V. The Verb.
(Vol. III. of the new Historische Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache (Leipzig, 1903), edited by a group of German Scholars, contains an account of the Latin Verb, its Classes, its Tenses, and its Moods, with full details of Plautine usages.)
The history of the Italic Verb is full of difficulty. The Passive in -r it shares with some other Indo-European languages; and from a consideration of these, as well as of the Italic Dialects, it would seem that this Passive was originally an Impersonal governing an Accusative Case. The Latin Passive, as far back as we can trace it, has Person-endings, and therefore must have followed that tendency which appears in the occasional change of an Impersonal to a Personal Verb in Early Latin (cf. Priscian 1, pp. 432, 561 H.), e.g.
- Aul. 491 “quo lubeant, nubant”,
- Trin. 211 “dum illud quod lubeant, sciant”,
- Stich. 51 (post Plautine?) “et me quidem haec condicio nunc non paenitet”,
- Ter. Andr. 481 “quae adsolent quaeque oportent”,
- Adelph. 754 “non te haec pudent?”,
- Pacuvius 31 “paenitebunt”,
- caletur (always in speaking of hot weather, while calet means ‘this or that thing is hot’);
- Pseud. 273 “A. quid agitur, Calidore? B. amatur atque egetur acriter”,
- Pseud. 457 “A. quid agitur? B. statur hic ad hunc modum” (cf. Ter. Eun. 270),
- Pers. 17 “A. quid agitur? B. vivitur”,
- Pers. 386 “non tu nunc hominum mores vides, quoiusmodi hic cum mala fama facile nubitur?”,
- Pers. 448 “dum stas, reditum oportuit”,
- Ter. Hec. 457 “creditur” ‘I believe you,’
- Cas. 185 “pessumis me modis despicatur domi” (despicatur is Passive of despico; cf. v. 189),
- Mil. 24 “epityra estur insanum bene”,
- Mil. 254? “inducamus vera ut esse credat quae mentibitur”,
- Pseud. 817 “teritur sinapis scelera”,
- Pseud. 1261 “ubi mammia mammiculā opprimitur”,
- Ennius trag. 100 R. “incerte errat animus, praeterpropter vitam (alii: -ta) vivitur” ‘life is lived casually.’ (On vitam vivere, see II. 35)
The intermixture of Active and Passive Infinitive in a passage like Most.
959 is thoroughly Plautine:
“triduom unum est haud intermissum hic esse et bibi,
scorta duci, pergraecari, fidicinas, tibicinas
ducere.
”
Another feature of the Italic Verb is its formation of Tenses by means of Auxiliaries. This tendency asserts itself in Plautine Latin in the use of dare, reddere, habere (see P. Thielmann in Archiv Lat. Lexikographie, 2, pp. 172-423) with Perfect Participle Passive, e.g.
- Pers. 457 “nunc ego lenonem ita hodie intricatum dabo”,
- Mil. 1174 “si tibi meum opus ita dabo expolitum ut improbare non queas”,
- Mil. 1214 “A. si impetras. B. reddam impetratum”,
- Mil. 886 “nam ego multos saepe vidi regionem fugere consili prius quam repertam haberent”;
The lines of distinction between Active, Passive, and Deponent are not so strictly marked in Plautine as in Classical Latin. Thus Plautus uses Active opino, but also opinor, with Perfect opinatus sum; ludifico (sometimes -or), -atus sum; vago and vagor; mereo and mereor; apiscor is Passive in Trin. 367, etc. (For other examples see Langen: Beiträge zur Kritik und Erklärung des Plautus. Leipzig, 1880, pp. 59 sqq.; cf. Naev. com. 67 “populus patitur, tun (v.l. tu non) patias?”). How far this Variation is connected, on the one hand, with the use of the Verbal Adjective in -tus along with the Subst. Verb as a Perfect Tense Passive (see 45) and, on the other, with the old Intransitive or Subjective use of the Deponent (or Middle, e.g. Greek ἀκούσομαι, ὄψομαι, etc.), has not yet been investigated. Certainly a type of Conjugation like soleo (Active), solitus sum (Dep.) was widely extended in Early Latin (cf. Turpilius 33 “A. iurasti? B. non sum iurata”).
Latin does not possess a Middle Voice like Greek. The Latin Deponent often corresponds to the Greek Middle, e.g. sequor to ἔπομαι, and Verbs like accingor (e.g. Ter. Phorm. 318; cf. Amph. 308 “cingitur, certe expedit se”), vescor, amicior (e.g. Pers. 307 “subnixis alis me inferam atque amicibor gloriose”) really have the Reflexive function, that as a rule belongs to the Active with the Reflexive Pronoun, e.g. se accingere. Indutus takes an Accusative
- Epid. 223 “quid erat induta? an regillam induculam an mendiculam?”,
- 225 “utin impluvium induta fuerit?”
- recipere for se recipere Pers. 51, Merc. 498, Bacch. 294, Rud. 880 (also se recipere, e.g. Pers. 46, Merc. 881);
- capessere (cf. facessere ‘to be off’) Rud. 178 for the usual se capessere (e.g. Rud. 172);
- quo (unde) agis? for quo te agis? Pers. 216, Poen. 333, Bacch. 1106 (also quo te agis?, e.g. Trin. 1078);
- capite sistere, e.g. Curc. 287, Mil. 850 (II. 64);
- male res vortunt Pers. 453;
- foris aperit ‘the door opens’ Pers. 300 (cf. Aul. 411).
Another feature of colloquial Latin, much in evidence in the Comedies, is the use of Frequentative Verbs, e.g. fores pultare ‘to knock at the door;’ cf.
- Amph. prol. 7 “quasque incepistis res quasque inceptabilis”,
- 821 “tu si me impudicitiai captas, capere non potes”,
- Most. 116 “usque mantant neque id faciunt”.
Intransitive Verbs have already in Plautus' time begun to govern an acc. on the analogy of their Transitive equivalents, e.g. depereo (on the Analogy of deamo), calleo (of scio) (see II. 40).
The curious Assimilation of coepi and desino to the Mood of a Passive Infinitive in classical Latin, urbs coepta est (desita est) oppugnari (cf. Men. 718 “itaque adeo iure coepta appellari est canes”), instead of coepit (desiit), has a slightly wider range in Early Latin, e.g.
- frag. 109 “retrahi nequitur”,
- Rud. 1064 “ut nequitur comprimi!”,
- Ter. Hec. 572 “forma in tenebris nosci non quita est”,
- Eun. 22 “magistratus quom ibi adesset, occeptast agi”,
- Caecilius 279 “si non sarciri quitur”,
- Pacuvius 390 “sed quom contendi nequitum vi”,
- Accius 664 “neque vi impelli neque prece quitus sum”,
- Pacuvius 100 “siqua potestur investigari via”
The omission of the Verb is common in Terence, who cleverly in this respect reproduces the unconventional utterance of every-day, e.g.
- Phorm. 440 “A. siquid opus fuerit, heus domo me (sc. arcessito). B. intellego”,
- Andr. 300 “A. verbum unum cave de nuptiis (sc. dicas), ne ad morbum hoc etiam (sc. accedat). B. teneo.”
It is not so marked a feature of Plautus' style, although it is by no means absent, e.g. Rud. 1086 “quid istuc tuā (sc. refert)?”
Most frequent is the omission of the Substantive Verb (see W. Olsen: quaestionum Plautinarum de Verbo Substantivo specimen. Greifswald, 1884; with it read Seyffert's corrections in Bursian's Jahresbericht 1886, p. 52), e.g. Amph. 56 “sed ego stultior”, and the common phrases tanto melior (e.g. Truc. 953), quae res? (e.g. Mil. 1344, Cas. 844) and the like. (On nimirum and mirum ni, mirum quin, see VIII. 2) Potis (pote) often appears instead of potest, e.g. Ter. Phorm. 337 “non pote satis.”
This is often found in Tenses where sum is an Auxiliary, e.g.
- quae facta (passim);
- factum ‘true,’ ‘quite right,’ (e g. Trin. 429, Ter. Adelph. 561, etc.) for factum est;
- Amph. 964 “an id ioco dixisti? equidem serio ac vero ratus”, with ratus for ratus sum;
- Trin. 1049 “illis quoque abrogant etiam fidem, qui nil meriti”;
- Men. 119 “nunc adeo, ut facturus, dicam”, with facturus for facturus sum,
- Stich. 54 “faciendum id nobis”.
The use of an Abstract Noun with est in periphrasis for a Verb is characteristically Plautine, e.g.
- Mil. 229 “confidentiast (= confido) nos inimicos profligare posse”,
- Trin. 626 “est lubido (= lubet) orationem audire duorum adfinium.”
Tenses: Sequence of Tenses.
(Wirtzfeld: de consecutione temporum Plautina et Terentiana. Siegburg, 1888.) That the strict laws of Sequence should often be defied by the colloquial Latin of Plautus is only natural. The following examples will give an idea of the extent to which this was done:- Men. 784 sqq. “A. quotiens tandem edixi tibi ut caveres (Imperfect) neuter ad me iretis cum querimonia? B. quî ego istuc, mi pater, cavere possum? A. men interrogas? B. nisi non vis. A. quotiens monstravi tibi viro ut morem geras?” (Present)
- Bacch. 689 sqq. “A. ego patrem exoravi. B. nempe ergo hoc ut faceret (Imperfect) quod loquor? A. immo tibi ne noceat (Present) neu quid ob eam rem suscenseat.” (Present)
- Amph. 745 sq. “quippe qui ex te audivi, ut urbem maxumam expugnavisses (Pluperfect) regemque Pterelam tute occideris.” (Perfect)
- Bacch. 352 sq. “ita feci ut auri quantum vellet sumeret, quantum autem lubeat reddere ut reddat patri.”
- Most. 715 “hoc habet! repperi (‘I have found’) quî senem ducerem.” (Contrast Epid. 285 “repperi haec te quî abscedat suspicio.”)
- Capt. 1002 sqq. “nam ubi illo adveni . . . haec mihi advenienti upupa quî me delectem datast.”
- Cist. 567 sqq. “iam perducebam illam ad me suadela mea: anus ei amplexa est genua plorans, obsecrans >ne deserat se.”
- Mil. 131 sq. “dedi mercatori quoidam qui ad illum deferat (sc. litteras) …, ut is huc veniret.”
- Pseud. 795 sq. “quin ob eam rem Orcus recipere ad se hunc noluit, ut esset hic qui mortuis cenam coquat.”
- Poen. 602 sqq. “(adsimulabimus) quasi tu nobiscum adveniens hodie oraveris liberum ut commonstraremus tibi locum et voluptarium, ubi ames, potes, pergraecere.”
- Pers. 537 sq. “tua ego hoc facio (am doing) gratia, ut tibi recte conciliandi primo facerem copiam.”
After the Historical Pres. we find Pres. in lines like: Amph. 205 “Telebois iubet sententiam ut dicant suam,” but Past in lines like: Amph. 214 sq. “respondent bello se et suos tutari posse, proinde uti propere suis de finibus exercitus deducerent,” or both Pres. and Past in lines like: Amph. 225 “convĕnit, victi utri sint eo proelio, urbem, agrum, aras, focos seque uti dederent.”
(On Conditional Sentences, see VIII. 5)
Present.
We find in Plautus the same types of this Tense as in all periods of Latin, such as the Present of unachieved action, e.g. Mil. 36 “A. quid illuc quod dico (= volo dicere)? B. ehem, scio iam quid vis dicere”; longum est ‘it would be tedious,’ etc., e.g. Mil. 694 “flagitiumst, si nihil mittetur”, but also Past, e.g.- Mil. 725 “aequom fuit deos paravisse uno exemplo ne omnes vitam viverent”,
- Mil. 755 “hominibus sat erat decem”,
- Ter. Hec. 284 “quanto fuerat praestabilius”
In all languages the Present may play the part of a Future, especially with the Verb ‘to go,’ e.g. ‘I go to-morrow,’ and in Attic Greek this usage has been carried so far that εἶμι is the recognised Future Tense. In Old Latin this use of the Present is less in evidence than in modern languages and is mostly confined to some Verbs of motion, especially eo and its Compounds. In Plautus with redeo the Present is normal in a phrase like iam ad te redeo (Mil. 1020, etc.), (but the Future of revertor, e.g. Pseud. 1159, and the Future Perfect of revenio, e.g. Bacch. 1066); with eo, exeo, transeo, etc., also with viso3, inviso, the Present is more frequent than the Future, while with sum (e.g. iam ego hic ero), adsum, and other Verbs the Future is used. (For details see Sjögren: Gebrauch des Futurums im Altlateinischen. Upsala, 1906, chap. i.) The Present is also normal with non, after a Command. e.g. Stich. 93 “A. adside hic, pater. B. non sedeo istic, vos sedete: ego sedero in subsellio”; also with quam mox and iam in questions, e.g. Truc. 208 “quam mox te huc recipis?”, Mil. 1400 “iamne ego in hominem involo?” Also in various types of Conditional Sentences (see VIII. 5), e.g. si sapis (or sapies), tacebis; si vivo, te ulciscar; hoc faciam, si possum exorare ‘in hope to’; especially after nisi in threats, e.g. Cas. 730 “dabo tibi μέγα κακόν . . . nisi resistis”. In questions, when asking the advice of another, quid ago?, not quid agam?, is Plautus' phrase, but quid faciam? is used both in dialogue and soliloquy; also however quid fit?
The use of the Present for the Future in Temporal Sentences with dum, priusquam, etc., is discussed in VIII. 10 On the use of the Present Subjunctive in a Future sense, e.g. Trin. 1136 “sed maneam etiam, opinor”, and the Dubitative Present Subjunctive, see below, 26
The Present Infinitive is quite legitimate after dico, promitto, etc., in Plautine Latin, where the Future Infinitive is normal in classical Latin, e.g. Capt. 194 “ad fratrem, quo ire dixeram, mox ivero”, lit. ‘I had spoken of going,’ the Infinitive being treated as a Verbal Noun, the Object of dixeram, Trin. 5 “si quidem operam dare promittitis”. The two constructions are found side by side in Most. 633 “A. dic te daturum, ut abeat. B. egon dicam dare?”
Imperfect.
(A. L. Wheeler: The Syntax of the Imperfect Indicative in Early Latin in Classical Philology, I. 357—390.) Instead of the usual Imperfect sense, an Aoristic meaning seems often to be attached to a Verb like aibam, and (as in classical Latin) eram, e.g. Pseud. 1083 “A. malum et scelestum et periurum aibat esse me. B. pol hau mentitust” (see below, 22 n). In a line like Mil. 755, “nam idem hoc hominibus sat erat decem”, we seem to have the same use of the Imperfect erat as in Horace's “tempus erat dapibus, sodales” Carm. 1.32.13 (cf. above, 11). Cf. tune hīc eras? ‘are you here?’ Ter. Hec. 340 (cf. Phorm. 858, 945).
The Imperatival use of the Imperfect Subjunctive (never Pluperfect in Old Latin), e.g. Merc. 633 “quid tu faceres, men rogas? requireres, cogitares,” is mentioned below, 25 It is the Past of the Imperatival Present Subjunctive, e.g. requiras, cogites, just as the Imperfect quid facerem? ‘what was I to do?’ is the Past of the Dubitative Present Subjunctive quid faciam? ‘what am I to do?’ On the distinction of the Imperfect from the Pluperfect Subjunctive in Conditional Sentences, see VIII. 5 The ‘Potential’ use of 2 Singular Imperfect Subjunctive (e.g. crederes, putares, is not unknown), e.g. Curc. 331 “scires velle gratiam tuam” (see below, 31). Vellem, mallem, etc., are common, e.g. In Wishes, the Imperfect Subjunctive is, as in classical Latin, appropriate to unrealizable wishes for the present, e.g. Rud. 533 “utinam fortuna nunc anetina uterer”, as the Pluperfect Subjunctive to the same wishes for the past, e.g. Truc. 375 “utinam item a principio rei repersisses meae, ut nunc repercis saviis”. But the Imperfect is not unknown where classical Latin would require the Pluperfect, e.g. Capt. 537 “utinam te di prius perderent quam periisti e patria tua.”
Future.
(Sjögren: Gebrauch des Futurums in Altlateinischen. Upsala, 1906.) The substitution of the Present for the Future of eo and its Compounds has just been treated (11). The competition of the Present Subjunctive (especially in 1 Singular) with the Future Indicative in Old Latin is discussed below, 26 e.g. Bacch. 1058 “taceam nunciam”. It has left its mark on the language in the 3rd Conjugation 1 Singular, e.g. dicam, the only form in use in Plautus' time, as later, and in the 4th Conjugation 1 Singular, e.g. audiam, which competed with audibo in Plautus' time. There is apparently no rule which determines Plautus' use of audibo and audiam, scibo and sciam. The love of Latin for Auxiliary Verbs is seen in the three periphrastic forms of the Future in Plautine Latin,- (1) -urus sum, e.g. Cist. 47, 507, Pers. 778, Curc. 75,
- (2) volo with Infinitive,
- (3) eo with 1 Supine, e.g. Truc. 559 “ipsus perditum se it”
In Colloquial Latin, early and later, the Future often has the peculiar sense shown in these examples from Plautus:
- Asin. 734 “hic inerunt viginti minae” ‘you will find 20 minae to be inside here,’
- Pseud. 677 “hoc sic erit” ‘you will find this to be the case’
Amabo ‘prithee,’ in Old Latin chiefly used by women, and always accompanying a question or a command4, is to be referred to a suppressed Protasis ‘(do this); if you do, I will love you.’ Poen. 250 sqq. throws light on its origin: “>A. soror, parce, amabo. . . . B. quiesco. A. ergo amo te.” In the Infinitive we find amare (not ‘amaturum esse’), e.g. Men. 524 “amare ait te multum Erotium”, etc. (For details, see Lindskog: Quaestiones de Parataxi et Hypotaxi apud priscos Latinos, pp. 19 sqq.) On Future Imperative see below, 32
Future Perfect.
(Sjögren: Gebrauch des Futurums im Altlateinischen. Upsala, 1906.) The Future Perfect has the appearance of a Subjunctive, the Perfect Subjunctive of an Optative, so that fuero and fuerim may be said to differ as edam and edim (see 24). However that may be, it is certain that the two Tenses are often hardly distinguishable, e.g. fuerint is 3 Plural of both. (On the close relation of Future and Present Subjunctive see 15, 26). Why Plautine (and Terentian) Latin should use only the Future, never the Future Perfect, of oportet, possum, volo, is not clear. As regards other Verbs, the Tense sometimes has its true function, e.g. Bacch. 708 “hoc ubi egero, tum istuc agam”, but often has practically the same function as the Future. It is normal after si in threats, e.g. si attigeris, vapulabis, where an Aoristic sense is perhaps conveyed; while after nisi the Present is normal, e.g. nisi abis, vapulabis. Cicero's use of videro, in postponing the consideration of a difficulty, is clearly seen in Terence, e.g. Hec. 701, Adelph. 538; not so clearly in Plautus (Merc. 448, 450).The Future Perfect Deponent and Passive can take as Auxiliary fuero in the sense of ero, e.g. Men. 471 “non hercle <ego> is sum qui sum, ni hanc iniuriam meque ultus pulchre fuero.”
With the Future Perfect may be included Old Latin S-Futures (or rather Aorist Subjunctives) like faxo. The difference in Plautus' use of faxo and fecero seems to be that fecero is only used absolutely, in answer to a request, e.g. Stich. 351 “A. cape illas scopas. B. capiam. A. … convorre. B. ego fecero”. Faciam may be used in the same way, e.g. Stich. 354 “A. pinge, humum consperge ante aedes. B. faciam”; faxo, on the other hand, governs a Verb syntactically, e.g. faxo scias, faxo ut scias, or paratactically faxo scies. This paratactic use is not found with faciam, but only the syntactic, e.g. Capt. 65 “si erit, ego faciam ut pugnam inspectet non bonam.”
Perfect.
The various classical Latin types of Perfect are all found in Plautus: the Perfect of what is past and gone, e.g.- Capt. 516 “nunc illud est quom me fuisse quam esse nimio mavelim”,
- Bacch. 151 “vixisse nimio satiust iam quam vivere”,
- Pers. 637 “omne ego pro nihilo esse duco quod fuit quando fuit”
- (cf. Rud. 1321, Ter. Haut. 93);
- Poen. 724 “A. scitis? B. scivimus”,
- Poen. 629 “ego male loquendi vobis nescivi viam”,
- Capt. 265 “siquid nescivi, id nescium tradam tibi.”
Also the Perfect Indicative for Pluperfect Subjunctive, e.g. Mil. 1112 “ad equas fuisti (you would have been) scitus admissarius”; a Perfect like perii used of Future time in Conditional sentences, e.g.
the Perfect Infinitive for Present Infinitive, e.g. Aul. 828 “non potes probasse nugas”; especially after volo or nolo in prohibitions, e.g.- Poen. 872 “nolito edepol devellisse”,
- Ter. Hec. 563 “interdico ne extulisse extra aedes puerum usquam velis”.
The Perfect Deponent and Passive can take as Auxiliary fui in the sense of sum, e.g. Most. 694 “non mihi forte visum ilico fuit.” The substitution of fui gives precision to the Preterite sense, which is often obscured in Perfects like solitus est = solet, lubitum est = lubet. Similarly with fuerim for sim in Perfect Subjunctive, e.g. Epid. 225, Pers. 379.
On the use of the Perfect Subjunctive in Prohibitions, see below, VIII. 9 Its Potential use, e.g. crediderim ‘I could believe,’ dixerim ‘I would say’ (all Verb-forms in -im were originally Optatives; see below, 24) is not unknown to Plautus and Terence, e.g.
- Asin. 491 “praefiscini hoc nunc dixerim”,
- Ter. Andr. 203 “ubivis facilius passus sim quam in hac re me deludier.”
Pluperfect.
(H. Blase: Geschichte des Plusquamperfekts im Lateinischen. Giessen, 1893.)Plautus often seems to use the Pluperfect as the equivalent of the Perfect, e.g.
Mil. 132 “meum erum qui Athenis fuerat”, has the same sense as Mil. 127 “meum erum Athenis qui fuit”. (In Asin. 356 “ego me dixeram adducturum”, editors change dixeram to dixi erum.) The ambiguity of fueram with Perfect Participle Passive is turned to account by the cunning slave in Most. 821 “A. eo pretio emptae fuerant olim. B. audin ‘fuerant’ dicere?”Two explanations are possible. One is that Tense-signification5 is not so definite and precise in the early stage of a language as in the later, so that amaveram and amavi may have been as interchangeable in Plautine Latin as amavero and amabo (see above, 17). Another theory restricts the interchange to the Verb sum, and tries to prove that, while Plautus uses fueram (conceivably a mixture of fui and eram) for fui, he never uses, e.g., amaveram for amavi; this extension of the license from sum to other Verbs was, according to this theory, a gradual process in Latin, and culminated in that Late Latin substitution of Pluperfect for Perfect which is reflected in the Romance Conjugation, e.g. O. Fr. vidra (= Latin viderat) ‘he saw.’ (See my note on Capt. 17.)
In the Pluperfect Deponent and Passive we find the same use of fueram beside eram as of fui beside sum in the Perfect (20) and of fuero beside ero in the Future Perfect (18).
The Pluperfect Subjunctive is used, as in classical Latin, for unrealizable wishes for the past, e.g.
- Amph. 386 “utinam istuc pugni fecissent tui”,
- Ter. Phorm. 157 “quod utinam me Phormioni id suadere in mentem incidisset.”
In ‘Jussive’ Sentences, e.g. ne poposcisses ‘you should not have asked,’ the Imperfect Subjunctive (see above, 14) is invariably found in Old Latin, e.g. Men. 611 “at tu ne clam me comesses prandium”, never the Pluperfect Subjunctive On the distinction of the two Tenses in Conditional Sentences and on the occasional use of Pluperfect Indicative for Pluperfect Subjunctive, see below, VIII. 5
Subjunctive.
The Latin Subjunctive combines the functions of the Greek Subjunctive and Optative. Comparative Philology tells us that forms in -im were originally Optative-forms; thus sim, older siēm, is the Latin equivalent of Gk. ἐσίην, εἴην while the Latin Future ero (from eso) is the equivalent of the Gk. Subjunctive ὦ, older ἔσω. Old Latin forms like amassim, prohibessim, faxim were apparently originally S-Aorist Optatives, and in the language of Plautus' time they still retain traces of their origin; for in 3rd Person they are in independent sentences mainly used in prayers and curses, e.g. di melius faxint (passim), “Iuppiter prohibessit” Pseud. 14; in 1st Person they are appropriate to Conditional statements, e.g. “haud (non) ausim” Aul. 474, etc.; in 2nd Person to Prohibitions, e.g. “ne dixis” Asin. 839, etc., “cave respexis” Most. 523. (For a full account of these -sim forms in independent sentences in Plautus, see Morris in Amer. Journ. Phil. 18, 165 sqq.)
The Subjunctive can play the part of an Imperative at all periods of Latin. Madvig showed that in Cicero ne with 2 Singular Present Subjunctive was restricted to general6 prohibitions, whereas Plautus and Terence use, e.g. ne me mone and ne me moneas as equivalents (cf. 32 below). This Imperatival or, as it is usually called, Jussive Subjunctive is found in the Imperfect (not Pluperfect), when past time is referred to, e.g. Pseud. 437 “vel tu ne faceres tale in adulescentia” (cf. above, 14).
In early Greek the Subjunctive sometimes plays the part of a Future, e.g. Homer Il. 1, 262 “οὐ γάρ πω τοίους ἴδον ἀνέρας οὐδὲ ἴδωμαι.” So in early Latin, e g.
- Amph. 1060 “nec me miserior femina est neque ulla videatur magis”,
- Trin. 1136 “quid ego cesso hos colloqui? sed maneam (I will wait) etiam opinor”,
- Bacch. 1058 “taceam nunciam”,
- Ter. Phorm. 140 “ad precatorem adeam, credo, qui mihi sic oret.”
(On the Tenses of the Subjunctive used in Prohibitions, see VIII. 9)
In Dependent Clauses the use of the Subjunctive in Plautus' colloquial language was not at all so strictly regulated as in the literary language of the Augustan Age. It is extremely difficult to say with certainty: ‘in this or that Dependent Clause Plautus could not use the Indicative’ or ‘could not use the Subjunctive’ In most types of clause we find both Moods used, but never quite at random. There is always a particular nuance of thought expressed by the one and the other. The use of the Indicative makes the statement more a definite statement of actual fact, the use of the Subjunctive makes it more indefinite, more dependent on external agency. The distinction is most clearly seen in Oratio Obliqua, where the Plautine and the classical usage scarcely differ, e.g.
Here quia non defraudaverim is Chrysalus' remark, while quia aurum reddidi is the remark of the speaker himself. Cf. Mil. 981 and 974, Mil. 300 and Epid. 19. Also in sentences not far removed from Oratio Obliqua, e.g.:“Chrysalus mihi usque quaque loquitur nec recte, pater,
quia tibi aurum reddidi et quia non te defraudaverim.”
- Cist. 179 “et eam cognoscit esse quam compresserat” (the remark of the speaker).
- Aul. 29 “is scit adulescens quae sit quam compresserit” (= scio quae sit quam compressi, Or. Rect.).
Similarly after an Impersonal Verb, the use of the Subjunctive makes a dependent clause less definite, more a possibility than a fact, e.g.:
- Pseud. 460 “decet innocentem qui sit atque innoxium servom superbum esse apud erum potissumum.”
- Amph. 836 “quae non deliquit decet audacem esse.”
Parataxis (see Lindskog: Quaestiones de Parataxi et Hypotaxi apud priscos Latinos. Lund, 1896) is characteristic (1) of the early stage of a language, (2) of colloquial, as opposed to literary language. Naturally it is strongly in evidence in the colloquial Latin of Plautus' time, e.g. Trin. 161 “alium fecisti me, alius ad te veneram”. Most of all in Indirect Questions, which in Plautus are as often Direct (with Indicative) as Indirect (with Subjunctive), e.g.
- Bacch. 557 “dic quis est”,
- Bacch. 555 “dic modo hominem qui sit”,
- Amph. 17 “nunc quoius iussu venio et quam ob rem venerim dicam”,
- Pers. 515 “nescis quid te instet boni neque quam tibi Fortuna faculam lucriferam adlucere volt”,
- Most. 969,
- Ter. And. 650,
- Hec. 874;
- Capt. 139 “A. ne fle. B. egone illum non fleam?”,
- Ter. Andr. 915 “A. bonus est hic vir. B. hic vir sit bonus?”
- Trin. 485 “semper tu hoc facito, Lesbonice, cogites”,
- Trin. 59 “vin commutemus?”,
- Poen. 909 “ita di faxint, ne apud lenonem hunc serviam”.
In phrases like Asin. 44 “di tibi dent quaecumque optes,” Asin. 780 “quom iaciat, ‘te’ ne dicat”, the Subjunctive (optes, iaciat) is conventionally ascribed to ‘Attraction.’ But similar Subjunctives are found in other circumstances too; and, if ‘Attraction’ has played any part, it may rather be that the presence of a Subjunctive in a neighbouring clause has ensured the retention of the old construction, has in fact aided the old Mood to resist the encroachments of the Indicative. This so-called ‘Subjunctive by Attraction’ is a feature of the other Italic dialects and evidently belongs to the earliest Italic period, e.g. Oscan “pun far kahad, nip putiiad edum,” which would be in Latin ‘quom far incipiat, ne possit esse,’; ‘when he takes food, may be not be able to eat.’ These dialects show a similar Subjunctive where the neighbouring clause contains an Imperative, e.g. Umbrian “pone esonom e ferar . . ere fertu” (in Latin ‘quom in sacrificium feratur . . is ferto’), just as we find in Plautus sentences like
- Amph. 439 “ubi ego Sosia nolim esse, tu esto sane Sosia”,
- Asin. 29 “dic, obsecro hercle, serio quod te rogem”
- (cf. Men. 1105 “uterque id, quod rogabo, dicite”).
- Bacch. 224 “veniat quando volt”,
- Truc. 233 “aequo animo, ipse si nil habeat, aliis, qui habent, det locum.”
- Epid. 19 (with Indicative) “quid tibi vis dicam nisi quod est?”,
- compared with Mil. 300 (with Subjunctive) “quid tibi vis dicam nisi quod viderim?”;
- Trin. 351 “quod habes, ne habeas”,
- Aul. 482 “invidia nos minore utamur quam utimur.”
- Rud. 1137 (with Indicative), “sed, si erunt vera, tum obsecro te ut mea mihi reddantur”,
- with Rud. 1128 (with Subjunctive) “ac, si istorum nil sit, ut mihi reddas”;
- Merc. 425 (with Indicative), “dum ne minoris vendas quam emi”,
- with Rud. 1242 (with Subjunctive) “ut cum maiore dote abeat quam advenerit”;
- Trin. 1042 (with Indicative), “et metuo, si compellabo, ne aliam rem occipiat loqui”,
- with Trin. 1171 (with Subjunctive), “metuo, si tibi denegem quod me oras, ne te leviorem erga me putes.”
This so-called Subjunctive by ‘Attraction’ is so marked a feature of Plautine Syntax that more examples, taken from different types of sentence, will be useful:
- Bacch. 656 “furetur quod queat”;
- Aul. 491 “quo lubeant nubant”;
- Capt. 548 “ne tu quod istic fabuletur auris immittas tuas”;
- Epid. 588 “non patrem te nominem, ubi tu tuam me appelles filiam?”;
- Bacch. 1190 “egone, ubi filius corrumpatur meus, ibi potem?”;
- Asin. 838 “putem ego, quem videam aeque esse maestum ut quasi dies si dicta sit?”;
- Mil. 426 “quin ego hoc rogem quod nesciam?”,
- Amph. 434 “quid ego ni negem qui egomet siem?”
- Amph. 871 “nam mea sit culpa, quod egomet contraxerim, si id Alcumenai innocentiae expetat”;
- Poen. 681 “videre equidem vos vellem, quom huic aurum darem”;
- Merc. 152 “me rupi causa currendo tua, ut quae scirem scire actutum tibi liceret”;
- Bacch. 550 “ille . . accuratum habuit quod posset mali faceret in me.”
It will be well to add examples taken from Indirect Questions and Reported Speech, in order to show how similar is the Plautine treatment in all cases of dependent sentence:
- Aul. 17 “coepi observare ecqui maiorem filius mihi honorem haberet quam eius habuisset pater”;
- Asin. 442 “aibat reddere (‘said he would pay’), quom extemplo redditum esset”;
- Curc. 425 “quod istic scriptumst (Indicative), id te orare iusserat profecto ut faceres, suam si velles gratiam.”
Various uses of the Subjunctive in Dependent Clauses, such as
- the Causal use, e.g.
- the Concessive, e.g. Men. 362 “te hic stare foris, fores quoi pateant”;
- the Subjunctive of Limitation, e.g.
“A. servum hercle te esse oportet et nequam et malum,
hominem peregrinum atque advenam qui irrideas.
B. at hercle te hominem et sycophantam et subdolum,
qui huc advenisti nos captatum.”
In classical Latin quamvis postulates the Subjunctive, quamquam the Indicative But to Plautus quamvis means ‘as you wish,’ ‘as much as you wish,’ and scarcely has acquired the sense of ‘although’ (see VIII. 4). With est qui, sunt qui, est ubi, etc., it is not always easy to see what determines the use of the Subjunctive (e.g. Poen. 884 “quid est quod metuas?”) and the Indicative (e.g. Ter. Andr. 448 “est quod suscenset tibi”; cf. the frequent sunt quae volo, etc., e.g. Capt. 263 “sunt quae ex te solo scitari volo”). (For fuller statistics see Dittmar: Studien zur lateinischen Moduslehre. Leipzig, 1897, pp. 10 sqq.) Here are some examples of the Subjunctive and Indicative in Dependent Clauses:
- Aul. 810 “quis me Athenis nunc magis quisquam est homo cui di sint propitii?”
- Bacch. 807 “quis homost qui dicat me dixisse istuc?”
- Accius 458 “quis erit qui non me spernens . . turpi fama differet?”
- Mil. 994 “numquis [nam] hic prope adest qui rem alienam potius curet quam suam?”
- Pomponius 158 “numquis hic restitit qui nondum labeas lirarit mihi?”
- Capt. 997 “vidi ego multa saepe picta, quae Accherunti fierent cruciamenta.”
- Men. 143 “enumquam tu vidisti tabulam pictam in pariete, ubi aquila Catamitum (= Ganymedem) raperet?”
- Trin. 543 “nemo exstat qui ibi sex menses vixerit.”
- Merc. 335 “homo me miserior nullust aeque, opinor, neque advorsa cui plura sint sempiterna.”
- Curc. 248 “vah! solus hic homost qui sciat divinitus.”
- Trin. 89 “haben tu amicum aut familiarem quempiam quoi pectus sapiat?”
- Mil. 784 “eam des quae sit quaestuosa, quae alat corpus corpore, quoique sapiat pectus.”
- Mil. 1376 “stulte feci, qui hunc amisi.”
- Men. 309 sqq. “insanit hic quidem, qui ipse male dicit sibi. . . nam tu quidem hercle certe non sanu's satis, Menaechme, qui nunc ipsus male dicas tibi.”
- Most. 362 “sed ego sumne infelix, qui non curro curriculo domum?”
- Trin. 1057 “sed ego sum insipientior, qui rebus curem publicis, potius quam, etc.”
- Trin. 905 “A. novistin hominem? B. ridicule rogitas, quocum una cibum capere soleo.”
- Mil. 984 “vah! delicatu's: quae te tamquam oculos amet.”
- Truc. 769 “de nihilo nihil est irasci, quae te non flocci facit.”
- Amph. 1021 “tibi Juppiter dique omnes irati certo sunt, qui sic frangas fores.”
- Mil. 59 “amant ted omnes mulieres, neque iniuria, qui sis tam pulcher.”
- Mil. 180 “vae mihi misero, quoi pereundumst propter nihili bestiam!”
- Stich. 395 “Hercules, qui deus sis, sane discessisti non bene.”
- Amph. 506 “nimis hic scitust sycophanta, qui quidem meus sit pater.”
- Men. 203 “A. hoc animo decet animatos esse amatores probos. B. qui quidem ad mendicitatem se properent detrudere.”
- Truc. 832 “non vinum viris moderari, sed viri vino solent, qui quidem probi sunt.”
- Epid. 180 . “A. pulchra edepol dos pecuniast. B. quae quidem pol non maritast.”
- Pers. 634 “tactus lenost: qui rogaret ubi nata esset diceret, lepide lusit.”
- Poen. 233 “miror equidem, soror, te istaec sic fabulari, quae tam callida et docta sis et faceta.”
- Mil. 764 “haud centensumam partem dixi atque, otium rei si sit, possum exponere.”
- Mil. 20 “nihil hercle hoc quidemst praeut alia dicam, quae tu numquam feceris.”
- Asin. 816 “suspendam potius me quam tacita haec tu auferas.”
- Cist. 533 “perdam operam potius quam carebo filia.”
For examples with quod, quippe quî, utpote qui, etc., see VIII. 2
In Conditional Sentences we see the utmost freedom in Plautus. The difficulty of framing rules for his use of Indicative and Subjunctive is often very difficult (see VIII. 5).
Lastly may be mentioned that the curious Latin use of 2nd Person Singular of this Mood in general statements, not referring to a definite person, is as early as Plautus, e.g.
- Bacch. 63 “ubi periclum facias (when one makes trial), aculeata sunt”,
- Truc. 569 “quod des, devorat”,
- Trin. 914 “fieri istuc solet: quod in manu teneas atque oculis videas, id desideres.”
Like it is the ‘Potential’ credas ‘one would think,’ etc, e.g.
- Most. 243 “videas eam medullitus me amare”,
- Ter. Hec. 58 “per pol quam paucos reperias meretricibus fideles evenire amatores, Syra.”
Imperative.
(Loch: zum Gebrauch des Imperativus bei Plautus. Memel (Schulprogr.), 1871.) The competition of the Subjunctive with the Imperative has already been mentioned. That there is a different signification in Imperatives like vale and Subjunctives like valeas (e.g. Truc. 433 “A. valeas. B. vale”) is hard to prove. Similarly in Prohibitions, e.g. Asin. 826 “ne mone”, Mil. 1378 “ne me moneatis” (see below, VIII. 9).The Future Imperative is usually reserved for its proper sense, the expression of commands relating to future time, e.g. Pseud. 859-864 “quoquo hic spectabit, eo tu spectato simul; si … gradietur … progredimino”, etc.; Rud. 813 “si appellabit quempiam, vos respondetote”; and a command in Present Imperative is often followed by a further command in Future Imperative, e.g. Asin. 740 “Leonida, curre, obsecro, patrem huc orato ut veniat”. But bene ambulato is used beside bene ambula, salveto beside salve (cf. Havet in Archiv lat. Lexikographie, 9, 287), etc. And the Present Imperative is occasionally found where the Future Imperative would be normal, e.g. Ter. Andr. 848 “ubi voles, accerse.”
Infinitive.
(Walder: der Infinitiv bei Plautus. Berlin, 1874; and, especially for Terence, P. Barth: de Infinitivi apud scaenicos poetas Latinos usu. Berlin, 1882.)The Infinitive has its original function of a Verbal Noun in lines like these, where it is Object of a Finite Verb:
- Curc. 28 “ita tuum conferto amare (so arrange your loving) semper, si sapis”;
- Bacch. 158 “hic vereri perdidit” ‘he has lost all sense of shame’;
- Poen. 313 “A. at ego amo hanc. B. at ego esse et bibere” ‘eating and drinking’;
- Capt. 88 “nisi qui colaphos perpeti potis parasitus frangique aulas in caput” ‘having dishes broken across his head.’
- Mil. 354 “A. praecepta facito ut memineris. B. totiens monere mirumst”,
- Most. 705 “ire dormitum odiost”,
- Capt. 750 “vis haec quidem hercle est, et trahi et trudi simul”.
- Epid. 197 “per omnem urbem quem sum defessus quaerere”,
- Ter. Phorm. 589 “neque defetiscar umquam adeo experirier” (contrast, e.g., Amph. 1014 “sum defessus quaeritando”),
- Trin. 76 “ut te videre audireque aegroti sient”,
- Poen. 1212 “facere occasio est” (contrast, e.g., Epid. 271 “nunc occasiost faciundi”),
- Pseud. 1141 “operam fac compendi quaerere”,
- Men. 233 “nam quid modi futurum est illum quaerere?” (‘our seeking him’),
- Rud. 223 “omnia iam circumcursavi atque omnibus latebris perreptavi quaerere conservam” (‘seeking’),
- Ter. Phorm. 885 “summa eludendi occasiost mihi nunc senes et Phaedriae curam adimere argentariam.”
The Subject of the Infinitive itself is put in the Accusative9, even when it is also the Subject of the Finite Verb, in classical Latin with dico, etc., in Plautine Latin also with volo, etc., e.g.
- Pseud. 167 “magnufice volo me viros summos accipere, ut mihi rem esse reantur”,
- Pseud. 853 “an tu coquinatum te ire quoquam postulas”
- (contrast 851 “an tu invenire postulas quemquam coquum?”, and see Abraham Studia Plautina p. 189);
- Merc. 410 “uxori meae mihique obiectent lenocinium facere”,
- Epid. 238 “dissimulabam earum operam sermoni dare”,
- Men. 461 “quoi tam credo datum voluisse (sc. eum), quam me video vivere”.
On promitto dare, lit. ‘I promise giving,’ ‘I promise the gift,’ see 12 above.
(For a list of the Verbs with which we find Accusative and Infinitive in Plautus and Terence, see J. Reinkens: über den Accusative c. Infinitive bei Plautus und Terentius, Düsseldorf (Schulprogr.), 1886.)
Of the Verbs with which Plautus uses the Infinitive may be mentioned:
- obtineo, e.g. Mil. 186 “earumque artem et disciplinam obtineat colere”;
- abstineo, e.g. Curc. 180 “dum mi abstineant invidere”;
- teneo, e.g. Merc. 52 “omnes (Nominative) tenerent mutuitanti credere”;
- occupo, e.g. Most. 566 “sed occupabo adire”, Titinius 145 “ergo occupa foras exire”;
- intendo, e.g. Mil. 380 “pergin, sceleste, intendere hanc arguere?”;
- maturo, e.g. Mil. 1093 “iube maturare illam exire huc”;
- quiesco, Most. 1173 “A. Tranio, quiesce, <si> sapis. B. tu quiesce hanc rem modo petere”;
- exsequor, e.g. Merc. 913 “ut, si haec non sint vera, inceptum hoc itiner perficere exsequar”;
- perpetro, e.g. Truc. 465 “male quod mulier facere incepit, nisi <id> efficere perpetrat”;
- omitto, e.g. Pers. 431;
- parco, comperco, e.g. Bacch. 910 “cave parsis in eum dicere”, Poen. 350;
- compesco, e.g. Bacch. 463 “compesce in illum dicere iniuste”;
- tempero, e.g. Poen. 22 “vel dormire temperent”, Ennius trag. 45 “temperaret tollere”;
- neglego, e.g. Amph. 586 “erus quod imperavit neglexisti persequi”;
- praetereo, Merc. 402 “quod praeterii dicere”;
- ploro, e.g. Aul. 308 “aquam hercle plorat, quom lavat, profundere”;
- duro, e.g. Truc. 326 “non quis parumper durare opperirier?”;
- offirmo, e.g. Pers. 222 “offirmastin occultare quo te immittas, pessume?”
Of the Verbal Phrases:
- nil moror, nihili facio, etc., e.g. Pers. 224 “nihili facio scire”;
- immemor esse, e.g. Pseud. 1104 “nihilist autem suom qui officium facere immemor est, nisi est admonitus”;
- occupatus esse, e.g. Merc. 288 “non sum occupatus umquam amico operam dare”;
- neglegens esse, e.g. Most. 141 “postilla obtegere eam neglegens fui”;
- animum inducere, e.g. Bacch. 1191 “facere inducam animum”;
- ferox (‘proud’) esse, e.g. Asin. 468 “ferox est viginti minas meas tractare sese”;
- maestus esse, e.g. Most. 796 “sed ut maestust sese hasce vendidisse” (cf. Rud. 397 “id misera maesta est, sibi eorum evenisse inopiam”);
- aegritudo est, e.g. Capt. 783 “tanto mi aegritudo auctior est in animo, ad illum modum sublitum os esse mi hodie” (or Infinitive of Exclamation);
- opus est, e.g. Pers. 584 “A. opusne est hac tibi empta? B. si tibi venissest opus, mihi quoque emptast”;
- occasio est, e.g. Pers. 726 “nunc est illa occasio inimicum ulcisci”;
- operam perdere, sumere, e.g. Aul. 341 “ne operam perdas poscere”, Men. 244 “operam praeterea numquam sumam quaerere”.
The Old Latin Infinitive bibere in the phrase dare bibere (biber), e.g.
- Pers. 821 “bibere da usque plenis cantharis”,
- Titinius 78 “date illi biber”,
- Lucilius 222 Ma. “da bibere ab summo” (but Cist. 18 “raro nimium dabat quod biberem”, Stich. 757 “date bibat tibicini”),
- Asin. 910 “ecquis currit pollinctorem arcessere?”,
- Pseud. 642 “reddere hoc non perdere erus me misit”,
- Bacch. 631 “militis parasitus modo venerat aurum petere hinc”,
- Truc. 167 “nunc ad amicam venis querimoniam referre”,
- Ter. Eun. 528 “misit porro orare ut venirem serio”,
- Hec. 345 “tum filius tuus intro iit videre, ut venit, quid agat”,
- Turpilius 154 “progredior foras visere quid hic tumulti ante fores.”
From phrases like
- Bacch. 237 “nam meus formidat animus nostrum tam diu ibi desidere neque redire filium”,
- Capt. 600 “crucior lapidem non habere me, ut illi mastigiae cerebrum excutiam”,
- Asin. 407 “quid hoc sit negoti, neminem meum dictum magni facere?”,
- Asin. 127 “sicine hoc fit, foras aedibus me eici?”,
- Pers. 42 “sicine hoc te mihi facere?”,
- Amph. 882 “durare nequeo in aedibus: ita me probri, stupri, dedecoris a viro argutam meo!”,
- Asin. 580 “edepol senem Demaenetum lepidum fuisse nobis!”,
- Ter. Andr. 870 “tantum laborem capere ob talem filium!”,
- Eun. 755 “militem secum ad te quantas copias adducere!”
- Bacch. 152 “magistron quemquam discipulum minitarier?”,
- Pseud. 202 “huncine hic hominem pati colere iuventutem Atticam?”,
- Ter.
“ita me di amabunt, ut nunc Menedemi vicem
miseret me: tantum devenisse ad eum mali.
illancin mulierem alere cum illa familia?”
The same function may be taken by a Subjunctive clause, e.g.
- Bacch. 375 “egone ut haec conclusa gestem clanculum?”,
- Curc. 193 “quod quidem mihi polluctus virgis servus sermonem serat!”
The Historical Infinitive is also a feature of Plautine (and still more of Terentian) Latin. It is found in narrative passages written in the style of Tragedy, e.g.
- Amph. 229 “imperator utrimque, hinc et illinc Iovi vota suscipere, <utrimque> hortari exercitum”,
- Trin. 835 “imbres fluctusque atque procellae infensae frangere malum, ruere antemnas, scindere vela”,
- Amph. 1110 sqq.;
On the use of the Present Infinitive for the Future Infinitive in phrases like Curc. 597 “nego me dicere” ‘I refuse to tell,’ see above, 12 and on the Perfect Infinitive in sentences like Poen. 872 “nolito edepol devellisse”, above, 19
On the association of Active and Passive Infinitive, e.g. Most. 959 “esse et bibi”, see the opening paragraph of this chapter.
Of the three Periphrastic formations of the Future mentioned above (15), (1) >-urus sum, (2) volo with Infinitive, (3) eo with 1 Supine, the first was utilized for the Future Infinitive Active,10 the third, e.g. Bacch. 1171 “ut istuc delictum desistas tantopere ire oppugnatum”, for the Future Infinitive Passive (On fore ut, see below.)
Mil. 1186 sq. may serve as example of the first: “arcessito, ut, si itura sit Athenas, eat tecum … Nisi eat, te soluturum esse navim.” The Infinitive of the Substantive Verb (cf. above 8) is often omitted with the Future Participle Active as it is with the Perfect Participle Passive or with the Gerundive, e.g. Pseud. 566 “neque sim facturus quod facturum dixeram.”
But the earliest form of the Future Infinitive Active, which still survives in some lines of Plautus and has probably been removed by scribes from more, shows merely -urum (indeclinable) without esse, e.g. Cas. 693 “altero te occisurum ait” ‘Casina says she will kill you with one of the two swords.’ This points to an Impersonal Future Infinitive Active, just as we have an Impersonal Future Infinitive Passive, and just as the Gerund (e.g. agitandum est vigilias) was superseded by the Gerundive (e.g. agitandae sunt vigiliae).
The Future Infinitive Passive does not often occur in Plautus. In classical Latin it is Impersonal, e.g. credo hostes victum iri, the Infinitive of itur11 victum hostes. But we find in Rud. 1241 a Personal construction: “mihi istaec videtur praeda praedatum irier”. In Truc. 886 the corrupt reading of the MSS. seems to preserve a trace of the common Latin practice of writing this Tense as a Compound word: “spes etiamst hodie tactuiri militem.”
From the colloquial use of est ut, erit ut, etc, e.g.
- Ter. Hec. 501 “si est ut velit redducere uxorem” ‘if it is the case that he wishes,’ ‘if he wishes,’
- 558 “si est ut dicat velle se, redde; sin est autem ut nolit, recte ego consului meae” (cf. Adelph. 514 “si est facturus ut sit officium suom, faciat”),
Supine.
The Verbal Noun in -tus (4th Declension) is greatly in evidence in Plautus. We find the Accusative with eo, etc., e.g. the Ablative with redeo, e.g. Cas. 719 (Men. 278, 288) “obsonatu redire” to return from marketing; the Dative with habeo, e.g. Cist. 365 “me … habes perditui et praedatui”, and with sum (see II. 19), also with some Adjectives, e.g. “fabula lepida auditui”; with others the Ablative (Locative?), e.g. celer cursu quick in running. Two of these usages took so firm root in the language that they became part of the Verbal system, the Accusative with eo, etc. (called the ‘First Supine’) and the Ablative (Locative?) with an Adjective (called the ‘Second Supine’).Whether the terms ‘First and Second Supine’ are applicable to Plautine Latin may be doubted. It would be a truer analysis to distinguish from the real First Supine, two types of the phrase -tum ire. Type (1) is Passive or Intransitive, corresponding to a Transitive -tum dare. Thus nuptum ire (e.g. Cas. 86) bears to nuptum dare the same relation as venum ire (venire) to venum dare (vendere), (cf. “venum ducere” frag. 89, “venum asportare,” Merc. 353), or as pessum ire to pessum dare. (See Biese: de obiecto interno apud Plautum et Terentium, Kiel (diss.) 1878, p. 42.) Type (2) is a Periphrastic Future with the same sense as volo with Infinitive, or our ‘I will do,’ e.g.
- Aul. 736 “quamobrem ita faceres meque meosque perditum ires liberos”,
- Cist. 4 “quî magis potueris mi honorem ire habitum?”
- Bacch. 565 “occiperes tute <eam> amare et mi ires consultum male”,
- Ter. Andr. 134 “cur te is perditum?”
- Curc. 644 “ea me spectatum tulerat”,
- Pseud. 520 “servitum tibi me abducito”,
- Cist. 90 “mater pompam me spectatum duxit”,
- Bacch. 442 “cum patrem adeas postulatum”,
- Poen. 21 “neu sessum ducat”,
- Men. 835 “quo me in silvam venatum vocas?” (cf. the legal formula in Cic. Mur. 26 “te ex iure manum consertum voco”),
- Asin. 661 “quin tradis huc cruminam pressatum umerum?”
Gerund and Gerundive.
(S. Platner: Notes on the use of Gerund and Gerundive in Plautus and Terence, in the American Journal of Philology, vol. xiv, pp. 483 sqq.)The use of the Gerundive of a Neuter Verb is a curious phenomenon:
- Epid. 74 “puppis pereundast probe”,
- Trin. 1159 “si illa tibi placet, placenda dos quoque est quam dat tibi”.
- Capt. 1008 “lucis das tuendi copiam”,
- Capt. 852 “nominandi istorum tibi erit magis quam edundi copia”,
- Truc. 370 “quia tui (Feminine) videndi copia est”,
- Ter. Heaut. prol. 29 “date crescendi copiam (sc. iis), novarum qui spectandi faciunt copiam”,
- Hec. 372 “eius (Feminine) videndi cupidus”.
Participle.
(Tammelin: de participiis priscae Latinitatis. Helsingfors, 1889.)The proneness of the Italic family of languages to periphrastic Tense-formation with Auxiliary Verbs is reflected in Plautus' predilection for sum with Present Participle Active, e.g.
- sciens esse Poen. 1038, Ter. Andr. 508, etc.,
- dicto audiens esse, (dicto) oboediens esse, obsequens esse (fieri);
- Most. 141 “postilla obtegere eam neglegens fui (= neglexi)”,
- Curc. 292 “quos semper videas bibentes esse in thermipolio”,
- Capt. 925 “te carens dum hic fui.”
- Asin. 48 “propterea quod me non scientem feceris” (cf. Ter. Heaut. 872),
- Amph. 1030 “quem … faciam ferventem flagris” (cf. fervefacio),
- Pseud. 1041 “qui te nunc flentem facit.”
The use of the Verbal Adjective in -tus as a Perfect Participle Passive and Deponent and the formation of a Perfect Passive Tense, out of this Adjective with the Auxiliary Verb sum (or fui) are also more or less peculiar to the Italic languages. In Greek ἀγαπητός ἐστι never came to mean more than φίλος ἐστὶ (cf. however γεγραμμένον ἐστὶ beside γέγραπται). Some traces of the older elasticity of this Participle are to be seen in Plautine Latin. Thus operatus has no Past signification, but is like feriatus in Mil. 7 “quia se iam pridem feriatam gestitem”, or ingeniatus in Mil. 731 “qui lepide ingeniatus esset” (cf. tacitus, maestus, iratus13). Again it takes occasionally Active (or Neuter) signification and plays the part of a Past Participle Active, e.g. iuratus (cf. Turpilius 33 “A. iurasti? B. non sum iurata”; cf. Curc. 458), pransus, potus, etc., Men. 437 “ante solem occasum”, Pseud. 996 “novi, notis (= eis qui noverunt) praedicas”. A Present Participle Active seems to play this part in Poen. 653 “adiit ad nos extemplo exiens” ‘immediately after disembarking.’ Noteworthy also is the use of the Neuter pensum as a Noun in Truc. 765 (where the despairing lover declares his indifference to dress) “nec mi adeost tantillum pensi iam quos capiam calceos”. Also the curious phrase in Men. 452 “quî homines occupatos occupat (= reddit).”
The independent use of the Future Partic., e.g. moriturus te saluto, is unknown to the early Latin writers. The first certain example appears in a fragment of a speech of C. Gracchus (ap. Gell. 11, 10, 4) “qui prodeunt dissuasuri” (see Sjögren, Futurum im altlateinischen, pp. 225 sqq.).
The Verbal Adjective in -bundus is a feature of Old Latin, e.g. Pseud. 1275 “sic haec incessi ludibundus”. As examples of Participles with the function of Nouns may be cited benevolens ‘a well wisher,’ natus nemo ‘not a soul,’ e.g. Most. 402; with the function of Adjectives, insciens, indigens (never ‘inscius,’ ‘indigus’ in Plautus and Terence).