the patients, not their bodies, are the subjects of the verbs. In 1267 he mentions still living patients, with different nouns and verbs to express the thought. 6, 1271 sordeque sepulta; sordique Lambinus. Sorde is like tabe 1, 806 and contage 3, 734. Transmitted September 16, 1910. In June, 1909, I submitted to the Faculty of the University of California a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, entitled "The Separation of the Attributive Adjective from its Substantive in Plautus." The present essay is an abstract of this dissertation, as somewhat revised and shortened after further study and reflection. I desire to express here my great gratitude to Professor H. W. Prescott for assisting me in selecting the subject of the dissertation, and giving his helpful advice and criticism in the early stages of the paper. Thanks are also due to Professors Merrill and Richardson for their kindly interest, and especially to Professor H. C. Nutting for his close criticism of the paper and his helpful suggestions. OAKLAND, CALIF., March, 1911. cr. W. L. KEEP. INTRODUCTION Normally in Plautus and, in fact, in all the other early Latin poets, the attributive adjective either immediately precedes or immediately follows its substantive. A few concrete examples, taken at random, will illustrate the truth of this statement. The phrase res divina occurs twenty-four times in Plautus, and the two words are separated only once (E. 415); supremus Iuppiter, out of its ten occurrences, gives only one case of separation (Ps. 628); erilis filius (or filia) only two cases out of eighteen occurrences (B. 351 and Ci. 749). Such statistics might be quoted indefinitely.2 3 The present paper is a study of the comparatively infrequent instances in our author, in which, within the verse, the attributive adjective is separated from its substantive. I have endeavored to point out, where possible, what are the probable factors that bring about such separations, but to a great extent the treatment can be only descriptive, as too often we are not in a position to assume the author's point of view, and to penetrate his motives for adopting a given word-order. Before we proceed to consider the instances of separation in detail, a few observations of a general nature upon the subject may be helpful. Whenever an attributive adjective precedes, and is separated from its substantive by one or more words, as in Magnásque adportavísse divitiás domum, (S. 412) Pulmóneum edepol nímis velim vomitúm vomas. (R. 511). 1 In order to get as much light as possible on Plautine usage by way of comparison, I read practically all the early Latin poetry written before 100 B.C., also the early inscriptions, and noted all the instances in these authors in which an adjective is separated from its substantive. As far as the collocation of the adjective and substantive is concerned, the usage of all these authors seems strikingly similar to that of Plautus. 2 The reader is referred to two most useful books: Rassow, De Plauti substantivis, Leipzig, 1881,JHB. Supplbd. 12 (1881, 639-732; and Helwig, Adjectives in Plautus (St. Petersburg, 1893) (in Russian, but containing in roman type an alphabetical list of the adjectives used by our author). By means of the alphabetical lists contained in these two works, all the occurrences in Plautus of any adjective or noun can readily be located. 3 Of course I have omitted all instances of separation by the verse, as such have already been treated by Prescott, "Some Phases of the Relation of Thought to Verse in Plautus," Univ. Calif. Publ. Class. Phil., vol. 1, no. 7, 1907. This work was of great assistance to me in the preparation of the present paper. there is always the possibility to be reckoned with that such an adjective acquires emphasis by occupying this position; on the other hand, when the adjective is separated from, and follows its substantive, it may be more or less amplifying, as in Nam ós columnatúm poetae esse índaudivi bárbaro, (Ml. 211) However, we must always be on our guard against reading too much meaning into the fact that an adjective is separated from its noun, as sometimes it is mere caprice on the poet's part whether it is separated or not, and if separated, whether it precedes or follows, as is clearly attested by the four passages below: Nímia memoras míra. sed vidístin uxorém meam? (Am. 616) Nímia mira mémoras: si istaec véra sunt, divinitus (Am. 1105) Quod ómnis homines fácere oportet, dúm id modo fiát bono. Quín amet et scórtum ducat, quód bono fiát modo. (Mr. 1022) Metrical considerations can have nothing to do with the question here, as in many cases of separation, since the meter is the same in Am. 616 and 1105, and bono and modo are metrically interchangeable. (Am. 996) In this paper I have confined my discussion to ordinary attributive adjectives, leaving out of account pronominal adjectives and cardinal numerals. I have also excluded the lyrical portions of the plays. Trivial separations, common to prose, such as those by the enclitics -que, -ve, -ne, and a preposition, are disregarded. The text employed is that of Goetz and Schoell. I. CONSCIOUS ART-SEPARATIONS. Certain separations of the adjective from its substantive are undoubtedly due to conscious art on the poet's part. Naturally the first of these conscious art-separations to be mentioned are those in which the adjective and its substantive occupy the opposite extremities of the same verse,, as in the following: Minóre nusquam béne fui dispéndio. (Mn. 485) 4 Prescott, loc. cit., 218. This phase of the subject has been treated by Nilsson, de collocatione pron. adi. apud Plautum et Terentium, Lunds Universitets Aarsskrift, 37, 1901. 6 Cf. Norden, Aeneis Buch vi, 382 sq., for a full and interesting discussion of this collocation in Virgil and several other authors. Cf. Am. 481, As. 311, 599, Al. 49, B. 585, Cp. 64, Ca. 13, Ci. 587, A slightly different type, in which another attributive adjective, also in agreement with the substantive, occurs in the interior of the verse, is represented by Magno átque solido múltat infortúnio: (Mr. 21) Cf. Am. 6, Mn. 520, Pe. 573, 683, R. 597, E. 18, Tr. 331. Two examples of the reverse type appear below; the first has alliteration as an attendant feature: Mercátor venit húc ad ludos Lémnius (Ci. 157) (Am. 875) For other instances of this collocation with alliteration cf. Mn. 1, Po. 1125, S. 258; without alliteration, B. 198, 229, 256, Cu. 227, Mn. 240, Ps. 72, 694, 1167, R. 42, 843. The tendency of long adjectives and nouns, metrically suitable, to stand at the verse-end10 is doubtless a factor to be reckoned with in a number of the instances of separation so far discussed. (Cf. below, p. 156.) It is a well-known fact that many Greek and Latin poets are fond of placing an attributive adjective immediately before the principal caesura or diaeresis, and its substantive at the end of the verse, or vice versa.11 While Plautus does not adopt this balanced arrangement so frequently as some of the later Latin poets, still he has quite a number of instances like the following: Quod cúm peregrini cúbui uxore mílitis. (B. 1009) Ét tibi sunt gemini ét trigemini, sí te bene habes, fílii. (Ml. 717) Cf. Am. 471, 863, B. 420, Cp. 105, 185,12 Ci. 749, Cu. 200, 709, 7 In Al. 49 the adnominal word-play grandibo gradum, is a factor in the situation to be noted. Cf. also R. 597. 8 With S. 526 cf. Terence, Heaut. 539: Magnárum saepe id rémedium aegritudinumst. 9 The anaphora in Pe. 571-573 should be noted. 10 Cf. Prescott, 206 sqq.; also 235 sqq., for remarks on adjectives of cretic measurement. 11 Boldt, de liberiore linguae graecae et latinae collocatione verborum capita selecta (Göttingen, 1884), 79: "Tali verborum collocatione plerumque id, quod sub finem positum est, maiorem consequitur accentum, saepe autem utrumque vocabulum seiunctione emphasin quandam exercet. 12 The interlocked word-order in Cp. 185 is probably intentional. 1 |