previous next

IV. The Pronoun.

Personal.

(W. Kaempf: de pronominum personalium usu et collocatione apud poetas scaenicos Romanorum. Berlin, 1886.)

The pleonastic strengthening of Pronouns (see below, 3) is a feature of language, especially of colloquial language, as in English ‘this here man’ ‘my very own self.’ We see it in the emphatic forms of the Pers. Pronoun egomet, tute, where -mĕt and -tĕ are mere repetitions of the 1 Pronoun stem and the 2 Pronoun stem, e.g. Most. 369 “A. tutin vidisti? B. egomet, inquam”. These forms are especially used in the phrases egomet mihi (or me） and tute tibi (or te), for which we find also ego mihi and tu tibi. The reduplicated sese is the emphatic form of the Reflexive se. In the normal ipsus (not -se) sibi (or se） we have a parallel to egomet mihi, tute tibi, e.g.

On the colloquial use of hic (homo, etc.) for ego, see below, 13 and on the occasional careless use of is for the Reflexive (and vice versa), 15. Vos seems (but, I think, only seems) to be used for tu in

In his note on Ter. Adelph. 774 “in peccato maxumo quod vix sedatum satis est potastis, scelus”, Donatus remarks: “oratorie ‘potastis’ dicit, cum unum ebrium cernat.” (Cf. Truc. 401, 953, Ter. Hec. 263; in Stich. 255, Truc. 358, Poen. 1372, Pseud. 1217, etc., the two families of MSS. offer 2 Singular and 2 Plural respectively.)

Possessive.

To meus, tuus, suus, noster, vester we must add quoius (of Relative and Interrog.), alienus (of alius), e.g. Trin. 82 “ego meo sum promus pectori: suspicio est in pectore alieno sita.” We know from the parody: “dic mihi, Damoeta, cuium pecus anne Latinum?”, that the Possessive of qui and quis was discarded by purists. Perhaps the reason was that it was regarded as an incorrect use of the Genitive Singular. In a line like Rud. 1021 “si veniat nunc dominus quoiust (sc. vidulus)”, we might parse quoius either as Possessive or as Genitive Singular of qui.

The pleonastic strengthening of suus by the addition of sibi is a feature of colloquial Latin (see G. Landgraf in Archiv lat. Lexikographie 8, 43), which, especially in the proverb suo sibi gladio hunc iugulo ‘hoist with his own petard,’ survived to late times. It looks as though it were fashioned on the pattern of phrases like Bacch. 994 “tuus tibi servus tuo arbitratu serviat”, Rud. 712 “meas mihi ancillas invito me eripis” (the juxtaposition of Possessive and Personal Pronoun is normal) with sibi instead of ei (cf. 15); cf. Trin. 156 “reddam suum sibi”, Poen. 1083 “suam sibi rem salvam sistam, si illo advenerit”. But the Dative sibi has usually no place in the construction of the sentence, e.g.

Like sua sibi pecunia of Pers. 81 is Truc. 698 “ubi male accipiar mea mihi pecunia.”

Other notable uses of the various Possessives are:

In Plautus, as in classical Latin, a Possessive may play the part of a Pers. Pronoun with a Preposition like ob, propter, e.g. tuus for ob te in

it may express the sense of ‘characteristic’ or ‘appropriate,’ e.g. non est meum Mil. 1363, etc.; cf. also Pers. 579 si quidem hanc vendidero pretio suo.

The Possessive is sometimes omitted with erus ‘master’ (for ‘my master,’ ‘your master’), e.g. Rud. 347. The arrangement of phrases like Capt. 875 “tuum Stalagmum servum”, Amph. 1077 “tua Bromia ancilla”, is normal (I. 4). (For statistics, see M. Nilsson: quomodo Pronomina, quae cum substantivis coniunguntur, apud Plautum et Terentium collocantur, Lund, 1901, p. 23.)

Relative, Interrogative, Indefinite.

(A. Prehn: Quaestiones Plautinae de Pronominibus Indefinitis. Strasburg (progr.), 1887; with it read Seyffert's remarks in Bursian's Jahresbericht, 1890, pp. 15 sqq.)

Pleonastic strengthening (see I. 11) of the Interrogative and Indefinite Pronouns appears in lines like

The Relative is occasionally strengthened by the addition of is, ille, e.g. and this suits the theory that cuius (older quoius） represents ‘quo-eius,’ cui (older quoiei) represents ‘quo-eiei,’ with addition of the cases of is to the Relative-stem. We find also qui . . ego, e.g. Epid. 388 “vel ego, qui dudum fili causa coeperam ego med excruciare animi” (cf. Epid. 329, just quoted).

Doubling of the Pronouns, to express indefiniteness, appears not merely in quisquis (never in Plural), etc., but also in, e.g., “quantumquantum” Poen. 738 (cf. “ubiubi” Rud. 1210). The same sense is given by the addition of vis, lubet2, cumque (quomque), e.g. Pers. 210 “quoi pol quomque occasio est” (cf. Bacch. 252 “ubi fit quaque mentio”); also of -que, e.g. quandoque, quisque (= quisquis), e.g. Mil. 156 “quemque in tegulis videritis alienum”. (On quisque ‘each,’ and on quisquis with the function of quisque, see below, 25）

Although a phrase like quae tua est prudentia (qua es prudentia, cuius es prudentiae), nihil te fugiet is unknown to Plautus, the beginnings of this use of the Relative may be seen in lines like Mil. 951 “quin tu tuam rem cura potius …, quae tibi condicio nova et luculenta fertur”. (In Mil. 801 Parataxis is preferred: “ille, eiusmodi est, cupiet miser”. On Terence's utist audacia and ut est dementia, see VIII. 2 s.v. ‘ut.’）

The old Instrumental Case (cf. II. 65) of qui and quis retains its instrumental function in lines like Curc. 705 “A. quodne promisti? B. quî promisi? A. linguā. B. eādem nunc nego”; but its transition to a mere Conjunction is patent in its frequent association with a Plural Antecedent, e.g. Aul. 502 “vehicla quî vehar”. And it has already in Plautus' time sunk to this last stage, e.g. quî fit ut . .? (see below, VIII. 2). With the Particle (Interrogative, and perhaps also Negative) -nĕ, it becomes the Conjunction quin (see below, VIII. 2). But quin may be also Nominative Masc., like quaen or quaene, Nominative Feminine, in quoin Dative Masc. in Mil. 588 “quoin id (sc. quod vidit) adimatur, ne id quod vidit viderit?” (For more examples see Rauterberg: Quaestiones Plautinae. Wilhelmshaven (progr.), 1883.)

By a grammatical laxity is appears instead of a repeated qui in a line like Trin. 1141 “quem ego nec qui esset noram, neque eum ante usquam conspexi prius” (cf. Poen. 624 “fortunati omnes sitis, quod certo scio nec fore nec Fortunam id situram fieri”). On the common Attraction of the Antecedent to the Relative and the very rare Attraction of the Relative to the Antecedent, see above, I, 8, 9.

The Indefinite Pronoun appears in the form quis in classical Latin after certain Conjunctions only, ne, si, num, etc., but is less restricted in the Dramatists' time (cf. “an quis” Asin. 717, etc., Pacuvius 25). We may take as examples: And quis plays the part of quisquis in lines like Merc. 991 “supplici sibi sumat quid volt”, Pers. 398 “vel tu me vende vel face quid tibi lubet” (cf. quidvis, quidlubet).

Quisquam (normally Subst., as ullus is normally Adjective) is not confined to Negative3 and Interrogative Sentences, for we find also, e.g., Cas. 677 “tibi infesta solist plus quam cuiquam” (cf. Cas. 128). Quispiam, only found in Singular in the Comedians, is not used by Plautus (but by Ter. Eun. 873) in direct statements, but only in questions or after si, ubi, nisi, ne, etc. The same is true of the Adverb uspiam.

The Interrogative Pronouns are strengthened by the addition of Particles like tandem, nam, e.g. Poen. 619 “ecquidnam adferunt? et ille chlamydatus quisnam est qui sequitur procul?” (On quianam? ‘why?’ of Epic Poetry, see VIII. 2). Ecquid is sometimes a mere Particle, e.g. Mil. 1106 “ecquid fortis visast?” ‘did she seem good-looking?’ (cf. VIII. 7). On quid ‘why?,’ quidni ‘why not?’ see VIII. 2

The phrase quot calendis ‘on the first day of each month,’ Stich. 60 “vos meministis quot calendis petere demensum cibum”, affords an interesting contrast to quoti-die (cottidie).

Plautus' use of qui, quod for classical Latin quis, quid (and vice versa) belongs rather to Accidence than to Syntax (Statistics will be found in Seyffert's article in the Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift 1893, p. 278). The use of Subjunctive and Indicative Mood with Relative Pronouns is treated in V. 30

Demonstrative and others.

(J. Bach: de usu pronominum demonstrativorum apud priscos scriptores Latinos, in vol. II. of Studemund's Studien auf dem Gebiet des archäischen Lateins. Berlin, 1891.)

To the Demonstratives hic, iste (or istĭc), ille (or illĭc), is, must be added homo, which, in the colloquial Latin of Plautus and Terence, often has the function of is or ille, e.g.

It is often appended to another Pronoun, e.g. Mil. 684 “tu homo et alteri sapienter potis es consulere et tibi”, Mil. 624 “novo modo tu homo amas” ‘you're a new type of lover.’

The distinction between hic ‘the person beside me or us,’ iste (often iste tuus) ‘the person beside you,’ ille ‘the person at a distance from me or us’ is carefully observed in the Comedies and often reveals to us the position occupied at the moment by the several actors on the stage. Hic (usually hic homo, etc.) for ego is a well-known usage of colloquial Latin, e.g. Ter. Andr. 310 “tu, si hic sis, aliter sentias.” In Epid. 291 it has this sense, even though in a neighbouring line (v. 286) it has the sense of ‘he.’ Common too are hoc habet ‘a hit!,’ e.g. Most. 715; hoc age ‘exert yourself’ (cf. Mil. 458 “vin tu facere hoc strenue?”). Hoc means ‘the sky’ ‘the day’ in e.g. Amph. 543 “lucescit hoc iam” (cf. Mil. 218, Ter. Heaut. 410), acting in fact as Subject of the Impersonal Verb; ‘the door’ in e.g. Amph. 1020 “aperite hoc. heus! ecquis hic est? ecquis hoc aperit ostium?” (cf. Trin. 870). On hoc est quod ‘this is the reason of,’ see VIII. 2 s.v. quod. Terence's quidquid huius (Neuter) may also be mentioned, e.g.

The contemptuous use of iste, even of an absent person, is apparently found in Plautus, see Seyffert in Bursian's Jahresbericht, 1895, p. 300), e.g. Cas. 275 “Hercules dique istam perdant”, where the speaker is alone on the stage. Other phrases with this Pronoun are: Quid istuc? ‘what is the meaning of your conduct?’ e.g. Capt. 541 “quid istuc est quod meos te dicam fugitare oculos?” It is to be distinguished from quid istic (Adverb)?, the formula of unwilling assents, e.g. Rud. 1331 “A. proin tu vel aias vel neges. B. quid istic? necessumst, video.” The full form of the last appears in Epid. 141 “quid istic （‘in that matter urged by you’） verba facimus?”

Ille became the Definite Article of certain Romance languages. In a few lines of Plautus it seems to play something like this part, e.g.

Of phrases with ille may be mentioned:

The rhetorical use of hic—ille as ‘the latter—the former,’ e.g. Accius 6 “haec fortes sequitur, illam indocti possident”, is naturally rare in the Comedians, e.g. Bacch. 397 “illum laudabunt boni, hunc (hoc MSS.) etiam ipsi culpabunt mali” (see Seyffert in Bursian's Jahresbericht, 1895, p. 307). But hic—hic and ille—ille ‘the one’—‘the other’ are characteristic of the colloquial Latin of Plautus' time and later, e.g.

In this connexion may be mentioned that phrase of Most. 605 with its curiously modern ring: “A. cedo faenus, redde faenus, faenus reddite! . . B. faenus illic, faenus hic! （‘interest here, interest there!’） nescit quidem nisi faenus fabularier.”

Is in Old Latin, as in classical Latin, is the Demonstrative which (1) refers to some thing or person previously mentioned, (2) accompanies a Relative Pronoun, e.g. is . . qui. (On its use instead of a repeated Relative, see above, 7) This function is shared by the Conjunctions and Adverbs formed from the same Pronominal Stem: ita (see VIII. 2), ibi4, inde, eo, etc.

By a grammatical laxity is (ille) and the Reflexive Pronoun seem occasionally to be confused, e.g.

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

Is may be referred to ego, tu, e.g.

Is is pleonastically used (as with the Relative qui; cf. 3 above) with the Subject (or Object) of the Sentence (cf. Homeric ὅ), e.g. Similarly the Neuter Singular of various Pronouns may stand in anticipatory apposition to a whole sentence (see Redslob in Literarisches Centralblatt, 1895, p. 1761), e.g. It is not far removed from a mere Particle in lines like From a similar use of the Neuter of uter has arisen the Disjunctive Interrogative utrum (see below, VIII. 2). Illud quidem ‘I mean to say’ is common, e.g. Stich. 589 “A. hunc hercle ad cenam ut vocem, te non vocem. B. advorsum te fabulare. A. illud quidem, ambos ut vocem.” The fuller phrase illud volui dicere has been already mentioned (13).

The loose colloquial use of the Neuter Accusative as Object of the Verb has been discussed in II. 35 e.g.

As we have seen tuus, etc., used for ob te, etc. (2 above), so is, hic, etc., may play the part of ob id, etc., e.g.

The Pronominal Adverbs often play the function of Cases (whence Fr. en = inde, dont = de-unde), e.g. also the common phrases eo addere, eo accedere, e.g. Curc. 344 (cf. VI. 3).

These Adverbs show the same Pleonastic strengthening as the Pronouns themselves (cf. 1, 3 above), e.g. In this connection may be mentioned the common combination of nemo (originally nĕ-hemo, i.e. non homo) and homo, e.g. Also hic tantus, hic talis, e.g. Stich. 769 “qui Ionicus aut cinaedicust qui hoc tale facere possiet?” Plautus revels in conglomerations like haec hinc huc, etc. (the Pronoun normally preceding the Adverb), e.g. Mil. 377 “quo modo haec hinc huc transire potuit”, Men. 845 “qui hunc hinc tollant.” (For examples, see Seyffert in Bursian's Jahresbericht, 1890, p. 15 n.）

The Deictic use of Demonstr. Pronouns may be illustrated by On the combination of the Interjection ecce with the Demonstratives hic, ille, iste in the forms eccum, (-am, etc.), eccistum (-am, etc.), eccillum (-am, etc.) and of em with ille in the form ellum, see IX Eccistum and eccillum have apparently furnished the Demonstratives of some Romance languages, e.g. Ital. questo ‘this,’ quello ‘that.’

Ipse (W. Niemoeller: de pronominibus ‘ipse’ et ‘idem’ apud Plautum et Terentium. Halle, 1887) appears also in the form ipsus, a form appropriate to use with the Reflexive Pronoun, (see above, 1).

This Pronoun often bears the colloquial meaning of ‘master,’ e.g.

Issula ‘mistress’ in Cist. 450 “meae issula sua aedes egent” is Diminutive of that form which is so well known to us from Martial's pretty poem on the lapdog Issa ‘My Lady.’ On the comical Superlative ipsissumus, see above, III. 2

Idem (Niemoeller l.c.), older isdem (Amph. 945), is formed like ibi-dem, itidem, etc., by addition of a Particle (cf. demum) with the sense of ‘very’ ‘precise,’ so that is-dem means ‘that very’5. It is usually followed by qui, but sometimes by atque (see below, VIII. 2). With suppression of operā Ablative (cf. “eādem operā” Capt. 450, etc., “unā operā” Ter. Hec. 798; also Pseud. 319 “qua opera credam tibi, una opera alligem fugitivam canem agninis lactibus”） we find the Adverb eādem, used (in Asyndeton normally) with Fut. or Fut. Perfect, e.g. Capt. 293 “sequere hac me igitur: eadem ego ex hoc quae volo exquisivero” (in Pers. 445 with Fut. Imperative).

Quisque ‘each’ has also, as we have seen (4), the function of quisquis ‘whoever,’ e.g. Asin. 404 “quisque obviam huic occesserit irato, vapulabit” (cf. Pennigsdorf: de ‘quisque’ et ‘quisquis’ pronominum apud comicos latinos usu. Halle, 1878). Similarly quisquis occupies the place of quisque in lines like and in the Plautine phrase “cum eo cum quiqui,” Poen. 536, etc., ‘in any case.’ The MSS. seem often to confuse the two words, e.g. Truc. 225 “adridere ut quisquis （P: quisque A） veniat blandeque adloqui”, and in Trin. 218 many editors substitute through metrical reasons quidque for quidquid of the MSS. (AP):

quod si exquiratur usque ab stirpe auctoritas,
unde quidquid auditum dicant.

The two Pronouns are rightly distinguished in Poen. 483 sqq.:

quemquem visco offenderant,
tam crebri ad terram decidebant quam pira:
ut quisque acciderat, eum necabam ilico.

By a similar laxity of usage, the Ablative (Instrumental) of quisque is, if this be the right reading, used in the phrase >suo quique loco,

(cf. Stich. 62, Titinius 130). So in Cato (R.R. 23, 4 “suo cuique dolio”) and Varro (L.L. 10, 48 “sui cuiusque generis”). The classical use of quisque with Ordinal Numerals is also a usage of Plautus, e.g. Trin. 524 “in quinto quoque sulco moriuntur boves”. With a Superlative he uses it only once, and in the Plural, Most. 155 “optumi quique expetebant a me doctrinam sibi”. (For examples of ubi quisque, see Seyffert in Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift, 16, p. 14.)

The use of quisque and uterque with a Plural Verb is discussed in I. 6

Alter seems to be construed (like a Comparative) with the Ablative in Asin. 492 “neque me alter est Athenis hodie quisquam cui credi recte aeque putent”, although the Ablative may be really dependent on aeque (cf. II. 66).

Ambo is sometimes accompanied by duo in a way that reminds us of expressions in the Romance languages like Ital. ambe due ‘both,’ e.g. Amph. 974 “iam hisce (Nominative Plural) ambo, et servus et era, frustra sunt duo” (see Seyffert in Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift, 1896, p. 845).

Just as the Conjunction non (older noenum) originated from the Adverbial use of the Neuter Singular of nĕ-unus (older oenus), so nullum is used for non in the colloquial Latin of Plautus, e.g. Cas. 795 “qui amat, tamen hercle, si esurit, nullum esurit”; also nihil for non, e.g. Mil. 625 “nihil amas, umbra es amantis”, Mil. 469 etc. “nihil opust”, and for ne, e.g. Mil. 1007 “hercle hanc quidem nil tu amassis.”

Nullus (nulla, etc.) is found in the same senses, e.g.

And this suggests an explanation of the Lucretian noenŭ as noenus (like nullus beside nullum), and to be printed noenu' like nullu' sequetur (for non sequitur) Lucil. 507 (but Lucil. 987 “si noenŭ molestumst”). Nullus (Adjective) is often used for nemo (Pronoun) e.g. Bacch. 190 “A. qui scire possum? B. nullus plus”; nullum appears for nihil in Livius Andronicus 22 B. “namque nullum peius macerat homonem quamde mare saevom” (cf. Pomponius 3), and nullius and nullo came to supersede neminis and nemine, although Plautus does not refuse the Genitive and Ablative of nemo, e.g. Capt. 764, Mil. 1062.

Nullus is the equivalent of nihili in Cas. 305 “si id factum est, ecce me nullum senem!”, and nullus esse of perire in Bacch. 193 “si abest, nullus est”. Instead of nemo (for nĕ-homo) we often find the redundant phrase nemo homo (see above, 21), e.g. Truc. 300 “nemo homo hic solet perire apud nos.”

Nemo umquam is not unknown (e.g. Amph. 566); but the favourite expression is numquam quisquam, e.g. Stich. 77 (for full statistics see J. Lange in Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie, 1894, pp. 275 sqq.; Seyffert in Bursian's Jahresbericht, 1895, p. 312).

Tantus in the Deictic sense of ‘ever so much,’ e.g. Curc. 286 “nec demarchus nec comarchus nec cum tanta gloria”, has already been mentioned (22). Another of its usages may be seen in lines like

Tantumst ‘enough!,’ e.g. Trin. 22, the Dramatists' equivalent of Cicero's sed haec hactenus, reveals its origin in lines like

With tanto melior ‘so much the better,’ e.g. Bacch. 211, and similar phrases the Substantive Verb is normally omitted (see V. 8). Tanta (instead of tanto) figures in a curious usage of Old Latin, which has not yet been satisfactorily explained (see Havet and Leo in Archiv lat. Lexikographie 11, 579 and 12, 100): Whether the later use of tanti for tot is anticipated in Amph. 1057 is doubtful: “ita tanta mira in aedibus sunt facta. vae miserae mihi!”

On hic tantus, see above, 21

1 The vagueness of this use of the Possessive is utilized for keeping Euclio at cross-purposes between his ‘ducats and daughter,’ Aul. 744 “quid tibi ergo meam me invito tactiost?”, where meam is meant by Euclio for meam ollam, but is understood by Lyconides as meam filiam.

2 We see the origin of these forms in lines like

But the form quidvis is already crystallized in Mil. 500 “an, quia latrocinamini, arbitramini quidvis licere facere vobis, verbero?” Quovis is not equivalent to quo (tu) vis in Most. 888 “cibo perduci poteris quovis”.

3 On numquam quisquam, see below, 28

4 In Livius Andronicus Odyss. 9 ibi seems to be used differently. Homer's line (Od. 2, 317) “ἠὲ Πύλονδ᾽ ἐλθὼν ἤ αὐτοῦ τῷδ᾽ ἐνὶ δήμῳ” is thus rendered: “<aut> n Pylum deveniens aut ibi ommentans”. But we do not know the context.

5 Is without the addition of this Particle sometimes has this function, e.g.

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 (163 total)
  • Cross-references from this page (151):
    • Cicero, Against Verres, 2.3.225
    • Plautus, Cistellaria, 2.1
    • Plautus, Cistellaria, 4.1
    • Plautus, Curculio, 1.1
    • Plautus, Curculio, 5.3
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 2.4
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 1.1
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 1.2
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 1.3
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 2.1
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 2.2
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 3.1
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 3.2
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 5.2
    • Plautus, Persa, 1.3
    • Plautus, Persa, 3.1
    • Plautus, Persa, 3.3
    • Plautus, Persa, 4.3
    • Plautus, Persa, 4.4
    • Plautus, Persa, 5.1
    • Plautus, Persa, 5.2
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 1.2
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 2.1
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 3.1
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 3.3
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 3.4
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 4.2
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 5.2
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 5.4
    • Plautus, Poenulus, 5.7
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 1.2
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 1.3
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 3.2
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 4.1
    • Plautus, Pseudolus, 4.7
    • Plautus, Rudens, 1.2
    • Plautus, Rudens, 2.3
    • Plautus, Rudens, 2.6
    • Plautus, Rudens, 3.2
    • Plautus, Rudens, 3.3
    • Plautus, Rudens, 3.4
    • Plautus, Rudens, 4.1
    • Plautus, Rudens, 4.3
    • Plautus, Rudens, 4.4
    • Plautus, Rudens, 4.6
    • Plautus, Rudens, 4.7
    • Plautus, Rudens, 5.2
    • Plautus, Rudens, 5.3
    • Plautus, Stichus, 1.2
    • Plautus, Stichus, 1.3
    • Plautus, Stichus, 2.2
    • Plautus, Stichus, 4.2
    • Plautus, Stichus, 5.7
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 1.1
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 1.2
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 2.2
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 2.4
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 3.1
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 4.2
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 4.3
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 5.2
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 3.1
    • Terence, The Self-Tormenter, 5.2
    • Terence, The Mother-in-Law, 2.2
    • Terence, The Mother-in-Law, 5.2
    • Terence, The Mother-in-Law, 5.3
    • Terence, Phormio, 2.2
    • Terence, Phormio, prologue.0
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 1.1
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 1.3
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 1.prol
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 2.1
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 3.2
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 3.3
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 4.1
    • Plautus, Amphitruo, 5.1
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 1.2
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 2.3
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 2.4
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 3.3
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 4.1
    • Plautus, Asinaria, 5.2
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 2.2
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 2.6
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 3.5
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 5.1
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 1.2
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 2.2
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 2.3
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 3.2
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 3.3
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 4.9
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 5.1
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 5.2
    • Plautus, Captivi, 1.1
    • Plautus, Captivi, 1.2
    • Plautus, Captivi, 2.2
    • Plautus, Captivi, 2.3
    • Plautus, Captivi, 3.3
    • Plautus, Captivi, 3.4
    • Plautus, Captivi, 3.5
    • Plautus, Captivi, 4.2
    • Plautus, Captivi, prologue.0
    • Plautus, Casina, 1.1
    • Plautus, Casina, 2.3
    • Plautus, Casina, 2.4
    • Plautus, Casina, 3.5
    • Plautus, Casina, 4.2
    • Plautus, Epidicus, 1.2
    • Plautus, Epidicus, 2.2
    • Plautus, Epidicus, 3.1
    • Plautus, Epidicus, 3.3
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 3.3
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 4.2
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 4.3
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 5.1
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 5.2
    • Plautus, Mercator, 2.1
    • Plautus, Mercator, 2.2
    • Plautus, Mercator, 3.4
    • Plautus, Mercator, 5.4
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 1.1
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 2.2
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 2.3
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 2.5
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 2.6
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 3.1
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 3.2
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 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, 4.6
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 4.8
    • Plautus, Trinummus, prologue.0
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 2.1
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 2.4
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 2.6
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 3.2
    • Plautus, Truculentus, 5.1
    • Terence, The Brothers, 3.1
    • Terence, The Brothers, 3.4
    • Terence, The Brothers, 5.1
    • Terence, Andria, 2.1
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 1.2
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 3.3
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 3.5
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 5.2
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 5.5
    • Terence, The Eunuch, 5.8
  • Cross-references in notes from this page (12):
    • Homer, Odyssey, 2.317
    • Plautus, Mostellaria, 4.2
    • Plautus, Rudens, 3.6
    • Plautus, Stichus, 5.4
    • Plautus, Trinummus, 2.4
    • Plautus, Aulularia, 4.10
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 2.3
    • Plautus, Bacchides, 4.8
    • Plautus, Menaechmi, 3.2
    • Plautus, Mercator, 1.2
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 2.6
    • Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 4.2
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: