulterio, studiosus rei nulli aliaest improbus”. (On Pseud. 183 “vino modo cupidae estis”, see above, 15）

Conscius (with esse) seems to take the Dative (Ablative?) in Rud. 1247 “ne conscii sint ipsi maleficiis suis” (consci Pylades). This Dative is of the same type as Ter. Adelph. 671 “auctor his rebus quis est?”, and the examples, cognatus esse, etc., quoted above, 23

The ‘Dative of Capacity’ (cf. oneri ferendo esse, etc.) appears in Stich. 720 “nulli rei erimus postea”; ‘we shall be fit for nothing afterwards,’ Cato inc. 3 J. “qui tantisper nulli rei sies, dum nihil agas” (which can hardly be Genitive, as Priscian 1. p. 227, p. 266 H. prefers to make it, or Locative, like nihili); cf. Ter. Adelph. 357 “qui aliquoi reist, etiam eum ad nequitiem adducere”. To it should be referred the common phrase (bonae) frugi esse. In Early Latin frux in the Singular had the metaphorical sense of ‘good conduct’ in various phrases, e.g. The phrase with the Dative obtained a firm footing (cf. III. 3).

The curious appositional use of the Dative of a Personal Name in a phrase like ‘nomen est mihi Gaïo’ is also Plautine, e.g. But it seems to be a rule with Plautus that, when the Dative of the Person is put between the word nomen and the Name, the Name shall not stand in the Dative Case, e.g. Truc. 12 “hic habitat mulier, nomen quoi est Phronesium”. (For additional examples see Asmus: de Appositionis apud Plautum et Terentium collocatione, Halle, 1891, p. 49; Seyffert in Bursian's Jahresbericht 1894, p. 331; Becker in Studemund's Studien 1, pp. 170-1.)

On suus sibi ‘his own’ see IV. 2

Locative

(see J. Heckmann in Indogermanische Forschungen, 18, pp. 296 sqq.).

Comparative Philology has corrected the old notion that -ī was in all Declensions the Locative suffix (e.g. Romai, Corinthi, Carthagini), and has shown that in Ā-stems (1 Declension) the suffix was -ai, a diphthong (while the Genitive suffix was disyllabic -āī), in O-stems (2 Declension) -oi (cf. Gk. οἴκοι) which became -ei, and later (after Plautus' time) -ī, in Consonant-stems (part of 3 Declension) -ĭ, which became -ĕ. This Consonant-stem Locative was used in Latin as Ablative, e.g. Carthaginĕ, patrĕ, in Greek as Dative, e.g. πατρί. Instead of this Ablative-Locative -ĕ in Consonant-stems we find occasionally -ī in Plautus, e.g. militi, which seems to be the I-stem Ablative (originally -īd), e.g. navī, classī. Just as the Consonant-stem suffix -ĕ was often used in I-stems, e.g. navĕ, classĕ, and (in Plautus) marĕ, so the I-stem suffix -ī(d) found its way into Consonant-stems. If this be the true explanation, Carthagini, mani, etc., and in Plautus Accherunti ‘in the lower world,’ e.g. Capt. 998, are Ablatives, not Locatives.

In the classical Latin period the Locative had lost its identity. In the first Declension both Locative -ai and Genitive -āī had become -ae, so that Romae habitare was indistinguishable from Romae conditor; and similarly in the second agri (older -ei) habitare and agri cultor. Thus in these two Declensions the Locative became merged in the Genitive, as in the third (and probably the fourth and fifth) it was identified with the Ablative In Plural Nouns of all Declensions Dative, Locative, and Ablative had apparently been fused into one Case from a remote period.

How far a Roman of Plautus' time recognised the Locative as a special case is difficult to say. It certainly plays a greater part in Plautine Latin than in Ciceronian; witness expressions of place like proxumae viciniae ‘next door’ (passim), meae viciniae Rud. 613; of time like “die septimi” Men. 1156; of value like “trioboli, flocci, nauci, aequi facere” Mil. 784.

But the notion of Price (Locative tanti, plure; see above, 29） could be expressed equally by an Abl, e.g. minimo (cf. Epid. 295 “quanti emi potest minimo?”), and by a Genitive, e.g. pluris (cf. Asin. 858 sq. “minimi mortalem preti . . . nihili”). And beside animi anxius (cf. Epid. 326 “angas te animi”) we have desipere mentis6 (see above, 4) as well as animo ferox,, Mil. 1323 “et quia tecum eram, propterea animo eram ferocior”. So that the way was paved for the identification of the Locative with the Gen in the First and Second Declension and with the Ablative in the Third.

The Locative seems to be loosely used for the Accusative after a Verb of Motion in Pers. 731 “transcidi loris omnes adveniens domi”, Epid. 361, “adveniens domi extemplo ut maritus fias”, just as the Accusative is sometimes loosely used after a Verb of Rest (see 39); although this use of domi is open to question.

And the laws of Classical Latin for the expression of ‘at’ (also ‘to’ and ‘from’) without a Preposition in the case of towns and small islands and with a Preposition in the case of countries were not strictly enforced in Early Latin. Even Terence uses in Lemno nearly as freely as Lemni and allows in Lemnum (iter esset) beside in Ciliciam in Phorm. 66, while he actually seems to prefer ex Andro, e Corintho, etc. (see below, 39, 54).

On boni consulere see above, 11

Accusative

(Biese ‘de objecto interno apud Plaut. et Ter.’ Kiel, 1878).

This Case plays so many parts in Plautus and so often usurps the function of other Cases that we are occasionally reminded of the Late Latin Declension (reflected in the Romance languages), in which all the Oblique Cases are merged in the Accusative.

The Cognate Accusative is much in evidence. Early Latin did not recognize the restriction that the Accusative should always contain some additional notion besides that contained in the Verb; for the early legal phrase, ‘to be a slave,’ was servitutem servire (cf. Quintilian 7, 3, 26), a phrase of frequent occurrence in the Comedies and also used by the historian Livy. Other Plautine examples are:

The Accusative Neuter of a Pronoun is used with all kinds of Verbs, e.g. It gives occasion to a pun in Cas. 460 “illuc est, illuc quod (that is why) hic hunc fecit vilicum; et ĭdem me pridem . . . facere atriensem voluerat sub ianua.”

From this Cognate Accusative it is an easy transition to the Adverbial Accusative, e.g. In Amph. 301 editors change “modum maiorem” to “multo maiorem,” “igitur magis modum maiorem in sese concipiet metum.” Quod genus and id genus are not found in Plautus or Terence, but are familiar to Lucilius (see Arch. Lat. Lex. 5, 387). On cetera, ceterum see below, VIII. 2 on circum, VII. 2

For the Accusative of Time (see T. Kane: Case Forms with and without Prepositions used by Plautus and Terence to express time, Baltimore, 1895) may be cited the quasi-Adverb aetatem ‘for one's lifetime,’7 e.g. We find already in Plautus that curious misuse of the Accusative for the Ablative in expressions like just as we find omni in aetate for omnem aetatem in Poen. 228 “quae noctes diesque omni in aetate semper ornantur.”

Abhinc takes an Accusative of Time, as in classical Latin, e.g.

but the MSS. show the Ablative (cf. anno ‘a year ago’ Amph. prol. 91 “etiam histriones anno quom in proscaenio hic Jovem invocarunt, venit, auxilio is fuit”; see below, 63) in Most. 493 “qui abhinc sexaginta annis (-os, edd.) occisus foret.”

As examples of Accusative of Space these may serve:

The Accusative of Motion (see J. Heckmann in Indogermanische Forschungen, 18, pp. 296 sqq.), which is in classical Latin confined to names of towns, domus, rus, etc., had a wider range in Plautus' time, e.g. Curc. 206 “parasitum misi nudiusquartus Cariam” (cf. Livius Andronicus Odyss. 14 “partim （‘in groups’） errant, nequinont Graeciam redire”; although we also find in Cariam 8, etc., e.g. (“Exsequias ire” Ter. Phorm. 1026 is Accusative of Object, like Poen. 698 “is, leno, viam.”） Both malam crucem ire and in malam crucem ire are used, e.g. Poen. 496 “A. nisi aut auscultas aut is in malam crucem. B. malam crucem ibo potius”; usually in malam rem, but Truc. 937 “malam rem is et magnam”, Ter. Eun. 536 “malam rem hinc ibis?” (See below, V. 42 on 1 Supine.)

It is sometimes loosely used with Verbs of Rest, e.g. Men. 51 “siquis quid vostrum Epidamnum (-ni alii） curari sibi velit”, just as huc is used for hic in Aul. 640 “ostende huc”, or as in governs the Accusative in Epid. 191 “in amorem (-re, alii) haerere”. (On Old Latin in manum esse, in potestatem esse, see 51）

And it is most in evidence after a Compound Verb, being, in a manner, governed by the Preposition with which the Verb is compounded (see below, 43).

The main function of the Accusative, the expression of the Object of the Verb of the sentence, is pushed to the widest possible extent. The use of the Neuter Accusative of Pronouns with all manner of Verbs has been already noticed in connexion with the Cognate Accusative (above, 35). ‘Constructio ad Sensum’ is the usual explanation in Grammars for lines like in Pseud. 643 “hoc inicere ungulas”, hoc may be the Old Latin form of huc (see below, IV. 20). On manum inicere (= comprehendere） with Accusative and on other examples of Accusative in ‘Constructio ad Sensum,’ see I. 4. Perditus esse with the sense of deamare takes its construction, Mil. 1253 “ut, quaeso, amore perditast te misera!” (cf. Cist. 132).

The passage of Intransitives into Transitives had already begun in Plautus' time, and the Accusative with them admits of the same explanation as the Accusative with perditus esse. Examples are:

In Most. 100 “simul gnarŭres vos volo esse hanc rem mecum”, we may say that gnarures esse has the sense and takes the construction of novisse, as in Amph. 879 “quod gravida est” (= concepit). We may also say that the Verbal Adjective governs the same Case as the Verb itself (cf. Turpilius 65 “at enim scies ea quae fuisti inscius”); although this treatment of Verbal Adjective and Verbal Noun, so common in Greek, is at the time of Plautus in process of disappearing. It is almost wholly confined to Verbal Nouns in -tio (see Landgraf in Archiv lat. Lexikographie 10,401), when used in interrogative sentences which begin with quid, e.g. This use of the Accusative is peculiarly Plautine; for Terence, though he allows this type of phrase, uses the Genitive in Eun. 671 “quid huc tibi reditiost? vestis quid mutatiost?”

We may add Capt. 519 “neque exitium exitio est”, and Pseud. 385 “ad eam rem usust hominem astutum” (see below, 56). (In Ter. Andr. 202 “nihil circumitione usor es” (usus es, MSS.) may be the true reading; but in Amph. 34 iusta is a doubtful emendation, for the iuste of the MSS. may stand for iustae Dative, “nam iustae (sc. rei) ab iustis iustus sum orator datus”). In Poen. 410 “quid nunc mi es auctor?”, the phrase es auctor takes the construction of its equivalent, suades.

That facio can be used like me facio ‘play the part of’ is not absolutely proved by

and see below, V. 4

This claim of the Accusative to denote the Object of the sentence is seen in the anticipatory use (cf. Gk. οἶδά σε ὄστις εἰ), for which Plautus shows an extraordinary predilection, e g. (For a full list of instances see Lindskog: Quaestiones de Parataxi et Hypotaxi apud priscos Latinos, Lund, 1896, pp. 76 sqq.) It is the normal construction with facio, e.g. Pers. 414 “possum te facere ut argentum accipias?”, Most. 389 “satin habes, si ego advenientem ita patrem faciam tuum . . . ut fugiat longe ab aedibus?” (but e.g. Pseud. 819 “quae illis qui terunt, prius quam triverunt, oculi ut exstillent facit”). Not unlike is Pseud. 1319 “hoc ego nunquam ratus sum fore me ut tibi fierem supplex.”

With some Compound Verbs the use of the Accusative may be referred to the Prepositional part of the compound, e.g. circumduco, Most. 843 “eho, istum, puere, circumduce hasce aedes et conclavia”; also various Compounds with ad, such as with in, such as with ob, such as although many Compounds with ob take the Dative,

The competition of Accusative with Dative has been already mentioned (25) in connexion with ausculto, etc. To the Compound Verbs which take Accusative as well as Dative (e.g. Epid. 135 “nunc iam alia cura impendet pectori”), we may add Anteeo (antideo) takes Accusative with an Ablative of Respect, e.g. Bacch. 1089 “solus ego omnes longe antideo stultitia et moribus indoctis”, but otherwise Dative, e.g. Pers. 778 “solus ego omnibus antideo facile”, Amph. 649 “virtus omnibus rebus anteit.” Parco has Accusative and Dative indiscriminately, e.g. Mil. 1220 “ne parce vocem, ut audiat” (cf. Most. 104, and the old formula, like Gk. εὐφήμει, used at sacrifices parcito linguam), Pers. 682 “tace, parce voci” (cf. Poen. 1145).

The Accusative competes with the Ablative in the construction of the Deponents potior (see above, 7), fungor, fruor, utor, etc. Apparently the Accusative is the older usage. It appears normally with fungor, e.g. Trin. 1 “sequere hac me, gnata, ut munus fungaris tuum”; also with abutor, e.g. Trin. 682 “qui abusus sum tantam rem patriam”, and fruniscor, e.g. Rud. 1012. But with fruor and utor it has been almost wholly supplanted by the Ablative (for full statistics see Langen in Archiv lat. Lexikographie 3, pp. 329 sqq.). Careo too may take Accusative in Old Latin, e.g. Ter. Eun. 223 “tandem non ego illam caream, si sit opus, vel totum triduom?”, Turpilius 32 “meos parentes careo.”

The use of the Accusative after the Interjection em is natural; for em was originally the 2 Singular Imperative of emo, ‘I take’ (see chap. IX). Natural too is Most. 845 “apage istum a me perductorem!” Either to Analogy of apage (ἄπαγε) or to the ellipse of some Verb the Accusative with ultro (which is related to ultra as citro to citra; cf. VII. 2 s.v. intra) is usually ascribed, e.g. Ellipse of obsecro is the usual explanation of tuam fidem in lines like Aul. 692 “Iuno Lucina, tuam fidem!” (see V, 7, IX). In toasts, etc., we have seen (24) that the Dative was used, e.g. bene mihi, bene vobis (sc. sit). We find also the Accusative, e.g. Stich. 709 “bene vos, bene nos, bene te, bene me, bene nostrum etiam Stephanium”, Asin. 905 (at a throw of dice) “te, Philaenium, mihi atque uxoris mortem.”

Similarly instead of the usual vae tibi! we have in Asin. 481 vae te!

In all kinds of Exclamations the Accusative is as common as the Genitive (cf. 6 above; e.g. Most. 912 “di immortales, mercimoni lepidi!”) is rare. Examples are: often without any Interjection, e.g. Often we find a construction of this kind: Amph. 882 “durare nequeo in aedibus. ita me probri, stupri, dedecoris a viro argutam meo!”, Mil. 837 “bono subpromo et promo cellam creditam!” Beside the common exclamation gerrae! (e.g. Trin. 760) we find the Accusative nugas! (e.g. Most. 1087, Pers. 718, etc.). The ellipse of dicis or fabularis is suggested by

“A. quid dare velis qui istaec tibi investiget indicetque?
eloquere propere celeriter. B. nummos trecentos. A. tricas!
B. quadrigentos. A. tramas putidas! B. quingentos. A. cassam glandem!
B. sescentos. A. curculiunculos minutos fabulare.

”

The suppression of a Verb is certainly the explanation of the Accusative in lines like Cas. 319 “quam tu mi uxorem?”, Poen. 972 “quid tu mihi testes?”, Most. 908 “A. quoiusmodi gynaeceum? quid porticum? B. insanum bonam” (see below, V. 7).

The Accusative is found with the Participle indutus, e.g. Either indutus is Middle, not Passive, or indutus takes Accusative on the analogy of gestare. But Cist. 641, “utrum hac me (hacine, Brix) feriam an ab laeva latus?”, Men. 858 “hunc senem osse fini dedolabo assulatim viscera”, are doubtful instances of the ‘Accusative of Limitation.’ They rather show Apposition, like Cas. 337 “quis mihi subveniet tergo aut capiti aut cruribus?”, for the Greek Accusative is alien to Plautus. Ennius in his ‘Annals’ ventured on this Accusative in v. 311 V. “perculsi pectora Poeni”, and found imitators in subsequent Dactylic poets (e.g. Lucr. 1, 12 “perculsae corda tua vi”). It is probably a Graecism, although the Accusative in another line of the Annals (v. 400 V.) “succincti corda machaeris”, might be classed with the Syntax of indutus. (On the gradual extension of this use of the Accusative in Latin, see Landgraf in the Archiv lat. Lexikographie, 10, 209 sqq.)

The same variation of construction that appears in classical Latin with verbs like circumdo, (1) c. murum urbi, (2) c. urbem muro, is seen with instruo in Plautus, e.g. Mil. 981 “aurum atque ornamenta quae illi instruxti mulieri.” Impertio aliquem aliqua re is the usual construction, e.g. Epid. 127 “Stratippoclem impertit salute servus Epidicus”, Ter. Eun. 270, etc., but aliquam rem alicui (usual with Cicero) appears occasionally, Pseud. 41 “Phoenicium Calidoro amatori suo … salutem impertit” (cf. Vidul. 39, Novius 11).

The Double Accusative, of person and thing, is found even with, e.g. and other verbs, besides the usual doceo, celo, posco, etc., e.g.

Lastly may be mentioned the Old Latin use of in with Accusative instead of Ablative, e.g. in mentem est (like in mentem venit) (see VII. 2).

(On the use of the Accusative with the Infinitive, see V. 34）

Vocative.

(W. Ferger: de Vocativi usu Plautino Terentianoque. Strasburg, 1889.)

In Latin the Vocative is distinguished in form from the Nominative only in the Singular of the Second Declension; and that not always in Plautus, in the colloquial language of endearment, e.g.

But Plautus and Terence recognize a distinction between puere Vocative and puer Nominative (sometimes Vocative) which has disappeared by the classical period. O is added to a Vocative in emotional utterance, e.g. Trin. 1072 “certe is est, is est profecto. O mi ere exoptatissume!”, in the invocation of absent persons, etc., e.g. Trin. 617 “O ere Charmides, quom absenti hic tua res distrahitur tibi, utinam te rediisse salvom videam!”; but is usually omitted, e.g.

O Iuppiter! is common in Terence, but Plautus uses Iuppiter! without O. (Pro Iuppiter! is also used by both.)

Ablative.

(On Ablative of Place and Motion see J. Heckmann in Indogermanische Forschungen, 18, pp. 296 sqq.; on Ablative of Time, Kane: Case forms . . to express Time. Baltimore, 1895.)

The Latin Ablative combines in itself the Indo-European (1) Ablative, (2) Instrumental, a Case denoting instrument, accompaniment, description, etc. There is a play on these two senses of instrument and description in Amph. 368 “A. immo equidem tunicis consutis huc advenio, non dolis. B. at mentiris etiam: certo pedibus, non tunicis venis.” In Plautine Latin we find the Ablative with all the functions which it has in classical literature, viz Motion from, Instrument, Description, Cause, Time, Place, Price, Ablative Absolute, etc. A few of the more notable examples under each head will suffice.

The Ablative of Motion, confined in classical Latin to names of towns, with domus and rus, has (like the Accusative of Motion, above, 39) a wider range in Plautus, e.g. Most. 440 “triennio post Aegypto advenio domum” (cf. 39 note, and Lucilius 1276, quoted below), Curc. 225 “paves parasitus quia non rediit Caria” (though we also find the Preposition used, e.g. Capt. 1005 “erus alter eccum ex Alide rediit”). Corresponding to the Locative militiae, viciniae (cf. above, 31), we have Truc. 230 “eum mittat militia domum”. (On viciniā Most. 1062, see the next paragraph). But also ab domo Aul. 105 “quia ab domo abeundum est mihi”, Epid. 681 (see p. 11). We find it not merely with such Verbs as abscedo, e.g. Epid. 285 “et repperi haec te quî abscedat suspicio”, where we may ascribe it to the Preposition in Tmesis (like inmittere verba aures, 43), but with salio Trin. 266 “peius perit quasi (= quam si) saxo saliat”, although the Preposition is usually supplied with Simple Verbs (cf. above, 1).

Provenience is indicated by Ablative, not merely of town-names, etc., e.g. but with the same freedom as the Ablative of Motion in Old Latin Corresponding to Locative viciniae, we have Most. 1062 “foris concrepuit proxuma vicinia” (cf. hinc Mil. 1377, “hinc sonitum fecerunt fores”). Lucilius admits Aegypto sargus (1276 Ma.) along with Syracusis sola ‘bootsoles from S.’ (446 Ma.). Compare also phrases like Pers. 251 “Ope gnatus” (but Mil. 1081 “ex Ope natust”); also the Ablative in the phrase stare sententia, e.g.

The Ablative with opus est is usually explained as a relic of the Instrumental Case, e.g. opus est gladio ‘there is a work (to be done) with a sword’9

To the Agent the Genitive would be as appropriate as the Ablative to the Instrument, e.g. Most. 412 “id viri doctist opus”. We find the Genitive of the thing in Lucilius 334 Ma. “nummi opus” (see Marx's note). In Plautus we find also the Nominative, e.g. Capt. 164 “opus Turdetanis, opust Ficedulensibus, iam maritumi omnes milites opus sunt tibi”; but whether the Grammarian Nonius Marcellus (482 Me.) is right in saying that the Accusative was also used is doubtful. Cf.

It might be defended on the analogy of usus est with Accusative, of which we have a probable example in Pseud. 385 “ad eam rem usust hominem astutum, doctum, cautum et callidum.” In this line the Verbal Noun usus seems to take the earlier construction (see above, 45） of the Verb utor (whence a use of the Gerundive like haec utenda sunt). Some however prefer to ascribe the Ablative with opus est to the analogy of the Ablative with usus est (the usual construction, just as utor in Plautus normally takes Ablative). Both usus est and opus est are found with Ablative of Perfect Participle Passive, e.g. Amph. 505 “citius quod non factost usus fit quam quod factost opus.” Cf. Pers. 584 “A. opusne est hac tibi empta? B. si tibi venisse est opus, mihi quoque empta est.”

With facio ‘I sacrifice,’ ‘make an offering,’ we find the Ablative, e.g. Stich. 251 “quot agnis fecerat?” Also in the sense of ‘disposing of,’ e.g. Similarly with esse, etc., e.g. Also, e.g. Men. 266 “quid eo vis?” ‘what do you want with it?’

The Ablative with vescor, lit. ‘feed myself,’ appears to be Ablative of Instrument; similarly with victito, e.g. Mil. 321 “mirumst lolio victitare te, tam vili tritico.” On the construction of utor, fungor, fruor, etc., see 45 of potior, 7

The Adverbial Ablative is much in evidence, e.g. ioculo10, like ioco (the opposite of the Adverb serio), for which we also find per iocum, e.g. Amph. 964 “A. me dixisse per iocum. B. an id ioco dixisti? equidem serio ac vero ratus.” Cf. Bacch. 268 “rebus ceteris” ‘in other respects’ (see 4 above). Like Capt. 689 “clueas gloriā” (= gloriose), is Poen. 1192 “si quod agit cluet victoriā”, Asin. 142 “sordido vitam oblectabas pane in pannis inopiā.”

The Ablative Absolute (see E. Bombe ‘de abl. abs. apud antiquiss. Romanorum scriptores usu.’ Greifswald, 1877) is sometimes loosely used of the Subject of the sentence, e.g. Similar is an Ablative (without a Noun) like auspicato, Pers. 608 “vide ut ingrediare auspicato” (cf. “praefinito” Ter. Hec. 94), and (without a Verb) e.g. Poen. 728 “quid si recenti re aedes pultem?”, Most. 916 “me suasore atque impulsore.” Other examples of this Ablative (sometimes called in Grammars the ‘Ablative of Accompaniment’ or of ‘Attendant Circumstances’) are This may be the true explanation of the Old Latin use of fini. ‘as far as’ with Ablative, Men. 859 “osse fini dedolabo assulatim viscera”, Cato R.R. 31, 2 “operito terra radicibus fini”, lit. ‘the bone being the limit,’ ‘with the roots as limit.’

The Ablative of Price has been already mentioned (16, 32). Here may be added these instances:

It is often accompanied by the Adverb contra (cf. below, VII. 2), e.g. Truc. 538 “iam mi auro contra constat filius.”

For the Ablative of Cause we may quote also hence eo . . . quia, etc.

The Ablative of Description, often the equivalent of an Adjective, competes with the Genitive (see above, 9), e.g. Mil. 1369 “dicant te mendacem nec verum esse, fide nulla esse te”, Pseud. 1218 “rufus quidam, ventriosus, crassis suris.” The Ablative seems to predominate in Plautus, the Genitive in the Silver Age. (For details, see Edwards and Woelfflin in Archiv lat. Lexikographie 11, pp. 197 sqq., 469 sqq.) Cum is used in sentences like Aul. 554 “quingentos coquos cum sēnis manibus”, just as it is an alternative expression of other functions of the Ablative (see VII. 2), e.g. Merc. 811 “rediit … cum quidem salute familiai maxuma” (contrast Men. 134 “avorti praedam ab hostibus nostrum salute sociûm”).

Ablative of Time (‘at’ or ‘within’): e.g. Most. 505 “quae hic monstra fiunt anno vix possum eloqui”. Anno can also mean ‘within the past year,’ ‘a year ago,’ Amph. prol. 91, Men. 205 “quattuor minis ego emi istanc anno uxori meae” (cf. above, 37). The Pronoun hic often accompanies the Ablative, e.g. Like ludis ‘at the games,’ e.g. Pers. 436, is Aul. 540 “si nitidior sis filiai nuptiis.”

Ablative of Place (‘at’ or ‘within’): e.g. With a Compound Verb (see above, 1), e.g. Rud. 907 “qui salsis locis incolit pisculentis.” The phrase capite sistere ‘to be tumbled on one's head’ is common, e.g. Curc. 287 “quin cadat, quin capite sistat in via de semita.” The Locative Ablative, e.g. Carthagine, Athenis, has been already mentioned (29—34), and the greater freedom of its use in Plautine than in classical Latin, e.g. Capt. 330 “filius meus illic apud vos servit captus Alide” (usually in Alide; see my note on v. 94).

The Ablative expresses also ‘along,’ ‘by a route’ (cf. recta via), e.g. Poen. 631 “si bene dicetis, vostra ripa vos sequar: si male dicetis, vostro gradiar limite.”

Of the Ablative of Difference we may take as example the joke in If quî be really Instrumental, not Ablative, of quis, there is evidence of the Instrumental origin of this function, for ecquî, numquî, siquî are the forms used with Comparatives, e.g. numquî minus? (but quo minus, e.g. Ter. Andr. 655).

The Ablative of Comparison is used not merely with Comparatives, but with aeque, e.g. Curc. 141 “qui (= quis) me in terra aeque fortunatus erit?” (On the use of aeque with the Comparative of an Adjective, e.g. aeque miserior, see III. 2). Some appeal to a line like Amph. 704, “ex insana insaniorem facies”, in support of the theory that the Ablative of Comparison is a developement of the Ablative of Motion or Provenience.

The Ablative with dignus is associated in some Grammars with the Ablative of Comparison, in others with the Ablative of Price. In Plautus we find not only dignus aliqua re, but dignus ad, e.g. Mil. 968 “ad tuam formam illa una dignast”. (On id dignus esse, see above, 40). He gives decorus the same Ablative as dignus in Mil. 619 “neque te decora neque tuis virtutibus.”

The Ablative of Plenty and Want has been discussed above (14), in connexion with the similar use of the Genitive, e.g. Mil. 1033 “quia tis (Genitive) egeat, quia te (Ablative) careat”, a line which exemplifies Plautus' invariable construction of these two Verbs; Turpilius 157 “expers malitiis”; also the Ablative with compos, which follows the construction of the Verb compotire (-ri), e.g.

The Ablative of Respect, indicating the sphere in which the Verb operates: e.g. Most. 708 “atque pol nescio ut moribus sient vostrae”, ‘in respect of character’; Pers. 238 “malitia certare tecum”; with deficio, e.g. Asin. 609 “quem si intellegam deficere vita.”

This Ablative plays the part of a Cognate Accusative in lines like

Of other Verbs with Ablative may be noticed:

On rēfert meā, see above, I. 4

1 The germs of this appear at an early stage, e.g.

2 The quasi-adverbial nature of these words even in Plautus' time is seen from his use of a Preposition when an attribute is employed, e.g. “in domo istac” Curc. 208, “in patriam domum” Stich. 507, “ad alienam domum” Rud. 116, so that in Ennius trag. 281 V., “domum paternamne anne ad Peliae filias”, it may be right to construe ad ἀπὸ κοινοῦ. When the attribute is a Poss. Pronoun, the usage varies, e.g.

Of course proxuma vicinia ‘next door’ (cf. 54) and mala crux are rather wordgroups than Nouns qualified by an Attribute.

3 The Genitive in Capt. 825 “non ego nunc parasitus sum, sed regum rex regalior”, Ennius trag. 56 V. “mater optumarum multo mulier melior mulierum”, is the Partitive Genitive But there is a mixture of two ideas. (See above, I. 10）

4 Akin is the ‘Dative of the Person Judging,’ e.g. Ennius Ann. 280 V. “hostem qui feriet, mihi erit Carthaginiensis”.

5 Cf. audiens sum with Dative, e.g. Amph. 991 “eius dicto, imperio sum audiens.” The phrase dicto audiens esse became stereotyped as a synonym of oboedire and took Dative of Person, e.g. Amph. 989 “ego sum Jovi dicto audiens”, Cato Agric. 142 “dominoque dicto audiens sit”. Cf. Pers. 378 “futura's dicto oboediens an non patri?”

6 This is strong evidence in favour of animi being really Genitive and not Locative

7 The corresponding Adjective is aeternus, e.g. Capt. 897 “aeternum tibi dapinabo victum.”

8 It is sometimes said that Plautus regarded Caria and Elis as towns and not countries. Such an explanation is obviously unsuitable to Egypt (cf. Most. 440). The truth is that Plautus does not follow the strict laws of classical Latin with regard to geographical names. He uses in Ephesum ire as well as Ephesum ire, and the like (cf. Ter. Phorm. 66). Egypt, it should be noticed, receives the same treatment from writers of Cicero's time and later as from Plautus, e.g. Cic. Nat. Deor. 3, 56 “Aegyptum profugisse” (but “in Aegyptum” Pis. 49, as in Plaut. Most. 994). Varro has Aegypto ‘in E.’ Ling. Lat. 5.57

9 In Sanscrit the Instrumental Case is used with the corresponding phrase, arthO bhavati opus est.

10 The Diminutive scarcely survives except in this Adverbial use. Stereotyped Adverbial Ablatives of obsolete Nouns, e.g. astu, are numerous in Latin, as in our own language obsolete Nouns survive in Adverbial use, e.g. stead.

11 Sometimes with ab and Ablative, e.g.

The Accusative is also found, not merely of Neuter Pronoun, e.g. Men. 265 “ego istuc cavebo”, but of Nouns, e.g. Asin. 43 “cave sis malam rem”. In the legal sense ‘to take surety’ the Verb takes cum with Ablative, e.g. Pseud. 909 “malus cum malo stulte cavi”.

Syntax of Plautus. W. M. Lindsay. Anne Mahoney. edited for Perseus. Oxford. J. Parker and Co. 1907.

Tufts University provided support for entering this text.

This text was converted to electronic form by professional data entry and has been proofread to a high level of accuracy.

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 References (293 total)
  • Cross-references from this page (263):
    • Plautus, Cistellaria, 1.1
    • Plautus, Cistellaria, 1.2
    • Plautus, Cistellaria, 1.3
    • Plautus, Cistellaria, 2.1
    • Plautus, Cistellaria, 2.3
    • Plautus, Cistellaria, 3.1
    • Plautus, Cistellaria, 5.1
    • Plautus, Curculio, 1.1
    • Plautus, Curculio, 1.2
    • Plautus, Curculio, 1.3
    • Plautus, Curculio, 2.1
    • Plautus, Curculio, 4.4
    • Plautus, Curculio, 5.2
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 2.4
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 1.1
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 1.2
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 1.3
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 2.1
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 2.2
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 3.1
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 3.2
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 4.2
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 4.3
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 4.4
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 5.1
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 5.2
    • Plautus, Persa, 1.3
    • Plautus, Persa, 2.2
    • Plautus, Persa, 2.3
    • Plautus, Persa, 3.1
    • Plautus, Persa, 3.3
    • Plautus, Persa, 4.3
    • Plautus, Persa, 4.4
    • Plautus, Persa, 4.5
    • Plautus, Persa, 4.6
    • Plautus, Persa, 4.7
    • Plautus, Persa, 4.8
    • Plautus, Persa, 5.1
    • Plautus, Persa, 5.2
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 1.1
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 1.2
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 1.3
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 2.1
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 3.1
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 3.2
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 3.4
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 4.2
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 5.5
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 1.1
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 1.2
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 1.3
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 1.5
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 2.2
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 2.4
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 3.1
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 3.2
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 4.3
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 4.4
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 4.5
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 4.6
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 4.7
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 5.2
    • Plautus, Rudens, 1.2
    • Plautus, Rudens, 1.3
    • Plautus, Rudens, 1.4
    • Plautus, Rudens, 2.3
    • Plautus, Rudens, 2.4
    • Plautus, Rudens, 2.5
    • Plautus, Rudens, 3.1
    • Plautus, Rudens, 3.3
    • Plautus, Rudens, 3.4
    • Plautus, Rudens, 3.5
    • Plautus, Rudens, 4.2
    • Plautus, Rudens, 4.3
    • Plautus, Rudens, 4.4
    • Plautus, Rudens, 4.7
    • Plautus, Rudens, 5.2
    • Plautus, Stichus, 1.1
    • Plautus, Stichus, 1.2
    • Plautus, Stichus, 1.3
    • Plautus, Stichus, 2.2
    • Plautus, Stichus, 3.2
    • Plautus, Stichus, 4.1
    • Plautus, Stichus, 5.3
    • Plautus, Stichus, 5.4
    • Plautus, Stichus, 5.6
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 1.1
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 1.2
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 2.1
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 2.2
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 2.4
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 3.1
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 3.2
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 3.3
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 4.2
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 4.3
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 5.2
    • Vergil, Aeneid, 3.319
    • Vergil, Aeneid, 5.451
    • Tacitus, Annales, 2.59
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 2.4
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 4.7
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 5.1
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 5.2
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 5.5
    • Terence, The Mother-in-Law, 1.2
    • Terence, The Mother-in-Law, 3.3
    • Terence, Phormio, 1.2
    • Terence, Phormio, 1.4
    • Terence, Phormio, 2.3
    • Terence, Phormio, 3.1
    • Terence, Phormio, 3.2
    • Terence, Phormio, 4.1
    • Terence, Phormio, 4.3
    • Terence, Phormio, 4.4
    • Terence, Phormio, 5.4
    • Terence, Phormio, 5.5
    • Terence, Phormio, 5.7
    • Terence, Phormio, 5.8
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 1.1
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 1.2
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 1.3
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 1.prol
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 2.1
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 2.2
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 3.1
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 3.2
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 3.3
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 4.2
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 5.1
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 1.1
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 1.2
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 1.3
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 2.2
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 2.4
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 3.1
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 3.3
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 5.1
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 5.2
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 1.1
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 1.2
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 2.1
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 2.2
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 2.4
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 2.7
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 3.5
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 3.6
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 4.1
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 4.10
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 4.2
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 4.4
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 4.7
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 5.1
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 1.1
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 1.2
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 2.3
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 3.2
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 3.3
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 4.2
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 4.3
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 4.4
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 4.8
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 4.9
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 5.1
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 5.2
    • Plautus, Captivi, 1.1
    • Plautus, Captivi, 1.2
    • Plautus, Captivi, 2.1
    • Plautus, Captivi, 2.2
    • Plautus, Captivi, 2.3
    • Plautus, Captivi, 3.1
    • Plautus, Captivi, 3.3
    • Plautus, Captivi, 3.4
    • Plautus, Captivi, 3.5
    • Plautus, Captivi, 4.2
    • Plautus, Captivi, 5.1
    • Plautus, Captivi, 5.2
    • Plautus, Captivi, 5.4
    • Plautus, Captivi, prologue.0
    • Plautus, Casina, 1.1
    • Plautus, Casina, 2.2
    • Plautus, Casina, 2.3
    • Plautus, Casina, 2.4
    • Plautus, Casina, 2.5
    • Plautus, Casina, 2.6
    • Plautus, Casina, 2.7
    • Plautus, Casina, 2.8
    • Plautus, Casina, 3.1
    • Plautus, Casina, 4.1
    • Plautus, Casina, 4.3
    • Plautus, Epidicus, 1.1
    • Plautus, Epidicus, 1.2
    • Plautus, Epidicus, 2.2
    • Plautus, Epidicus, 3.1
    • Plautus, Epidicus, 3.2
    • Plautus, Epidicus, 5.2
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 1.3
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 2.1
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 3.2
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 5.2
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 5.5
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 5.7
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 5.9
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, prologue.0
    • Plautus, Mercator, 2.2
    • Plautus, Mercator, 2.3
    • Plautus, Mercator, 2.4
    • Plautus, Mercator, 4.5
    • Plautus, Mercator, 5.2
    • Plautus, Mercator, 5.4
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 1.1
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 2.2
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 2.3
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 2.5
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 2.6
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 3.1
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 3.2
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 4.1
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 4.2
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 4.4
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 4.6
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 4.8
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 4.9
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 5.1
    • Plautus, Poenulus, prologue.0
    • Plautus, Rudens, prologue.0
    • Plautus, Trinummus, prologue.0
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 1.1
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 1.2
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 2.2
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 2.4
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 2.5
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 2.6
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 2.7
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 2.8
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 4.1
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 4.2
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 4.3
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 5.1
    • Plautus, Truculentus, prologue.0
    • Terence, The Brothers, 2.1
    • Terence, The Brothers, 2.4
    • Terence, The Brothers, 3.3
    • Terence, The Brothers, 3.4
    • Terence, The Brothers, 4.2
    • Terence, The Brothers, 4.5
    • Terence, The Brothers, 5.4
    • Terence, Andria, 1.1
    • Terence, Andria, 1.2
    • Terence, Andria, 1.3
    • Terence, Andria, 2.5
    • Terence, Andria, 4.1
    • Terence, Andria, 5.3
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 2.1
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 2.2
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 2.3
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 3.1
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 3.3
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 4.4
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 5.4
    • Terence, The Eunuch, prologue.0
    • Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, 1.12
    • Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, Book 7, 3.26
  • Cross-references in notes from this page (30):
    • Cicero, Against Piso, 49
    • Plautus, Curculio, 1.3
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 2.2
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 4.1
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 4.4
    • Plautus, Persa, 2.5
    • Plautus, Persa, 3.1
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 3.6
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 4.2
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 1.1
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 4.1
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 4.7
    • Plautus, Rudens, 1.2
    • Plautus, Stichus, 4.1
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 2.2
    • Terence, Phormio, 1.2
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 1.1
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 3.4
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 1.1
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 1.2
    • Plautus, Captivi, 4.2
    • Plautus, Captivi, 4.4
    • Plautus, Captivi, 5.4
    • Plautus, Casina, 3.4
    • Plautus, Epidicus, 5.2
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 1.2
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 2.1
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 2.3
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 2.2
    • Cicero, de Natura Deorum, 3.56
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: