previous next

V. The Verb.

(Vol. III. of the new Historische Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache (Leipzig, 1903), edited by a group of German Scholars, contains an account of the Latin Verb, its Classes, its Tenses, and its Moods, with full details of Plautine usages.)

The history of the Italic Verb is full of difficulty. The Passive in -r it shares with some other Indo-European languages; and from a consideration of these, as well as of the Italic Dialects, it would seem that this Passive was originally an Impersonal governing an Accusative Case. The Latin Passive, as far back as we can trace it, has Person-endings, and therefore must have followed that tendency which appears in the occasional change of an Impersonal to a Personal Verb in Early Latin (cf. Priscian 1, pp. 432, 561 H.), e.g. and also in the curious phrase, Rud. 1241 “mihi istaec videtur praeda praedatum irier” (see below, 41). Like me veretur for classical Latin vereor (see above, II. 8) is mihi dolet, for doleo (see my note on Capt. 928) e.g. Men. 439 “mihi dolebit, non tibi, siquid ego stulte fecero”, Ter. Phorm. 162. But we see in Plautus a marked predilection for the 3 Singular Passive used impersonally, e.g. and the common phrase facere certumst ‘I have decided to do it;’ and this may be, in a way, a survival of the old Impersonal stage. Whether we find also survival of the primitive construction, the government of an Accusative Case by this 3 Singular Passive is not certain. I think that we do in lines like

The intermixture of Active and Passive Infinitive in a passage like Most. 959 is thoroughly Plautine: “triduom unum est haud intermissum hic esse et bibi,
scorta duci, pergraecari, fidicinas, tibicinas
ducere.

”

Another feature of the Italic Verb is its formation of Tenses by means of Auxiliaries. This tendency asserts itself in Plautine Latin in the use of dare, reddere, habere (see P. Thielmann in Archiv Lat. Lexikographie, 2, pp. 172-423) with Perfect Participle Passive, e.g. also in the periphrastic Tense-formations mentioned below, 15, 44

The lines of distinction between Active, Passive, and Deponent are not so strictly marked in Plautine as in Classical Latin. Thus Plautus uses Active opino, but also opinor, with Perfect opinatus sum; ludifico (sometimes -or), -atus sum; vago and vagor; mereo and mereor; apiscor is Passive in Trin. 367, etc. (For other examples see Langen: Beiträge zur Kritik und Erklärung des Plautus. Leipzig, 1880, pp. 59 sqq.; cf. Naev. com. 67 “populus patitur, tun (v.l. tu non) patias?”). How far this Variation is connected, on the one hand, with the use of the Verbal Adjective in -tus along with the Subst. Verb as a Perfect Tense Passive (see 45) and, on the other, with the old Intransitive or Subjective use of the Deponent (or Middle, e.g. Greek ἀκούσομαι, ὄψομαι, etc.), has not yet been investigated. Certainly a type of Conjugation like soleo (Active), solitus sum (Dep.) was widely extended in Early Latin (cf. Turpilius 33 “A. iurasti? B. non sum iurata”).

Latin does not possess a Middle Voice like Greek. The Latin Deponent often corresponds to the Greek Middle, e.g. sequor to ἔπομαι, and Verbs like accingor (e.g. Ter. Phorm. 318; cf. Amph. 308 “cingitur, certe expedit se”), vescor, amicior (e.g. Pers. 307 “subnixis alis me inferam atque amicibor gloriose”) really have the Reflexive function, that as a rule belongs to the Active with the Reflexive Pronoun, e.g. se accingere. Indutus takes an Accusative (II. 49). In Amph. 238 we seem to have a mixture of converti and se convertere: “sed fugam in se tamen nemo convortitur” ‘but still no one turns to flee;’ cf. Stich. 306 “meditabor me ad ludos Olympios”; but the colloquial Latin of Plautus' time (and later) loves to use in this sense the Active Verb without any Reflexive Pronoun, e.g. Apparently habere for se habere is to be similarly explained, e.g. Ter. Phorm. 429 “bene habent tibi principia” (cf. εὖ ἔχει); also praebeo for se praebeo in Ter. Phorm. 476, and the like. Cf. Pomponius 66 “age, anus, accinge ad molas”; perhaps Ter. Eun. 912 “move vero ocius” (but cf. Andr. 731). In a passage of the Cistellaria we have “insinuavit se” (v. 89) followed by insinuavit ( v. 92 “inde in amicitiam insinuavit cum matre”). While lavĕre is the Transitive Verb, lavare is the Reflexive ‘to bathe,’ ‘take a bath,’ e.g. Mil. 251 “dormit, ornatur, lavat”, which however appears as Deponent-Middle in Poen. 229 “ornantur, lavantur, tergentur.”

Another feature of colloquial Latin, much in evidence in the Comedies, is the use of Frequentative Verbs, e.g. fores pultare ‘to knock at the door;’ cf. But habeo is equally used with habito (e.g. Trin. 12) in the sense of ‘dwelling,’ e.g. Trin. 193 “ubi nunc adulescens habet?” Cf. verti for versari in Most. 639 “iam homo in mercatura vortitur.”

Intransitive Verbs have already in Plautus' time begun to govern an acc. on the analogy of their Transitive equivalents, e.g. depereo (on the Analogy of deamo), calleo (of scio) (see II. 40).

The curious Assimilation of coepi and desino to the Mood of a Passive Infinitive in classical Latin, urbs coepta est (desita est) oppugnari (cf. Men. 718 “itaque adeo iure coepta appellari est canes”), instead of coepit (desiit), has a slightly wider range in Early Latin, e.g. Contrast Plautus' use of potest with Infinitive Pass, e.g. Curc. 451 “ita non potuere uno anno circumirier”.

The omission of the Verb is common in Terence, who cleverly in this respect reproduces the unconventional utterance of every-day, e.g.

It is not so marked a feature of Plautus' style, although it is by no means absent, e.g. Rud. 1086 “quid istuc tuā (sc. refert)?”

Most frequent is the omission of the Substantive Verb (see W. Olsen: quaestionum Plautinarum de Verbo Substantivo specimen. Greifswald, 1884; with it read Seyffert's corrections in Bursian's Jahresbericht 1886, p. 52), e.g. Amph. 56 “sed ego stultior”, and the common phrases tanto melior (e.g. Truc. 953), quae res? (e.g. Mil. 1344, Cas. 844) and the like. (On nimirum and mirum ni, mirum quin, see VIII. 2) Potis (pote) often appears instead of potest, e.g. Ter. Phorm. 337 “non pote satis.”

This is often found in Tenses where sum is an Auxiliary, e.g.

Esse is often omitted in the Passive (Gerundive and Perfect) and Active (Future1) Infinitive, evidently with the view of shortening the cumbrous phrases faciendum esse, factum esse, facturum esse. (For examples see Reinkens: über den accusativus cum infinitivo bei Plautus und Terentius. Düsseldorf (progr.) 1886, pp. 14, 15, 23). With oportet2 the omission of esse from the Perfect Infinitive Passive is usual in Plautus and invariable in Terence, e.g. Adelph. 213 “morem gestum oportuit.”

The use of an Abstract Noun with est in periphrasis for a Verb is characteristically Plautine, e.g.

Tenses: Sequence of Tenses.

(Wirtzfeld: de consecutione temporum Plautina et Terentiana. Siegburg, 1888.) That the strict laws of Sequence should often be defied by the colloquial Latin of Plautus is only natural. The following examples will give an idea of the extent to which this was done:

After the Historical Pres. we find Pres. in lines like: Amph. 205 “Telebois iubet sententiam ut dicant suam,” but Past in lines like: Amph. 214 sq. “respondent bello se et suos tutari posse, proinde uti propere suis de finibus exercitus deducerent,” or both Pres. and Past in lines like: Amph. 225 “convĕnit, victi utri sint eo proelio, urbem, agrum, aras, focos seque uti dederent.”

(On Conditional Sentences, see VIII. 5）

Present.

We find in Plautus the same types of this Tense as in all periods of Latin, such as the Present of unachieved action, e.g. Mil. 36 “A. quid illuc quod dico (= volo dicere)? B. ehem, scio iam quid vis dicere”; longum est ‘it would be tedious,’ etc., e.g. Mil. 694 “flagitiumst, si nihil mittetur”, but also Past, e.g. Also the Historical Present, e.g. Mil. 287 sq. “forte fortuna per impluvium huc despexi in proxumum: atque ego illi aspicio osculantem Philocomasium” (often with quom, quoniam and other temporal Conjunctions, VIII. 10).

In all languages the Present may play the part of a Future, especially with the Verb ‘to go,’ e.g. ‘I go to-morrow,’ and in Attic Greek this usage has been carried so far that εἶμι is the recognised Future Tense. In Old Latin this use of the Present is less in evidence than in modern languages and is mostly confined to some Verbs of motion, especially eo and its Compounds. In Plautus with redeo the Present is normal in a phrase like iam ad te redeo (Mil. 1020, etc.), (but the Future of revertor, e.g. Pseud. 1159, and the Future Perfect of revenio, e.g. Bacch. 1066); with eo, exeo, transeo, etc., also with viso3, inviso, the Present is more frequent than the Future, while with sum (e.g. iam ego hic ero), adsum, and other Verbs the Future is used. (For details see Sjögren: Gebrauch des Futurums im Altlateinischen. Upsala, 1906, chap. i.) The Present is also normal with non, after a Command. e.g. Stich. 93 “A. adside hic, pater. B. non sedeo istic, vos sedete: ego sedero in subsellio”; also with quam mox and iam in questions, e.g. Truc. 208 “quam mox te huc recipis?”, Mil. 1400 “iamne ego in hominem involo?” Also in various types of Conditional Sentences (see VIII. 5), e.g. si sapis (or sapies), tacebis; si vivo, te ulciscar; hoc faciam, si possum exorare ‘in hope to’; especially after nisi in threats, e.g. Cas. 730 “dabo tibi μέγα κακόν . . . nisi resistis”. In questions, when asking the advice of another, quid ago?, not quid agam?, is Plautus' phrase, but quid faciam? is used both in dialogue and soliloquy; also however quid fit?

The use of the Present for the Future in Temporal Sentences with dum, priusquam, etc., is discussed in VIII. 10 On the use of the Present Subjunctive in a Future sense, e.g. Trin. 1136 “sed maneam etiam, opinor”, and the Dubitative Present Subjunctive, see below, 26

The Present Infinitive is quite legitimate after dico, promitto, etc., in Plautine Latin, where the Future Infinitive is normal in classical Latin, e.g. Capt. 194 “ad fratrem, quo ire dixeram, mox ivero”, lit. ‘I had spoken of going,’ the Infinitive being treated as a Verbal Noun, the Object of dixeram, Trin. 5 “si quidem operam dare promittitis”. The two constructions are found side by side in Most. 633 “A. dic te daturum, ut abeat. B. egon dicam dare?”

Imperfect.

(A. L. Wheeler: The Syntax of the Imperfect Indicative in Early Latin in Classical Philology, I. 357—390.) Instead of the usual Imperfect sense, an Aoristic meaning seems often to be attached to a Verb like aibam, and (as in classical Latin) eram, e.g. Pseud. 1083 “A. malum et scelestum et periurum aibat esse me. B. pol hau mentitust” (see below, 22 n). In a line like Mil. 755, “nam idem hoc hominibus sat erat decem”, we seem to have the same use of the Imperfect erat as in Horace's “tempus erat dapibus, sodales” Carm. 1.32.13 (cf. above, 11). Cf. tune hīc eras? ‘are you here?’ Ter. Hec. 340 (cf. Phorm. 858, 945).

The Imperatival use of the Imperfect Subjunctive (never Pluperfect in Old Latin), e.g. Merc. 633 “quid tu faceres, men rogas? requireres, cogitares,” is mentioned below, 25 It is the Past of the Imperatival Present Subjunctive, e.g. requiras, cogites, just as the Imperfect quid facerem? ‘what was I to do?’ is the Past of the Dubitative Present Subjunctive quid faciam? ‘what am I to do?’ On the distinction of the Imperfect from the Pluperfect Subjunctive in Conditional Sentences, see VIII. 5 The ‘Potential’ use of 2 Singular Imperfect Subjunctive (e.g. crederes, putares, is not unknown), e.g. Curc. 331 “scires velle gratiam tuam” (see below, 31). Vellem, mallem, etc., are common, e.g. In Wishes, the Imperfect Subjunctive is, as in classical Latin, appropriate to unrealizable wishes for the present, e.g. Rud. 533 “utinam fortuna nunc anetina uterer”, as the Pluperfect Subjunctive to the same wishes for the past, e.g. Truc. 375 “utinam item a principio rei repersisses meae, ut nunc repercis saviis”. But the Imperfect is not unknown where classical Latin would require the Pluperfect, e.g. Capt. 537 “utinam te di prius perderent quam periisti e patria tua.”

Future.

(Sjögren: Gebrauch des Futurums in Altlateinischen. Upsala, 1906.) The substitution of the Present for the Future of eo and its Compounds has just been treated (11). The competition of the Present Subjunctive (especially in 1 Singular) with the Future Indicative in Old Latin is discussed below, 26 e.g. Bacch. 1058 “taceam nunciam”. It has left its mark on the language in the 3rd Conjugation 1 Singular, e.g. dicam, the only form in use in Plautus' time, as later, and in the 4th Conjugation 1 Singular, e.g. audiam, which competed with audibo in Plautus' time. There is apparently no rule which determines Plautus' use of audibo and audiam, scibo and sciam. The love of Latin for Auxiliary Verbs is seen in the three periphrastic forms of the Future in Plautine Latin, (for other examples, see below, 42 and on the use of (1) and (3) to form Future Infinitive Active and Future Infinitive Passive, see 40, 41).

In Colloquial Latin, early and later, the Future often has the peculiar sense shown in these examples from Plautus:

(cf. Ter. Heaut. 1014). It looks like the use of the Future in general statements such as Most. 289 “pulcra mulier nuda erit quam purpurata pulcrior”, and may be compared with the Future in this type of Conditional sentences, Most. 1041 “qui homo timidus erit, … nauci non erit”. Or it may be explained like the Epistolary Imperfect, which is due to the writer's putting himself in the place of the man to whom he is writing, and so regarding the time from another's point of view.

Amabo ‘prithee,’ in Old Latin chiefly used by women, and always accompanying a question or a command4, is to be referred to a suppressed Protasis ‘(do this); if you do, I will love you.’ Poen. 250 sqq. throws light on its origin: “>A. soror, parce, amabo. . . . B. quiesco. A. ergo amo te.” In the Infinitive we find amare (not ‘amaturum esse’), e.g. Men. 524 “amare ait te multum Erotium”, etc. (For details, see Lindskog: Quaestiones de Parataxi et Hypotaxi apud priscos Latinos, pp. 19 sqq.) On Future Imperative see below, 32

Future Perfect.

(Sjögren: Gebrauch des Futurums im Altlateinischen. Upsala, 1906.) The Future Perfect has the appearance of a Subjunctive, the Perfect Subjunctive of an Optative, so that fuero and fuerim may be said to differ as edam and edim (see 24). However that may be, it is certain that the two Tenses are often hardly distinguishable, e.g. fuerint is 3 Plural of both. (On the close relation of Future and Present Subjunctive see 15, 26). Why Plautine (and Terentian) Latin should use only the Future, never the Future Perfect, of oportet, possum, volo, is not clear. As regards other Verbs, the Tense sometimes has its true function, e.g. Bacch. 708 “hoc ubi egero, tum istuc agam”, but often has practically the same function as the Future. It is normal after si in threats, e.g. si attigeris, vapulabis, where an Aoristic sense is perhaps conveyed; while after nisi the Present is normal, e.g. nisi abis, vapulabis. Cicero's use of videro, in postponing the consideration of a difficulty, is clearly seen in Terence, e.g. Hec. 701, Adelph. 538; not so clearly in Plautus (Merc. 448, 450).

The Future Perfect Deponent and Passive can take as Auxiliary fuero in the sense of ero, e.g. Men. 471 “non hercle <ego> is sum qui sum, ni hanc iniuriam meque ultus pulchre fuero.”

With the Future Perfect may be included Old Latin S-Futures (or rather Aorist Subjunctives) like faxo. The difference in Plautus' use of faxo and fecero seems to be that fecero is only used absolutely, in answer to a request, e.g. Stich. 351 “A. cape illas scopas. B. capiam. A. … convorre. B. ego fecero”. Faciam may be used in the same way, e.g. Stich. 354 “A. pinge, humum consperge ante aedes. B. faciam”; faxo, on the other hand, governs a Verb syntactically, e.g. faxo scias, faxo ut scias, or paratactically faxo scies. This paratactic use is not found with faciam, but only the syntactic, e.g. Capt. 65 “si erit, ego faciam ut pugnam inspectet non bonam.”

Perfect.

The various classical Latin types of Perfect are all found in Plautus: the Perfect of what is past and gone, e.g. the Perfect with Present function, such as novi, e.g. Bacch. 789 “A. nosce signum. B. novi” (cf. 986). Scivi would appear to follow the analogy of novi in lines like

Also the Perfect Indicative for Pluperfect Subjunctive, e.g. Mil. 1112 “ad equas fuisti (you would have been) scitus admissarius”; a Perfect like perii used of Future time in Conditional sentences, e.g.

the Perfect Infinitive for Present Infinitive, e.g. Aul. 828 “non potes probasse nugas”; especially after volo or nolo in prohibitions, e.g. This Perfect Infinitive is a characteristic of the early legal style, e.g. (Sen. Cons. de Bacchanalibus) “ita exdeicendum censuere, neiquis eorum Bacanal habuise velet . . Bacas vir nequis adiese velet (i.e. adiisse vellet)”, with which we may compare Livy's version (39, 14, 8): “nequis, qui Bacchis initiatus esset, coiisse aut convenisse causa sacrorum velit”. Horace imitates it (Sat. 2, 3, 187) “nequis humasse velit Aiacem, Atrida, vetas cur?”

The Perfect Deponent and Passive can take as Auxiliary fui in the sense of sum, e.g. Most. 694 “non mihi forte visum ilico fuit.” The substitution of fui gives precision to the Preterite sense, which is often obscured in Perfects like solitus est = solet, lubitum est = lubet. Similarly with fuerim for sim in Perfect Subjunctive, e.g. Epid. 225, Pers. 379.

On the use of the Perfect Subjunctive in Prohibitions, see below, VIII. 9 Its Potential use, e.g. crediderim ‘I could believe,’ dixerim ‘I would say’ (all Verb-forms in -im were originally Optatives; see below, 24) is not unknown to Plautus and Terence, e.g. But the Concessive use, e.g. fuerit verum ‘allowing it to be true,’ is not earlier than Cicero.

Pluperfect.

(H. Blase: Geschichte des Plusquamperfekts im Lateinischen. Giessen, 1893.)

Plautus often seems to use the Pluperfect as the equivalent of the Perfect, e.g.

Mil. 132 “meum erum qui Athenis fuerat”, has the same sense as Mil. 127 “meum erum Athenis qui fuit”. (In Asin. 356 “ego me dixeram adducturum”, editors change dixeram to dixi erum.) The ambiguity of fueram with Perfect Participle Passive is turned to account by the cunning slave in Most. 821 “A. eo pretio emptae fuerant olim. B. audin ‘fuerant’ dicere?”

Two explanations are possible. One is that Tense-signification5 is not so definite and precise in the early stage of a language as in the later, so that amaveram and amavi may have been as interchangeable in Plautine Latin as amavero and amabo (see above, 17). Another theory restricts the interchange to the Verb sum, and tries to prove that, while Plautus uses fueram (conceivably a mixture of fui and eram) for fui, he never uses, e.g., amaveram for amavi; this extension of the license from sum to other Verbs was, according to this theory, a gradual process in Latin, and culminated in that Late Latin substitution of Pluperfect for Perfect which is reflected in the Romance Conjugation, e.g. O. Fr. vidra (= Latin viderat) ‘he saw.’ (See my note on Capt. 17.)

In the Pluperfect Deponent and Passive we find the same use of fueram beside eram as of fui beside sum in the Perfect (20) and of fuero beside ero in the Future Perfect (18).

The Pluperfect Subjunctive is used, as in classical Latin, for unrealizable wishes for the past, e.g. But the Imperfect Subjunctive (see above, 14) occasionally takes its place in Old Latin (not in classical Latin), e.g. Rud. 495 “utinam te, prius quam oculis vidissem meis, malo cruciatu in Sicilia perbiteres.”

In ‘Jussive’ Sentences, e.g. ne poposcisses ‘you should not have asked,’ the Imperfect Subjunctive (see above, 14) is invariably found in Old Latin, e.g. Men. 611 “at tu ne clam me comesses prandium”, never the Pluperfect Subjunctive On the distinction of the two Tenses in Conditional Sentences and on the occasional use of Pluperfect Indicative for Pluperfect Subjunctive, see below, VIII. 5

Subjunctive.

The Latin Subjunctive combines the functions of the Greek Subjunctive and Optative. Comparative Philology tells us that forms in -im were originally Optative-forms; thus sim, older siēm, is the Latin equivalent of Gk. ἐσίην, εἴην while the Latin Future ero (from eso) is the equivalent of the Gk. Subjunctive ὦ, older ἔσω. Old Latin forms like amassim, prohibessim, faxim were apparently originally S-Aorist Optatives, and in the language of Plautus' time they still retain traces of their origin; for in 3rd Person they are in independent sentences mainly used in prayers and curses, e.g. di melius faxint (passim), “Iuppiter prohibessit” Pseud. 14; in 1st Person they are appropriate to Conditional statements, e.g. “haud (non) ausim” Aul. 474, etc.; in 2nd Person to Prohibitions, e.g. “ne dixis” Asin. 839, etc., “cave respexis” Most. 523. (For a full account of these -sim forms in independent sentences in Plautus, see Morris in Amer. Journ. Phil. 18, 165 sqq.)

The Subjunctive can play the part of an Imperative at all periods of Latin. Madvig showed that in Cicero ne with 2 Singular Present Subjunctive was restricted to general6 prohibitions, whereas Plautus and Terence use, e.g. ne me mone and ne me moneas as equivalents (cf. 32 below). This Imperatival or, as it is usually called, Jussive Subjunctive is found in the Imperfect (not Pluperfect), when past time is referred to, e.g. Pseud. 437 “vel tu ne faceres tale in adulescentia” (cf. above, 14).

In early Greek the Subjunctive sometimes plays the part of a Future, e.g. Homer Il. 1, 262 “οὐ γάρ πω τοίους ἴδον ἀνέρας οὐδὲ ἴδωμαι.” So in early Latin, e g. This usage is mainly confined to 1 Singular and must have something to do with the employment (from very early times) of 1 Singular Subjunctive as Future in the Third Conjugation, e.g. dicam, faciam (while dixo, faxo are like amasso, prohibesso, the S-Aorist Subjunctive), and (at a later stage apparently) in the Fourth, e.g. sciam beside scibo, audiam beside audibo in Plautus. In a sentence like Rud. 1356, etc., sed conticiscam, it is impossible to say whether the verb is Subjunctive (like taceam) or Future (like tacebo). From this use of 1 Singular taceam ‘I will be silent,’ ‘I had better be silent,’ it is but a step to the ordinary uses (in all periods of Latin) of 1 Plural, e.g. taceamus ‘let us be silent,’ ‘we had better be silent,’ and of all Persons in Conditional Sentences, e.g. taceam, si sapiam; taceamus, si sapiamus; taceas, si sapias. Similarly it is but a step from Pseud. 240, “modo ego abeam”, to the use of ut (uti) in Pers. 575 “modo uti sciam, quanti indicet”, ‘only I wish to know what price he offers.’ To disentangle the various threads of which the Latin Subjunctive is composed is not easy. For example, Plautus uses velim and volo almost indiscriminately, but it baffles us to detect the precise original sense of velim (Optative? Future? Potential?). In Amph. 928 “valeas, tibi habeas res tuas, reddas meas”, the three Subjunctives would, if they occurred in separate sentences, be classified as Optative, Permissive and Imperative respectively. But the crudeness of such a distinction is evident when we find them together in the same line. In Greek the Optative Mood has retained a separate existence; but Latin Optatives, sim, velim, edim, duim, creduim, etc., were all merged in the Subjunctive mood before the time of Plautus, whose language retains only doubtful traces of the distinction between edam (Subjunctive) and edim (Optative), creduam (Subjunctive) and creduim (Optatove) (see my Latin Language, p. 514; and on the occasional Potential use of the Perfect Subjunctive, above, 21). Even in the Indo-European language the provinces of Future and Subjunctive were not definitely discriminated, nor even of Future and Optative. In Pers. 16 Future and Subjunctive (= Optative) seem to play the same part: “A. O Sagaristio, di ament te. B. O Toxile, dabunt di quae exoptes”, but dabunt (cf. “ita me di amabunt” Ter. Heaut. 463; cf. Poen. 869） may conceivably be an affirmation like the Future in Ter. Heaut. 161 “A. utinam ita di faxint! B. facient.”

(On the Tenses of the Subjunctive used in Prohibitions, see VIII. 9）

In Dependent Clauses the use of the Subjunctive in Plautus' colloquial language was not at all so strictly regulated as in the literary language of the Augustan Age. It is extremely difficult to say with certainty: ‘in this or that Dependent Clause Plautus could not use the Indicative’ or ‘could not use the Subjunctive’ In most types of clause we find both Moods used, but never quite at random. There is always a particular nuance of thought expressed by the one and the other. The use of the Indicative makes the statement more a definite statement of actual fact, the use of the Subjunctive makes it more indefinite, more dependent on external agency. The distinction is most clearly seen in Oratio Obliqua, where the Plautine and the classical usage scarcely differ, e.g.

“Chrysalus mihi usque quaque loquitur nec recte, pater,
quia tibi aurum reddidi et quia non te defraudaverim.

”

Here quia non defraudaverim is Chrysalus' remark, while quia aurum reddidi is the remark of the speaker himself. Cf. Mil. 981 and 974, Mil. 300 and Epid. 19. Also in sentences not far removed from Oratio Obliqua, e.g.:

Similarly after an Impersonal Verb, the use of the Subjunctive makes a dependent clause less definite, more a possibility than a fact, e.g.:

Parataxis (see Lindskog: Quaestiones de Parataxi et Hypotaxi apud priscos Latinos. Lund, 1896) is characteristic (1) of the early stage of a language, (2) of colloquial, as opposed to literary language. Naturally it is strongly in evidence in the colloquial Latin of Plautus' time, e.g. Trin. 161 “alium fecisti me, alius ad te veneram”. Most of all in Indirect Questions, which in Plautus are as often Direct (with Indicative) as Indirect (with Subjunctive), e.g. the two Moods often appearing side by side, e.g. cf. nescioquis with Indicative in Early, as in Classical Latin, and the similar phrase scin quid in lines like Pseud. 276 “sed scin quid nos volumus?” (For full statistics see E. Becker: de Syntaxi Interrogationum Obliquarum, in vol. I, Part i, of Studemund's Studien auf dem Gebiet des archäischen Lateins. Berlin, 1873.) Even where the Subjunctive appears, there may often be Parataxis, e.g. Stich. 333 “A. quid agis? B. quid agam rogitas?”, for a similar Subjunctive is found in independent sentences, e.g. Similarly with other dependent Subjunctives; e.g. Men. 683 may be printed as two separate sentences or as one main sentence with a dependent clause: “mihi tu ut dederis pallam et spinter? numquam factum reperies”. Compare lines like Of recent years a great deal has been done in the way of tracing back the use of a Subjunctive in Dependent Clauses to a similar use in Early Latin in Independent Sentences.

In phrases like Asin. 44 “di tibi dent quaecumque optes,” Asin. 780 “quom iaciat, ‘te’ ne dicat”, the Subjunctive (optes, iaciat) is conventionally ascribed to ‘Attraction.’ But similar Subjunctives are found in other circumstances too; and, if ‘Attraction’ has played any part, it may rather be that the presence of a Subjunctive in a neighbouring clause has ensured the retention of the old construction, has in fact aided the old Mood to resist the encroachments of the Indicative. This so-called ‘Subjunctive by Attraction’ is a feature of the other Italic dialects and evidently belongs to the earliest Italic period, e.g. Oscan “pun far kahad, nip putiiad edum,” which would be in Latin ‘quom far incipiat, ne possit esse,’; ‘when he takes food, may be not be able to eat.’ These dialects show a similar Subjunctive where the neighbouring clause contains an Imperative, e.g. Umbrian “pone esonom e ferar . . ere fertu” (in Latin ‘quom in sacrificium feratur . . is ferto’), just as we find in Plautus sentences like Plautus uses the Indicative as well as the Subjunctive, e.g. It is perhaps true that the two moods give a different nuance to the clause, the Indicative implying that the thing is a fact, e.g. (Contrast Pers. 293 and Asin. 44.) But it is often hard to perceive the distinction. Compare The truth is that the Indicative had begun before Plautus' time to encroach on the sphere of the Subjunctive, just as in our own time ‘if I am’ has almost usurped the sphere of ‘if I be.’ It is seldom that we find the Subjunctive, where the Indicative would seem more natural, e.g. Capt. 237 “quod tibi suadeam, suadeam meo patri” (cf. Curc. 484; on Most. 1100 “quod agas, id agas”, see 31 below); and in this example the term ‘Attraction’ seems not inappropriate; although it is not absolutely certain that Plautus did not write suadeo7. Almost the only rule that can be suggested for the use of the Indicative and Subjunctive in these by-clauses, is that the Indicative must be used where the time indicated in the two clauses is different, e.g. Men. 1104 “utinam efficere quod pollicitu's (Perfect) possies (Present)”, Trin. 6 “nunc … quae illaec siet (Present), huc quae abiit (Perfect) intro, dicam”; especially when a Temporal Adverb (e.g. nunc) is used, e.g. Ter. Andr. 339 “ubi inveniam Pamphilum ut metum in quo nunc est adimam?” But the rule is not without exceptions, e.g. Aul. 29 (quoted above) “scit … quae sit quam compresserit.” The Indicative is also preferred in a clause that stands first in the sentence, e.g. Rud. 379, “si amabat, rogas, quid faceret?”; but we have sometimes the Subjunctive, e.g. Merc. 344 “neque is quom roget quid loquar cogitatumst.”

This so-called Subjunctive by ‘Attraction’ is so marked a feature of Plautine Syntax that more examples, taken from different types of sentence, will be useful:

It will be well to add examples taken from Indirect Questions and Reported Speech, in order to show how similar is the Plautine treatment in all cases of dependent sentence:

Various uses of the Subjunctive in Dependent Clauses, such as are common to Plautine and classical Latin and need not detain us. But attention must be called to the freedom of the Subjunctive in Plautus' time in contrast to certain restrictions which attached to it later. The rule that Causal (and Concessive) quom requires the Subjunctive, is, as will be shown in Chap. VIII, unknown to Plautus. He usually employs the Indicative, e.g. Mil. 1211 “saltem id volup est, quom ex virtute formai evēnit tibi”; although he can say, e.g. Mil. 1342 “nequeo quin fleam, quom abs te abeam”, Most. 896 “tibi obtemperem, quom tu mihi nequeas?” (cf. Capt. 146 “quom … feras”), just as he uses Indicative as well as Subjunctive after Causal qui in

“A. servum hercle te esse oportet et nequam et malum,
hominem peregrinum atque advenam qui irrideas.
B. at hercle te hominem et sycophantam et subdolum,
qui huc advenisti nos captatum.

”

In classical Latin quamvis postulates the Subjunctive, quamquam the Indicative But to Plautus quamvis means ‘as you wish,’ ‘as much as you wish,’ and scarcely has acquired the sense of ‘although’ (see VIII. 4). With est qui, sunt qui, est ubi, etc., it is not always easy to see what determines the use of the Subjunctive (e.g. Poen. 884 “quid est quod metuas?”) and the Indicative (e.g. Ter. Andr. 448 “est quod suscenset tibi”; cf. the frequent sunt quae volo, etc., e.g. Capt. 263 “sunt quae ex te solo scitari volo”). (For fuller statistics see Dittmar: Studien zur lateinischen Moduslehre. Leipzig, 1897, pp. 10 sqq.) Here are some examples of the Subjunctive and Indicative in Dependent Clauses:

For examples with quod, quippe quî, utpote qui, etc., see VIII. 2

In Conditional Sentences we see the utmost freedom in Plautus. The difficulty of framing rules for his use of Indicative and Subjunctive is often very difficult (see VIII. 5).

Lastly may be mentioned that the curious Latin use of 2nd Person Singular of this Mood in general statements, not referring to a definite person, is as early as Plautus, e.g.

Like it is the ‘Potential’ credas ‘one would think,’ etc, e.g.

To the Present credas of Accius 395, “interruptum credas nimbum volvier”, the Imperfect crederes of Accius 321, “Mavortes armis duo congressos crederes”, stands in the same relation as the Imperfect to the Present of the Jussive Subjunctive (see above, 14）

Imperative.

(Loch: zum Gebrauch des Imperativus bei Plautus. Memel (Schulprogr.), 1871.) The competition of the Subjunctive with the Imperative has already been mentioned. That there is a different signification in Imperatives like vale and Subjunctives like valeas (e.g. Truc. 433 “A. valeas. B. vale”) is hard to prove. Similarly in Prohibitions, e.g. Asin. 826 “ne mone”, Mil. 1378 “ne me moneatis” (see below, VIII. 9).

The Future Imperative is usually reserved for its proper sense, the expression of commands relating to future time, e.g. Pseud. 859-864 “quoquo hic spectabit, eo tu spectato simul; si … gradietur … progredimino”, etc.; Rud. 813 “si appellabit quempiam, vos respondetote”; and a command in Present Imperative is often followed by a further command in Future Imperative, e.g. Asin. 740 “Leonida, curre, obsecro, patrem huc orato ut veniat”. But bene ambulato is used beside bene ambula, salveto beside salve (cf. Havet in Archiv lat. Lexikographie, 9, 287), etc. And the Present Imperative is occasionally found where the Future Imperative would be normal, e.g. Ter. Andr. 848 “ubi voles, accerse.”

Infinitive.

(Walder: der Infinitiv bei Plautus. Berlin, 1874; and, especially for Terence, P. Barth: de Infinitivi apud scaenicos poetas Latinos usu. Berlin, 1882.)

The Infinitive has its original function of a Verbal Noun in lines like these, where it is Object of a Finite Verb:

Or in these, where it is Subject: From this origin comes the association of various Verbs and Verbal Phrases with the Infinitive, e.g. Occipio prefers an Infinitive to any other object, but incipio in Plautus' time is not yet so freely used with an Infinitive as with the Accusative of a Noun or Pronoun. The Infinitive plays the part of a Gerund in lines like Also in its use with est (like Virgil's “cernere erat,” 6.596), which is better attested for Terence ( Heaut. 192 “miserum? quem minus credere est?” (crederes: alii), Adelph. 828 “scire est (scires: alii) liberum ingenium atque animum”） than for Plautus (Truc. 501?).

The Subject of the Infinitive itself is put in the Accusative9, even when it is also the Subject of the Finite Verb, in classical Latin with dico, etc., in Plautine Latin also with volo, etc., e.g. although we also find the Nominative in Plautus, not merely with volo, etc., but (as in Greek) with dico in Asin. 634 “quas hodie adulescens Diabolus ipsi daturus dixit” (unless we should read daturum). But it is often, especially with Present Infinitive, left unexpressed, e.g. Accordingly in Curc. 72 “vovi me inferre” ‘I made a vow that I would offer’ is by a quibble misapprehended as ‘I vowed that I would offer myself’ (the passage is quoted in II. 19).

On promitto dare, lit. ‘I promise giving,’ ‘I promise the gift,’ see 12 above.

(For a list of the Verbs with which we find Accusative and Infinitive in Plautus and Terence, see J. Reinkens: über den Accusative c. Infinitive bei Plautus und Terentius, Düsseldorf (Schulprogr.), 1886.)

Of the Verbs with which Plautus uses the Infinitive may be mentioned:

Of the Verbal Phrases: The Infinitive in Lucilius 414 Ma., “solvere nulli lentus”, looks like a Graecism.

The Old Latin Infinitive bibere in the phrase dare bibere (biber), e.g. is in some Grammars explained like aquam dare, in others as an Infinitive of Purpose. The Infinitive of Purpose is a common usage, e.g. In this function the First Supine competes with the Infinitive, e.g. Most. 594 “venisti huc te extentatum?” (see below, 42), also ut (or Relative Pronoun) and Subjunctive. These two are combined in Ter. Andr. 514 “missast ancilla ilico obstetricem arcessitum ad eam et puerum ut adferret simul.”

From phrases like it is but a step to the Infinitive of Exclamation, e.g. It is usually in the form of a question, e.g.

The same function may be taken by a Subjunctive clause, e.g.

(see below, VIII. 2).

The Historical Infinitive is also a feature of Plautine (and still more of Terentian) Latin. It is found in narrative passages written in the style of Tragedy, e.g. also in less ambitious narrations, e.g. Merc. 46 “obiurigare pater haec noctes et dies”. It seems to be limited to the Present Infinitive of Active or Deponent Verbs in Main Sentences (Bacch. 482 is probably not an exception to this rule).

On the use of the Present Infinitive for the Future Infinitive in phrases like Curc. 597 “nego me dicere” ‘I refuse to tell,’ see above, 12 and on the Perfect Infinitive in sentences like Poen. 872 “nolito edepol devellisse”, above, 19

On the association of Active and Passive Infinitive, e.g. Most. 959 “esse et bibi”, see the opening paragraph of this chapter.

Of the three Periphrastic formations of the Future mentioned above (15), (1) >-urus sum, (2) volo with Infinitive, (3) eo with 1 Supine, the first was utilized for the Future Infinitive Active,10 the third, e.g. Bacch. 1171 “ut istuc delictum desistas tantopere ire oppugnatum”, for the Future Infinitive Passive (On fore ut, see below.)

Mil. 1186 sq. may serve as example of the first: “arcessito, ut, si itura sit Athenas, eat tecum … Nisi eat, te soluturum esse navim.” The Infinitive of the Substantive Verb (cf. above 8) is often omitted with the Future Participle Active as it is with the Perfect Participle Passive or with the Gerundive, e.g. Pseud. 566 “neque sim facturus quod facturum dixeram.”

But the earliest form of the Future Infinitive Active, which still survives in some lines of Plautus and has probably been removed by scribes from more, shows merely -urum (indeclinable) without esse, e.g. Cas. 693 “altero te occisurum ait” ‘Casina says she will kill you with one of the two swords.’ This points to an Impersonal Future Infinitive Active, just as we have an Impersonal Future Infinitive Passive, and just as the Gerund (e.g. agitandum est vigilias) was superseded by the Gerundive (e.g. agitandae sunt vigiliae).

The Future Infinitive Passive does not often occur in Plautus. In classical Latin it is Impersonal, e.g. credo hostes victum iri, the Infinitive of itur11 victum hostes. But we find in Rud. 1241 a Personal construction: “mihi istaec videtur praeda praedatum irier”. In Truc. 886 the corrupt reading of the MSS. seems to preserve a trace of the common Latin practice of writing this Tense as a Compound word: “spes etiamst hodie tactuiri militem.”

From the colloquial use of est ut, erit ut, etc, e.g.

originated the periphrasis fore (Impersonal) ut. On Pseud. 1319 “hoc ego numquam ratus sum, fore me ut tibi fierem supplex”, see II. 42

Supine.

The Verbal Noun in -tus (4th Declension) is greatly in evidence in Plautus. We find the Accusative with eo, etc., e.g. the Ablative with redeo, e.g. Cas. 719 (Men. 278, 288） “obsonatu redire” to return from marketing; the Dative with habeo, e.g. Cist. 365 “me … habes perditui et praedatui”, and with sum (see II. 19), also with some Adjectives, e.g. “fabula lepida auditui”; with others the Ablative (Locative?), e.g. celer cursu quick in running. Two of these usages took so firm root in the language that they became part of the Verbal system, the Accusative with eo, etc. (called the ‘First Supine’) and the Ablative (Locative?) with an Adjective (called the ‘Second Supine’).

Whether the terms ‘First and Second Supine’ are applicable to Plautine Latin may be doubted. It would be a truer analysis to distinguish from the real First Supine, two types of the phrase -tum ire. Type (1) is Passive or Intransitive, corresponding to a Transitive -tum dare. Thus nuptum ire (e.g. Cas. 86) bears to nuptum dare the same relation as venum ire (venire) to venum dare (vendere), (cf. “venum ducere” frag. 89, “venum asportare,” Merc. 353), or as pessum ire to pessum dare. (See Biese: de obiecto interno apud Plautum et Terentium, Kiel (diss.) 1878, p. 42.) Type (2) is a Periphrastic Future with the same sense as volo with Infinitive, or our ‘I will do,’ e.g.

The real function of the First Supine appears rather in lines like But it is not always easy (e.g. Capt. 179 “roga emptum”) to distinguish the province of the ‘First Supine’ and the Accusative of the Verbal Noun, e.g. Capt. 793 “hic homo pugilatum incipit.”

Gerund and Gerundive.

(S. Platner: Notes on the use of Gerund and Gerundive in Plautus and Terence, in the American Journal of Philology, vol. xiv, pp. 483 sqq.)

The use of the Gerundive of a Neuter Verb is a curious phenomenon:

Beside the Old Latin construction (cf. 40) with the Gerund governing the Accusative, e.g. Trin. 869 “hercle opinor mi advenienti hac noctu agitandumst vigilias”, we find the classical Latin construction of the Gerundive, e.g. Trin. 866 “apud illas aedis sistendae mihi sunt sycophantiae”. And we find also that curious intermediate construction, allowed by Cicero with a Genitive Plural, e.g. Noteworthy is the Descriptive Genitive of the Gerund in phrases like Capt. 153 “edundi exercitus”, Poen. prol. 34 “sermones fabulandi”. On the Genitive and Dative of Purpose see II, 5, 20 on the use of the Infinitive and of the Subjunctive (with ut) in the function of the Gerund, see above, 33; VIII, 2).

Participle.

(Tammelin: de participiis priscae Latinitatis. Helsingfors, 1889.)

The proneness of the Italic family of languages to periphrastic Tense-formation with Auxiliary Verbs is reflected in Plautus' predilection for sum with Present Participle Active, e.g.

Similarly with facio12, e.g.

The use of the Verbal Adjective in -tus as a Perfect Participle Passive and Deponent and the formation of a Perfect Passive Tense, out of this Adjective with the Auxiliary Verb sum (or fui) are also more or less peculiar to the Italic languages. In Greek ἀγαπητός ἐστι never came to mean more than φίλος ἐστὶ (cf. however γεγραμμένον ἐστὶ beside γέγραπται). Some traces of the older elasticity of this Participle are to be seen in Plautine Latin. Thus operatus has no Past signification, but is like feriatus in Mil. 7 “quia se iam pridem feriatam gestitem”, or ingeniatus in Mil. 731 “qui lepide ingeniatus esset” (cf. tacitus, maestus, iratus13). Again it takes occasionally Active (or Neuter) signification and plays the part of a Past Participle Active, e.g. iuratus (cf. Turpilius 33 “A. iurasti? B. non sum iurata”; cf. Curc. 458), pransus, potus, etc., Men. 437 “ante solem occasum”, Pseud. 996 “novi, notis (= eis qui noverunt) praedicas”. A Present Participle Active seems to play this part in Poen. 653 “adiit ad nos extemplo exiens” ‘immediately after disembarking.’ Noteworthy also is the use of the Neuter pensum as a Noun in Truc. 765 (where the despairing lover declares his indifference to dress) “nec mi adeost tantillum pensi iam quos capiam calceos”. Also the curious phrase in Men. 452 “quî homines occupatos occupat (= reddit).”

The independent use of the Future Partic., e.g. moriturus te saluto, is unknown to the early Latin writers. The first certain example appears in a fragment of a speech of C. Gracchus (ap. Gell. 11, 10, 4) “qui prodeunt dissuasuri” (see Sjögren, Futurum im altlateinischen, pp. 225 sqq.).

The Verbal Adjective in -bundus is a feature of Old Latin, e.g. Pseud. 1275 “sic haec incessi ludibundus”. As examples of Participles with the function of Nouns may be cited benevolens ‘a well wisher,’ natus nemo ‘not a soul,’ e.g. Most. 402; with the function of Adjectives, insciens, indigens (never ‘inscius,’ ‘indigus’ in Plautus and Terence).

1 Another theory regards facturum as the original form of the Future Infinitive Active, from which facturum esse was afterwards developed. See Postgate in Class. Rev. 18,450.

2 Factum oportet is thus adapted to the pattern of facto opus est (see II. 56).

3 Viso seems to be of the same formation as the old Futures (or S-Aorist Subjunctive) dixo, amasso, etc.

4 Sometimes expressed by ut and Subjunctive, e.g. Truc. 872 “immo amabo ut hos dies aliquos sinas eum esse apud me”.

5 The latest theories regarding the Indo-European Verb make out the character of an action (instantaneous, protracted, completed), rather than the time of its occurrence, to have differentiated the Indo-European Verbal formations. Thus the Present Tense would have originally no sense of Present Time, but would merely characterize an action as a process; traces of this tense-less use survive in Latin in sentences conveying general maxims, e.g. Plautus Capt. 232 “quod sibi volunt (homines), dum id impetrant, boni sunt”.

6 On the general or indefinite use of 2 Singular Present Subjunctive in Latin see below, 31. Madvig's law has been questioned (Elmer, Amer. Journ. Phil. 1894, pp. 132 sqq.).

7 Lorenz's argument for altering the reading is however unsound, viz. that ‘Attraction’ is impossible in a clause that precedes the ruling clause. It is less usual, but not impossible. Cf. Cist. 497 “A. di me perdant. B. quodcumque optes, tibi velim contingere”, etc., etc.

8 Qui quidem with Subjunctive has not only this limitative function (with Indicative, e.g. Ter. Adelph. 692 perdidisti . ., quod quidem in te fuit; cf. p. 71), but others too. Thus it is the equivalent of classical Latin quippe qui in a line like Bacch. 1132 merito hoc nobis fit, qui quidem huc venerimus. Other examples are Poen. 1213, Trin. 552, 953.

9 See I, 10, on lines like Poen. 523 servoli esse duco festinantem currere.

10 Only sum has a real Future Infinitive Active, viz. fore, e.g. Cas. 772 “quasi nil sciant fore huius quod futurumst.”

11 Like Virgil's “itur in antiquam silvam” (6.169). Had the choice of this form for the Infinitive Passive any connexion with that Attraction to the Passive of coepi, desino, etc., with a Passive Infinitive, e.g. coeptum est pugnari, desitum est pugnari, etc.? (See above, 6）

12 It has recently been suggested that calefio, etc., is merely calens fio, etc., on the type of which calefacio was formed. Similarly calē(ns)-bam, calē(ns)-bo, the second part of the Compound being Auxiliary Verbs of the same root as fio. And even amassim, prohibessim, etc., as if amans sim, prohibens sim.

13 Plautus uses iratus sum for ‘I am angry,’ iratus fui for ‘I was angry.’

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 (236 total)
  • Cross-references from this page (230):
    • Homer, Iliad, 1.262
    • Cicero, For Lucius Murena, 26
    • Plautus, Cistellaria, 1.1
    • Plautus, Cistellaria, 1.3
    • Plautus, Cistellaria, 2.1
    • Plautus, Cistellaria, 2.3
    • Plautus, Curculio, 1.1
    • Plautus, Curculio, 1.3
    • Plautus, Curculio, 2.1
    • Plautus, Curculio, 2.3
    • Plautus, Curculio, 3.1
    • Plautus, Curculio, 4.1
    • Plautus, Curculio, 4.4
    • Plautus, Curculio, 5.1
    • Plautus, Curculio, 5.2
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 2.4
    • 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, 5.1
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 5.2
    • Plautus, Persa, 1.1
    • Plautus, Persa, 2.2
    • Plautus, Persa, 2.4
    • Plautus, Persa, 2.5
    • Plautus, Persa, 3.1
    • Plautus, Persa, 3.3
    • Plautus, Persa, 4.1
    • Plautus, Persa, 4.3
    • Plautus, Persa, 4.4
    • Plautus, Persa, 4.7
    • Plautus, Persa, 5.2
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 1.2
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 3.2
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 3.3
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 3.4
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 4.2
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 5.2
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 1.1
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 1.2
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 1.3
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 1.5
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 2.2
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 2.3
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 3.2
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 4.2
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 4.4
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 4.6
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 4.7
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 5.1
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 5.2
    • Plautus, Rudens, 1.2
    • Plautus, Rudens, 1.4
    • Plautus, Rudens, 2.3
    • Plautus, Rudens, 2.6
    • Plautus, Rudens, 3.5
    • Plautus, Rudens, 3.6
    • Plautus, Rudens, 4.4
    • Plautus, Rudens, 4.7
    • Plautus, Rudens, 5.2
    • Plautus, Stichus, 1.1
    • Plautus, Stichus, 1.2
    • Plautus, Stichus, 2.1
    • Plautus, Stichus, 2.2
    • Plautus, Stichus, 5.5
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 1.2
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 2.2
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 2.4
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 3.1
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 4.1
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 4.2
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 4.3
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 5.2
    • Vergil, Aeneid, 6.596
    • Horace, Satires, 2.3.187
    • Terence, The Brothers, 3.5
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 1.1
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 1.2
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 3.1
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 4.5
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 4.8
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 5.3
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, prologue.0
    • Terence, The Mother-in-Law, 1.1
    • Terence, The Mother-in-Law, 3.1
    • Terence, The Mother-in-Law, 3.2
    • Terence, The Mother-in-Law, 3.3
    • Terence, The Mother-in-Law, 3.5
    • Terence, The Mother-in-Law, 4.1
    • Terence, The Mother-in-Law, 4.4
    • Terence, The Mother-in-Law, 5.4
    • Terence, Phormio, 1.2
    • Terence, Phormio, 1.3
    • Terence, Phormio, 2.2
    • Terence, Phormio, 2.3
    • Terence, Phormio, 3.1
    • Terence, Phormio, 4.1
    • Terence, Phormio, 5.6
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 1.1
    • 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, 4.1
    • 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, 3.2
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 3.3
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 4.1
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 4.2
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 5.1
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 5.2
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 2.2
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 2.4
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 2.5
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 3.1
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 3.5
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 4.10
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 5.1
    • Plautus, Aulularia, prologue.0
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 1.1
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 1.2
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 2.2
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 2.3
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 3.1
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 3.3
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 3.6
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 4.3
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 4.4
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 4.6
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 4.7
    • 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, 3.3
    • Plautus, Captivi, 3.5
    • Plautus, Captivi, 5.1
    • Plautus, Captivi, 5.4
    • Plautus, Captivi, prologue.0
    • Plautus, Casina, 2.2
    • Plautus, Casina, 3.6
    • Plautus, Casina, 4.4
    • Plautus, Casina, prologue.0
    • Plautus, Epidicus, 1.1
    • Plautus, Epidicus, 2.1
    • Plautus, Epidicus, 5.1
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 1.2
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 1.3
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 2.1
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 2.3
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 3.1
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 3.2
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 3.3
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 4.2
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 5.1
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 5.2
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 5.9
    • Plautus, Mercator, 1.2
    • Plautus, Mercator, 2.2
    • Plautus, Mercator, 2.3
    • Plautus, Mercator, 2.4
    • Plautus, Mercator, 3.1
    • Plautus, Mercator, 3.4
    • Plautus, Mercator, 4.4
    • Plautus, Mercator, 5.2
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 1.1
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 2.1
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 2.2
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 2.3
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 2.5
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 3.1
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 3.2
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 3.3
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 4.1
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 4.2
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 4.3
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 4.4
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 4.5
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 4.8
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 4.9
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 5.1
    • Plautus, Poenulus, prologue.0
    • Plautus, Trinummus, prologue.0
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 1.2
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 2.4
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 2.5
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 2.6
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 2.7
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 4.2
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 4.3
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 4.4
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 5.1
    • Terence, The Brothers, 2.2
    • Terence, The Brothers, 4.1
    • Terence, The Brothers, 4.2
    • Terence, The Brothers, 4.7
    • Terence, The Brothers, 5.3
    • Terence, Andria, 1.1
    • Terence, Andria, 1.2
    • Terence, Andria, 1.5
    • Terence, Andria, 2.2
    • Terence, Andria, 2.6
    • Terence, Andria, 3.2
    • Terence, Andria, 4.1
    • Terence, Andria, 4.3
    • Terence, Andria, 5.2
    • Terence, Andria, 5.4
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 2.2
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 3.3
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 4.6
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 5.3
    • Terence, The Eunuch, prologue.0
    • Livy, The History of Rome, Book 39, 14
  • Cross-references in notes from this page (6):
    • Plautus, Cistellaria, 2.1
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 3.1
    • Vergil, Aeneid, 6.169
    • Plautus, Captivi, 2.1
    • Plautus, Casina, 4.1
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 4.4
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: