previous next

VIII. The Conjunction.

In the Indo-European sentence an enclitic word took, as a rule, the second place. This is therefore the natural place for Enclitic Conjunctions like autem, quoque, although metrical or other considerations occasionally interfere in lines like

List of noteworthy Conjunctions

I give first an alphabetical list of such Conjunctions as call for notice. A detailed account of certain functions, Temporal, Causal, etc., will follow.

adeo

(Langen Beiträge, pp. 139 sqq.; Sydow: zum Gebrauch von ‘adeo’ bei Plautus. Stettin, (Schulprogr.) 1896).

The addition of Prepositions for the sake of giving precision was not confined to Nouns, e.g. salio de monte, and Verbs, e.g. desilio (de) monte (see II. 1): it is found also with Adverbs. Adeo is an example. The Pronominal Adverb eo meant ‘to that spot or quarter’ (see IV. 14) and was often used as a Case of the Demonstrative is instead of ad eum, ad eam, ad eos, etc. (see IV. 20). Precision was given to these two uses of the word by the addition of the appropriate Preposition ad, e.g. Ter. Phorm. 55 “adeo res redit”. Adeo has two meanings in Old Latin. It means either ‘up to that point,’ often with usque, e.g. Asin. 328 “mansero tuo arbitratu, vel adeo usque dum peris”, or else ‘in addition to that,’ ‘furthermore,’ e.g. Men. 827 “tibi aut adeo isti”. Nunc adeo, with edico, etc., peremptorily breaks off a discussion, etc., e.g.

an

(P. Hinze: de ‘an’ particulae apud priscos scriptores Latinos vi et usu. Halle, 1887). A recent theory, the truth of which is doubtful, makes at-nĕ the original form of this Conjunction (i.e. at with the Interrogative Particle ne). This would become anne by the law of Latin Phonetics. Before an initial consonant this would be sounded in rapid discourse without the final ĕ as ann or an, so that anne (used by Plautus only when an initial vowel follows) and an are doublets (anne est?, etc., an sum?, etc.) and the use of an before an initial vowel (e.g. ăn est?), a use found as early as Plautus, is really the misuse of the preconsonantal for the prevocalic form of the word. The common formula of a Disjunctive Interrogation ne . . . an, e.g. Men. 198 “egone an tu?” would, according to this theory, be originally ne . . . anne, e.g. Rud. 1069 “iurene anne iniuria?”, with the same repetition of ne as is seen in ne . . . necne (see below). (On the employment of an in Interrogations, see below, 7) Annon has not in Plautus' time become a Conjunction (or Conjunctional word-group); for he more frequently repeats the Verb after non, e.g. Capt. 846 “iuben an non iubes?”, Pers. 533 “tacen an non taces?” (but Rud. 1399 “tacen an non?”, Curc. 566, etc.), whereas in Terence annon is normally the mere correspondent of an, e.g. Phorm. 852 “sed isne est, quem quaero, annon?” (but Eun. 546 “is est an non est?”).

ast

‘furthermore;’ usually in Conditional Sentences, e.g. but not always, e.g. Merc. 246 “atque oppido hercle bene velle illi visus sum, ast non habere cui commendarem capram”, Accius 260.

at

Has the force of ‘at least,’ when preceded by si, in lines like for other examples see Seyffert in Bursian's Jahresbericht, 1880, p. 297.

Its use in prayers, curses, etc., may be illustrated by Merc. 793 “at te, vicine, di deaeque perduint”, and the common at ita me, e.g. Capt. 622.

Notice also Merc. 464 “A. tu prohibes. B. at me incusato” ‘oh! of course, blame me.’

at enim

‘but indeed’ (on the use of enim in Plautus, see below) in dialogue is used to oppose a preceding statement of the other speaker, e.g. Most. 922 “A. vel mihi denumerato … B. at enim ne quid captioni mihi sit, si dederim tibi”. (For other examples of at enim see Seyffert in Studemund's Studien 2, p. 426 n.)

atque (ac)

(see E. Ballas: Grammatica Plautina I. de particulis copulativis. Griefswald, 1868) i.e. ad-que ‘and in addition,’ ‘and thereto,’ (cf. Pseud. 769), has not yet wholly become a mere Copula (e.g. Aul. 97 “fures venisse atque abstulisse dicito”), but often means ‘and even,’ ‘and nevertheless,’ e.g.

The Old Latin sense of ‘all at once,’ ‘forthwith,’ is very common in Plautus, e.g.

When used comparatively (= quam) (see E. Lalin: de particularum comparativarum usu apud Terentium. Norrcopiae, 1904), e.g.

the leading word is sometimes omitted, e.g. In Amph. 583 “proinde ac meritus es”, editors change ac to ut (see Langen Beitraege, p. 295).

Corrective atque (e.g. Truc. 197 “i intro, amabo, vise illam; atque opperimino: iam exibit”) is often changed by scribes and by editors to atqui, e.g. Stich. 96 “atque (-i, alii) hoc est satis” (see below). On the use of atque as a Copula, the equivalent of et and -que, see below, 6

atqui

Rather at quî, a combination of at with the Particle quî (see below), e.g. is in Plautus' plays normally accompanied by Future or Gerundive, and expresses a strong threat or threatening assertion. Plautus uses atque in the sense of Cicero's (and Terence's) atqui, e.g. (For details see Leo in Nachrichten Göttinger Gesellschaft 1895, pp. 421 sqq.)

aut

(W. Kohlmann: de ‘vel’ imperativo, quatenus ab ‘aut’ particula differat. Marburg, 1898) is commoner than vel (see below) in Plautus and Terence. Just as -ve (see below) appears as the equivalent of que in some phrases, so aut and et appear in such phrases as “sobrie et frugaliter” Epid. 565, “sobrie aut frugaliter” Pers. 449.

autem

(see Langen Beiträge, p. 316); sometimes joined immediately to et or sed, e.g. but usually has an intervening word, e.g.

The repetition in Stich. 733 is a piece of comic Assonance: “tecum ubi autem est, mecum ibi autemst.”

As example of autem in indignant repetition of another's words, we may take

ceterum

The Neuter Singular (e.g. Pers. 692 “numquid ceterum me voltis?”, Cas. 94 “dehinc conicito ceterum”), is often used Adverbially ‘for the rest,’ e.g. The Neuter Plural is similar, cetera, e.g. The genesis of the Adversative Conjunction is seen in a line like Trin. 994 “ceterum (for the rest, but in short) qui sis, qui non sis, floccum non interduim.”

cur

(Langen: Analecta Plautina II. Münster (progr.), 1882, p. 3) is appropriate to direct Questions, although not quite unknown in indirect (e.g. Capt. 1007 “attat scio cur te patrem esse adsimules”, Ter. Heaut. 1).

donec

Neither the origin of this word nor the relationship of the three forms donec, donicum and donique (Lucr.) is at all clear. On the use of the Conjunction in temporal sentences, see below, 10

dum

(G. M. Richardson: de ‘dum’ particulae apud priscos scriptores Latinos usu. Leipzig, 1886), a word of uncertain etymology, is often a mere Particle, appended to Imperatives, e.g. iubĕdum, dic(e)dum agedum, and other words, e.g. quîdum? ‘how so?’ (always forming a sentence by itself, e.g. Mil. 325), ehodum (used by Terence). In primumdum it probably retains its temporal sense, as in nondum ‘not yet,’ vixdum (not used by Plautus and only once by Terence, Phorm. 594), etiamdum (see below), interdum. (On nedum ‘much less,’ see below; the relation of dudum to dum is uncertain.) It retains its independence in a line like Rud. 778 “abi modo; ego dum hoc curabo recte”, and in the expression dum … dum ‘at one time … at another,’ Merc. 348 “dum servi mei perplacet mi consilium, dum rursum haud placet” (cf. whereas Catullus 62, 45 “sic virgo, dum intacta manet, dum cara suis est”, gives the phrase the sense of dum … tamdiu; in Plautus Truc. 232 the MSS. offer dum . . . tum). On the use of dum as a temporal Conjunction ‘while’ or ‘until,’ see 6 on its acquired Conditional sense ‘provided that’ (cf. dummodo), e.g. Accius 203 “oderint dum metuant”, see 5 It acquires a Causal sense in a context like Trin. 1149 “quid ego ineptus, dum sermonem vereor interrumpere, solus sto?”, Ter. Andr. 822 “dum studeo obsequi tibi, paene inlusi vitam filiae”; a Concessive in a context like Rud. 1261 “dum praedam habere se censeret, interim praeda ipsus esset”, Curc. 170 “ipsus se excruciat qui homo quod amat videt nec potitur dum licet.” On its Final sense (with Subjunctive) see below. The legal word-group dumtaxat, literally ‘while (or provided that) it touches,’ occurs once in Plautus, Truc. 445 “iubebo ad istam quinque perferri minas, praeterea opsonari dumtaxat minā.”

enim

(Langen Beiträge, pp. 263 sqq.) is in the Comedians' Latin normally (cf. W. Clement in Amer. Journ. Phil. 18,402 sqq.) an Asseverative particle, corresponding to enimvero, e.g. Most. 551 “A. quid tute tecum? B. nihil enim” ‘nothing at all.’

Etenim

In the prologue of the Amphitruo (v. 26) “etenim ille, quoius huc iussu venio, Iuppiter non minus quam vostrum quivis formidat malum”, etenim is said to be post-Plautine. At enim is common in Plautus, but sed enim seems not to occur (in Bacch. 1080 the MSS. offer et enim, which some editors change to at enim, some to sed enim), although we have “verum enim” Cist. 80. Quid enim appears in Amph. 694 “quid enim censes?” (On non enim, wrongly changed by editors to noenum, see below.)

equidem

Mistaken ideas of Plautine Metre formerly induced editors to change quidem to equidem in a great number of lines (see Skutsch in Hermes 32, p. 95). This created not a few occurrences of equidem with other persons than the first. If we are to follow the MSS., one or two still remain, e.g. Undoubtedly the word is normally associated with the First Person. The popular etymology, from ego and quidem, is difficult to justify phonetically, though in a line like Epid. 202 “A. et ego Apoecides sum. et egoquidem sum Epidicus,” the Compound egoquidem may have come fairly near in pronunciation to equidem. In Men. 1070 sq. the two words appear in neighbouring lines: “novi equidem hunc: erus est meus.
egoquidem huius servos sum.

”

These two examples show that egoquidem emphasizes the 1 Pronoun far more than equidem.

ergo

(Langen Beiträge, p. 235). The common etymology ē*rĕgo is supported by the Assonance in Most. 1119 “A. aliud te rogo. B. aliud ergo nunc tibi respondeo”. This use of ergo in impatient correction occurs again in Aul. 323 “A. cocum ego, non furem rogo. B. cocum ergo dico”, Cist. 608.

As other examples of its Plautine use may be taken these lines:

On the pleonastic phrase ergo igitur, e.g. Trin. 756, see below (s.v. igitur).

et

(see E. Ballas: Grammatica Plautina. I de particulis copulativis. Greifswald, 1868) (cognate with Greek ἔτι ‘further,’ ‘in addition’） has sometimes, like atque1, (see above) the sense of ‘and nevertheless,’ ‘and further,’ e.g. The sense of etiam it has normally in combination with a Pers. Pronoun, et ego, et tu, etc, in lines like But cf. Rud. 8 (if the line be Plautine) “et alia signa (other constellations too) de caelo ad terram accidunt”. On the use of et as a mere Copula, the equivalent of -que, see below, 6 on et … quidem in ironical ejaculations, see s.v. quidem.

etiam

That is, et iam; usually accompanies a Verb in Old Latin, while quoque usually accompanies a Noun. (For details see Kirk in Amer. Journ. Phil. 18, 36; 21, 303.) The following examples of Plautus' use of the Conjunction may suffice: In impatient commands it is usually joined with 2 Singular Present Indicative in Plautus and Terence, e.g. etiam taces? ‘won't you be quiet?’ The addition of dum produces the Temporal Conjunction etiamdum, normally used in Negative Sentences (for examples, see Richardson de dum partic. p. 8). On the combination of etiam with quoque, see s.v. quoque.

etsi

That is, et si ‘even if.’ The origin of the word is shown in lines like

On the construction of this Concessive Conjunction, see below, 5

haud

(Sigismund: de ‘haud’ negationis apud priscos scriptores usu (in Commentationes philologicae Jenenses, Leipzig, 1883). On its use, see below, 8

idcirco

(Pradel de praeposit. p. 498).

igitur

‘then’ is (like quoniam) temporal or logical, e.g. In its temporal sense it is often strengthened by temporal Adverbs like in its logical sense, by ergo, e.g. Most. 848 “ergo intro eo igitur sine perductore.”

immo

(P. Specht: de ‘immo’ particulae apud priscos scriptores usu. Jena, 1904) is confirmative, not corrective, in a line like Pers. 721 “A. nam te sensi sedulo mihi dare bonam operam. B. tibin ego? immo sedulo” （A: serio, ut vid. P.）. On immo si scias, see below, s.v. si (cf. “immo si audias” Bacch. 698, Epid. 451).

ita

(Th. Braune: Observationes … ad usum ‘ita’ ‘sic’ ‘tam’ (‘tamen’) ‘adeo’ particularum Plautinum ac Terentianum. Berlin, 1882) is cognate with the Pronoun is and stands in the same relation to sic as is to hic2. Thus with Verbs of saying, ita precedes an Oratio Obliqua, sic an Oratio Recta, e.g. The relationship is clearly shown in a sentence of the Trinummus, vv. 233 sqq. “nisi (but) hoc sic faciam opinor, ut utramque rem simul exputem, iudex sim reusque ad eam rem. ita (sc. id) faciam, ita placet.” Ita seems to be wrongly used for sic in a line like Bacch. 385, where the exposition follows. Ita is, like etiam, used for ‘yes,’ e.g. Mil. 1262 “A. militem pol tu aspexisti? B. ita”. Presumably this stands for ita est (see V. 8 on the omission of est). We find also sic for ‘yes,’ e.g. Ter. Phorm. 813 “A. illa maneat? B. sic”; also sic est, e.g. Ter. Haut. 242.

Itane?

‘actually?’ is common in indignant remonstrance and the like, e.g. (see Seyffert in Bursian's Jahresbericht 18, 976).

Terence does not follow Plautus in allowing ita with an Adjective or Adverb, but only tam (Adelph. 984 the better reading). Ita (perhaps never nam ita; see Langen Beiträge, p. 232) often introduces the reason for a previous statement, e.g. Bacch. 12 “Praenestinum opino esse; ita erat gloriosus”, Mil. 158. We find itaque with this function in lines like Pers. 505 “neque istoc redire his octo possum mensibus, itaque hic est quod me detinet negotium”, although this use has been questioned (see Bosscher: de Plauti Curculione. Leyden (diss.), 1903, p. 47). It finds a parallel in nam and namque (see below).

nam

Like enim, has an asseverative sense, but is not so far removed from the classical use, (see Spengel's note on Ter. Ad. 15), e.g.

It often introduces a particular instance of a general statement, e.g. Trin. 25, where it is misinterpreted by Cicero (following the Auctor ad Herennium 2, 35): “amicum castigare ob meritam noxiam immoene est facinus; … nam (for instance) ego amicum hodie meum concastigabo.”

Cicero in his youthful work on Rhetoric (de Invent. 1, 95) cites this as an example of a false syllogism.

Similarly it follows a threat in lines like Asin. 130 “at malo cum tuo; nam iam ex hoc loco ibo ego ad tresviros.”

In his note on Ter. Ad. prol. 15 “nam quod isti dicunt malevoli, homines nobilis eum adiutare”, where Terence passes on to a new point in his rival's indictment of him, Donatus remarks: “‘nam’ incipiendi vim habet modo”. On uti-nam, see below.

nam

An Interrogative Particle which often appears in Tmesis, e.g. The Interrogative and Asseverative uses can hardly be discriminated in lines like On quia-nam ‘why?’ see below; on ecquidnam, 7 below.

namque

Used only before an initial vowel in the Dramatists (except Ennius Trag. 370 R. “namque regnum suppetebat mi”), is strengthened by enim in Trin. 61 “namque enim tu, credo, me imprudentem obrepseris”. Like nam it confirms a previous remark in lines like Capt. 604 “A. istinc loquere, siquid vis, procul. tamen audiam. B. namque edepol, si adbites propius, os denasabit tibi.”

-nĕ

(On Affirmative -ne see M. Warren: On the Enclitic ‘ne’ in Early Latin, in American Journal of Philology, vol. II) like nam is used asseveratively and interrogatively. (On Interrogative -nĕ, see below, 7) Its asseverative use is most frequent in an answer like tune ‘yes you’ to a question like egone?, e.g.

If it were confined to such cases, it might be explained as a mere comic repetition, like that of autem in Stich. 733 (quoted above, s.v.), or like Pers. 212 “A. heia! B. beia!”, Pseud. 235 “A. at—B. bat!”

But it is found in other collocations, e.g.

We must therefore admit the occasional asseverative use of this Particle, although the limits of its use are not easy to define. The Latin Grammarians talk of a confirmativa particula ne in lines like Hor. Sat. 1, 10, 21 “0 seri studiorum quine putetis”; and in Glossaries we find nĕ glossed by ergo. But ergo is also offered as a gloss of an in Virg. Ecl. 3, 21 “an mihi cantando victus non redderet ille?”, a sentence which is unmistakeably a question, so that all that can be meant is that this question is tantamount to an explanatory statement. Since Interrogative -nĕ is often used by Plautus in the sense of nonne (see below, 7) there are many lines of this kind in Plautus; e.g. Merc. 588 “sumne ego homo miser?”, ‘am I not unlucky?,’ is of course tantamount to the statement ‘well, I am unlucky!’ But one is unwilling to recognise here, instead of the familiar Interrogative -nĕ, the unfamiliar Affirmative -nĕ. To substitute nē (nae) for -nĕ in all examples of the Affirmative use is impossible. Donatus in his note on Ter. Andr. prol. 17 “(faciuntne intellegendo ut nihil intellegant?)” says: “NE quidam corripiunt et cum interrogatione pronuntiant: quidam producunt, quorum alii ‘ne’ pro ‘nonne’ accipiunt, id est ‘non,’ alii ‘ne’ pro ‘valde.’” But, not to speak of the awkwardness in the postposition of nē (nae), we often find the reduced form n, e.g. Ter. Adelph. 770 “tun si meus esses” (cf. Haut. 217), which could not be replaced by nē. (For statistics of affirmative -nĕ, see Mulvany, Class. Rev. 9, 15.) On negative nĕ of nequeo (beside non queo, etc.), see below, 8

nē

In Old Latin also nei (nī), e.g. Most. 924 “niquid committam tibi”. Noticeable is the use of ne etiam ‘not even,’ e.g. Most. 423 “ut ne etiam aspicere aedes audeat”, ne (not ‘neve3’) … neve (nive, e.g. Poen. 38), e.g. Trin. 314 sqq., ne non, e.g. Cas. 575 “metuo ne non sit surda atque haec audiverit.” Neque … neque (see below) can play the part of ne … neu, e.g. Ter. Heaut. 975 “nec tu aram tibi nec precatorem pararis”. Beside ut ne, we find quî ne, e.g. incert. com. 47 “haud facilest defensu qui ne comburantur proximae”, (more likely quî nē than quî nĕ, i.e. quin).

nedum

‘much less’ is unknown to Plautus (cf. Amph. 330 “vix incedo inanis, ne ire posse cum onere existumes”), who however appends the Particle dum to ne in lines like Mil. 431 “ne dum quispiam nos vicinorum imprudentis aliquis immutaverit”. Terence's Comedies offer one instance, Heaut. 454 “satrapa si siet amator, numquam sufferre eius sumptus queat; nedum tu possis.”

neque, nec

On the Old Latin use of nec for non, e.g. nec recte dicere, see 8 The Copula sometimes unites clauses which are not strictly connected in sense, so that it is hardly distinguishable from this Old Latin use, e.g. Rud. 359 “O Neptune lepide, salve! nec te aleator nullus est sapientior”, Aul. 206 (see Leo's note for more examples). We find neque for neu, especially when preceded by another neque, e.g. The classical use of neque . . et is also Plautine, e.g. Rud. 1083 “hoc neque isti usust et illi miserae suppetias feret”, Cist. 691. On the Double Negative neque … haud, etc., see below, 8

In necne, the Indirect Disjunctive Interrogative, the Old Latin use of nec for non survives (cf. annon). The first member of the sentence has either no Interrogative Particle or else -nĕ, e.g. Capt. 713 “emitteresne necne eum servum manu?” (like the more frequent annon, e.g. Capt. 846 “iuben an non iubes?”）

nempe

Becomes before an initial consonant nemp. For instances of nempe ergo, e.g. Ter. Andr. 195, see Skutsch Plautinische Forschungen I, p. 38.

nimirum

The genesis of this Conjunction is revealed in the pages of Plautus. He uses various phrases with mirum est (usually without est) or mira sunt (see below, under si), especially (1) with si in Negative and Interrogative Sentences (but also Cas. 191), e.g. Truc. 305 “nil mirum—vetus est maceria—lateres si veteres ruunt”, (2) with nisi or ni, in Affirmative Sentences, e.g. Amph. 319 “mirum ni hic me quasi murenam exdorsuare cogitat”. Of these Terence recognises only mirum (1) with si (but also Andr. 651), (2) with ni, e.g. Andr. 598 “A. ubi nunc est ipsus? B. mirum ni domist.” A variation of the expression appears occasionally in Plautus, once nisi mirumst ( Pseud. 1213 “tu, nisi mirumst, leno, plane perdidisti mulierem”), once ni mirum ( Aul. 393 “ni mirum, occidor nisi ego intro huc propere propero currere”. Terence recognizes only ni mirum or, as we may believe him to have written, nimirum, a single word, Eun. 508 “nimirum dabit haec Thais mihi magnum malum”, 268, 784. The omission of est is affected also by mirum when joined with quin. Mirum quin (with Subjunctive) is ironical, e.g. Trin. 495 “mirum quin tu illo tecum divitias feras” ‘you could hardly take your wealth with you to the grave,’ Rud. 1393 (see Sonnenschein's note).

nisi

(older nĕ-si, like nĕ-queo, nĕ-fas, etc.) and ni (older nei; see O. Brugmann: über den Gebrauch des condicionalem ‘ni’ in der älteren Latinität. Leipzig, 1887) are usually interchangeable. But in wagers (see below, 5) only ni is found; on the other hand, only nisi in that curious Old Latin use of the word in the sense of sed. This use seems to have originated in the phrase nihil scio nisi hoc (scio), e.g. Rud. 750 “quae patria sit profecto nescio, nisi scio probiorem hanc esse”, for the Apodosis normally consists of nescio or some similar Negative Verb in 1 Singular Present Indicative, Cist. 676 “ubi ea sit nescio, nisi, ut opinor, loca haec circiter mi excidit.” Extensions of this normal use are, e.g. The classical Latin use of nisi for praeter is as old as Plautus, e.g. Rud. 970 “dominus huic, ne frustra sis, nisi ego nemo natust”. For the ironical nisi forte (e.g. Most. 941 “nisi forte factu's praefectus novus”) we sometimes find nisi alone, e.g. Amph. 901 “sic est, vera praedico: nisi etiam hoc falso dici insimulaturus es”, and nisi si, e.g. Most. 769 “nec mi umbra hic usquamst, nisi si in puteo quaepiamst”. The pleonastic formation nisi si (cf. quasi si, nemo homo, IV. 21) conveys, like the similar Greek formation εἰ μὴ εἰ, an additional suggestion of uncertainty. It is formed on the type of nisi ut, (e.g. Pseud. 1102 “A. sed quis hic homo est chlamydatus? B. non edepol scio, nisi ut observemus quo eat aut quam rem gerat”), nisi quod (e.g. Pers. 517 “ego tantundem scio quantum tu, nisi quod pellegi prior”), and the more frequent nisi quia (e.g. Pers. 545 “iuxta tecum aeque scio, nisi quia specie quidem edepol liberalist, quisquis est”). The substitution of si for ut or quod or quia adds a fresh element of doubt. (For additional examples of nisi quod, nisi quia see Schmalz in Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift 25, 557.) On quidni, quippini, see below.

non

(older noenum; see 8 below).

nonne (cf. anne, above) is appropriate before an initial vowel, while non (cf. an) is used interrogatively before consonant or vowel, e.g. Amph. 407 “non loquor, non vigilo, nonne hic homo modo me pugnis contudit?” (See below, 7).

num

(see 7).

postquam and priusquam

(On their use in Temporal Sentences, see 10 below.)

postquam (often in Tmesis, e.g. Truc. 647 “post illuc quam veni”） is more or less of a Causal Conjunction in lines like

priusquam, the opposite of posterius quam ( Asin. 63 “posterius istuc dicis quam credo tibi”), often in Tmesis, e.g. Rud. 626, Mil. 1096, Most. 326, is the Plautine Conjunction for ‘before.’ Antequam is once found in Terence (Hec. 146), but not in Plautus. In Cato's prose both priusquam and antequam are in equal use.

praequam

Formed like prae quod, Stich. 362 “immo res omnes relictas habeo, prae quod tu velis”. Cf. also advorsum quam, Trin. 176 “utrum indicare me ei thensaurum aequom fuit, advorsum quam eius me obsecravisset pater?” ‘contrary to his father's entreaties.’ Its use may be illustrated from In Merc. 23 (from the prologue, and therefore possibly post-Plautine) it is used in the sense of praeterquam (see below): “nec pol profecto quisquam sine grandi malo
praequam res patitur studuit elegantiae.

”

Similar is praeut, e.g.

praeterquam

(Lalin: de particularum comparativarum usu apud Terentium. Norrcopiae, 1894) had not yet become crystallized into a single word at the time of the Dramatists, as we see from, e.g. We have praeter quam quod in Ter. Heaut. 399 “nam dum abs te absum, omnes mihi labores fuere quos cepi leves, praeter quam tui carendum quod erat.”

proin, proinde

The theory is wrong, that these two words had different functions, proin being used in commands, e.g. proin tu hoc audi, and proinde in comparisons, e.g. proinde atque hoc. The two words are really the same; proin is the preconsonantal, proinde the prevocalic doublet (like our ‘a’ and ‘an’). An example of proinde in a command, when prevocalic, is Asin. 27 “proinde actutum … eloquere.” (See Skutsch Forschungen I. 82）

propterea

(see Reissinger: die Präpositionem ‘ob’ und ‘propter.’ Participle I, Landau, 1897, p. 75).

qua — qua

(see below, 6).

quam

Sometimes enclitically appended in Adverbial sense, e.g. nimis quam (Most. 511 etc.), admodum quam (Amph. 541 etc.), perquam. Comparative quam often lacks the leading word, e.g. It is omitted after plus, minus, etc., in phrases like On the Pleonasm ut … quam in Exclamations, e.g. Stich. 570 “ut apologum fecit quam fabre!”, see below, s.v. ut.

quamobrem

Rather quam ob rem, with the same arrangement as qua de re, e.g. Poen. 317, etc., is hardly yet crystallized into a Conjunction (see Reissinger: die Präpositionem ‘ob’ und ‘propter.’ Part I. Landau, 1897, p. 22). To the redundancy of colloquial speech (cf. I. 11) we may ascribe the abnormal expression in Ter. Andr. 382 “invenerit aliquam causam quam ob rem eiciat.” Or we may recognize in it a symptom that the phrase was becoming a mere equivalent of cur. Cf. quare (below).

quamquam and quamvis

(see 4).

quando

(P. Scherer: de particulae ‘quando’ apud vetustissimos scriptores Latinos vi et usu, in vol. II. of Studemund's Studien auf dem Gebiete des archäischen Lateins. Berlin, 1891.) The Temporal (see 10) and Causal (see 3) senses may be illustrated from a passage of the Persa, 638 sq. “tanquam hominem, quando animam efflavit, quid eum quaeras qui fuit? … dico equidem: quando hic servio, haec patriast mea”. As an Interrogative, or with expecto, etc., the word is seldom used by Plautus and Terence, e.g. Curc. 212 “quando ego te videbo?”, Ter. Eun. 697. They prefer quam mox, e.g. (For details see Seyffert in Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift, 18, p. 1350. The Present, not the Future, is used with quam mox.) Like siquando is ubi quando in Capt. 290 “genio suo ubi quando sacruficat, … Samiis vasis utitur”. The addition of quidem forms the Causal Conjunction quandoquidem, e.g. Stich. 483, Merc. 180, Ter. Andr. 487.

quapropter

Sometimes in Tmesis, e.g. Amph. 815 “quid ego feci qua istaec propter dicta dicantur mihi?”, is like our ‘where-for(e)’ an example of the addition of a Preposition to a Particle, in order to give it definiteness and precision (see above, s.v. adeo).

quare

Rather qua re, is, like quoi rei (Poen. 479), found in Plautus only once, Epid. 597 “A. quibus de signis agnoscebas? B. nullis. A. qua re filiam credidisti nostram?”

quasi

(Lalin: de particularum comparativarum usu apud Terentium. Norrcopiae, 1894) is apparently a similar shortening of quam si4 as sĭquidem of sī quidem. Plautus uses quăsi and quam si indiscriminately, e.g. He does not restrict the Conjunction to imaginary comparisons; thus we find, e.g.

In these comparisons of fact it is the equivalent of quemadmodum, and takes the Indicative, the Mood of fact. It has the sense of fere in lines like

The usual Sequence of Tenses with quasi ‘as if’ is departed from in lines like Ter. Phorm. 382 “proinde expiscare quasi non nosses” (cf. Phorm. 388, Heaut. 527).

Quasi si (e.g. Cas. 46 “quasi si esset ex se nata, non multo secus”), quasi quom (e.g. Ter. Adelph. 739 “ita vitast hominum quasi quom ludas tesseris”), quasi ubi (e.g. Ter. Eun. 406 “quasi ubi illam exspueret miseriam ex animo”) may also be mentioned. Quasi si may be compared with nisi si (see above).

-que

(see below, 6) may be appended to a word ending in -ĕ, e.g. Trin. 76 “ut te videre audireque aegroti sient.”

quemadmodum

Rather quem ad modum (cf. “quemnam ad modum?” Bacch. 190), illustrates the common arrangement of Relative, Preposition, Noun (cf. “quod ad exemplum est?” Trin. 921, quamobrem, etc.). It is an equivalent of quomodo, e.g. Mil. 884 “tibi dixi miles quem ad modum potesset deasciari”, Pers. 35, and exhibits that use of ad to denote comparisons or similitude (see VII. 2） seen in phrases like Merc. 428 “ad illam faciem” ‘of that appearance;’ cf.

quî

(O. Kienitz: de ‘quî’ localis, modalis apud priscos scriptores Latinos usu, Leipzig, 1879), if really the old Instrumental Case, retains its original force in a line like Bacch. 84 “mihi dicito ‘dato qui bene sit:’ ego ubi bene sit tibi locum lepidum dabo” (qui ‘the means,’ ubi ‘the place’). On its use as a Relative Pronoun, see IV. 6 As a Conjunction it plays the part of quomodo, quare, e.g. Poen. 169 “qui id facturu's?” (cf. classical Latin qui fit ut . . ?), often answered by quia (see below); of utinam, e.g. qui illum di perdant! (passim); of ut, e.g. Trin. 688 “nolo ego mihi te tam prospicere qui meam egestatem leves, sed ut inops infamis ne sim”, Amph. 339. It sinks to a mere Particle, like quidem, in such phrases as hercle qui, pol qui, etc. On at qui, quippe qui, see s.v. at, s.v. quippe. Quîdum ‘how so?’ always forms a sentence by itself (see p. 96). Alioqui and ceteroqui are not found in Old Latin writers.

quia

The 3 Declension Neuter Plural, as quid is the 3 Declension Neuter Singular and quod is the 2 Declension Neuter Singular; has the sense of quod in a line like Pseud. 107 “atque id futurum unde unde dicam nescio, nisi quia futurum est”. It shows the Interrogative sense of quid? in the Compound quianam? (cf. quidnam?) ‘why?’ used by Ennius and the Tragedians (cf. Virg. Aen. 10. 6), but not by the Comedians (see Langen Beiträge, p. 325).

Although quia is normal after verbs of emotion, e.g. Capt. 203 “at nos pudet quia cum catenis sumus”, it is doubtful whether it is used after ‘Verba Sentiendi et Declarandi,’ for nisi quia in Pseud. 568 admits of another explanation (see below, s.v. quod). On the use of quia as a Causal Conjunction, see below, 3

quidem

May be joined to et without an intervening word, e.g. Mil. 259 “A. abeo. B. et quidem ego ibo domum”. As illustrations of its ironical use take (On equidem and ego quidem, see above.)

quidni

In this phrase (as in quippini; see below) ni 5 has the Old Latin sense of nē or rather non, stands normally in Tmesis, e.g. but not, e.g. Its equivalent, cur non, is also frequent, e.g. Quid, as the equivalent of cur, e.g. Most. 419 “sed quid tu egredere?”, is merely an instance of that use of the Accusative Neuter Pronoun with various verbs (e.g. Most. 786 “quod me miseras” ‘the business on which you sent me’） discussed above, II. 35 The fuller phrase quid est quod is frequent, e.g. Most. 69 “quid est quod tu me nunc obtuere, furcifer?”, Men. 677 “scin quid est quod ego ad te venio?” (for other examples see Dittmar Moduslehre, pp. 11 sqq.). The other uses of quid in Interrogations and Exclamations may be illustrated by (for more details see Seyffert in Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift, 1896, p. 816); and the combinations of quid with other Particles, by quid ita?, quid iam? (e.g. Mil. 473). On quid si see below, 5. On quid istic? see IV. 13

quin

(O. Kienitz: de ‘quin’ particulae apud priscos scriptores Latinos usu. Carlsruhe, 1878). The literal sense, quî-ne ‘how not?’ ‘why not?,’ appears clearly in lines like Trin. 291 “quin prius me ad plures penetravi?” ‘why did I not make my way to the majority (i.e. the dead) before?’ With 2 Singular, Plural Present Indicative it has the force of a command, e.g. quin taces? And in this sense the Imperative was, by a laxity of usage, substituted for the Indicative in colloquial Latin, e.g. quin tace. Sometimes the two Moods stand side by side, e.g. With 1 Singular it has the force of an exhortation, e.g. quin taceo?, quin tacemus? Sometimes it takes the Dubitative Subjunctive e.g. Mil. 426 “A. me rogas, homo, qui sim? B. quin ego hoc rogem, quod nesciam?”

From this last it is but a step to the Conjunction expressing hindrance. For a sentence like numquae causa est quin rogem? might be expressed in Parataxis thus: quin rogem? numquae causa est? Amph. 559 “tamen quin loquar haec, uti facta sunt hic, numquam ullo modo me potes deterrere”, might be expressed with this punctuation: “tamen quin loquar haec, uti facta sunt hic?
numquam ullo modo me potes deterrere.

”

Of Plautus' use of this Conjunction of hindrance the following examples are noteworthy:

In the corroborative use also of quin the literal sense ‘how not?’ is clearly apparent, e.g. Capt. 1017 “A. quid tu ais? adduxtin illum huius captivum filium? B. quin, inquam, intus hic est” ‘why! I tell you, he's inside here.’ In this use quin is often strengthened by a Particle like etiam, edepol, hercle, e.g. Poen. 706 “quin hercle accipere tu non mavis quam ego dare.”

Editors change hercle quin of the MSS. in Men. 428 (cf. Men. 1092, Trin. 464) to hercle qui and atquin of the MSS. in Rud. 760 to atqui, probably rightly. On quin(e) for isne qui (cf. Hor. Sat. 2, 10, 20, “o seri studiorum, quine putetis”, etc.), e.g. Trin. 360 “quin comedit, quod fuit, quod non fuit?” ‘what! the man who devoured?’, Most. 738 “A. ventus navem nostram deseruit … B. quaen subducta erat tuto in terra?”, see IV. 6

quippe

From Cicero's quippe qui6 (Nominative Singular), used normally with Subjunctive, we must distinguish Plautus' quippe quî (cf. above, s.v. quî), e.g. We have also quippe quando, e.g. Capt. 886 “A. vae aetati — B. tuae; quippe quando mihi nil credis”, quippe quom, e.g. Rud. 979 “quippe quom extemplo in macellum pisces prolati sient, nemo emat”, as well as quippe qui (in various cases), e.g. Epid. 618 “A. habe bonum animum. B. quippe ego quoi libertas in mundo sitast” (cf. Pseud. 1275).

quippini

(like quidni; see above) ‘why not?,’ e.g. Men. 948 “A. itane censes? B. quippini?”, is as rare with a Verb (e.g. Pseud. 917 “A. nimis tandem ego abs te contemnor. B. quippe ego te ni contemnam?”） as quidni is rare without a Verb (e.g. Truc. 726 “A. nostin tu hunc Strabacem? B. quidni?”).

quo and quominus

quo for ut is normal in classical Latin when there is a Comparative in the sentence (cf. quominus with minus for non, as in Mil. 876 “minus si tenetis”, 603 “si minus cum cura aut cautela locus loquendi lectus est”).

In Plautus both quo and quî, the Ablative and Instrumental Cases, are unrestricted in this function, e.g. Epid. 289 “quo illum ab illa prohibeas”. And ut is freely used with a Comparative, e.g.

From quominus (in Tmesis, e.g. Amph. 84 “quive quo placeret alter fecisset minus”) we must distinguish quo minus, e.g. in the phrase quo dixi minus ‘as I omitted to say’ (Capt. 430; cf. Amph. 479, Merc. 24), Stich. 162 “quo minus laboris cepisse illam existumo” (see I. 1).

quoad

That is, quo-ad (with the same postposition of the Preposition as in quapropter, etc.; see VII. 1) appears in Afranius as adquo 278 “ut scire possis adquo te expediat loqui”, 248 “ni tantum amarem talem tam merito patrem, iratus essem adquo liceret”. It is the Relative equivalent of adeo ‘to that point,’ ‘to that extent,’ and has hardly yet become a Temporal Conjunction in Plautus' time, The view that quŏd of quod possum, quod potui, etc., was pronounced quōd and was a contraction of quoad is now generally abandoned.

quod

The passage of the Neuter Singular Pronoun into a Conjunction may be illustrated by these lines:

That the later use of quod with Finite Verb, instead of Accusative and Infinitive, is found in Plautus is very doubtful. The apparent instances are:

and to these some add Truc. 383, Poen. 1374, Most. 691, Bacch. 1009, Poen. 547 (see Thulin de coniunctivo Plautino p. 138; Schmalz in Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift 25, 557).

Quod, used as in Aul. 91, Mil. 162 (just quoted), approaches the sense of ‘although’ in lines like

quodsi

Found in Terence (e.g. Andr. 258 “quod si ego rescivissem id prius”, Eun. 924 “quod si astu rem tractavit”), but probably not in Plautus (for quod may be the Relative in Cist. 152 “quod si tacuisset, tamen ego eram dicturus”).

quom

Generally regarded as an old Neuter Singular of the Relative. It plays the same part as quod in sentences like the formula for congratulating a slave after manumission, quom tu es liber gaudeo (Epid. 711, Men. 1031, 1149), Bacch. 338 “(with istuc as antecedent) istuc sapienter saltem fecit filius, quom (quod alii） diviti homini id aurum servandum dedit”. On Causal quom, see below, 3 on Temporal quom, 10 on Concessive quom, 4

quomodo

Rather quo modo, like quo pacto, qua arte, etc., has hardly yet crystallized into a mere Conjunction. (For details, see Ladyzynski: de quibusdam priscorum poetarum scaenicorum locutionibus, Leopoli, 1895; and see above on quemadmodum.）

quoniam

(i.e. quom iam; like etiam, nunciam, etc.). On its Causal and Temporal uses, see below (3, 10).

quŏque

This word, of uncertain etymology, is the equivalent of etiam (see above). The combination of these two Conjunctions produces In Asin. 184 et quoque is suspected by editors.

scilicet

A Compound of scio, in some form or other, with licet, retains the old construction of Accusative and Infinitive (cf. videlicet, below) in lines like but is also used parenthetically, e.g.

sed

Noteworthy is the use of this Particle to indicate a surprising discovery, e.g. sed estne hic . . .? (for examples, see Kaempf Pronomina Personalia, p. 44), sed eccum (see Bach in Studemund's Studien, 2, 389), and similar phrases.

si

The use of this Conjunction as a Conditional ‘if’ is fully treated below, 5

Si plays the part of quod or quom after verbs like gaudeo, miror, etc., and naturally takes the Indicative Mood. (By the time of Terence, miror si can be used like miror an, e.g. Ter. Andr. 175 “mirabar hoc si sic abiret.”) But there is always a different nuance with si, e.g. Poen. 1326 sqq. “gaudeo et volup est mihi, si quid (v.l. quidem) lenoni obtigit magni mali, quomque e virtute vobis fortuna obtigit”, where the si-clause is stated from information, the quom-clause from personal knowledge.

The Protasis of mira sunt (not used by Terence, though in Eun. 288 he uses mira for mirum, “mira vero militi quae placeant”) or mirum (rarely mirum est) is in the Indicative, e.g.

similarly with non miror, etc., e.g. Satis est, satis habeo, etc., also have Indicative in the Protasis, e.g. Not unlike this is the use (with Indicative Mood) of si, ‘if it is really the case that,’ in lines like The causal force of this si is seen in the frequent use of ergo, eo, igitur in the Apodosis.

Si plays the part of ut (Final) after verbs like exspecto, and naturally takes the Subjunctive Mood, e.g. Trin. 98 “exspecto si quid dicas” (cf. Trin. 148 “ausculto si quid dicas”). Si, ‘in the hope of,’ is accompanied by posse in Subjunctive (except that 1 Singular Indicative is used when present time is referred to), e.g.

Si ‘in case’ takes Indicative in phrases like Pers. 611 “adduco hanc, siquid vis ex hac percontarier”. On si ‘although’ (cf etsi） in lines like Merc. 694 “decem si vocasset summos ad cenam viros, nimium obsonavit”, see below, 4 The phrase si maxume, an emphatic form of si (as quom maxume is of quom), is accompanied by the Indicative (e.g. Bacch. 1001 “non dabis, si sapies; verum si das maxume, nae ille alium gerulum quaerat, si sapiet, sibi”, Ter. Phorm. 295 “verum si cognatast maxume, non fuit necesse habere”) or the Subjunctive (e.g. Bacch. 1004 “nam ego non laturus sum, si iubeas maxume”, Ter. Adelph. 340 “tum si maxume fateatur, . . non est utile hanc illi dari”) (see Seyffert in Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift 24, 140).

Si plays the part of an after verbs like video, viso, etc., and takes the Indicative, just as Indirect Questions often do in Plautine Latin (cf. V. 28), e.g.

Si, in the sense of si modo (cf. modo si Amph. 646, Capt. 996), takes the Subjunctive (but Indicative in Poen. 915 “proba materies datast, si probum adhibes fabrum”), e.g.

In the Apodosis we often find possum, e.g. The Apodosis (cf. Mil. 1429 “magis dicas, si scias, quod ego scio”, Ter. Eun. 355) is suppressed with the phrase immo si scias, e.g. Cas. 668 “immo si scias dicta quae dixit hodie!”

Quid si takes the Indicative in a request for information, the Subjunctive in an exhortation to action, e.g.

On quid nisi, see above, s.v. quidni.

Si—sive (seu)

This is the usual formula in Plautus and Terence, e.g. Ter. Andr. 216 “si ista uxor, sive amicast”, not, as in classical Latin, sive (seu) — sive (seu). Sometimes we find si—si, e.g. Rud. 1257 “at ego deos quaeso ut, quidquid in illo vidulost, si aurum, si argentum est, omne id ut fiat cinis”, Capt. 114.

Of the other associates of this Particle, quodsi and ast have been treated above; sin may be illustrated by Ter. Andr. 210 “si illum relinquo, eius vitae timeo, sin opitulor, huius minas.”

sic

(Th. Braune: Observationes … ad usum ‘ita,’ ‘sic,’ ‘tam’ (‘tamen’), ‘adeo’ particularum Plautinum ac Terentianum. Berlin, 1882.) The Old Latin alliterative (and etymological?) phrase sic sinere ‘to let be’ is frequent in Plautus, e.g. Pseud. 477, 1301, Aul. 524. But the use of sic in oaths, followed by ut, occurs only once, Poen. 869 “Diespiter me sic amabit … ut ego hanc familiam interire cupio” (cf. Ter. Heaut. 463), the usual phrase being ita me di ament, ut. On the distinction between sic and ita see above, s.v. ita. Sic is associated with hic, ita with is, e.g. Contrast But it would be dangerous to assert that in the colloquial Latin of the Dramatists sic and ita (like hic and is) were never under any circumstances interchanged (e.g. Rud. 399, Ter. Phorm. 536). On sic and ita in the sense of ‘yes,’ see above, s.v. ita.

sicut

That is, sic ut (cf. ita ut, s.v. ita, above); often gives a particular instance or proof of a statement, e.g. Poen. 503 sqq. “tardo amico nihil est quicquam nequius … sicut ego hos duco advocatos, homines spissigradissumos”, and acquires the sense of ‘seeing that,’ ‘since,’ e.g. Mil. 974 “quin tu illam iube abs te abire quo lubet; sicut soror eius huc gemina vēnit Ephesum et mater, accersuntque eam.” (For other examples, see Langen Beiträge, p. 249.)

simulac

Just as the Adjective similis is followed by atque or ac (e.g. Ter. Phorm. 31 “ne simili utamur fortuna atque usi sumus”), so the Adverb simul is followed by atque or ac, a combination found as early as Liv. Andr. (see below, 10). The rare use of simul alone, e.g. Ter. Phorm. 823 “hic simul argentum repperit, cura sese expedivit”, is due to Parataxis. For simul ut may be cited Titinius 50 “simul ut pueras hac (v.l. has) nocte suspirare crevi.”

tam

(Th. Braune: Observationes . . . ad usum ‘ita,’ ‘sic,’ ‘tam’ (‘tamen’), ‘adeo’ particularum Plautinum ac Terentianum. Berlin, 1882) The following examples are noteworthy:

Also the use of non tam — quam in the comparison of ideas or actions, e.g. Cas. 429 “atque id non tam aegrest iam, vicisse vilicum, quam id expetivisse opere tam magno senem”; sometimes non tam — sed, e.g. Mil. 851 “non hercle tam istoc (on that account) valide cassabant cadi, sed in cella erat paulum nimis loculi lubrici.”

In Mil. 11 we should read (with the MSS.) “tum bellatorem—Mars haud ausit dicere neque aequiperare suas virtutes ad tuas”, not (with Bothe) “‘tam b. M. se h.’”

In tametsi (also tamenetsi) tam seems to play the part of tamen; and the same may perhaps be said of

“quae nihil attingunt ad rem nec sunt usui,
tam amator profert saepe advorso tempore.

”

(cf. Festus 360 M. “antiqui ‘tam’ pro ‘tamen’ usi sunt”, with examples from Naevius, Ennius and Titinius, e.g. Titin. 157 “quamquam estis nihili, tam ecastor simul vobis consului”, where it is put in antithesis to quamquam ‘although’.)

Similarly tamendem is used by Plautus, as well as tandem, in lines like

We may add Ter. Andr. 520 “postremo id mihi da negoti, tu tamendem (tamen idem, MSS.) has nuptias perge facere” (cf. Titinius 58). Tam gratiast, ‘much obliged to you all the same,’ the polite formula used in declining an offer (e.g. Stich. 472), is by some explained as tamen gratia est, by others on the pattern of Hor. Epp. 1, 7, 18 “tam teneor dono quam si dimittar onustus.”

tamen

(H. Karsten: de particulae ‘tamen’ significatione antiquissima ad Ciceronis fere tempora in latinitate conservata, in Mnemosyne 18, pp. 307 sqq.; read with it Seyffert's review in Bursian's Jahresbericht, 1895, p, 318).

Plautus' use of tamen does not differ from Cicero's. Noteworthy is his predilection for putting the word at the end of the line, e.g. Mil. 306 “si indicium facio, interii; interii, si taceo, tamen”, Epid. 516 “abiero: flagitio cum maiore post reddes tamen.”

tamquam

(Lalin: de particularum comparativarum usu apud Terentium. Norrcopiae, 1894), i.e. tam quam, e.g. On tam quasi for tamquam si, see above, s.v. ‘quasi.’

ubi

On its use in Temporal Clauses, see below, 10

ut

(fuller form uti) (H. Schnoor: zum Gebrauch von ‘ut’ bei Plautus. Neumünster, (progr.) 1885).

To express wishes the Conjunction is strengthened by nam in classical Latin, utinam (cf. quisnam beside quis), but we find in Old Latin the simple Conjunction also, e.g. Aul. 785 “ut illum di immortales omnes deaeque quantumst perduint”, beside Capt. 537 “utinam te di prius perderent”. Another Particle used in this function is qui, e.g. Men. 451 “qui illum di omnes perduint” (see above, s.v.).

Along with Optative ut, we have Jussive ut (often, for the sake of impressiveness, in the full form uti), e.g. Capt. 114 “sed uti adserventur magna diligentia”, a line in which the longer form is not due to the requirements of the metre. Indignant questions are expressed either by Accusative and Infinitive (see V. 38) or by ut and Subjunctive, e.g.

(For a list of examples with egone ut see Dittmar: Studien zur lateinischen Moduslehre. Leipzig, 1897, p. 82.) And ut (often omitted) with Subjunctive is, in other expressions too, the equivalent of the Infinitive (e.g. both being equivalents of a Verbal Noun; cf. As the Infinitive (for the Gerund) is used with occasio, etc. (see V. 33), so is ut with Subjunctive, e.g. Mil. 977 “hercle occasionem lepidam, ut mulierem excludam foras!” The laxity of colloquial diction often allows the repetition of ut in the course of a long sentence, e.g. Aul. 791 “te obtestor, Euclio, ut, siquid ego erga te imprudens peccavi aut gnatam tuam, ut mi ignoscas” (cf. Rud. 1256, Trin. 140, Ter. Phorm. 154, etc.). These uses too are noteworthy: modo ut ‘if only,’ e.g. On ut ne, e.g. Mil. 200, Trin. 105, see above, s.v. ne.

Ut ‘how’ in Exclamations is sometimes combined with its equivalent quam (cf. Cic. Brut. 10, 39), e.g.

Similarly ut and quot are pleonastically combined in Cist. 537 “ut illaec hodie quot modis moderatrix linguae fuit!” (see I. 11).

On ut ‘when,’ see below, 10 Ut ‘as’ (see Lalin: de particularum comparativarum usu apud Terentium. Norrcopiae, 1894) is as frequent in Early as in Classical Latin. The construction of ut opinor with Accusative and Infinitive has been mentioned already (I. 10). The Conjunction acquires a quasi-Causal sense in phrases like

Like classical Latin qua est audacia ‘with his usual effrontery’ (see IV. 5） is Ter. Eun. 525 “hanc se intendit esse, ut est audacia”; cf. Adelph. 389 “A. eho an domist habiturus? B. credo, ut est dementia.”

On praeut, sicut, see above, s.vv.

In utquî, lit. ‘as how,’ the Relative is in the Instrumental case as in quippe quî (see above), e.g. Asin. 506 “an ita tu es animata utquî expers matris imperio sies?”

But not in utpote (‘as is possible’) qui (with Subjunctive),

On utut ‘however,’ which normally has the Indicative of esse as its Verb, e.g. Ter. Phorm. 468 “nam, utut erant alia, illi certe … consuleres”, see above, IV. 4

utrum

The use of a Neuter Pronoun in anticipatory apposition to a whole sentence has already been mentioned (IV. 18) as a feature of early Latin, e.g. From this anticipatory use of the Neuter of uter has arisen the Disjunctive Interrogative utrum. We might put a comma after utrum in lines like Pseud. 709 “dic utrum Spemne an Salutem te salutem, Pseudole” (cf. Men. 1119 “uter eratis, tun an ille maior?”). Some editors punctuate Rud. 104 “sed utrum tu? masne an femina's?” (cf. Capt. 270 “quid tu? servusne esse an liber mavelis?”).

-ve

See 6 below.

vel

(W. Kohlmann: de ‘vel’ imperativo quatenus ab ‘aut’ particula differat. Marburg, 1898), originally 2 Singular Imperative of volo, preserves a trace of its origin in such uses as:

verum

An equivalent of sed, which is to be distinguished from the Adverb vero ‘in truth,’ ‘indeed’ (see Langen Beiträge, p. 113).

vidĕlicet

(also -ē-?) a Compound of video, in some form or other, and licet (as scilicet of scio and licet) takes (like scilicet; see above) Accusative and Infinitive, e.g. Asin. 599 “nunc enim esse negotiosum interdius vidēlicet Solonem” (vidĕl. int. alii), or is used parenthetically, e.g. Most. 980 “patris amicu's videlicet” (‘presumably, apparently’).

Causal.

(Zimmermann: Gebrauch der Conjunctionen quod und quia im älteren Latein. Posen, 1880.)

Quando, properly Temporal (see 10), has sometimes in Plautus and always in Terence (except perhaps Adelph. 206) a Causal sense (like quandoquidem), e.g.

A fuller list of examples is given by Scherer (see p. 106, above.)

Quia was apparently an I-stem Neuter Pl, as quod an O-stem Neuter Singular of the Pronoun. The two Conjunctions thus differ as mira sunt and mirum (est) (see 2 s.v. ‘si’）. In Plautus quia is more frequent than quod (whereas in classical Latin quod attains the supremacy), and is always selected for answering such questions as begin with an Interrogative, e.g.

Examples of the equivalence of quod and quia are:

Quia is often strengthened by the Particle enim (see above, 2 s.v.), e.g. Capt. 884 “A. quid tu per barbaricas urbes iuras? B. quia enim … asperae sunt.”

Quom, as has been already mentioned, is the equivalent of quod in sentences like quom tu es liber gaudeo. We cannot assign a definite Mood to Old Latin quom, as we can assign the Subjunctive to Causal quom in classical Latin. It follows the variable course of the Relative qui, which is found now with Indicative, e.g. Bacch. 464 “stultus es, qui illi male aegre patere dici”, now with Subjunctive, e.g. Mil. 370 “ego stulta et mora multum, quae cum hoc insano fabuler”, according to the nuance of the sentence in which it stands. (On the nuance of Subjunctive and Indicative see V, 24-31）

But since it is generally an actual fact which is assigned as cause, the Indicative is greatly predominant with Causal quom. Examples of Subjunctive are:

On quippe qui, see above, s.v. The line between the Temporal and the Causal use of a Conjunction is not always distinct. See above (s.v.) on postquam with a half Causal sense, e.g. Ter. Adelph. prol. 1 “postquam poeta sensit scripturam suam ab iniquis observari, . . indicio de se ipse erit, vos eritis iudices”. Quoniam (i.e. quom iam) is never (or hardly ever) Temporal after Plautus (see below 10), and in many of his lines it stands on the border-line between the two senses, e.g.

Concessive.

(Kriege: de enuntiatis concessivis apud Plautum et Terentium. Halle, 1884.)

Plautine Latin is far removed from classical Latin in its treatment of Concessive Sentences. The usual Conjunctions are etsi and quamquam, and both retain their literal sense ‘even if,’ ‘howsoever,’ so that the Indicative is normally used.

Si ‘if’ acquires a Concessive sense from the context in lines like

and the choice of the Subjunctive or Indicative follows the usage of Conditional si (see 10 below). This Concessive sense is strengthened by the addition of et ‘even,’ e.g.

In these lines the construction of et si with vetet Subjunctive, servaveris Future Perfect is naturally the same as that of the preceding si (with vetet Subjunctive, peccasso ‘Future Perfect’). The Conjunction etsi, hardly to be distinguished from et si in Plautus, normally takes Indicative in Plautus (always in Terence), because the thing is normally spoken of as an actual fact, e.g.

Indeed etsi often has the sense of Greek καίτοι, e.g. Capt. 744 “vale atque salve; etsi aliter ut dicam meres” (the speaker corrects himself). Etiamsi (Epid. 518?) is rare.

Tametsi similarly is normally found with Indicative, since an express fact is normally stated, e.g. Capt. 321 “ne patri, tametsi unicus sum, decere videatur magis” ‘in spite of the fact that I am his only son.’ The Subjunctive in Trin. 679 “datur ignis, tametsi ab inimico petas” is the Subjunctive of the Indefinite 2 Pers. Singular (cf. V. 31). The Indicative too is found in all the occurrences of tamenetsi, which should be written tamen etsi, e.g.

On si maxume, see 2 s.v.

Quamquam, a double quam with the same generalized sense (see above, IV. 4) as double ut (e.g. Amph. 1100 “gaudeo, utut me erga meritast” ‘howsoever she has deserved’), e.g. Truc. 923 “quamquam es bella, malo tu tuo (sc. es)”, naturally takes the Indicative, since it is a fact which is stated. Sometimes it has the sense of Greek καίτοι (not in Terence), e.g. Capt. 272 “quamquam non multum fuit molesta servitus”. It never appears without a finite Verb. (in Pseud. 1049 read homo's).

Quamvis, i.e. quam vis ‘as you wish,’ in its literal sense (the sense of classical Latin quantumvis) is very frequent. It is only used with Adjective or Adverb, e.g.

We find quam velis (cf. V. 26 on volo and velim） in Pseud. 1175 “quam velis pernix homost”, for which was substituted in a later version quamvis pernix hic est homo. It can hardly be said to have the sense of ‘although’ in Plautus, unless possibly in the punning misapprehension of Trin. 554 “A. quamvis malam (i.e. quam malam vis) rem quaeras, illic reperias. B. at tu hercle et illi et alibi” (scil. malam rem = malum ‘trouble,’ ‘punishment’); hardly in Bacch. 82 “locus hic apud nos, quamvis subito (= quam subito vis) venias, semper liber est.” The word does not appear to be ever used by Terence.

Licet comes near (but only near) to the sense of ‘although’ in Asin. 718 “licet laudem Fortunam, tamen ut ne Salutem culpem.” Quamlibet is not found in Plautus or Terence.

Like the Conditional Conjunction si, the Temporal Conjunction quom sometimes acquires from the context a Concessive sense, e.g. Aul. 113 “nam nunc, quom celo sedulo omnes ne sciant, omnes videntur scire”. The Indicative is normally found with this concessive quom in Plautus, but sometimes (and in Terence normally) the Subjunctive, e.g.

For a similar use of quod, see above, 2 s.v.

Conditional.

(C. Lindskog: de enuntiatis apud Plautum et Terentium condicionalibus. Lund, 1895.)

The Conditional Conjunctions, si, nisi (and ni) follow in classical Latin more strict laws than in the time of Plautus. We do not find in his plays that monotony of type which is taught in our School Grammars: (1) si habeo, do, (2) si habebo, dabo, (3) si habeam, dem, (4) si haberem, darem, (5) si habuissem, dedissem. There is not so clear a line of division separating a Conditional Protasis from other kinds of Dependent Sentence, or even between the treatment of a Verb in a Dependent Sentence and in a Main Sentence. In Plautine Latin we cannot separate si habebo (habeo, habeam), dabo from quod habebo (habeo, habeam), dabo, or quom habebo (habeo, habeam), dabo; nor is the Old Latin quasi-Future use of the 1 Singular Present Subjunctive (see V. 26) in a Main Sentence like sed maneam etiam opinor, ‘but I think I will wait,’ ‘I had better wait,’ to be distinguished from its use in a Protasis like si habeam. The Indefinite use of the 2 Singular Subjunctive (see V. 31) is used by Plautus as freely in a Conditional Protasis as elsewhere; and such a Protasis is quite uninfluenced by the Mood of the Apodosis, e.g.

The elasticity of Plautine Conditionals may be illustrated by these three varieties of the expression of a threat:

And since the Comedies reflect the colloquial Latin of everyday life, we find in them a number of imperfect types of Conditional sentence, which, though not strictly logical nor expressed in the normal form, are easily referred to this or that suppressed thought in the mind of the speaker. Examples of these imperfect Conditionals are:

Still, although it is not the same laws as in classical Latin that rule Plautus' expression of Conditions, he obeys other laws; and although the carelessness of colloquial speech permits occasional divergence, there are certain normal types which we can clearly perceive.

In sentences of the form siquid (haberem habuissem), (darem dedissem), Plautus follows this rule with regard to the Tense of the Protasis. The Imperfect Subjunctive is used if the Protasis refers to the same time as the Apodosis; the Pluperfect, if it refers to a previous time, e.g.

So that Plautus does not normally say siquid habuissem, dedissem, that is if the ‘having’ and the ‘giving’ are thought of as contemporaneous. There are only two examples of this abnormal assimilation of the Protasis to the Apodosis, viz. And the Protasis shows an abnormal Pluperfect also in Curc. 700 “nam si is valuisset, iam pridem quoquo posset mitteret.” As regards the Apodosis of this type of sentence, the Imperfect and Plup. Subjunctive are apparently used promiscuously by Plautus; sometimes volui with Infinitive is used, e.g. Cas. 440 “volui Charinum, si domi esset, mittere”, Mil. 1356. The substitution of the Plup. Indicative for the Plup. Subjunctive (e.g. Hor. Carm. 2.17.28 “sustulerat nisi . . levasset”) shows some traces of itself even in early Latin, e.g. Mil. 52 “ubi tu quingentos simul, ni hebes machaera foret, uno ictu occideras” (v.l. -res).

The type si habeam, dem is common in Plautus, e.g. Mil. 1371 “nam si honeste censeam te facere posse, suadeam”; and we find occasionally ‘mixed’ forms like

Plautus' expression of threats follows strict laws, which however are not the laws of classical Latin With nisi (ni) the Present Indicative is used, with si the Future Perfect Examples are:

The origin of this curious distinction, nisi facis and si feceris, has been very plausibly referred to the distinction between command and prohibition, da and ne dederis. Thus da—nisi das, vapulabis, and ne dederis—si dederis, vapulabis would be the full forms of the two types of sentence. The exceptions to the law are mainly lines like

where the addition of the words quom ego revortar and semper necessitates the use of a Future Tense. A love of variety7 may explain the abnormal Tenses in And si pergis with Infinitive occasionally takes the place of si with Future Perfect, e.g. Bacch. 570 “postremo, si pergis parvam mihi fidem arbitrarier, tollam ego ted in collum atque intro hinc auferam”. The Present Indicative (1 Pers.) is also found with nisi in a sentence like Ter. Heaut. 730 “faciet, nisi caveo”, which might be called a threat to oneself; cf. Similarly the Future Perfect Indicative (1 Pers.) not only with si, but also with nisi in sentences like

In other types of Conditionals it is more difficult to lay down rules for the use of the Indicative and Subjunctive, the Present and the Future Colloquial Latin naturally substitutes the Present for the Future, and so a type like this is very common (but not invariable) in Plautus:

Both si vivo and si vivam are found (with Future, never Future Perfect, in Apodosis), e.g. Bacch. 766 “vorsabo ego illunc hodie, si vivo, probe”, Most. 4 “ego pol te ruri, si vivam, ulciscar probe.” Beside si sapis (i.e. if you are a wise man), we also find occasionally si sapies (on Poen. 351 see below), the Apodosis showing Future or Imperative, e.g.

In wagers (with ni, never ‘nisi’) there is a puzzling variety of Indicative and Subjunctive, the Subjunctive being perhaps to be explained as a kind of Oratio Obliqua8, e.g.

Dum, properly ‘while,’ ‘so long as’ (see 2 s.v.) acquires a Conditional sense in a context like Pers. 387 “dum dos sit, nullum vitium vitio vortitur”, whence arose dum (negatively dum ne) ‘provided that’ with the Subjunctive e.g. Capt. 682 “dum ne ob malefacta peream, parvi existumo.” Sometimes the Verb is omitted, e.g.,

In this Conditional sense dum was often accompanied by a Particle, such as quidem, e.g. Aul. 211 “dum quidem nequid perconteris”, or modo, e.g. Amph. 644 “absit, dum modo laude parta domum recipiat se”, Ter. Heaut. 641 “quidvis satis est, dum vivat modo.” Hence dummodo of classical Latin

On ast, see above, 2 s.v.

Copulative.

(Sjögren: de particulis copulativis apud Plautum et Terentium. Upsala, 1900.)

Asyndeton is common in Early Latin, e.g. “aequom bonum” Men. 580 (but elsewhere with Copula, e.g. Curc. 65, Ter. Heaut. 788 “istuc, Chremes, aequi bonique facio”); often in alliterative phrases, e.g.

In Terence it is restricted to certain formulas, e.g. ancillas servos.

Two Pronouns never stand in Asyndeton in the Dramatists; we find a Copula always employed, e.g. ego et tu, me atque te, etc. Two Prepositions rarely, e.g. Cas. 664 “sub arcis, sub tectis latentes” (but normally cum . . . cum, etc., e.g. Most. 392, “cum hac cum istac”, Curc. 289 “cum libris cum sportulis”). With some phrases in Plautus we find that this or that Copula has associated itself; thus atque (ac) is normally found

-que normally et normally joins sanus and salvus, etc., e.g. also Numerals, whether the smaller or the larger one precedes, e.g. Merc. 673 “octoginta et quattuor” (but Most. 630 “quattuor quadraginta”).

Both que and et appear in Pronominal phrases like me meosque, me et meos, etc., while atque is usual in me atque hos, etc.; both atque and et in Commands like i (abi) atque (et) fac, etc., although Asyndeton, i (abi) fac, is more usual (on abi ac suspende te, see above); and two Imperatives normally stand in Asyndeton, when the second has the Particle ne, e.g.

Atque is the favourite Copula for Prepositions which begin with a Vowel, e.g.

Ve is the Copula used, as in classical Latin, with nē, si (see 2 on sive), with avoidance of ‘nēque,’ ‘sique’; also with ni ‘unless,’ e.g. Rud. 1420 “ad cenam vocem, ni daturus nihil sim . . nive adeo vocatos credam vos esse ad cenam foras.” ‘Utque’ is also avoided, perhaps through fear of confusion with utique; and although quique is found (e.g. Pseud. 1086 “qui nili faciat quique infitias non eat”), still quive seems to take its place in a line like Poen. 451 “qui . . immolarit quive ullum turis granum sacruficaverit.” (For other examples see Langen Beiträge, p. 96.) The phrases plus minusque and plus minusve, malum damnumque and malum damnumve, and the like are practically equivalent.

Noteworthy combinations of Copulas are

Among the Plautine Copulas must be included qua—qua, e.g.

On special uses of atque and et, see 2 s.vv.

Interrogative.

(E. Morris: On the Sentence-Question in Plautus and Terence. Baltimore, 1890.)

-ne, which Plautus (but seldom Terence) sometimes puts late in the sentence, e.g. Curc. 17 “et heri cenavistine?”, often plays the part of nonne, e.g.

It is often omitted in colloquial Latin, e.g. rogas? (see Abraham ‘Studia Plautina,’ p. 233); and since scribes had a habit of ignoring a final n, it is often hard to tell whether e.g. novisti or novistin was what Plautus wrote. Apparently vin is appropriate to the beginning, vis to the middle of a sentence; and the same may hold of novistin and novisti, etc. (but cf. Curc. 18, etc.).

Nonne is not common in Plautus, but is undoubtedly in use, e.g. Amph. 407 “non loquor?, non vigilo? nonne hic homo modo me pugnis contudit?” (For a full list of examples, see Schrader: de particularum ‘-ne,’ ‘anne,’ ‘nonne’ apud Plautum prosodia. Strasburg, 1885, pp. 42 sqq.) It is only found before a word beginning with a Vowel (i.e. it is never a disyllable in Prosody), while non (as in the line just quoted) takes its place before an initial consonant. But we are not justified in writing non in these cases as ‘nonn’ (like tun, egon, hicin, etc.), for non is often found before an initial vowel. The relation of nonne to non is precisely that of anne (before initial vowel only) to an (before initial cons. or vow., e.g. ăn est)9. The form enlarged by the addition of -ne pleased the ear of Plautus when a vowel followed, but he did not choose to give it trochaic scansion (cf. hisce, illisce before vowel, his, illis before consonant or vowel).

Num (cf. numquid) and numnam, e.g.

apparently do not necessarily expect a Negative answer, e.g. Bacch. 1110 Ter. Haut. 429. Num non occurs in the phrase num non vis (Aul. 161, Most. 336, Poen. 1079). The existence of ‘numne’ (see Lease, Classical Review, xi, 348) in the Dramatists' Latin is doubtful. Numquid aliud me vis?, usually shortened to numquid me vis? or numquid vis? or numquid aliud? was the formula of polite leave-taking (cf. Donatus' note on Ter. Eun. II. iii. 50: “recte abituri, ne id dure facerent, ‘numquid vis?’ dicebant iis quibuscum constitissent”).

An does not necessarily express an alternative question in Old Latin e.g. Pseud. 309 “A. te vivum vellem. B. eho! an iam mortuust?” But the alternative use is also frequent, e.g.

The Neuter of ecquis often plays the part of an Interrogative Conjunction in Plautus, e.g. ecquid audis? And the same is true of numquid, satin -- e.g. Trin. 925; cf.

-- etiam and similar words. We may add ēn of en umquam, e.g. Trin. 589 “o pater, enumquam aspiciam te?” (see below, IX). On the Indirect Interrogatives utrum, necne, annon, see 2 s.vv.

Negative.

(A. Habich: observationes de negationum aliquot usu Plautino. Halle, 1893; read with it Seyffert's review in Bursian's Jahresbericht, 1895, p. 319.)

The prefix nĕ- of nequeo, nescio, nefas, nisi (older nesi), numquam (= nĕ-umquam), neutiquam (scanned n'ŭtiquam, and by some editors10 printed ne utiquam), nullus (= nĕ-ullus), is the first element of nolo (= nĕ-volo), with 2, 3 Singular nĕvis, nĕvolt still surviving beside the more usual nonvis, nonvolt in Plautine Latin. The same Particle is the second element of quin (2), e.g. quin sciret for ‘qui nĕ sciret.’ But its independent use in the time of Plautus is not proved by the variant reading ne multa (P: non multa A） in Trin. 364 “eo non multa quae nevolt eveniunt, nisi fictor malust”, which some refer to a marginal correction of nisi to the older spelling nesi. (In Truc. 877 read refacere, Most. 124 reparcunt. Nē, not nĕ, is the word used in Pseud. 437, 633). (On the affirmative Particle nĕ, see 2）

The Old Latin nec (e.g. “res nec mancipi”; cf. Festus 162 M.), replaced by non in Classical Latin, still survives in Plautine Latin (see 2), especially in the phrase nec recte dicere, e.g. Most. 240 “nec recte si illi dixeris”. Like necuter (later) may be necullus of Trin. 282 “neque in via neque in foro necullum sermonem exsequi” (neque u. A, ullum P), but other examples, such as nec quoquam (v.l. nēquoquam) Most. 562, are still less free from suspicion. Cf.

Editors change nec—quidem in Most. 595 to ne—quidem. (On Copulative nec, neque, see 2）

Of the Old Latin form noenum (nĕ-oenum ‘not one’) there is only one certain example in Plautus, Aul. 67 “noenum mecastor quid ego ero dicam meo”, just as of the form oenus for unus (viz. Truc. 102). Editors have sometimes wrongly substituted it for non enim ‘indeed not’ (cf. 2 ‘enim’), e.g. in Mil. 648, Aul. 594, Trin. 705.

>Haud (hau, a form found only before a word beginning with a consonant) is not used in questions, commands, conditional, consecutive and final clauses. Non is not subject to these restrictions. Haud is especially used with Adjectives or Adverbs, and generally stands immediately before the negated word.

A double Negative usually merely strengthens the Negation (but cf. nonnullus, haud nolo), e.g.

Cf. Epid. 532, Curc. 579, Mil. 1411. The classical Latin use of neque . . . neque after a Negative is found in Capt. 76 “quos numquam quisquam neque vocat neque invocat”, Epid. 110, Trin. 281, etc.

On the Pronominal equivalents of non, such as nihil, nullum, nullus, see IV. 28 To these may be added numquam e.g. Pers. 628, Ter. Andr. 384 “numquam faciam” (Donatus' note is: “‘numquam’ plus habet negationis, quam ‘non’”), often strengthened by the addition of hodie11 (like Virgil's “numquam hodie effugies,” Ecl. 3.49） e.g. Trin. 971, Ter. Phorm. 805 “nunquamne hodie concedes mihi?”, Naev. trag. 15. Cf. Men. 217 “neque hodie . . meream”. On numquam quisquam, see IV. 28 On minus (cf. quominus), see p. 111.

Prohibitive.

(H. Elmer: a Discussion of the Latin Prohibitive, based upon a complete collection of the instances from the earliest times to the end of the Augustan period. Reprinted from the American Journal of Philology, vol. XV., Parts ii and iii. Ithaca, N.Y., 1894; read with it Seyffert's review in Bursian's Jahresbericht, 1895, p. 338). The use of the Subjunctive as an Imperative has been already mentioned (V. 25). In Old Latin a Prohibition is as often expressed by ne with Subjunctive (Pres more often than Perfect) as by ne with Imper. e.g. ne me moneas or ne me mone. It is often difficult to distinguish between ne, the Prohibitive, and ne, the Final Conjunction, in lines like Whether it is possible to detect a different nuance of meaning in ne- Prohibitions with Present Subjunctive and with Perfect Subjunctive is matter of controversy. We find the latter Tense often with other than Prohibitive ne, e.g. Bacch. 37 “pol magis metuo ne defuerit mihi in monendo oratio”, and the same interchange of Tenses with cave, e.g. Epid. 437 “cave praeterbitas ullas aedes … incertus tuom cave ad me rettuleris pedem”, where a difference of nuance is very unlikely.

As a circumlocution, cave plays the same part in early Latin as noli (e.g. Capt. 840) in classical Latin It normally takes the Tense in -sim (S.-Aorist Optative) or the Perfect Subjunctive, e.g. cave faxis, cave feceris, and is not often found with the Present Subjunctive, except when cave ne is used or some other part of caveo than the Imper. (For details, see Studemund in Versammlung zu Karlsruhe, p. 54.) On Old Latin ne . . neve for classical Latin neve . . neve and on neque . . neque in the same function, see above, 2 s.vv.

Temporal.

(Schubert: zum Gebrauch der Temporalconjunktionen bei Plautus, Leipzig, 1880.)

For Plautine Latin we must discard the hard-and-fast rules of our School grammars, that ‘quom takes the Pluperfect Subjunctive, ubi the Perfect Indicative’, and so on. The various Temporal Conjunctions (except perhaps quoniam, as is explained below) all receive the same treatment. And the Tense used is merely the ordinary Tense of Independent Sentences in narration. The Perfect Indicative is, of course, pre-eminently the narrative Tense, e.g. heri veni, and so Plautus more often says quom veni, ubi veni, etc., than anything else. But the Historical Present (see V. 11) is also a narrative Tense, and so Plautus can also say quom venio, ubi venio, etc. (especially when the main Verb is also Hist. Present). If the priority of the one action to the other is insisted on, the Pluperfect becomes appropriate, e.g. quom veneram, ubi veneram, and so on. Just as we found in discussing the Subjunctive Mood (V. 28 sqq.), that Plautine Latin makes no sharp distinction between main and dependent clauses, so we find in Plautus' treatment of Temporal Sentences. The use of the Subjunctive often implies purpose (for examples, see below), but it may be due to a number of other nuances, to as many, in fact, as those which condition the use of the Subjunctive in other Dependent Sentences or in Main Sentences. These general remarks must be borne in mind, while we consider the details of Plautus' use of the Temporal Conjunctions.

With postquam and priusquam we might regard the Pluperfect as the natural Tense. But we must remember that in Plautine Latin the expression is rather post veni quam feci, prius veni quam feci (see above, 2 s.vv.), so that the ordinary Tense of narration is as suitable with them as with the others.

Priusquam (antequam is not found at all in Plautus and only once in Terence, although frequent in Cato) takes the Subjunctive (just as in classical Latin) when Purpose is implied, e.g. Amph. 533 “exire ex urbe priusquam lucescat volo” (contrast Mil. 708 “priusquam lucet, adsunt”, a mere statement of the time of their arrival), or when the sense is that of potius quam, e.g. Amph. 240 “animam omittunt priusquam loco demigrent.” Often the choice of Subjunctive or Indicative seems arbitrary, e.g.

In general the Subjunctive attached itself more and more to priusquam after the time of Plautus. The Historical Present Indicative is used in Curc. 637 “is prius quam moritur, mihi dedit tanquam suo”. (For full details and examples see Hullihen: ‘Antequam’ and ‘Priusquam.’ Baltimore, 1903.)

Postquam is most often found with Perfect Indicative, e.g.

never with Pluperfect in Plautus (but in Terence, e.g. Andr. 177 “qui postquam audierat”; cf. Caecilius 44). It takes Present Indicative especially when it has the sense of ‘since,’ e.g. Most. 925 “tibi umquam quicquam, postquam tuus sum, verborum dedi?” But it is also found in the sense of ‘after’ with the Historical Present, especially when the Main Verb is in the same Tense, e.g. Capt. 24 “postquam belligerant Aetoli cum Aleis . . . capitur alter filius”; (with iam Men. 24 “postquam iam pueri septuennes sunt, pater oneravit navim magnam multis mercibus”), Afranius 207.

Dum is associated with the Present Tense. In the sense of ‘while’ it usually takes the Historical Present Indicative (see 2 s.v.), e.g. Bacch. 279 “forte ut adsedi in stega, dum circumspecto, atque ego lembum conspicor”; but is also found with other Tenses of the Indicative, e.g.

When it refers to future time the Future Indicative is used, e.g. Men. 728 “vivito vel usque dum regnum obtinebit Iuppiter”. The Subjunctive in Truc. 103 is due to the idea of Purpose: “oenus eorum aliqui osculum amicae usque oggerit, dum illi agant ceteri cleptae” ‘in order that they may act meanwhile.’ This idea of Purpose is also present when dum ‘until’ takes the Subjunctive, e.g. and absent when it takes the Indicative (usually Present), e.g. On dum (dummodo) ‘provided that’ (with the Subjunctive, e.g. Capt. 694 “dum pereas, nihil interdico aiant vivere”) see 5 above. (For full details see G. M. Richardson: de ‘dum’ particulae apud priscos scriptores Latinos usu. Leipzig, 1886; J. Schmalz Donec und Dum in Archiv lat. Lexikographie, 11, 333 sqq.)

Donec (older donicum) ‘until’ differs from dum ‘until’ in being used of past time. In this use it normally takes Perfect Indicative and is rarely found with Historical Present Indicative ( Cist. 583 “<non hercle> hoc longe destiti instare usque adeo donec se adiurat anus iam mihi monstrare”). Usually however it refers to the future and takes Future Perfect, e.g. Vidul. frag. 5, “neutri reddibo, donicum res diiudicata erit haec” (but Future, e.g. Liv. Andr. Odyss. “donicum videbis”). Quite exceptional is Rud. 812 “ni istunc istis (sc. clavis) invitassitis usque adeo donec qua domum abeat nesciat, periistis ambo”. (For fuller details see J. Schmalz ‘Donec und Dum’ in Archiv Lat. Lexikographie, 11, 333 sqq.)

On quoad, see 2 above.

Ut, like postquam, is chiefly associated with the Perfect Indicative, e.g. Epid. 14 “nam ut apud portum te conspexi, curriculo occepi sequi.” The use of the Pluperfect implies that the action is previous to the action of the Main Verb, e.g. Curc. 646 “postquam illo ventumst, iam, ut me collocaverat, exoritur ventus turbo”, Most. 484 “ut foris cenaverat tuos gnatus, postquam rediit a cena domum, abimus omnes cubitum”. The Imperfect sometimes occurs, e.g. Asin. 343 “verum in tonstrina ut sedebam, me infit percontarier”. Rarely the Historical Present, e.g. Merc. 100 “discubitum noctu ut imus, ecce ad me advĕnit.”

Ubi, when used of past time, commonly takes the Perfect Indicative, e.g.,

It can also take the Historical Present, e.g. Amph. 1061 “ubi parturit” and (with iam） Capt. 234 (quoted below), Ennius trag. 83 “nam ubi introducta est puerumque ut laverent locant in clupeo”. For the Pluperfect may be cited Aquilius 10 “ubi primum accensus clamarat meridiem.”

Quando (see 3 above) signifies indefinite time, e.g. Novius 25 “quando (indefinite) ludos vēnit （‘has come’）, alii cum (definite) tacent, totum diem argutatur quasi cicada”. So in the few instances in which it refers to the past, it takes Imperfect or Pluperfect, Pseud. 1180 “noctu in vigiliam quando ibat miles, quom tu ibas simul, conveniebatne in vaginam tuam machaera militis?”, Epid. 433 “quom militabam, pugnis memorandis meis eradicabam hominum aures, quando occeperam.”

Quoniam is nothing but quom iam. The addition of iam12 makes the Present the appropriate Tense (or the Perfect of completed action e.g. Most. 1050), e.g.

Similarly take the Present Like nemo homo, with pleonastic addition of homo (see IV. 21), we find once quoniam iam Truc. 402 “quoniam iam decumus mensis adventat prope”. After Plautus' time the Conjunction dropped its Temporal and retained its Causal sense (see above 3). Already in Cato the Temporal function is played by cum (quom) iam, not by quoniam (if our MSS. are to be trusted on this point), Agr. Cult. 161, 3 “post annos octo, cum iam est vetus, digerito” (like ubi iam 158, 1 “ubi iam coctum incipit esse, eo addito”). Cf. Merc. 552 “demum igitur quom sis iam senex, tum in otium te conloces”. But quoniam is Temporal in Accius praet. 17 “quoniam quieti corpus nocturno impetu dedi, . . visum est in somnis pastorem ad me adpellere pecus”, Pacuvius 393 “quoniam ille interit, imperium Cephalo transmissum est.”

Quom. A few examples will suffice to show the freedom of its construction:

‘As soon as’ is in Plautus expressed usually by quom extemplo (e.g. Most. 101 “aedes quom extemplo sunt paratae . . laudant fabrum”), a phrase which fell into disuse after his time; also by >ubi primum (e.g. Mil. 109 “ubi primum evēnit militi huic occasio”) and once by simulac (cf. above, 2), Asin. 479 “ut vapules, Demaenetum simul ac conspexero hodie”. But quom primum has always the literal sense ‘when for the first time’ (cf. “ut primum” Epid. 600), e.g. Asin. 890 “pater, iube dari vinum: iam dudum factum est, quom primum bibi”. (For fuller details see J. C. Jones in Archiv Lat. Lexikographie 14, pp. 89 sqq., 233 sqq.). Quom maxume is as early as Plautus, e.g.

The Vulgar Latin iam ut (Subjunctive) appears in Ter. Hec. 378 “iam ut limen exirem, ad genua accidit” ‘at the moment of going out.’ (On Curc. 646, see 8.10）

Examples of the Iterative type of Temporal (and Conditional) Sentences are:

1 As atque is changed by editors to atqui, so is et to at in lines like Capt. 888 “et nunc Siculus non est, Bolus est”.

2 Ut is the correlative of ita as qui of is, e.g. ita ut occepi Trin. 897, etc., ‘as I was saying,’ the formula for resuming after an interruption. On sicut see below.

3 Editors correct Trin. 293 ne[u] colas neve inbuas ingenium.

4 Cf. tamquam si Asin. 427 “tamquam si claudus sim, cum fustist ambulandum”, beside tam quasi Men. 1101 “tam quasi me emeris argento, liber servibo tibi.”

5 Festus cites quid nisi? from Afranius 129, “A. me auctore, mater, abstinebis. B. quid nisi?,” but does not say in what sense the phrase is used.

6 On Plautus' qui quidem with Subjunctive in the function of quippe qui, see V, 30 n.

7 It is not true to say that, where there are two Protases, the first always exhibits the Future, the second the Present, e.g. Capt. 683 “si ego hic peribo, ast (= porro si) ille, ut dixit, non redit, at erit”, etc. All that can be said is that Plautus often varies the Tense, e.g. Asin. 405 “siquidem hercle Aeacidinis minis animisque expletus cedit, si med iratus tetigerit, iratus vapulabit”, where the first Protasis has the Present, the second the Future Perfect

8 Just as in Mil. 1415, “iuro per Iovem et Mavortem me nociturum nemini, quod ego hic hodie vapularim”, the Subjunctive is due to the repetition by the soldier of the form of oath dictated to him in v. 1411: “iura te non nociturum esse homini de hac re nemini, quod tu hodie hic verberatu's”.

9 Cf. iam and iamne in Pomponius 157 R. iamne abierunt? “iam non tundunt? iamne ego in tuto satis?” If the theory mentioned above (2) be right, that an (e.g. an sum?, ăn est?) had originally the form anne, then we should be justified in regarding non in questions as a mere apocopated form of nonne. Still Plautus seems so often to append or withhold -ne at caprice (e.g. iam and iamne) that it seems more likely that non in questions and nonne are two distinct forms.

10 Donatus' remark “una pars est orationis” may imply that ne and utiquam were written separately.

11 Donatus remarks on Ter. Adelph. 215: “‘hodie’ non tempus significat, sed iracundam eloquentiam ac stomachum”. (Cf. Hor. Sat. 2, 7, 21 “non dices hodie?”）

12 Compare the use of the Historical Present in all periods of Latin with iamdudum, iam pridem, iam diu.

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 (306 total)
  • Cross-references from this page (296):
    • 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, Curculio, 1.1
    • Plautus, Curculio, 1.3
    • Plautus, Curculio, 3.1
    • Plautus, Curculio, 4.4
    • Plautus, Curculio, 5.2
    • Plautus, Curculio, 5.3
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 2.4
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 1.1
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 1.2
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 1.3
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 1.4
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 2.1
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 2.2
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 3.1
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 3.2
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 4.3
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 4.4
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 5.1
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 5.2
    • Plautus, Persa, 1.2
    • Plautus, Persa, 2.1
    • Plautus, Persa, 2.2
    • Plautus, Persa, 4.1
    • Plautus, Persa, 4.3
    • Plautus, Persa, 4.4
    • Plautus, Persa, 4.6
    • Plautus, Persa, 4.7
    • Plautus, Persa, 5.2
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 1.1
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 1.2
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 2.1
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 3.1
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 3.3
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 4.2
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 5.2
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 5.5
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 5.7
    • 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, 2.4
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 3.1
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 3.2
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 4.1
    • 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, 2.3
    • Plautus, Rudens, 2.5
    • Plautus, Rudens, 2.6
    • Plautus, Rudens, 3.2
    • Plautus, Rudens, 3.4
    • Plautus, Rudens, 3.5
    • Plautus, Rudens, 3.6
    • Plautus, Rudens, 4.1
    • Plautus, Rudens, 4.3
    • Plautus, Rudens, 4.4
    • Plautus, Rudens, 4.7
    • Plautus, Rudens, 5.2
    • Plautus, Rudens, 5.3
    • Plautus, Stichus, 1.2
    • Plautus, Stichus, 1.3
    • Plautus, Stichus, 2.1
    • Plautus, Stichus, 2.2
    • Plautus, Stichus, 3.1
    • Plautus, Stichus, 3.2
    • Plautus, Stichus, 4.1
    • Plautus, Stichus, 4.2
    • Plautus, Stichus, 5.4
    • 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, 10.6
    • Vergil, Eclogues, 3
    • Horace, Satires, 1.10.21
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 1.1
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 2.1
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 2.3
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 2.4
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 3.1
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 3.2
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 3.3
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 4.1
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 4.4
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 4.5
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 4.8
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 5.1
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 5.2
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, prologue.0
    • Terence, The Mother-in-Law, 1.2
    • Terence, The Mother-in-Law, 3.3
    • Terence, The Mother-in-Law, 4.4
    • Terence, Phormio, 1.2
    • Terence, Phormio, 1.3
    • Terence, Phormio, 1.4
    • Terence, Phormio, 2.1
    • Terence, Phormio, 2.3
    • Terence, Phormio, 3.1
    • Terence, Phormio, 3.2
    • Terence, Phormio, 3.3
    • Terence, Phormio, 4.2
    • Terence, Phormio, 4.3
    • Terence, Phormio, 4.4
    • Terence, Phormio, 5.1
    • Terence, Phormio, 5.2
    • Terence, Phormio, 5.3
    • Terence, Phormio, 5.4
    • Terence, Phormio, 5.6
    • Terence, Phormio, prologue.0
    • 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, 3.2
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 3.3
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 5.1
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 1.1
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 1.2
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 1.3
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 2.1
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 2.2
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 2.4
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 3.1
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 3.2
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 3.3
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 4.1
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 4.2
    • 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, 2.5
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 2.7
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 2.8
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 3.5
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 4.1
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 4.10
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 4.4
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 4.6
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 5.1
    • Plautus, Aulularia, prologue.0
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 1.1
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 1.2
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 1.fragments
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 2.2
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 2.3
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 3.2
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 3.3
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 3.4
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 3.6
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 4.10
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 4.4
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 4.5
    • 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, 5.4
    • Plautus, Captivi, prologue.0
    • Plautus, Casina, 1.1
    • Plautus, Casina, 2.2
    • Plautus, Casina, 2.7
    • Plautus, Casina, 2.8
    • Plautus, Casina, 3.3
    • Plautus, Casina, 3.5
    • Plautus, Casina, prologue.0
    • Plautus, Epidicus, 1.1
    • Plautus, Epidicus, 1.2
    • Plautus, Epidicus, 2.2
    • Plautus, Epidicus, 3.4
    • Plautus, Epidicus, 4.1
    • Plautus, Epidicus, 4.2
    • Plautus, Epidicus, 5.1
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 1.3
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 1.4
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 2.1
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 3.3
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 4.2
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 5.1
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 5.2
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 5.5
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 5.7
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 5.9
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, prologue.0
    • Plautus, Mercator, 1.2
    • Plautus, Mercator, 2.1
    • Plautus, Mercator, 2.3
    • Plautus, Mercator, 3.1
    • Plautus, Mercator, 3.2
    • Plautus, Mercator, 3.4
    • Plautus, Mercator, 4.1
    • Plautus, Mercator, 4.2
    • Plautus, Mercator, 4.3
    • Plautus, Mercator, 4.4
    • Plautus, Mercator, 5.1
    • 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, 2.6
    • 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, 4.6
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 4.8
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 4.9
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 5.1
    • Plautus, Poenulus, prologue.0
    • Plautus, Rudens, prologue.0
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 1.1
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 1.2
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 2.1
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 2.4
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 4.2
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 4.3
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 5.1
    • Terence, The Brothers, 2.1
    • Terence, The Brothers, 3.2
    • Terence, The Brothers, 3.3
    • Terence, The Brothers, 3.4
    • Terence, The Brothers, 4.7
    • Terence, The Brothers, 5.1
    • Terence, The Brothers, 5.3
    • Terence, The Brothers, 5.8
    • Terence, The Brothers, 5.9
    • Terence, The Brothers, prologue.0
    • Terence, Andria, 1.1
    • Terence, Andria, 1.2
    • Terence, Andria, 1.3
    • Terence, Andria, 1.4
    • Terence, Andria, 1.5
    • Terence, Andria, 2.3
    • Terence, Andria, 2.4
    • Terence, Andria, 3.2
    • Terence, Andria, 3.4
    • Terence, Andria, 4.1
    • Terence, Andria, 4.2
    • Terence, Andria, 4.4
    • Terence, Andria, 5.1
    • Terence, Andria, 5.2
    • Terence, Andria, prologue.0
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 1.2
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 2.2
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 2.3
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 3.1
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 3.3
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 3.4
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 4.4
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 4.7
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 5.4
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 5.8
    • Terence, The Eunuch, prologue.0
    • Cicero, De Inventione, 1.95
  • Cross-references in notes from this page (10):
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 2.2
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 4.2
    • Horace, Satires, 2.7.21
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 2.3
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 2.4
    • Plautus, Captivi, 3.5
    • Plautus, Captivi, 4.2
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 5.9
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 5.1
    • Terence, The Brothers, 2.2
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: