Word Order of Demonstrative Pronouns in Terence’s Comedies
Kris Wayenberg Universiteit Gent, master taal- en letterkunde, twee talen: Latijn en Engels Masterproef academiejaar 2010-2011 Promotor: Wolfgang de Melo Table of contents:
1. General introduction...... p. 3
2. Introduction to Roman comedy...... p. 4 2.1. Greek origins...... p. 4 2.2. Language...... p. 5 2.3. Metrical features...... p. 6
3. Introduction on Terence...... p. 6 3.1. Terence’s life...... p. 6 3.2. Terence’s comedies...... p. 7 3.2.1. Andria ...... p. 8 3.2.2. Hecyra ...... p. 9 3.2.3. Heauton Timorumenos ...... p. 10 3.2.4. Eunuchus ...... p. 10 3.2.5. Phormio ...... p. 11 3.2.6. Adelphoe ...... p. 12 3.3. Terence’s language...... p. 12
4. Word order of demonstrative pronouns in nominal phrases...... p. 13 4.1. Existing theories...... p. 13 4.2. Earlier research into the position of demonstrative pronouns...... p. 16
5. Research in Terence’s comedies...... p. 17 5.1. Methodology...... p. 17 5.2. Results...... p. 18 5.3. Examples and explanations of less common positions...... p. 19 5.3.1. Position 1...... p. 21 5.3.2. Position 3...... p. 26 5.3.3. Position 4...... p. 29 5.4. Comparative research: prepositional phrases...... p. 33 5.5. Evaluation of existing theories...... p. 35
6. Conclusion...... p. 36
Works cited...... p. 38
2
1. General introduction
Fairly little investigation into the word order of demonstratives in Latin has yet been conducted. The vast majority of these investigations were based on Latin prose corpora and seem to have forgotten about Latin verse. Even though the word order which is considered to be regular is most likely to be found in prose, one can only consider a certain positioning of constituents to be a universal principle if it is truly universal, that is, if it is found both in prose and in verse. Many scholars appear to have forgotten that poetry is a very important galaxy in the universe of the Latin language. Terence’s plays are very interesting in this respect: naturally, they are written in verse, but they are nonetheless comparable to prose, since the iambic and trochaic metres allow much more variation than, for instance, hexameters. They provide an insight into a more colloquial (or rather: less elevated) register of the Latin language just before the classical period. In my paper, I shall try to make my own contribution to the linguistic investigation of the positioning of adjectivally used demonstratives based on a corpus of poetry: all of Terence’s comedies, making up a total of 6074 verses.
By expanding the corpus from one to all comedies of Terence, I should be able to solve the problems encountered in my bachelor paper, and to come to more general conclusions. A first goal of this more thorough investigation will be the verification of the conclusions that were drawn on the basis of my research in Eunuchus alone: was the distribution across the various positions representative for that of Terence’s oeuvre in general, and are the factors that were discovered (Focus, Head Focus and preposing of the verb) still able to account for the displacement of demonstratives? The second target of the expansion of the corpus is to be able to have a more detailed picture conclusions concerning the paradigms iste and ille (which did not occur very often). For instance, do iste and ille behave similarly to hic , or is there a greater tendency to prenominal placement? A third is to draw more firm conclusions about the fourth position demonstratives (those in hyperbaton after the Head) across paradigms. Do the factors that could account for the displacement in other positions also explain the displacement to position 4? Should the third position be considered to be a minor one, or is it more frequent in the five other comedies? Is there a relation between the positioning of demonstratives and the cataphoric use? And is Terence just as fond of preposing the verb in the other, non-Plautine comedies. I shall try to provide an answer for these questions in section 5. In addition to the research concerning demonstratives, I shall compare the results to a limited selection of adjectivally used modifiers. To conclude this introduction, I shall give an outline of the structure of this dissertation.
In order to provide a full understanding of the context of the plays, this thesis shall begin with an overview of some important facts about Roman comedy, Terence himself, his language and all of his plays. Next is the linguistic part of this paper, in which I will first give a summary of the different existing theories and an overview of some investigations concerning the adjectival use of demonstratives. Then I shall give a detailed account of the methodology I have followed, before presenting the results of my own investigation. Subsequently, I will discuss these results and provide an explanation for the positions which are less common, making use of examples from the text. After this, a brief discussion of the validity of the existing theories in relation to my investigation will follow. I shall end with a conclusion summarizing the main findings. After this brief introduction to my paper, I shall now give an introduction to Roman comedy.
3
2. Introduction to Roman comedy
2.1. Greek origins
The Roman comedies that survived until today are basically reworked Greek originals. They are fabulae palliatae 1, which means the outlines of the Greek models are more or less retained. All of Terence’s comedies are based on New Comedy 2 originals, four are based on Menander’s works, the two others on Apollodorus’. However, this does not imply that the Roman comedies were simply translations of their Greek originals: ‘[playwrights wrote] for a different kind of audience at a different kind of festival in a different kind of theatre.’ 3 Stage conventions are identical to those of the Greek comedies, with the exception of the number of speaking characters on stage. In Greek comedies, the number was limited to only three, while Roman comedy allowed more actors on stage. Even though the other conventions are nearly identical, Terence sometimes makes an original, ironic 4 use of them (Duckworth 1952: 137-8). The stock characters are basically those which can be found in the Greek comedies, but their depiction is often more refined and less monolithical. Duckworth notes that Terence developed the New Comedy (which, apparently, resembled social drama) into a more subtle and artful direction (1952: 394).
The exact extent of what has been preserved from the Greek comedies, and what is to be seen as invented is difficult to establish, since the originals survive only in fragments (as is the case for earlier Roman comedy, with the exception of Plautus; the influence of non-Plautine Roman comedy is even less clear). Terence has often been considered to be a lesser poet than his predecessor Plautus. He is criticized for lacking ‘the truthfulness and humanity of Menander (...) [and] the variety and gay humour of Plautus (...); the plots are monotonous and the characters are alike.’ 5 He is also considered to ‘translate closely and his plays lack the vigour and forcefulness of the Greek originals.’ 6 As Duckworth (1952: 385) explains, this view is an expanded version of the traditional (and probably faulty) interpretation of an epigram which is attributed to Caesar. I believe the ‘close translation view’ contradicts the loss of the positive aspects attributed to Menander, and it implies that the Greek originals would have been monotonous (which is denied). These scholars appear to be working in the outdated frame in which Latin works are automatically considered to be worthless copies of Greek originals. In this case, this view is
1 As opposed to the fabulae togatae , which dealt with life in the city of Rome, and, hence, of people wearing a Roman toga, instead of a Greek pallium . 2 Traditionally limited to the period between 336 and 250 B. C. 3 Barsby 2001 (22): 13. 4 This irony has a surprisingly modern feel to it. For instance, when Chremes ( Phormio v. 818) notes that the street (and, hence, the stage) is not a safe place to discuss private matters, Terence makes an ironic remark about the unnaturalness of the setting of personal dialogues. 5 Duckworth (1952: 385), paraphrasing Post and Flickinger. 6 Duckworth (1952: 385).
4 based on a comparison with mere fragments of Menander’s oeuvre 7 or even reconstructions of the Greek originals based on Latin plays. Duckworth (1952: 386) continues by listing the views of scholars who stress the originality of Terence: Norwood highlights Terence’s technical development as a writer (better characterisation and more refined use of the double plot), and Frank notes that Terence introduced suspense into ancient drama (by means of losing the summarising prologue). The contamination technique is also an innovative procedure of constructing plays, despite the negative visions of it, from Antiquity onwards (Duckworth 1952: 387).
2.2. Language
In this section, I shall give an overview of the features of Roman comedy which can be observed in Terence’s oeuvre. The language of Roman comedies is colloquial in nature, yet Terence’s style is more refined and elegant than what is seen as the typical language of Roman comedy, which is often just narrowed down to the language of Plautus. Terentian comedies are often criticised for lacking differentiation in the language of the different characters, which Maltby has refuted. 8 The colloquial nature of the language means that there are many greetings ( salve , but also quid agis , etc.), interjections ( vae , heus , etc.), exclamatory oaths (mainly ( ede )pol for both genders, (me )hercle for men, and (m)ecastor for women ), and terms of abuse ( furcifer , sacrilege , etc.). Other features Duckworth (1952: 334-5) lists are parataxis 9 (especially with verbs like scio , faxo , and credo (only when used as a hedging device)), pleonasm, ellipsis (typical for Terence, to enhance speed and naturalness of the dialogues), the use of Greek words (albeit rather limited compared to Plautus), exaggeration for comic effect, but also an abundance of specifically colloquial terms related to the themes of the plays (love and deception). Hough notes that Terence’s language is ‘the ordinary speech of the cultured’, rather than the language of the streets of Rome. 10 This might be one of the reasons why there were so many quotes drawn from his plays (the most famous of which is probably hinc illae lacrumae , which both Cicero and Horace used); Duckworth notes that many of them are translations from the Greek, and praises Terence for his timeless maxims (1952: 338-9).
Since comedy was a form of poetry, the stylistic features of the language are a further important aspect. The main figures are asyndeton, anaphora, triadic structure, alliteration, homoioteleuton , figura etymologica (especially comprising noun and verb), and repetition (double or triple) (Duckworth 1952: 340-4). Horace commended Terence for his ars , and, as Duckworth notes, this does not simply mean that he used the figures listed above (1952: 344). It is rather the praise of a general artistry and skilfulness: as opposed to Plautus, Terence’s language does not show an abundance of the figures throughout, but rather a moderate and fitting use of them (1952: 344).
7 There is only one comedy which we know fully ( Dyskolos ), but none of Terence’s plays were based on it. Nonetheless, it is the most important source for comparing both authors in more general terms. 8 Cf. section 3.3. on Terence’s language. 9 Naturally, parataxis also occurs in more elevated registers, but it is much more common in a colloquial context. 10 Quoted in Duckworth (1952: 336).
5
2.3. Metrical features
The most common meters used in the comedies were the iambic senarii and the trochaic septenarii. The senarii (or iambic trimeter) were similar to those in which Greek plays were written (apart from the lyrical sections sung by the chorus), but they allowed a ‘flexibility and freedom unknown to later Latin verse’ 11 . This flexibility is due to the substitutions which were allowed in the first five feet of the line. There was also a far greater flexibility in the choice of meter, and some words could even be scanned differently to fit the meter 12 . Examples relevant for my investigation are illius and huius , which could be treated as either di- or trisyllabic words. Even though the variation is much less frequent than in Plautus’ works, Terence also uses different meters, which can be separated in diverbia and cantica . The former are passages consisting of spoken words, the latter are recitative passages accompanied by the flute. This distinction basically separates the senarii from all other meters. A combination of meters in the same passage was called mutatis modis cantica by Donatus. The senarius was considered to be closest to the natural speech. The most common of the canticum -meters is the trochaic septenarius, but this can be considered as a senarius with an extra creticus added at the beginning of a verse. Hence, all iambic and trochaic lines (which make up 99.5 % of Terence’s oeuvre) are close to regular speech, and the meter should have a very limited influence on the position of the demonstratives.
3. Introduction to Terence
3.1. Terence’s life
Publius Terentius Afer is one of the most influential playwrights in the history of Latin literature. As is the case with many classical authors, very little is certain about Terence’s life. What we know originates from Suetonius’s Life of Terence (second century A.D.), which was preserved by the grammarian and commentator Donatus (fourth century A.D.). From his native Carthage, Terence was supposed to have been brought to Rome as a slave. His master, the senator Terentius Lucanus, provided him with an education, but he also gave him his freedom. Among his friends were members of the high nobility, such as Laelius and Scipio. Terence wrote six comedies, which were performed between 166 B.C. and 160 B.C. Then, aided by his friends, Terence departed for Greece to acquire other Menandrian comedies. When he returned in 160 B.C., however, he died at the age of twenty-four.
Certain elements of this story have given rise to doubts: according to this account, Terence would have been born in 184 B.C., which is exactly the year of the death of Plautus, who was Terence’s predecessor in the genre. This is probably too much of a coincidence and would mean
11 Duckworth 1952: 361. 12 This is a reflection of a natural variation in everyday speech, in which both pronunciations occurred. The selection depended on which form would fit the meter.
6 that Terence was only eighteen at the production of his first play. Suetonius mentions another source that says Terence was ‘not yet thirty-five’ when he died. Duckworth (1952: 57) thinks this hypothesis is likely, but lacks evidence, and would pose a problem for the possible friendship with Scipio and his group (who then would have been ten years younger). Even though two of Terence’s plays were performed at the funeral games of Scipio’s father, and though they correspond to the Scipionic literary taste for Greek culture, some doubt about the friendship remains. Barsby (1999: 2) argues that his association with the Scipionic circle could be a misinterpretation of the prologue of Adelphoe . As Duckworth (1952: 58) notes: ‘there are too many uncertainties and contradictions in the tradition to assert it as an incontrovertible fact.’
3.2. Terence’s comedies
As mentioned before, Terence has written six comedies. There is no consensus on the relative (and hence absolute) dating of some of his works. However, the production notices of Adelphoe and the second performance of Hecyra mention that these were performed at the funeral games in honour of Aemilius Paullus, which are to be dated in 160 B.C. Duckworth (1952: 60) proposes the following order of first performance 13 : Andria , Hecyra , Heauton Timorumenos , Eunuchus , Phormio and finally Adelphoe . Lucius Ambivius Turpio was the producer for all of them, and he also appeared on stage to recite the prologues of Heauton Timorumenos and Hecyra . The latter was performed three times, because promises of other spectacles rendered the first two performances unsuccessful. As the titles suggest, Terence’s plays were all based on Greek originals. Naturally, this is no coincidence: when the Third Macedonian War had ended (168 B.C.), the Roman upper classes became Hellenised directly from the Greek mainland. Terence frequented these high circles and wrote for them according to their tastes. Terence was particularly fond of Menander. Compared to Plautus’s comedies, Terence’s are more serious, and hence closer to Menander’s originals. The reason for this seriousness was perhaps the association with the young intelligentsia (Barsby 1999: 15). In any case, it meant his target audience generally remained rather restricted.
Terence did not just translate the Greek plays into Latin. He made use of the technique of contaminatio : the incorporation of elements of a Greek comedy into another to make a Latin play. Eunuchus is such a play that ‘contaminated’ the basic plot of Menander’s original Eunouchos , which Terence intertwined with elements of his Colax . The soldier and his parasite were added to the original personae. Another novelty of Terence’s plays was the detachment of the prologue from the plot. He sometimes used them to defend himself against Luscius Lanuvinus, a major playwright at the time, who feared a sudden surge by Terence. Duckworth (1952: 60) argues that Lanuvinus possibly criticised Terence in his prologues.
Lanuvinus’s charges against Terence were fourfold. The first allegation was that ‘plays ought not to be contaminated’ 14 and that the Greek original should be preserved in its pure form. A second, more important claim was that Terence would have plagiarised according to the norm of that day. One type of plagiarism is similar to the modern concept: the translation of a Greek play
13 Kauer and Lindsay follow the same order of the plays in their Oxford Classical Texts edition, and, hence, comply with Duckworth’s view. 14 Duckworth 1952, 63. Translation of Andria 16.
7 without clearly referring to the source (for instance in the title). 15 Another type is quite different: if a Greek play had already been translated, this should not be repeated, otherwise this too would have been considered as furtum . Colax had already been adapted by Plautus and Naevius. Terence claimed he was unaware of that when he included elements of it in Eunuchus . According to Duckworth, Terence might have travelled to Greece in order to make adaptations of plays not yet translated by other Roman dramatists to avoid further claims of theft (Duckworth 1952: 59). The third accusation was that Terence was helped considerably by his intelligent friends and did not write his plays himself. Terence’s reply was that he was proud of their support. Fourthly, Terence’s plot development and writing style were claimed to be of poor quality, since Lanuvinus believed that Roman authors should closely adhere to their Greek origins. He replied by commenting on Lanuvinus’s plays: ‘by translating literally and writing badly, [he] produced poor Latin plays from good Greek ones.’ 16 History seems to have proved Terence right, since he is still widely read and appreciated today.
3.2.1. Andria
Traditionally, Andria is considered to be Terence’s first play, written at only 19 years of age. It was performed in 166 B.C. at the ludi Megalenses in honour of the Magna Mater in April. Several of the traditional characters of a comedy are present, as well as several of the typical features of Terence’s later comedies: father-son relationships, double plots, and contrasting elements (love affairs, fathers, sons and slaves) (Barsby 2001 (22): 42). However, the second part of the plot (concerning Charinus) is, as Barsby (2001 (22): 44) also notes, highly underdeveloped, which makes this the ‘least well balanced’ of Terence’s double plot plays. It is the first play which is ‘contaminated’ (the characters of Charinus and Byrria were added to the plot), a composition technique criticised by Luscius Lanuvinus. The original Greek plays (Woman of Andros and Woman of Perinthos ) were written by Menander. Pamphilus is considered ‘the most romantic of all lovers in Roman comedy’ (Barsby 2001 (22): 44). Characterisation in general is not stereotypical: all characters have their positive and negative aspects. They are all original in their own way, and present variations on the standard set of stock characters.
Pamphilus is in love with Glycerium, a girl of Andros, but his father, Simo, has arranged a wedding with Philumena, the daughter of their neighbour Chremes. To complicate things further, Charinus is in love with Philumena. When Chremes hears about Pamphilus’ affair, he cancels the wedding. Simo does not inform his son of this decision for two reasons. The first is that he wants to test his son’s loyalty, and the second is that he hopes that Chremes will reconsider his decision. However, this does not deceive Simo’s slave Davus: since no preparations are being made, he understands that the wedding is off. Therefore he advises Pamphilus to pretend to agree to marry Philumena. As a result, Simo persuades Chremes to agree to the wedding again. Davus tries to persuade Chremes to put off the wedding again by showing him the baby to whom Glycerium has just given birth. Then Crito, a cousin of Glycerium’s dead sister Chrysis, arrives
15 For a more detailed account, cf. Russell 1979, 11-12. 16 Duckworth 1952, 65. Translation of the original ‘ qui bene vortendo et easdem scribendo male | ex Graecis bonis Latinas fecit non bonas ’ ( Eunuchus 7-8).
8 from Andros. Simo believes that both Crito and the baby are part of a scheme of Davus, who is punished. However, when telling the story of Glycerium’s arrival on Andros, Chremes realises that she is his missing daughter. This insight means there are no further objections to the wedding of Pamphilus and Glycerium, and that nothing is in the way of Charinus to marry Philumena.
3.2.2. Hecyra
Hecyra is one of the two comedies of Terence which are based on an original by Apollodorus. It needed three attempts to finally reach an audience. The first performance, at the Ludi Megalenses in 165 B.C., was interrupted by the promise of other spectacles. The second failure took place at the ludi funebres for Lucius Aemilius Paullus, Scipio’s father. The spectators were more interested in a gladiator fight. In the third attempt, at the Ludi Romani , in honour of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus, the play finally reached an audience. Norwood considers Hecyra to be the epitome of classical high comedy 17 , but even Barsby (2001 (23): 140) criticises the sombreness of the play, which might also account for its lack of success. It is the only play which does not have a double structure. Barsby notes that it is unique in that the women receive all sympathy, and that, hence, the play might criticise patriarchal society, ‘whose conventions are preserved only by a fiction’ (2001 (23): 141-2). He further notes that Pamphilus is the only one who respects the women to some extent, but also that, on the other hand, he still raped Philumena. The slave Parmeno is ‘the most ineffective of Terence’s slaves’ (Barsby 2001 (23): 142) in that he does not scheme or assist anyone, he is constantly kept away. Bacchis is also a remarkable courtesan: just as Thais in Eunuchus , she is a courtesan who does have some moral standards left.
When Pamphilus returns from a business trip, he discovers his wife (Philumena) has left the house of her mother-in-law (Sostrata) to go and live with her own mother (Myrrina). She refuses to see Sostrata, which leads Pamphilus’ father (Laches) to believe that she is to blame. The truth is that Philumena has given birth to the baby of some unknown man who raped her before the marriage. Myrrina asks Pamphilus to keep this a secret, which he grants her, but he refuses to take Philumena back. When they find out about the baby, both of the fathers assume it to be Pamphilus’, which is why they do not understand why Pamphilus does not want to take back his wife. The son claims this is out of loyalty to his mother, whom, he states, has been treated wrongly. Sostrata wants to come to a solution and offers to go and live in the country, so that her son may be happy again. The fathers believe that Pamphilus has started another affair with Bacchis, a courtesan with whom he had had a relationship before his marriage. She comes over to explain that Pamphilus has stopped seeing her after he married Philumena, and that he has, consequently, been faithful to his wife. When this has happened, Myrrina notices that the ring Bacchis is wearing was actually Philumena’s until a rapist had stolen it from her. Bacchis tells them Paphilus had given it to her. Hence, the rapist turns out to be Pamphilus, which means the baby is his after all. All turns out well, and it is agreed that both of the fathers should not be informed.
17 Quoted in Duckworth 1952: 149.
9
3.2.3. Heauton Timorumenos
This comedy is also based on a Greek original by Menander. The premiere in 163 B.C. was, again, part of the Ludi Megalenses . The double plot structure (with opposing pairs of fathers, sons and lovers) is again present, which Terence apparently has created himself (v. 6). Barsby thinks this is unlikely, because the plot is well balanced (as opposed to that of Andria), which would imply that a play focusing only on the self-tormentor would be underdeveloped (2001 (22): 172). This comedy is the only one of Terence’s in which a virgo appears on stage, and in which the unity of time is not maintained (v. 410).
Menedemus is tormenting himself on his farm, because his son has left to join the army abroad. The father blames himself for being so harsh on Clinia when he had an affair with the poor girl Antiphila. His neighbour Chremes lectures him on how a father should behave (liberally, with mutual respect and comprehension) and tells Menedemus that his son’s reaction was exaggerated. However, his own son Clitipho has a secret affair with Bacchis, an expensive courtesan. When Clinia returns, he stays at his neighbour’s house before returning to his father. In the meantime, Clitipho is in need of money to pay for his costly love affair. Syrus, a slave of his, finds the solution via an intricate scheme: Bacchis is purported to be Clinia’s lover (to avoid any suspicion of the affair), and Antiphila is dressed up as her maid, who is pretended to have been left behind as a security for a loan. At this point, Antiphila is recognised as Chremes’ lost daughter, which would oblige Chremes to pay for the debt. This will resolve Clitipho’s shortage of money in his affair with Bacchis. That Antiphila is recognised as Chremes’ daughter also implies that Clinia is now able to marry her, but the truth about the love affairs would have to be revealed. When this happens, Chremes tirades against his son Clitipho, threatening to disinherit him, unless he takes a wife.
3.2.4. Eunuchus
Eunuchus was performed in 161 B.C., again at the ludi Megalenses . Like all of Terence’s plays, it was produced by Lucius Ambivius Turpio, an important man in the theatre world at the time. As mentioned before, it combines the basic plot lines of Menander’s Eunouchos and elements from Kolax . It was one of the plays that caused Lanuvinus to accuse him of theft ( furtum ). Financially, however, it was the most successful comedy in the history of Roman theatre: being performed twice on the same day, it earned Terence a record 8,000 sesterces. It was also the most ‘Plautine’ of Terence’s comedies. Karakasis (2005, Chapter 7) distinguishes several Plautine linguistic characteristics in Eunuchus , such as the use of Greek, a more colloquial language (including Early Latin constructions), the use of terms of abuse, and the type of imagery (in Eunuchus more often independent of Greek usage). The added soldier and parasite provide more farcical scenes which the larger audiences preferred. Barsby (1999: 18) believes that these two characters replace ‘a rather less colourful soldier-parasite pair’ of Menander’s Eunouchos . According to Duckworth (1952: 156), ‘ Eunuchus is rich in character and action.’
10
The plot is quite intricate and the successive scenes can switch between the various storylines and sub-storylines. They are all linked via Thais, an independent courtesan. Phaedria is madly in love with her. His brother Chaerea is infatuated with Pamphila, a slave girl Thais has been presented with by Thraso. The latter is the miles gloriosus who is Phaedria’s rival. When she was a girl, Pamphila was kidnapped and subsequently adopted by Thais’s mother and both girls were raised as sisters. They believe Pamphila could have been an Athenian citizen. Thais has asked Chremes, Pamphila’s brother, to verify this. In this manner, Thais could establish a relationship which would benefit her social status. To obtain Pamphila, Thais asks Phaedria to leave for a few days, which he reluctantly does. When Thais is dining at Thraso’s, Chremes joins her. Then the plot switches back to Chaerea: aided by the servant Parmeno, he dresses up as a eunuch (a gift from Phaedria) to become part of the household of Thais. He thus receives the opportunity to rape the girl, whom he still believes to be only a slave 18 . Thais returns and is furious when she discovers what happened: her plan to gain status has failed. Thraso returns to get Pamphila back, but in the meantime, her nurse has recognised her. Thraso has to retreat, but the parasite Gnatho comes up with the final solution: Chaerea should marry Pamphila and the impoverished Phaedria should allow Thraso to continue being his rival to be able to afford living with Thais.
3.2.5. Phormio
The play was first performed at the Ludi Romani in September 161 B.C. As was Hecyra , Phormio was based on a Greek comedy by Apollodorus. As Barsby (2001 (23): 4) notes, this play has a double plot, as do most of Terence’s plays, and the unity is maintained via close ties between all characters (2 fathers, who are brothers as well as neighbours and 2 cousins who are very good friends). Phormio is another linking character that is rather peculiar, since it is impossible to attribute him to a category of stock characters: ‘he is a master schemer and plotter’, with great ‘audacity’ and ‘argumentative skills (Barsby 2001 (23): 5). Barsby (2001 (23): 3) praises ‘the neatness of its construction, the delineation of the major antagonists, the comic justice of the ending and (...) the skilful way in which the conventions are exploited and varied.’ He furthermore argues that it is likely that the element of surprise in the play was created by omitting the prologue of the Greek original (ibid. 6).
When the two brothers Demipho and Chremes are abroad, their two sons Antipho and Phaedria were left in the care of Geta. His task was to keep them out of trouble, but things have worked out differently. Both of the cousins have fallen in love: Phaedria with a music girl owned by a pimp and Antipho with a poor orphan girl called Phanium. Phormio, a trickster, has enabled Antipho to marry his lover by means of the law. In court, Antipho was claimed by Phormio to be Phanium’s nearest male relative and, therefore, had to marry her. When Demipho returns and hears about the wedding, he becomes furious and wants to get rid of the girl. A lively conflict with Phormio is the result: Demipho threatens to throw out Phanium, whereupon Phormio threatens to take the father to court. Phaedria, in the meantime, has trouble finding the money which is needed to buy his lover from the pimp Dorio, who wants to sell her to a soldier. Next, Chremes returns from his trip, on which he tried to find his extramarital daughter, whom Demipho agreed to marry to Antipho. That is why he wants to annul the marriage with Phanium.
18 The rape of a slave was only a minor offence. On the other hand, the rape of a citizen was a serious crime.
11
Phormio’s inventiveness finds a solution for the problems of both cousins: he agrees to marry Phanium in return for a large dowry. When the money is handed over, he uses it to buy the music girl for Phaedria. Then Phanium is recognised as Chremes’ illegitimate daughter and the brothers realise that their plan has already been completed. They ask Phormio to return the money, which he is of course no longer able to. Another fight arises and Chremes’ secret is revealed to Nausistrata, his wife. Phormio makes use of Nausistrata’s anger to reveal her son’s misconduct. Chremes objects to it, but Nausistrata ignores this and wants to consult her son to know what to do with Chremes.
3.2.6. Adelphoe
Adelphoe , first performed at the ludi funebres in honour of Aemilius Paullus in 160 B.C., was another comedy based on a Greek original by Menander, again built round the opposition of dualities (fathers, sons, lovers) which are closely related (both the fathers and the sons are brothers). Barsby considers it to be ‘Terence’s most interesting play’, since the opposition of the two ways of parenting is much stronger than in Heauton Timorumenos (2001 (23): 245). Barsby states that the fact that the more severe father is favoured in this comedy is probably related to Terence’s affinity with the Roman paterfamilias concept. This play is also ‘contaminated’, in that it includes a scene from a play by Diphilus. This caused Terence to be accused of furtum , since Plautus had already written a Latin version of it, albeit without the scene Terence used. Syrus stands out as a rather Plautine slave and ‘an extremely smooth operator’, flattering or fooling people easily when needed (Barsby 2001 (23): 247).
The play is about two fathers who have opposite ideas about parenthood. Micio, who has adopted his brother’s older son Aeschinus, takes a more lenient view. Demea, on the other hand, raises his younger son Ctesipho in a strict way. When he hears that his older son has stolen a music girl from a pimp, he reprimands his brother for the way in which he raises his son. It turns out that Aeschinus had actually abducted the girl for his brother. He himself has no interest in the music girl, since he has already fallen in love with the daughter of a next-door widow. He has not informed his father of this, because he was ashamed of the fact that he has already made her pregnant. Micio finds out and teases his son by saying that his lover has already been taken away by a relative. In fact, he has arranged for them to get married but he is disappointed that his son has not told to him anything. In the meantime, Demea still believes Ctesipho is innocent. When he finds out the truth, Micio reprimands him, and tells him to be more lenient. Demea consequently tries to get both of his sons back on his side, in which he splendidly succeeds: he proposes to knock down the garden wall, he betroths his brother (much against his will) to the widow, and he lavishly spends his brother’s possessions on his behalf. In this way, the lenient father is punished, and the harsher father is proved right.
3.3. Terence’s language
Terence’s language and writing style had a profound influence on the formation of classical Latin. Alongside Virgil, Cicero and Sallust, Terence was one of the quadriga of Quintilian’s
12 exemplary authors in the first century A.D. Suetonius quotes both Cicero and Caesar, appreciating the refinement and purity of Terence’s language, despite the colloquial nature of Roman comedy. Instead of the Plautine ‘fireworks’, Terence’s language is more restrained and refined, probably in order to reflect the conversational language of the high society, as did Menander.19 Cicero and Caesar also agreed that Terence’s language lacked power (also quoted in Suetonius’s Life of Terence ). Nonetheless, Duckworth (1952: 359) notes that ‘Terence’s use of ellipsis makes for a more tightly knit, smoothly flowing dialogue.’ Post, however, criticises the uniformity of speech of the Terentian characters: they all seem to talk ‘the same elegant, undifferentiated conversational Latin.’ 20 Maltby (1975: 294) has shown that this is not the case: ‘the language of high characters includes more elevated types of expression and low characters use more colloquial forms.’
In relation to the topic of my research, it is interesting to take a closer look at the demonstrative pronouns. Apart from some metrical variations 21 , Terence also uses different forms of the demonstratives. In certain cases, the deictic suffix –c(e) is retained, in others it is omitted. In the pre-classical period, the suffix was not only used in the paradigm of hic , but also in that of iste and ille . The following overview is taken from Barsby (1999: 26-27, n.88): ‘[i]n general Terence prefers haec to hae 22 , istaec to ist ă, istuc to istud , istac to ist ā, and istoc to isto but conversely ille to ill ĭc, ill ă to illaec , illud to illuc , illo to illoc , iste to ist ĭc, istum to istunc , and istam to istanc .’ 23 Meiser (1998: 162) notes that the form istaec is modelled after haec .
After this brief introduction to Terence and the play which forms de basis for my investigation, I shall now turn to the linguistic part of my paper.
4. Word order of demonstrative pronouns in nominal phrases
4.1. Existing theories
The existing works concerning Latin linguistics are all fairly brief in their overview of the adjectival use of demonstrative pronouns. Ernout and Thomas (1959²: 162) are very brief concerning the demonstratives in their standard work. In the single sentence dedicated to the subject, they note that ‘demonstratives are usually placed before the noun, with the exception of the type Socrates ille 24 , because of the emphatic value of ille ’. Hofmann and Szantyr (1965: 407- 408) are slightly more thorough in their discussion. They agree on the usual position of the demonstratives, but provide an explanation for the postposition, opposite to that of Ernout and Thomas: ‘demonstratives often follow the noun when the substantive is the centre of interest and the deictic reference only serves as completion of the concept.’ They are uncertain whether
19 Shipp 1970², 44. 20 Post, CW 23, 122. 21 Cf. Laidlaw 1936; also cf. commentary and appendices in Barsby 1999. 22 For the plural forms, naturally: there is no alternative for the feminine singular haec . 23 In the first five cases, Terence prefers a pre-classical form, in the final seven a classical form. 24 ‘The illustrious Socrates’ (my translation).
13 euphonic rules play a part in the preposition of a substantive, such as the rule stating that monosyllables tend to precede disyllabic demonstratives 25 . Pinkster (1990: 185) only includes demonstratives in a table giving a general overview of the regular positions of Attributes to a Head noun. He rephrases the reason for postposition of demonstratives as follows: ‘[d]eviation from the normal word order is possible if the Attribute has Focus function.’ Furthermore, he adds that ‘Attributes with monosyllabic Heads are predominantly placed after the noun’ 26 .
Devine and Stephens’s overview (2006: 511-520) is the most thorough investigation into the use of demonstrative pronouns. They focus on hic and present their findings as representative for the other paradigms. Their approach is more empirical than that of the other works: there are numerous examples for every point they make. However, as de Melo (2007: 1487) pointed out in his review, they tend to forget Latin verse, and this section is no exception. Therefore, the rules they present might not be as absolute in Terence’s comedy, but perhaps rather tendencies. They agree that demonstratives are generally used prenominally. They distinguish between anaphoric, and cataphoric 27 use in general and remark that hyperbaton often occurs, without any further explanation. A discussion concerning demonstrative modification of proper names follows. In Terence’s comedies, this type of noun phrase occurs a few times, so the distinction between deictic and anaphoric use is valuable. There is, on the other hand, no instance of restrictive use in Terence’s comedy, since all characters have different names. However, they raise the question (still concerning proper names) ‘whether the continuous types 28 might be appositional structures with pronouns rather than demonstratives’ (Devine and Stephens 2006: 513). This theory might be correct from a syntactical point of view, yet from a semantic viewpoint, it is irrelevant, since the proper name is obviously much more important.
Returning to noun phrases with common nouns, they argue ‘that the non-restrictive types can also license a postnominal demonstrative’ 29 , both for proper and for common nouns. On page 514, they explain under what circumstances this is possible: ‘[t]he main trigger for the postnominal demonstrative (...) is the semantics of the demonstrative.’ The explanation they provide is quite technical (another aspect rightly criticised by de Melo (2007)), but in simpler terms it can be summarized as follows: postnominal position is possible when the Head is stressed, when the demonstrative is weakly stressed (or even clitic), or when the demonstrative has strong Focus. This is somewhat contradictory, since both weak and strong demonstratives would follow their Head. Furthermore, demonstratives bear some stress (or Focus) in general, by nature. Hence, weak forms of the demonstrative pronouns (i.e. when they are used almost like an article) seldom occur, which might be a reason for the contradiction: perhaps the corpus on which they base this claim was too limited (concerning weak demonstratives) or biased.
Devine and Stephens proceed with an overview of possible positions when demonstratives co- occur with another modifier or quantifier. With one exception, this section is less interesting for my own research (for reasons explained below), and because the relative position of the
25 Also mentioned in Pinkster. 26 Also mentioned in Hofmann and Szantyr. 27 Especially looking forward to a following clause. 28 i.e. when the demonstrative is in position 2 or 3 (see below). 29 Devine and Stephens 2006: 513;
14 demonstrative to its Head follows the same principles which have already been mentioned. There is, as announced, one interesting remark concerning position 1-hyperbaton (see below). On page 518, they explain that, when used together with a demonstrative pronoun, ‘weak quantifiers attract [F]ocus and this is marked by (...) hyperbaton’. Since demonstratives should precede these weak quantifiers (Devine and Stephens 2006: 517), these are also placed in hyperbaton. Other unusual positions are simply mentioned as being rare or unattested, without any additional reason (which might have been interesting for the explanation of my results). On combined use of hic and ipse , they remark that hic usually precedes.
There are some other articles which provide a few additional insights. Ullman (1919: 407) argues that demonstratives often precede their Head because they serve as connections with previous thoughts. 30 Walker (1918: 651-652), on the other hand, notes that demonstrative pronouns in prepositional phrases can be placed before the preposition. 31 He briefly touches upon the position of the demonstrative within a noun phrase including a genitive, but this is irrelevant for my investigation, as will be made clear in the explanation of my methodology below. Finally, Laidlaw (1936: 411-412) provides an explanation for the frequent occurrence before the noun in Terence, also focusing on hic for his theory. He claims that ‘the emphatic form of the demonstrative is commoner in (...) dramatic verse’ and that ‘[it] usually bears more stress than the noun it qualifies’. Laidlaw’s theory could be linked to what Keller wrote about iste : Laidlaw’s ‘emphasis’ might be the result of a deictic reference 32 , similar to Keller’s ‘ iste deiktikon ’. Deictic references are, obviously, much more common in comedy than in texts which are not meant to be performed, which is why the ‘emphatic form’ is more widely used. Laidlaw’s findings regarding hic could therefore be transferred to iste and ille , as is the case in Devine and Stephens.
Finally, Jan de Jong’s article provides some general insights into word order in noun phrases. His investigation was conducted on noun phrases containing any kind of modifier designating a person (which also includes demonstratives). However, he points out that that was only to ‘bring about a certain degree of semantic uniformity in the material’ 33 . This implies that the processes he has found are also applicable to other modifiers. However, one has to note that de Jong sees the postnominal position as the unmarked one. In general, this could be the case, but demonstratives tend to precede their Heads. Therefore, the processes described in the article provide rather an explanation for the regular situation of the demonstratives. De Jong distinguishes between four principles. A first is contrast, which occurs under the following circumstances: ‘two terms (...) are brought into connection with each other, both share some property, but differ in another.’ 34 He also notes that one term may be left implicit. The second mechanism is that of topic: if the predicate predicates something about the modifier, this
30 Devine and Stephens mention this anaphoric use, but they do not see it as an explanation for prenominal position. 31 Clackson (2004: 395) notes that, in early Latin verse, this order is ‘more common in poetry of higher register than Plautus.’ 32 Compare to Dutch and English in speech. German scholars agree with this, but Panhuis (1983: 142), on the other hand, notes ‘that for Latin there is no evidence for contrastive stress’. However, contrastive stress seems to be a linguistic universal. 33 De Jong 1983, 131. 34 Ibid, 132.
15 modifier is the topic of the sentence, and it tends to be placed before the Head. A third type of context in which a modifier is expected to be preposed is what de Jong (1983: 137) calls ‘referential unity’. In this case, the modifier specifies a subpart within the larger unit designated by the Head. The final principle has already been touched upon briefly in the article by Ullman: it is that of context reference. When used anaphorically, modifiers tend to precede their Head.
4.2. Earlier research into the position of demonstrative pronouns
Ullman (1919: 414) refers to an investigation by Fischer into the word order of hic ‘in various prose authors’. The research excluded the examples including hyperbaton and found 451 examples of prenominal and only 12 of postnominal hic . Walker (1918: 648) quotes a study by Merriman concerning Caesar’s De Bello Gallico and seven speeches of Cicero. Caesar used 640 instances of prenominal demonstratives and only 4 of postnominal ones. Cicero placed 486 demonstratives prenominally and 28 postnominally. One has to note that these findings are based solely on prose authors and that Cicero and especially Caesar were language purists, trying to make their language as uniform as possible. The lower register and verse form (and perhaps even still a temporal difference) of Terence’s oeuvre will most likely lead to results which are less polarised.
Yoder’s investigation into Aulus Gellius’ Noctes Atticae shows a very different result, even though it also concerns a prose text. He has excluded the passages in which Aulus Gellius uses quotes of other writers, so the investigation is not biased by the language of other authors. There is, of course, the temporal distance of about two centuries which could account for such enormous differences. Yoder used many subcategories of placement: he differentiated between whether the demonstratives (among other adjectives) were used as the only modifier in a phrase or not. Since I have not made that distinction in my investigation, I have recombined his findings in the following table. 35 It gives an overview of his results if his investigation had been conducted adhering the same categorisation of positions as I have (see below):
Position 1 Position 2 Position 3 Position 4 Total Hic, haec, hoc 222 (31.22 %) 277 (38.96 %) 146 (20.53 %) 66 (9.28 %) 711 Iste, ista, istud 12 (5.11 %) 83 (35.32 %) 130 (55.32 %) 10 (4.25 %) 235 Ille, illa, illud 9 (3.83 %) 145 (61.70 %) 76 (32.34 %) 5 (2.12 %) 235 Total 243 (20.58 %) 505 (42.76 %) 352 (29,81 %) 81 (6,86 %) 1181
There are two tendencies which can be seen clearly: again, the demonstratives tend to be placed prenominally (positions 1 and 2, with the exception of iste ), and close to their Head (positions 2 and 3, with no exception). Yoder does not explicitly give an explanation for the unexpected positioning of iste : he only describes the different uses of the paradigm, without drawing further conclusions from those uses to provide an explanation. A possible reason might be that Gellius apparently uses postnominal iste often to refer to a following quotation.
35 Based on data in Yoder (1928: 59-89).
16
5. Research in Terence’s comedies
5.1. Methodology
I have made a distinction between four positions of the demonstratives in relation to their Heads: before the noun in hyperbaton (position 1), before the noun without hyperbaton (position 2), after the noun without hyperbaton (position 3), and, finally, after the noun in hyperbaton (position 4). There were a few cases which might be debatable; of these I shall give an overview, explain how I have treated them, and why I have done so.
There were quite a few cases in which the nominal group consisted solely of a demonstrative and an adjective. Some examples are haec omnia (Heauton Timorumenos 878, Eunuchus 59, Adelphoe 44; ‘all these (things)’), istic (...) miser (Eunuchus 953; ‘that miserable (man)’), and illum tuum (Adelphoe 107; ‘that (son) of yours’). I have considered these adjectives to be used as a substantive, and therefore they have been included in my investigation. I have treated participles, and similarly used pronouns (such as idem ) in the same manner (for instance illa dicta (Andria 283; ‘these (things that were) said’), and idem hoc (Hecyra 609; Eunuchus 453, 783, 810; Phormio 516; ‘this same thing’)). There were even three cases in which a demonstrative modified a quotation: “incertum” hoc (Andria 264; ‘this “uncertain”’), istuc “imprudens timuit adulescens” (Phormio 294; ‘that “young man, inexperienced (as he is), was afraid”), and istuc “prorsus” (Adelphoe 324; ‘that “completely”’).
There were cases in which the Head noun was further modified by another modifier of any kind (genitive, adjective, other determiners, etc.) which was placed between the demonstrative and its Head. An example is haec tua imprudentia (Hecyra 213; ‘this carelessness of yours’). I have treated these as being placed in position 2 or 3: the demonstratives are not placed immediately next to the Head, but there is definitely no real hyperbaton either, since the demonstrative is not separated from the phrase it belongs to. Even if there is further modification of the other modifier (by means of an adverbial phrase), the demonstrative has been added to the group of the continuous types (positions 2 and 3). A special subgroup is formed by the nominal phrases in which a relative clause is placed in between the demonstrative and the Head. These have been treated in the same way, because, the noun phrase is, again, not interrupted. A short example: haec quae habeo omnia (Eunuchus 120; ‘these things which I have’, literally: ‘these which I have things’).
Other cases which are debatable are the ones in which there is a clitic, an interjection or a particle in between the demonstrative and the Head. A good example, with both an interjection and a clitic is the following: illumne obsecro | inhonestum hominem (Eunuchus 356-7;‘For heaven’s sake, not that unpleasant man’, lit.: ‘that-not, for heaven’s sake, | unpleasant man’). The position of clitics is fixed, whilst interjections may occur anywhere in the clause, but both do not have a function on sentence or clause level. Therefore, there is again no real hyperbaton, since the nominal phrase is not interrupted by other elements belonging to the sentence or clause. Particles, on the other hand, have to be placed on the second position of a sentence. A particle can thus be placed between the demonstrative and its Head. I have considered these as continuous types as well. The requirements for the position of particles are situated on sentence or clause level, not on the level of the phrase. Moreover, particles have no function in the
17 sentence (they are similar to conjunctions and clitics in that respect), and that is why there is, yet again, no real hyperbaton. If there had been no particle, but an equivalent conjunction, the nominal phrase would have been continuous. Adverbs, on the other hand, do have a function in the sentence, and if they occur between the demonstrative and the Head, there is a hyperbaton. That is why ille autem bonus vir (Eunuchus 660; ‘but that good man’, literally: ‘that but good man’) is considered to be a continuous type (position 2), but Quia ne alteram quidem illam potero ducere (Phormio 916; ‘Because I will certainly not be able to marry that other (girl)’, literally: ‘Because not other (girl) certainly that I will be able to marry’) is one of the very few instances of position number 4. If a verb was placed between the demonstrative and the Head (generally at the end of a sentence), this has also been considered a hyperbaton. Even though many are used clitically, I have made no exception for intervening forms of esse .
As Devine and Stephens pointed out, there is a possibility that, when used in combination with a proper name, the construction might be an appositional one. I believe that, especially in drama, this is not the case: the speaker can refer to someone who is (still) on stage or has just left 36 . I believe that, in the context of a comedy, cases like hic Clinia (Heauton Timorumenos 225) are rather to be interpreted as ‘this Clinia’ or ‘Clinia over here’ 37 than as ‘him, Clinia’. The latter case appears to be more literary, and, even though comedy does not just use plain colloquial Latin, it seems to belong to too elevated a register to be used in conversation. In any case, the proper name is semantically more important, as has been pointed out in the discussion above.
5.2. Results
The table below shows the results of my research:
Position 1 Position 2 Position 3 Position 4 Total Hic, haec, hoc 105 (21.69 %) 260 (53.72 %) 110 (22.73 %) 9 (1.86 %) 484 Iste, ista, istud 26 (26.80 %) 52 (53.61 %) 12 (12.37 %) 7 (7.22 %) 97 Ille, illa, illud 30 (28.85 %) 56 (53.85 %) 15 (14.42 %) 3 (2.88 %) 104 Total 161 (23.50 %) 368 (53.72 %) 137 (20.00 %) 19 (2.77 %) 685
Even though the figures differ considerably from those of the investigation of Gellius, the same tendencies occur: demonstratives tend to be placed before their Head (77.23 % of all cases) and close to their Head (73.72 %). The outcome of the more thorough investigation confirms the results of my more limited research conducted in Eunuchus for the Bachelor paper. There are some small differences in percentage concerning the distribution of demonstratives in general across the four positions, but these do not exceed 5 %. The most important differences are to be found in the paradigms iste and ille , especially in the positions 1, 3, and 4. Despite the much more limited number of useful instances of the iste and ille paradigms, the outcome is fairly similar to what has been found in relation to hic . As in all cases the second position occurs in about 53.5 % of the examples 38 , we can safely conclude that the second position is the one that
36 The speaker could even point at this person or a related object during the performance. 37 In this case, Clitipho (the speaker) could point at Clinia’s house. 38 Remarkably, the difference between the three paradigms does not exceed 0,25 %.
18 should be considered as the default position. These few examples illustrate the use of the second position in each of the paradigms:
(1) Naevium Plautum Ennium | accusant, quos hic noster auctores habet. ( Andria 18-9) ‘They accuse Naevius, Plautus and Ennius, examples that our (author) here follows.’39 (2) Si non rediisses, haec irae factae essent multo ampliores. (Hecyra 289) ‘If you had not returned, these feelings of anger would have become much bigger.’ (3) Edepol te, mea Antiphila, laudo et fortunatam iudico, | id cum studuisti isti formae ut mores consimiles forent. (Heauton Timorumenos 381-2) ‘By Pollux, my (dear) Antiphila, I praise (you) and consider (you) fortunate, this because you have assured that (your) behaviour would be exactly equal to your that beauty of yours.’ (4) Ego pol te pro istis dictis et factis, scelus, ulciscar, ut ne inpune in nos inluseris. (Eunuchus 941-2) ‘By Pollux, I shall take revenge on you, you miscreant, for those words and deeds of yours, so that you haven’t fooled us unpunished.’ (5) Quid illam alteram quae dicitur cognata? ( Phormio 755) ‘What about that other (girl), who is said to be related?’ (6) O di boni, | ne illius modi iam magna nobis civium | paenuria est. (Adelphoe 440-2) ‘Oh, good gods, (I wish) that there would not be a great shortage of citizens of that kind for us now.’
5.3. Examples and explanations of less common positions
There are no strict rules for the placement of adjectives. There are only tendencies to be discovered, and the demonstratives are no exception, as the table above has shown. However, this does not mean that the possible positions are chosen at random. There are principles that can account for the displacement of the demonstratives. In the following paragraphs and the subsections 5.3.1 to 5.3.3, I shall try to uncover such principles and rule out others.
Since the plays are is written in iambo-trochaic lines 40 , generally the metre cannot provide an adequate explanation for why certain positions are preferred in favour of the default position. The iambic line is considered to be closest to natural speech, so transpositions for metrical reasons should be fairly uncommon. The other lines are written in trochaic metres, but as Caesius Bassius (GLK vi, 267 6-8) notes, a trochaic septenarius can be analysed as an iambic senarius preceded by a creticus, and they are therefore closely related in character. Moreover, an
39 All of the translations given here are my own. Their purpose is to remain as close as possible to the original syntactic structure and meaning, without violating the comprehension of the English equivalent. 40 Iambic metres (mostly senarii, but also septenarii and octonarii) are used in 4606 lines (75.83 %). 1438 (23.67 %) are written in trochees. The remaining 30 lines (0.49 %) are written in lyrical measures.
19 alternative position is often equally fitting since metrical substitution often occurs. One should also note that Terence uses different forms of the demonstratives (with or without deictic suffix), and, even though he has certain preferences (as explained above), the alternative might be used to fit the metre. As has been mentioned before, the genitive singular ending –ius has two alternative scansions (di- or monosyllabic), which can also be chosen to fit the metre.
An attempt at revealing a relationship between the positions and the textual functions of the demonstratives (deictic, anaphoric and cataphoric function) has provided no interesting results. Already in the limited sample of Eunuchus , the percentages of deictic and anaphoric uses remained more or less stable over the 4 positions (respectively about 60 % and about 30 %). This is why no further investigation into these functions has been made. The sample used for my bachelor paper was rather small, but it has proved to be reliable in all other cases: the results and conclusions that were drawn last year were proved to be representative of the entire corpus, with only minor adjustments needed. Furthermore, there is no reason why these functions would behave differently in a larger corpus. In Eunuchus , there was an increase in the relative frequency of cataphoric use from position 1 to 4 (from 3 % to 25 %), but the number of cases was far too limited to draw any valid conclusion. Since the share of the two other referential uses of demonstratives (anaphoric and cataphoric) remained more or less stable over the different positions, this correlation would either be of a minor importance (only a very small increase in the chance of the cataphoric use from the first to the fourth position), or the result in Eunuchus was a coincidence, which needed to be corrected by research in a larger sample. The latter option proved to be correct: overall, the share of cataphoric reference remained stable over the four positions at about 6.5 %, as shown in the table below. The difference between the three paradigms has not been maintained to show a clearer pattern (for identical reasons as below).
Position 1 Position 2 Position 3 Position 4 Total Cataphoric reference 10 (6.21 %) 24 (6.52 %) 12 (8.76 %) 1 (5.26 %) 47 (6.85 %)
Another criterion was needed to try to account for the unusual positions. More interesting results were obtained by investigating the relation between Focus and the possible positions. The definition of Focus by Dik (1997: 326) is the basis for this investigation: ‘[t]he focal information in a linguistic expression is that information which is relatively the most important or salient in the given communicative setting and considered by (the) S(peaker) to be most essential for (the) A(ddressee) to integrate into his pragmatic information.’ The following table shows the relative frequency of the instances in which the demonstrative serves as Focus:
Position 1 Position 2 Position 3 Position 4 Total Total 55 out of 161 88 out of 368 11 out of 137 (4 out of 19) 158 out of 685 demonstrative (34.16 %) (23.91 %) (8.03 %) (21.1 %) (23.07 %) Focus
One has to note that investigating focus always implies an element of subjectivity. I can (and will for certain instances in the following discussion) give arguments for why I believe a certain demonstrative to be focused, but other interpretations are not ruled out. In the table, the
20 distinction between the different paradigms has been suppressed again, because the general overview shows the pattern more clearly 41 .
The demonstratives which are focused tend to be placed before their Head noun, whilst the Focus function occurs much more seldom in postnominal forms. The results generally confirm the results of the research conducted in Eunuchus . The percentage of focalised forms in the first two positions remains more or less stable. The percentage of focalisation in the third position has risen by about 5 %, which is rather significant (2.5 times more). This shows that a larger corpus was needed to establish a more exact figure. Nonetheless, the overall view has not changed: despite the sharp increase, the percentage of focalised demonstratives in position 3 is still far more limited than that of the prenominal instances. The exception to the general tendency is, of course, the fourth position: one fifth of the instances were focused. On the one hand, this is a sharp decrease of the 50 % focalisation in Eunuchus (2 out of 4 instances), but, on the other, it still appears to be the méchant fait that shatters the beautiful theory: from these data, one might conclude that focused demonstratives have a higher tendency to be placed in hyperbaton. However, this is highly unlikely for three reasons. Firstly, there were only 19 examples of the fourth position, which is much more than the 4 examples in Eunuchus , but still a very limited number. Another objection is the relatively high frequency of focused instances in position 2 (without hyperbaton): a significant part of the most common position (and therefore the most representative of the research) is focalised as well. A final refutation of this theory is that de Melo’s investigation in Plautus (2010: 87) showed that focused possessive pronouns are more likely to be placed prenominally, and there is no reason why focused demonstratives should behave differently. Hence, we can conclude that demonstratives bearing Focus are most likely to be found in positions 1 and 2, and that the fourth position is rather the exception proving the rule than the méchant fait .
5.3.1. Position 1
As can be seen in the table under 4.2., the percentage of instances of the first position in both iste and ille are still slightly larger (more than one in four, instead of slightly more than one in five for hic ), but the difference is much smaller than the result that my research in Eunuchus has yielded. This shows that this difference was indeed to be accounted for by the fairly limited number of instances in Terence’s fourth comedy. As has been noted above, the focused demonstratives are most common in the first position. However, this does not mean that all demonstratives in position 1 have to be focused: examples 7 to 9 show instances of a demonstrative bearing focus; in examples 10 to 12, the demonstrative is not focused:
(7) Quod ego per hanc te dexteram et genium tuum | per tuam fidem perque huius solitudinem | te obtestor ne abs te hanc segreges neu deseras. ( Andria 289-91) ‘That is why I, by this right hand (of yours), and by your guardian angel, by your righteousness, and by the loneliness of that (girl), beseech you not to separate her from you, nor to abandon (her).’
41 For instance, the one example of Focalised ille in position 4 would yield 33 % for focalisation of that position in that paradigm, whilst the one Focalised instance of iste in the same position would result in a 14 % focalisation, which is an unnecessary large difference.
21
(8) Eheu me miseram, quor non aut istaec mihi | aetas et forma est aut tibi haec sententia? ( Hecyra 74-5) ‘Woe me in all my misery, why do I not have that age and beauty (of yours), or you this opinion (of mine).’ (9) Iam id exploratum est: heia sudabis satis | si cum illo inceptas homine: ea eloquentia est. (Phormio 628-9) ‘This has already been figured out: come on, you will sweat enough if you begin (a court case against) that man: he is with this eloquence.’ (10) Retraham hercle opinor ad me | idem ego illuc hodie fugitivum argentum tamen. ( Heauton Timorumenos 678) ‘By Hercules, I will bring that same fugitive money back (to me) after all, I think.’ (11) Nam postquam iste advenit Chremes adulescens, frater virginis, militem rogat ut illum admitti iubeat. (Eunuchus 617-8) ‘Because after that young Chremes, the girl’s brother, arrived, she asked the soldier if he would give the orders (for Chremes) to be allowed in.’ (12) Missa haec face, | hymenaeum turbas lampadas tibicinas, | atque hanc horto maceriam iube dirui | quantum potest. ( Adelphoe 906-9) ‘Away with these (things), a wedding, crowds, torches, flutists, and ask for this wall in the garden to be demolished in as much as it is possible.’
In example 7, it is heavily stressed that it is that specific right hand that should be a guarantee for virtuous behaviour, because of all the good qualities associated with it (which are made explicit in the following prepositional phrases). It could even be interpreted metonymically as a sworn oath, which would then refer to Pamphilus’ solemn promise to look after Glycerium. In this last interpretation, the demonstrative would bear focus to indicate that specific oath. In translation, ‘your very own’ might be a better option than the one above.42 The eighth example contains two demonstratives bearing contrastive stress 43 : Syra contrasts her own age, beauty and insight to those of Philotis. This is also expressed in the choice of demonstrative: haec shows an affinity with the speaker, istaec an affinity with the addressee. In (9), it is stressed that Phormio should not deal with a man of that calibre. It is made explicit in the following clause what specific type of man Chremes is: his eloquence means Phormio should tread cautiously.
In the tenth example, the stress on sentence level is on retraham , since that possibility is so unexpected for the speaker. This stress is highlighted by the very strong preposing of the verb: it is no longer at the end, but at the very beginning of the sentence. One could argue that there is a ‘secondary’ stress within the noun phrase that serves as direct object, but it is impossible that illud would be stressed. In order for that to happen, there would have to be another sum of ‘elusive money’ to be contrasted with, which is not the case. Even without knowledge of the context, idem 44 rules out the possibility of a contrastive use of illud . In example 11, iste
42 Barsby has opted for this translation (2001 (22): 79). However, it does not reflect the lexical content of the original. 43 Only one of which is in position 1. 44 It is possible to see idem as the stressed word in this noun phrase (‘that very same’), but I believe there is no need for that. The entire noun phrase appears to be nothing more than an anaphoric reference that recapitulates Syrus’ intent for the audience.
22 determines Chremes , and for iste to be stressed in this sentence, it should be used contrastively (‘that Chremes, not another one’) which is impossible, since there is only one Chremes in the play. In (12), it is again impossible for hanc to be stressed, since there is no other wall that hanc maceriam could be contrasted with. Moreover, the focus of the sentence lies on the demolishing of the garden wall: that element is the most salient and the most vital information the speaker wants to convey.
Even though the first position has the largest amount of focused demonstratives, these instances only account for about one third of the demonstratives in first position. Surprisingly, most of the 161 tokens of the first position can be explained by a stylistic feature of Terence’s language. 45 Seventy-six of them (47.20 %) are examples of the positioning of the verb between the modifier and its Head, a stylistic feature of which Terence appears to be quite fond (not only in relation to demonstratives). The examples 13 to 16 below all show an instance of such a sentence. A further thirty-two instances (19.88 %) include another clause constituent which is closely linked to the intervening verb: a Subject, a Direct Object (example 18), an Indirect Object, a Subject Predicative, a dative of advantage or an adverb (example 19) (also adverbially used prepositional phrases, as in (20)) or a postposed conjunction (see below).
(13) Deos quaeso ut sit superstes, quandoquidem ipse est ingenio bono, | quomque huic est veritus optumae adulescenti facere iniuriam. (Andria 487-8) ‘I beseech the gods that it may be alive, since he himself is of good character, and because he was anxious about doing injustice to this virtuous young girl.’ (14) Ita cursando atque ambulando totum hunc contrivi diem. ( Hecyra 815) ‘By running and walking like this, I have wasted this entire day.’ (15) Dic sodes, pater, | tibi vero quid istic est rei? (Adelphoe 643-4) ‘Please tell (me), father, what is that business to you?’ (16) O fortunatum istum eunuchum qui quidem in hanc detur domum! (Eunuchus 365) ‘O, that lucky eunuch in that he will be given into that (very) house!’ (17) Ille qui illam amabat fidicinam tantummodo | "satis" inquit "scita est"; noster uero ... (Adelphoe 109-10) ‘He who was in love with that lute-playing girl just said: ‘She’s nice enough’; ours, on the other hand …’ (18) Neque Antipho alia quom occupatus esset sollicitudine, | tum hoc esse mihi obiectum malum! (Phormio 502-3) ‘And (I wish) Antipho would not have been occupied with another worry when this (very) problem had occurred to me!’ (19) At tu pol tibi istas posthac comprimito manus! ( Heauton Timorumenos 590) ‘But you, by Pollux, should suppress those hands of yours from now on!’
45 De Melo (2010: 84) argues that it might be a feature of the ‘Plautine Kunstsprache ’, since it is much less common in contemporary prose. Last year, I suggested that Terence might have been inspired by Plautus for Eunuchus (the most Plautine comedy), but the feature remains very common throughout his entire oeuvre (even marginally more than in Eunuchus ). Apparently, this is a feature of the Latin comedians of the era, rather than just a feature of Plautine comedies.
23
(20) Qui nunc si detur mihi, ut ego unguibus facile illi in oculos involem venefico! ( Eunuchus 647-8) ‘And if he were given to me now, how easily I would fly with my nails to the eyes of that poisoner!’
Originally, this was used to put heavy stress on the demonstrative, as can be seen in examples 16, and 18. In (16), Chaerea is envious of the Eunuch who will be in the same house as the girl with whom Chaerea is infatuated. The demonstrative is therefore best translated as ‘that very’. In the eighteenth example, the Focus is of the contrastive type: Phaedria’s hoc malum is contrasted with Antipho’s alia sollicitudo . However, only thirty-one of these 108 demonstratives were stressed in total.46 In example 20, it is even the Head which is focused, since it is a term of abuse (see below). I believe that this disposition is not specifically used for stressing demonstratives, but that it is merely a feature of Terence’s language.
Another reason why certain demonstratives were separated from their Head are stylistic features. When investigating the displacement to position 1 in Eunuchus , one stylistic feature was fairly frequent in the small corpus, namely the postposition of the conjunction. I had (and have) included these in the position 1 group, for the simple reason is that conjunctions follow the syntactic rule of being placed at the beginning of a phrase, and that any deviation from this rule is remarkable. This figure could explain three demonstratives in the first position, which then amounted to 9.1 %. In the other comedies, only one other instance of this figure (also involving ubi , as in example 21 below) was found, amounting to only 2.48 % of all demonstratives in prenominal hyperbaton. This figure needs to be distinguished from the archaic construction that is found in example 22: this does not involve a postposition of the conjunction, but it reflects the old construction of subordinate clauses in which conjunctions were placed before the verb rather than at the beginning of the clause.
(21) Ille ubi miser famelicus videt mi esse tantum honorem et tam facile victum quaerere, ibi homo coepit me obsecrare ut sibi liceret discere id de me. (Eunuchus 260-262) ‘When that poor starveling saw that I had such honour, and that I gained a living so easily, then the man started to ask me if it was possible to learn that from me.’ (22) Nunc tuum est officium has bene ut adsimules nuptias, | perterrefacias Davum, observes filium | quid agat, quid cum illo consili captet. 47 (Andria 168-70) ‘Now it is your task that you pretend these marriage festivities well, (that) you terrify Davus, (and that) you observe my son, what he does, (and) what (kind) of plan he is concocting (together) with him.’
The postposition of the conjunction is not the only figure Terence uses to embellish his language. It is not surprising that these other figures sometimes involve a displacement of the demonstrative as well. Next to the four postposed conjunctions, nine further demonstratives were
46 Which is somewhat less (28,70 %) than the share of focalisation in the entire group of demonstratives in the first position (34,16 %). 47 Significantly, this sentence is uttered by Simo, one of the senes of Terence’s comedies.
24 placed in prenominal hyperbaton because of various stylistic devices Terence has used. This means that 8.07 % of all demonstratives in position 1 can be explained by means of style. These embellishments include enjambment (23: the term of abuse is retained until the next line of verse, to stress it even further), the construction of a golden line, and the construction of an alliterative sequence of words (24).
(23) Ah nescis quantis in malis vorser miser | quantasque hic suis consiliis mihi conflavit sollicitudines | meus carnufex. (Andria 649-51) ‘Ah, you do not know in how many agonies I live in all my misery, and how many worries this vicious slave of mine has caused me with all his schemes.’ (24) Nam si illi pergo suppeditare sumptibus, | Menedeme, mihi illaec vere ad rastros res redit. ( Heauton Timorumenos 930-1) ‘Because if I continue to lavish (money) on him for his expenses, Menedemus, that business will truly reduce me to the hoes.’
In eighteen instances (11.18 %), it was not the demonstrative, but the Head that bore Focus (see section 4.3.2). This was mainly because it was a term of abuse, as in examples 20 and 23: in twelve of the eighteen examples, the focused Head was a term of abuse. A possible explanation would be the building of tension within the sentence, as can be seen in example 23. The fact that it is the slave who is causing all those trouble is kept hidden for as long as possible, so that when it is finally uttered, it comes as somewhat of a surprise. The placement at the beginning of a line puts even more stress on his responsibility in causing all those problems. However, the mounting of tension towards a Head that then comes as a surprise (and, hence, that bears Focus), only explains four of the eighteen instances. It appears that Focus may cause a displacement both of the demonstrative and of the Head noun. In these eighteen instances, it appears that the Head is (rather surprisingly, as explained in section 4.3.2) postposed resulting in a demonstrative in position 1. Why terms of abuse are frequently displaced in this way remains unclear. A possible explanation might be a semantic one: terms of abuse do not denote persons, since the person referred to is already known. That is why they are, semantically speaking, more detached from the entire sentence; they appear to be used almost as addresses or even interjections, loosely related to the phrase to which they serve as a Head. The examples below show one further instance of a term of abuse, and one other example:
(25) Ita me di ament, quantum ego illum vidi, non nil timeo misera, | ne quam ille hodie insanus turbam faciat aut uim Thaidi. (Enuchus 615-6) ‘May the gods love me because of this: as far as I have seen him, I am very much afraid, wretched as I am, that that madman would cause any trouble today or any harm to Thais.’ (26) Sed ille tuum quoque Syrus idem mire finxit filium, | ut ne paullulum quidem subolat esse amicam hanc Cliniae. ( Heauton Timorumenos 898-9) ‘But that very same Syrus has also educated your son amazingly, so that no one could detect the least bit (of evidence) that (Bacchis) is Clinia’s girl friend.’
Since a certain overlap exists between the different explanations (for instance: a focused demonstrative can be separated from its Head by means of a verb), 147 of the 161 examples have been explained by the principles above. Of the remaining fourteen instances, seven can be explained by the metre (4.35 %), and the other seven remain unexplained (4.35 %). Example 27
25 shows an instance of a metrical placement, example 28 is an example of a form of which it remains unclear of why it is placed in position 1:
(27) Si sensero hodie quidquam in his te nuptiis | (fallaciae conari quo fiant minus | (…)) (Andria 196-7) ‘If I will have perceived today that you are trying any trick against these marriage festivities, by which (they) could be annulled (…)’ (28) (…) | prope iam ut pro uxore haberet: haec clam me omnia. (Heauton Timorumenos 98) ‘(…) already almost as if he had (her) as a wife: all of this was kept a secret to me.’
In example 27, the iambic senarius scans as follows: ¯ ¯/ ˘ ˘ ˘ / ¯ ¯ / ˘ ¯ / ¯ ¯ / ˘ ¯. [ H]is has to remain in first position in order for this line to scan. The opening of the line is the main clause for several AcIs, and should, therefore, not be placed any later for reasons of clarity 48 . [N]uptiis cannot be placed before te because the short first -i- cannot appear in that slot without another adjacent light syllable 49 . Another option is to place te before the prepositional phrase. If this would be the case, the final -am of quidquam would not be elided, thus creating an impossible trochaic foot ( -quam t(e) in ). This could be solved by placing his before the preposition, but Terence uses this disposition of the demonstrative only once (see below), and, therefore, it is highly unlikely he would use it merely for metrical reasons. In any case, the demonstrative would still be in first position, so that option would not explain why the demonstrative is not in its normal position. Example 28 shows another iambic senarius, which has the following metrical scheme: ˘ ˘ ¯ / ¯ ¯ / ˘ ˘ ¯ / ˘ ¯ / ¯ ¯ / ˘ ˘. It is obvious that the first and second part of the line (separated by a colon above, by a full stop in Barsby 2002 (21)) should not be mixed up since they are clearly delineated syntactic and semantic units. In the end of the line, haec can be placed after clam me without any metrical problems: both haec and clam scan heavy, and the elision of me would be retained (now before haec instead of before omnia ). The final syllable of haberet would become heavy because the two additional consonants that would then follow, but this would be no problem, since spondaic substitution is possible and common (as in the second and penultimate syllable of the original line). Why Terence chose to separate the demonstrative from its Head has to remain unclear.
5.3.2. Position 3
In de Melo’s investigation concerning possessive pronouns (2010: 83), position 3 does not appear to be an irregular one. In Terence’s comedies, however, it is considerably less frequent than position 2, and even slightly less frequent than position 1 50 . Different semantics may account for this, so there is not necessarily a contradiction with de Melo’s article, but it does mean that the third position, in this case, and should be looked at more thoroughly. Even though position 3 is proportionately quite uncommon, it still occurs too frequently to be explained solely
48 Especially because this is a play, reflecting everyday speech rather than high register language. 49 Which is impossible, since nuptiis scans ¯ ˘ ¯. 50 That is, overall: in the most common paradigm ( hic ) it is marginally more frequent than the first position.
26 by metrical reasons. Focused demonstratives make up only 8.03 % of the total amount of instances (11 examples), and, obviously, do not provide a sufficient explanation for why the third position might be chosen. There is, however, another tendency to be discovered. The following table shows the relative frequency of cases in which the demonstrative determines a Head which bears Focus:
Position 1 Position 2 Position 3 Position 4 Total Total 18 out of 161 37 out of 368 59 out of 137 10 out of 19 125 out of 685 Head (11.18 %) (10.05 %) (43.07 %) (52.6 %) (18.25 %) Focus
Just like for the previous table, it has to be noted that there is a subjective element in determining Focus. It is clear that demonstratives in position 3 are much more likely to determine a focused Head: more than twice as likely as average and about four times as likely as the demonstratives in prenominal positions. The question of whether Head Focus is a factor only for postnominal placement or whether it licences displacement in general (position 2 shows Head Focus least frequently) has to remain unanswered. However, deduced from the examples referred to above (section 4.3.1, penultimate paragraph), I believe it may cause a displacement to position 1 as well, just as focused demonstratives may be displaces to the third position. The following examples show one of only eleven tokens with demonstrative Focus (29), and some instances of a demonstrative determining a focused Head (30-35):
(29) Sed neminemne curiosum intervenire nunc mihi | qui me sequatur quoquo eam, rogitando obtundat enicet | -quid gestiam aut quid laetus sim, quo pergam, unde emergam ubi siem | vestitum hunc nanctus quid mi quaeram, sanus sim anne insaniam! (Eunuchus 553-6) ‘But if only nobody who is curious would interrupt me now, (nobody) who would follow me wherever I would go, (who would) annoy me by constantly asking me questions, (who would) torture me, -why I am excited or why I am happy, where I am going, where I come from, where I have found this piece of clothing, what I am trying to obtain for myself, whether I am sane or insane!’ (30) Gongrum istum maxumum in aqua sinito ludere | tantisper: ubi ego venero, exossabitur; | prius nolo. ( Adelphoe 377-9) ‘Let that big eel play in the water in the meanwhile: when I will come (back), it will be filleted; I do not want (it to be done) any earlier.’ (31) Num censes faceret, filium nisi sciret eadem haec velle? (Andria 578) ‘Do you think he would do that, if he would not know that my son wants this same thing to happen?’ (32) Unum hoc scito, contumeliae me non fecisse causa, sed amoris. ( Eunuchus 877-8) ‘You ought to know this one thing, that I have not done it to cause offence, but out of love.’ (33) An ea quoque dicetur huius, si una haec dedecori est parum? (Heauton Timorumenos 334) ‘Is she also called his, (as) if this one (on her own) is not enough of a disgrace?’
27
(34) Meretricem hanc primum adeundam censeo: | oremus accusemus gravius denique | minitemur si cum illo habuerit rem postea. ( Hecyra 716-8) ‘I believe this mistress of his should be addressed first: we should plead (our case), and we should accuse (her) heavily and, eventually, we should threaten her if she would have had anything (to do) with him in the future.’ (35) Etiam: cognosse anulum illum Myrrinam | gnatae suae fuisse quem ipsus olim mi dederat. ( Hecyra 811-2) ‘Yes, that Myrrina has recognised that (very) ring, that he himself had given me once, to have been her daughter’s.’
In example 29, the Focus is on hunc : it stresses the fact that Chaerea, a citizen, is wearing a eunuch’s clothes. In example 30, the eel bears contrastive Focus, since it is opposed to the other fish, that need to be cleaned straightaway (verse 376). In (31), eadem bears heavy stress: Simo is trying to convince Chremes that Pamphilus is keen on getting married to Philumena, rather than to Glycerium. The stress is, again, contrastive: Simo purports his son to be interested only in that very same thing (girl/marriage), not the other one (about which Chremes has heard rumours). In example 32, the fact that only that one specific thing is more certain than any other is stressed. The Head bears restricting Focus, in that it excludes everything else to be as certain. This type of expression ( unum hoc ) occurs quite frequently throughout the six comedies, generally with the demonstrative in third position. Example 33 is very similar, but the Focus is rather of the selecting type: of the two women, that one would be enough of a disgrace on the family on her own accord. The Focus in 34 is again selecting: after having been asked what should be done, Phidippus selects the mistress to be dealt with first, before the other problems. In the final example of this set, the Focus is on the fact that it is that very ring that Pamphilus has stolen and given to Bacchis. This recognition solves every problem that has occurred in the play.
The research in Eunuchus for my bachelor paper yielded no instances that could be explained by stylistic reasons, but in the complete oeuvre of Terence, there were five instances (3.65 %) in which a stylistic figure has displaced the demonstrative to position 3. Of these five figures, three were alliterations (including one double alliteration, with both halves separated by the demonstrative (example 36)), the two others were an enjambment (one of which enabled Terence to construct an assonance (37)):
(36) Non potitus essem: fuisset tum illos mi aegre aliquot dies, | at non cotidiana cura haec an geret an imum, (...) | dum exspecto quam mox ueniat qui adimat hanc mi consuetudinem. (Phormio 159-61) ‘I would not have possessed her: then, those few days would have been unpleasant for me, but this daily care would not torture my mind (...) while I await how soon he could return, (he) who would snatch away this relationship from me.’ (37) Quod ut facerem egestas me inpulit, quom scirem infirmas nuptias | hasce esse (...) (Phormio , 733-4) ‘And poverty incited me to do this, even though I knew that these marriage (vows) were unreliable (...)’
The other 62 instances (45.26 %) appear to have no specific reason for postnominal placement. They are far too numerous to be explained solely by metrical reasons (which cases are, as
28 mentioned above, rather rare). Perhaps the third position is not as irregular as appeared from the investigation, and perhaps Terence simply had a preference for the second position over the third, avoiding the latter as much as possible, except for when he could front a focused Head or when he could construct a figure by placing the demonstrative postnominally.
5.3.3. Position 4
This type of hyperbaton only very seldom occurs (not even 3 % of all cases), and, therefore, I can (and should) do not much more than just explain the different examples and uncover certain very general principles. The reason why this position is so rare, is the uncovered tendency of demonstratives to be placed in front of and/or close to their Head. The postnominal hyperbaton violates both rules, and, therefore, it is no surprise that the fourth position is so uncommon. An additional explanation for why the fourth position occurs so seldom might be that, metrically, the demonstratives are (as opposed to possessive pronouns 51 ) generally not very suitable for placement at the end of a line of verse. The reason for this is that they are frequently monosyllabic, and, in Latin verse, it is avoided to place monosyllables at a line end as much as possible. None of the twenty instances of position 4 are situated at the end of a line. There are only seven instances (1.02 %) of a demonstrative adjective placed at the end of a line of verse, but all of them are in positions 2 or 3. Four of these seven line ends consist of the noun phrase omnia haec (39).
(38) Et adeo ad te adtinere hanc | omnem rem? ( Eunuchus 744-5) ‘And furthermore, (don’t you know) this whole situation also concerns you’ (39) (...) qui fuerit pater, | quae mater, qui cognata tibi sit, omnia haec | confingam, quod erit mihi bonum atque commodum (...) ( Phormio 129-31) ‘Who could have been (her) father, who (her) mother, how she is related to you, all of that I will make up, in such a way that it will be good and useful for me.’
The sample of 19 instances does show a more detailed picture than the four instances in Eunuchus , so that a careful step towards some conclusions can be taken. The processes which can be distinguished are no different from those found in the other positions: demonstrative Focus, Head Focus, an intervening verb and style can account for the displacement of all demonstratives in position 4. The share of focalised demonstratives (about one in five) is, as has been mentioned in section 5.3., unexpectedly high, but the absolute number does remain limited with only four instances.
(40) Laborat e dolore atque ex hoc misera sollicita est, diem | quia olim in hunc sunt constitutae nuptiae. (Andria 268-9) ‘She is suffering from the pain and she is worried because of this: because long ago the marriage festivities were planned for this (very) day.’
51 See de Melo (2010: 85-6) for why possessives are more suitable for placement at the end of a line of verse.
29
(41) Miles, edico tibi, | si te in platea offendero hac post umquam | quod dicas mihi | "alium quaerebam, iter hac habui": periisti. ( Eunuchus 1063-5) ‘Soldier, I (hereby) declare to you that, if I ever find you in this street later, even if you would say to me “I was looking for someone else, (but) I had my path through here”, you (will) have died.’ (42) At ego si me metuis, mores cave in te esse istos sentiam. ( Adelphoe 1032) ‘But, if you fear me, be cautious that I do not notice that (kind of) behaviour to be in you (again).’ (43) Nam quid illi credis animi tum fuisse, ubi vestem vidit | illam esse eum indutum pater? ( Eunuchus 1015-6) ‘Because what do you believe his state of mind was at that time, when his father saw him dressed in that outfit?’
In the first example of this set, hunc bears Focus because it is that very day on which Pamphilus’s marriage to Philumena was originally arranged to happen, and, on that same day, Glycerium has gone into labour; all of these circumstances have caused the future mother to be extremely anxious. The reason for the hyperbaton is stylistic: diem is placed in a reversed hyperbaton, and one of the intervening words is a conjunction in postposition. In 41, the demonstrative stresses that Thraso is no longer allowed in that particular street where Thais (and hence also Phaedria) lives. In 42, the Focus on istos is implicitly contrastive: impious behaviour is not allowed; that virtuous behaviour is allowed (or rather obliged) is obvious and, hence, left implicit. In example 43, illam is stressed to highlight the type of clothing Chaerea is found in: a eunuch is a slave, and for a citizen to be seen in a eunuch’s dress is a serious disgrace. The stress is enhanced by the placement of illam at the beginning of the line 1016, which also creates an alliteration on line 1015, and, furthermore, allows a typically Terentian fronting of the verb.
However, the main explanation for why demonstratives were placed in postnominal hyperbaton was the Focus on the Head they modify: in ten out of the nineteen cases, the Head was focalised. Even though the sample is rather limited, the observed tendency that focalised elements tend to be fronted remains intact.
(44) Eandem illam rationem antiquam obtine: | conserva quaere parce, fac quam plurumum | illis relinquas, gloriam tu istam obtine. ( Adelphoe 812-4) ‘Hold on to that same old plan: retain, try to obtain and save up (money), make sure that you leave them as much as possible, and achieve that fame for yourself.’ (45) Nuptias effugere ego istas malo quam tu adipiscier. ( Andria 332) ‘I am more willing to escape from those marriage arrangements than you are to obtain (them).’ (46) Intellego: | nova nunc religio in te istaec incessit. ( Andria 730) ‘I see: now, that new moral sense has overwhelmed you.’ (47) Unum etiam hoc uos oro, ut me in uostrum gregem | recipiatis: satis diu hoc iam saxum uorso. ( Eunuchus 1084) ‘Once more I ask you this one thing, that you would receive me in your gang: I (have) been rolling this stone long enough now.’
30
(48) Eum haec cognovit Myrrina in digito modo me habente; | rogat unde sit; narro omnia haec; inde est cognitio facta | Philumenam compressam esse ab eo et filium inde hunc natum. ( Hecyra 830-2) ‘Just now this Myrrina has recognised the ring on my finger while I was wearing it; she asked where it was from; I told all this; that is why the identification that Philumena was raped by him and that, hence, this son was born (to him) was effectuated.’ (49) Hominem commonstrarier | mihi istum volo aut ubi habitet demonstrarier. (Phormio 305-6) ‘I want that chap to be shown to me or where he lives to be pointed out to me.’ (50) Adulescens, primum abs te hoc bona venia peto, | si tibi placere potis est, mi ut respondeas: | quem amicum tuum ais fuisse istum, explana mihi, | et qui cognatum me sibi esse diceret. ( Phormio 378-381) ‘Young man, first I ask of you with (your) kind permission, if (it) can please you, that you would answer (this question) for me: explain to me who do you say that friend of yours was, and in what way he said that I was related to him.’ (51) Impuratus me ille ut etiam irrideat? ( Phormio 669) ‘Does that scoundrel want to mock me as well?’ (52) Au obsecro, unam ille quidem hanc solam. ( Phormio 754) ‘Dear heavens, please, he only has this one alone.’ (53) Quia ne alteram quidem illam potero ducere; | nam quo redibo ore ad eam quam contempserim? ( Phormio 916-7) ‘Because I will not be able to marry that other girl either; because with which facial expression will I go back to the girl, having scorned her?’
In example 44, gloriam bears completive Focus: after the list of things Demea should do to obtain something, it is finally made clear what he is striving for: fame. In the following example, nuptias bear Focus: when Pamphilus explains that he does not want what Charinus accuses him of, he denies that he wants to get married to Philumena. There is no contrastive Focus on istas , because, at that stage, there are no marriage arrangements for Pamphilus and Glycerium. In 46, Mysis is surprised that Davus is suddenly acting morally correct. His unexpected religio is implicitly contrasted to his earlier questionable behaviour. In 47, unum bears Focus: Gnatho stresses he only asks for one thing, minimising his request. Example 48 shows an instance of completive Focus: filium is the final piece of crucial information that follows from the recognition of the ring. There might also be an overtone of contrastive Focus: in ancient society the birth of a son is much more important than the birth of a daughter, as is made clear in, for instance, Heauton Timorumenos . In 49, hominem bears Focus. Despite the small variatio Terence has incorporated, the two verbs are semantically identical (which is no surprise, since they are derived from the same root verb), resulting in a parallel Focus on hominem (together with ubi habitet ). Example 50 is quite straightforward: amicum bears questioning Focus in the indirect question. In example 51, the term of abuse bears is heavily focused (due to the inherent qualities of the word), and the intervening me enhances this stress even further. It is also a great illustration of the principle explained above: the position of the invective shows that it is quite loosely related to the phrase to which it serves as a Head. In 52, the Focus is replacing: Sophrona corrects Chremes who believes that Antipho has married two girls, whilst the two girls are actually the same person. In the final example above, alteram is stressed. In this sentence, the
31 word has a contrastive meaning: Phormio says that he will no longer be able to marry his first fictitious fiancée, because he pretended to have broken up with her to pretend to marry Phanium. Hence, alteram is implicitly contrasted with Phanium.
Most of the reasons above have focused on accounting for the postnominal displacement of the demonstratives, rather than the reason of why they are in hyperbaton. In two cases, there was a stylistic reason for the hyperbaton (examples 40 and 43). However, in most cases, the intervening element was, again, the verb: in seven instances (36.84 %), the demonstrative was separated from its Head by just the verb. Examples above are 41, 43 (with the additional alliteration), and 50 (both main and dependant verb). The following four examples do not contain a focalised Head or demonstrative, but just show that specific feature of Terence’s language:
(54) Postremo, quando ego conscia mihi sum a me culpam esse hanc procul | neque pretium neque rem ullam intercessisse illa aut me indignam, Geta, | experiar. ( Adelphoe 348-50) ‘In the end, because I am aware for myself that this blame 52 is far away from (being) my (responsibility) and that no price, nor any (other) thing unworthy of her of me has come about, Geta, (for those reasons,) I will fight (him in court).’ (55) Thais, ego eo ad Sophronam | nutricem, ut eam adducam et signa ostendam haec. ( Eunuchus 807-8) ‘Thais, I am going to Sophrona, the nurse, to bring her (here) and to show her these pieces of evidence.’ (56) Ita res est haec nunc quasi quom ... ( Heauton Timorumenos 318) ‘This situation is now so like when …’ (57) Pro deum inmortalium, | negat Phanium esse hanc sibi cognatam Demipho? ( Phormio 351-2) ‘Oh, by the (faith of the) immortal gods, does Demipho deny that Phanium here is related to him.’
In four further cases (21.05 %), there was an extra element which was closely related to the verb between the demonstrative and its Head. These cases involved an intervening subject (45), dative of advantage (49) or subject predicative (42 (in which there are two intervening verbs 53 , as in 50; the subject predicative consists of a prepositional phrase), and the example below 54 ).
(58) Syre, praeceptorum plenus est istorum ille. ( Adelphoe 412) ‘Syrus, he is full of these proverbs.’
Unsurprisingly, all of the cases of postnominal hyperbaton could be explained by the principles of Focus, Head Focus, style, intervening verb (sometimes with an extra related element) or a combination of them. It has been made clear that there should be a good reason why the
52 One could interpret haec as being focalized, but in its full context it clearly is not: it is merely an anaphoric reference to Aeschinus’s misconduct. 53 They are the main verb cave (level 1) and the verb of the AcI (level 3) dependant from the subjunctive reigned by cave . 54 The intervening subject predicative creates an alliteration, and can, hence, be explained stylistically.
32 demonstratives should deviate from both basic tendencies of placement before, or next to the Head noun.
5.4. Comparative research: prepositional phrases
To verify to which extent the distribution of the demonstratives over the four positions is particular, I have conducted a comparative investigation concerning modifiers in general. The sample has been limited to modifiers in noun phrases after the prepositions a(b)(s), ad , and de . The methodology was basically identical to that of my research concerning demonstratives, but some additional notes have to be made. When the modifier was placed before the demonstrative, it was regarded as being in the first position, since postposition of the preposition is a stylistically marked construction (as in example 59). Converted gerund expressions have also been included (example 60); the gerund has been regarded as Head noun, with the Direct object as a modifier to be distributed over the various positions. The reason for this is the following: within the prepositional phrase, these gerunds originally served as the Head of the noun phrase with the direct object in the accusative. Later, this was reanalysed and the direct object of gerunds after prepositions accompanied by an ablative were also in the ablative. The analysis of a direct object as a modifier is a result of the nominal status of the gerund. This is very similar to the corresponding construction in English, in which the direct object of a gerund is also expressed as a modifier, as in, for instance ‘The nation was shocked by the killing of the president/by his killing.’
In the table below, the results of this additional investigation have been given. To provide a more fine-grained overview of the situation, a distinction has been made between the global results (including the demonstratives), and the ‘corrected’ results (excluding them). In this way, the distribution of the demonstratives can be compared to the distribution of modifiers in general, but it is also possible to make a comparison with other modifiers. Furthermore, since the share of demonstratives in this sample was rather important (40,59 %), it also allows me to avoid the methodologically questionable situation of, in a way, having to compare demonstratives to themselves.
After a(b)( s), ad , de Position 1 Position 2 Position 3 Position 4 Total All modifiers 9 (8.18 %) 57 (51.82 %) 41 (37.27 %) 3 (2.73 %) 110 Corrected sample 7 (10.14 %) 31 (44.93 %) 28 (40.58 %) 3 (4.35 %) 69
When comparing the results in this table to those of the demonstratives, two similarities become apparent. The first is that the fourth position is not only very rare for demonstratives, but also for modifiers in general. The second similarity is that the most frequent position is the second one. However, the difference with the third position is only marginal in the corrected sample. It appears that the tendency of prenominal placement is typical for the demonstratives, whilst the tendency to be placed next to the Head is even more important for modifiers in general (85.51 %, or about 12 % more than for demonstratives). As concerns position 1, it has been observed that it occurs much less frequently: it is about half as common as in the sample of demonstratives, so
33 hyperbaton seems to be even more limited for modifiers in general. An important reason is probably the greater metrical freedom of demonstratives: they can be displaced more easily without violating a correct scansion.
The final difference to be discusses is the greater frequency of the third position in the corrected sample. Position 3 is about twice as frequent as in the sample of the demonstratives. This difference might be explained by the distinction between descriptive and distinctive modifiers 55 , which, respectively, tend to be placed pre- and postnominally. Both are about equally frequent, and when they bear Focus, they tend to move to the opposite position: focused descriptive adjectives take a postnominal position, focused distinctive adjectives are fronted. Hence, pre- and postnominal positions should be about equally frequent, which is to be seen in the table above. Demonstratives can also be used in a distinctive meaning (and they are, frequently), but only when there is a contrastive Focus on that demonstrative (in the sense ‘this one, not the other one’, in which the second part can be left implicit). However, as has been made clear above, demonstratives bearing Focus are much more likely to be placed prenominally, often in hyperbaton (which could also explain why position 1 is much more frequent in the sample of my main investigation). Perhaps this is why the third position is so uncommon in the demonstrative paradigms, without there being an intrinsic reason for their apparent displacement (slightly under half of the demonstratives have remained unexplained). Perhaps the hypothesis that the third position is not as uncommon for demonstrative as it seems from the data was correct, and the distinctively used demonstrative have merely been transposed to prenominal positions. Another reason why the third position is much more common than in the demonstrative sample could be that demonstratives in general are very short, ‘light’ elements, while longer, ‘heavier’ elements have a much greater tendency to be placed postnominally. The final difference that has to be discussed is much less frequent occurrence of the first position: it is about half as common as in the sample of demonstratives, so hyperbaton seems to be even more limited for modifiers in general. Apart from the explanation above (the necessary Focus when demonstratives are used distinctively, which often causes prenominal hyperbaton), another important reason is probably the greater metrical freedom of demonstratives: they can be displaced more easily without violating a correct scansion.
To conclude this section, I shall illustrate each of the positions with one example. The first example contains a modifying genitive without Focus, the second is an instance of a converted gerund construction, example 61 contains a focused descriptive adjective, and the final example contains a possessive pronoun.
(59) Filium narras mihi? Quoius de stultitia dici ut dignum est non potest. (Phormio 400-1) ‘Are you talking to me about (my) son? It is not possible that it is proper to say (anything) about his stupidity.’
55 Adjectives, but also genitives.
34
(60) Mi Pamphile, huius formam atque aetatem vides, | nec clam te est quam illi nunc utraeque inutiles | et ad pudicitiam et ad rem tutandam sient. (Andria 286-8) ‘My (dear) Pamphilus, you see her beauty and (young) age, and it is no secret to you how much both of them are useless to her, both to protect her chastity and her property.’ (61) Cognatus mihi erat: una a pueris parvolis | sumus educti; una semper militiae et domi | fuimus; paupertatem una pertulimus gravem. ( Adelphoe 494- 96) ‘He was a relative of mine: we have been brought up together from (when we were) very little boys; we have always been together in war and at home; we have endured severe poverty together.’ (62) Nunc animum rursum ad meretricem induxti tuum; | quoi tu obsecutus facis huic adeo iniuriam. (Hecyra 689-90) ‘Now you have led (your) heart back to your mistress; and, after you have committed yourself to her, you are committing an injustice to this (wife of yours) in particular.’
5.5. Evaluation of the existing theories
To conclude my research, I will examine the validity of the theories I have summarised in section 4.1 in relation to my findings. There were some minor observations in the overview in that section other than those discussed below. Some of them have already been refuted or have proved to be contradictory in that same section, and need no further discussing here. The other which are not discussed here, occurred either too seldom or even not at all, and, therefore, it is impossible to provide an evaluation of them. The reason I have included them nonetheless is, of course, to provide an overview which is as complete as possible.
All sources agree on the fact that demonstratives are generally placed prenominally, and I have come to the same conclusion. Hofmann and Szantyr, and Devine and Stephens added that, when the Head bears Focus, it generally precedes its demonstrative. My conclusions were similar: the chances that a postnominal demonstrative modifies a focalised Head are four times greater than that a prenominal demonstrative does so. Also, 56 % of all focalised Heads were placed before their modifying demonstrative, which is remarkable given the huge share of demonstratives in position 2. Pinkster, and Devine and Stephens noted that when demonstratives are stressed, they can be placed postnominally. The clue lies in the hedging by stating the possibility 56 : it can indeed occur that focalised demonstratives are displaced to a postnominal position, but there was a much greater tendency towards prenominal placement, sometimes even resulting in hyperbaton. The chances that a prenominal demonstrative is focalised are three times greater than that a postnominal demonstrative is. Less than 1 out of 10 focalised demonstratives were placed postnominally, so, for Terence’s oeuvre at least, the hedging verb should be might rather than can . Pinkster’s other remark, concerning monosyllables, was not to be discovered: nearly all instances of demonstratives determining monosyllabic Heads were placed prenominally 57 .
56 Which, actually, only occurs in Pinkster, and is even left implicit in Devine and Stephens. 57 4 (5.6 %) in position 1, 64 in position 2 (88.9 %), 3 in position 3 (4.2 %), and 1 in position 4 (1.4 %).
35
Ullman’s theory that demonstratives often precede their Heads because they are used anaphorically was shared by de Jong. Already in Eunuchus , however, anaphoric use was about equally common in positions 1, 2, and 3 (which are the most common ones), and, hence further investigation has not been undertaken. Walker’s observation that demonstratives in prepositional phrases are likely to precede the preposition was also untrue for the whole of Terence’s oeuvre: all demonstratives in a prepositional phrase followed the preposition with example 63 as the only exception:
(63) Verum istoc de nomine (...) (Adelphoe 744) ‘But about that name (...)’
When having verified this theory in Enuchus , I suggested this might be explained by the fact that the analysed comedy was rather Plautine, and, as Clackson notes, this construction is quite uncommon in Plautus. Obviously, not all of Terence’s comedies are Plautine, which leads me to the suggestion that the above word order might be a feature of highly refined literary language or a later development of the Latin language in general. Whether Laidlaw’s statement about the more frequent occurrence of emphasised demonstratives in drama is correct, could be the subject of another investigation, and, naturally, cannot be answered by investigating comedies alone. However, he was correct in that these emphasised forms occur more frequently before the noun. On the other hand, a link between stress and deixis has not been discovered.
The other principles described in de Jong’s article are quite general, and perhaps therefore more easily retrieved in the samples. The principles of contrast and topic are the main factors which determined whether a demonstrative is focused or not, and focused demonstratives were indeed more likely to be found prenominally. Concerning the ‘referential unity’ principle, no sufficient evidence has been found, since no demonstratives have been found designating a subgroup. I do not rule out the possibility that certain adjectival demonstratives can be interpreted in such a way, yet I do think that this use is very limited.
6. Conclusion
A first important conclusion is that of the validity of the source texts that remains: even though Terence’s comedies are poetic texts, there have been discovered clear tendencies concerning the positioning of adjectivally used demonstratives, which tend to be placed prenominally and close to their Heads. This means that the second position is the default position for the three paradigms. The other positions are not just randomly chosen: there are some principles which can explain the deviation from normal word order. A disposition solely due to metrical reasons is quite rare, because of the nature of the metres which allows much variation. No sufficient answers can be provided by semantics either. Already last year, I could conclude that there appeared to be no correlation between a certain position and a deictic or anaphoric use, since in all positions these were more or less equally common. By enlarging the corpus, it has been proved that the apparent influence of cataphoric use on the position was non-existent. Focus, on the other hand, is an important factor: when the demonstrative is used prenominally (especially in hyperbaton), there is a much greater chance for it to be focused than when used
36 postnominally. When in position 3, on, the other hand, there is a greater chance that the Head is focused. Overall, we can conclude that Focus is a factor that causes fronting. Another important factor is a language feature: Terence seems to be quite fond of preposing the verb (without necessarily causing an element to be stressed), which accounts for many cases of the hyperbaton positions (both 1 and 4) of the demonstrative. This feature was not only very frequent in Eunuchus , but also in the other comedies. Some minor factors that could cause a displacement to all positions were style, and metre.
Overall, the tendencies that I discovered last year were also retrieved in the larger corpus. In most respects, Eunuchus has proved to be a source text that is representative for the entire oeuvre of Terence: only some minor adjustments had to be made to the percentages that were discovered last year. It also means that the rather ambiguous interpretation of the third position has not been resolved: numerically, it should be considered to be an uncommon position, but the uncovered principles could only account for about half of all instances. It appears that avoiding a postnominal positioning of demonstratives is as much part of Terence’s personal writing style, as is fronting the verb. Since the other modifiers occur about equally frequently in positions 2 and 3, we can conclude that this is a feature typical for demonstratives.
That the results of the research in Eunuchus were so close to the global results does not mean that the expansion of the corpus size was unnecessary. First and foremost, the confirmation of previous results is an extremely valuable conclusion. Secondly, the similarities were far more numerous, but there were some adjustments to the conclusions from last year. The inexistence of a correlation between cataphoric reference and positioning was the first one, but also some more firmly based conclusions concerning position 4 were possible. It has been proved that it are indeed the same factors that cause displacement in general that also cause displacement to the fourth position: Focus and more importantly Head Focus cause postnominal placement, whilst an intervening verb is the most common reason for hyperbaton. Some other minor adjustments were the correction of the distribution in the less common paradigms of iste and ille : prenominal placement is indeed slightly more common than in the paradigm hic , but the difference is far smaller than in Eunuchus . Hence, we may conclude that the word class of the demonstratives is rather homogenous, and that is unnecessary to make a further subdivision.
Hence, the following principles for are universal to all of the paradigms. The most important factors for displacement to prenominal hyperbaton is the preposing of the verb. Another important reason for displacement to position 1 is demonstrative Focus. Minor reasons are style, metre and, in some cases also Head Focus (especially when the Head is a term of abuse). Position 3 is generally caused by Head Focus, but demonstrative Focus and style can account for a small minority of instances. The fourth position is quite similar in its explanations to the first position: hyperbaton is generally caused by an intervening verb, whilst the importance of Head Focus is now the greatest factor for postnominal placement. Demonstrative Focus is a minor reason for displacement and, in some cases, there is an extra stylistic factor to be discovered.
37
Works cited:
Barsby, J. (ed.), Terence. Eunuchus . Cambridge 1999
Barsby, J. (ed.), Terence I , Loeb Classical Library 22. Cambridge (Mass.)/London 2001
Barsby, J. (ed.), Terence II , Loeb Classical Library 23. Cambridge (Mass.)/London 2001
Clackson, J., The Word-Order Pattern magna cum laude in Latin and Sabellian , in: Penney, J. H. W. (ed.), Indo-European Perspectives. Studies in Honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies . Oxford 2004
Devine, A. M. and Stephens, L. D., Latin Word Order. Structured Meaning and Information . Oxford 2006
Dik, S. C., The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The structure of the Clause . Berlin/New York (NY) 1997²
Duckworth, G. E., The Nature of Roman Comedy. A Study in Popular Entertainment . Princeton (NJ) 1952
Ernout, A. and Thomas, F., Syntaxe Latine . Paris 1959²
Hofmann, J. B. and Szantyr, A., Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik . München 1965
Jong, J. R. de, Word Order within Latin Noun Phrases , in: Pinkster, H. (ed.), Studies in Language Companion Series. Volume 12. Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Proceedings of the 1st International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics. Amsterdam, April 1981 . Amsterdam/Philadelphia (PA) 1983
Karakasis, E., Terence and the Language of Roman Comedy . Cambridge/New York (NY)/Port Melbourne/Madrid/Cape Town 2005
Kauer, R. – Lindsay, W. M. (edd.) P. Terenti Afer Comoediae , OCT. Oxford 1926
Keil, H. (and Hagen, H.), Grammatici Latini ex Recensione Henrici Keilii . Lipsiae 1857-1880 (abbreviated GLK)
Keller, R. M., Iste Deiktikon in the Early Roman Dramatists. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 77 (1946), 261-316
Laidlaw, W. A., The Demonstrative Pronoun in the Plays of Terence . AJPh 57 (1936), 395-415
Maltby, R., A Comparative Study of the Language of Plautus and Terence . Cambridge 1975
38
Meiser, G., Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache . Darmstadt 1998
Melo, W. D. C. de, Review of Devine and Stephens. Lingua 117 (2007), 1483-1489
-Posessive Pronouns in Plautus , in: Chahoud, A. and Dickey, E. (edd.) Colloquial and Literary Latin . Cambridge 2010
Panhuis, D., Comments on J. R. de Jong’s Paper , in: Pinkster, H. (ed.), Studies in Language Companion Series. Volume 12. Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Proceedings of the 1st International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics. Amsterdam, April 1981 . Amsterdam/Philadelphia (PA) 1983
Pinkster, H., Latin syntax and Semantics . London/New York (NY) 1990
Post, L. A., The Art of Terence . CW 23 (1930), 121-128
Russell, D. A., De imitatione . In: D. West, T. Woodman (edd.), Creative Imitation and Latin Literature . Cambridge/London/New York (NY)/Melbourne 1979, 1-16
Shipp, G. P., P. Terenti Afri Andria . Oxford 1970
Ullman, B. L., Latin Word-Order . CJ (1919), 404-417
Walker, A. T., Some Facts of Latin Word-Order . CJ (1918), 644-657
Yoder, E., The position of Possessive and Demonstrative Adjectives in the Noctes Atticae of Aulus Gellius , in: Bolling, G. M., et al. (edd.), Language Dissertations Published by the Linguistic Society of America. Number II: September 1928 . Philadelphia (PA) 1928
39