■^f£S 
 
 
 PA 
 
 6602 
 
 F46 
 
 1921 
 
 MAIN 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 B M DMD MSS 
 
REPETITION OF THOUGHT 
 IN PLAUTUS 
 
 A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE 
 
 GRADUATE SCHOOL OF YALE UNIVERSITY 
 
 IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF 
 
 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 BY 
 
 DANIEL H. FENTON 
 
 NEW HAVEN 
 
 PRINTED AT THE YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 MDCCCCXXI 
 
REPETITION OF THOUGHT 
 IN PLAUTUS 
 
REPETITION OF THOUGHT 
 IN PLAUTUS 
 
 A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE 
 
 GRADUATE SCHOOL OF YALE UNIVERSITY 
 
 IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF 
 
 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 BY 
 
 DANIEL H. FENTON 
 
 NEW HAVEN 
 
 PRINTED AT THE YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 MDCCCCXXI 
 
COPYRIGHT 1920 BY 
 YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 

 CONTENTS 
 
 I. INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 II. EXPOSITION. 9 
 
 A. EQUIVALENT REPETITIONS. 9 
 
 1. Without interruption. 9 
 
 a. For iteration — with or without change in form. 9 
 
 b. For defining — with or without change in form. 16 
 
 2. Merely resumptive after interruption — for iteration. 21 
 
 B. GENERAL— PARTICULAR. 22 
 
 1. Indefinite statement made specific. 23 
 
 2. General statement analyzed. 26 
 
 3. General statement illustrated. • 26 
 
 C. PARTICULAR STATEMENT FOLLOWED BY GENERAL 
 
 EXPRESSION. -» 27 
 
 D. SUMMARY OF DETAILS. 29 
 
 E. NEGATIVE-AFFIRMATIVE. AFFIRMATIVE-NEGATIVE. 30 
 
 1. Negative-affirmative. 31 
 
 2. Affirmative-negative. -i^i^ 
 
 III. STYLISTIC VARIATIONS IN USE. 39 
 
 A. EMPLOYMENT OF THE CLASSES DISCUSSED IN II. 39 
 
 1. a-b-a-b. 39 
 
 2. a-b-b-a. 43 
 3- a-b-a. 46 
 
 4. Play on vi^ords. 47 
 
 IV. DOUBLE REPETITIONS. 48 
 
 V. CONCLUSION. 55 
 
 44GC42 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
 
 ylTTENTION has been called by various writers — notably by Langen 
 jt\. in his Plautinische Studien and by Lorenz in his introduction to the 
 Pseudolus — to repetition of thought as one of the characteristics in the 
 style of Plautus. Lorenz writes in his introduction to the Mostellaria, p. 23, 
 "daneben geht aber audi ein fortwahrendes Streben nach Deutlichkeit, 
 welches sich im Feuer und Eifer der Rede — Luft macht in — Wieder- 
 holungen, Verstarkungen durch Synonyme, tautologischen Umschrei- 
 bungen, starken Erhohungen und anderen Mitteln zur Emphase und zur 
 erschopfenden Bezeichnung eines Gedankens. Durch alle diese Bestre- 
 bungen entsteht eine gewisse Breite im Dialoge, die aber weit enfernt, der 
 Lebhaftigkeit desselben Eintrag zu thun, sie gerade befordert." This is 
 as far as any study of repetitions has been carried. No attempt has been 
 made to classify the numerous repetitions of thought in order definitely 
 to fix the part which they play in characterizing the style of Plautus. 
 
 In considering repetitions we must distinguish between the dialogue 
 and the monologues. In the cantica we have only the speaker to consider 
 but in the dialogue we must consider both the speaker and the listener, 
 that is, the repetition must be viewed psychologically from the view- 
 point of the speaker as well as from that of the listener. It is obvious 
 that the speaker's chief aim in repeating a thought may be to clarify that 
 thought for the benefit of the listener. But it is not enough to say that 
 this is the sole end of a repetition — to produce "intensity, emphasis, and 
 distinctness of expression." These may be the chief and obvious results 
 but the important things to consider are the means by which these results 
 are produced. The speaker does not desire merely to repeat his thought in 
 the same words but to vary the form and wording. By these means he may 
 impress the thought still more strongly on the listener but the desire in 
 his own mind is for variety. If he has expressed a thought negatively, he 
 may feel the desire to express it affirmatively or vice versa. Again he 
 may have expressed one thought, then changed to another, yet, feeling 
 the importance of the first, he may go back to that and then finally may 
 repeat the second statement. It is possible, then, to group the cases of rep- 
 etition into classes, more or less clearly differentiated, some simple, others 
 more complicated, and thus to show the relation that these repetitions 
 have to the general subject of the style of Plautus. 
 
 The most common and obvious class is that in which there is an almost 
 exact repetition of a thought. But even here there is considerable vari- 
 ation. There is first that class in which a thought is repeated by a speaker 
 without any interruption from another speaker. Within this class there 
 are two distinct divisions. The one is characterized by the fact that the 
 
8 REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 
 
 ;f0rm;of the repetition is similar to that of the original statement while 
 the other is characterized by the fact that the form does not correspond 
 to that of the original statement. It is to be remembered, however, in con- 
 sidering this class that the repetition of the thought is the important fact 
 while similarity of form is only a by-product. But an equivalent repeti- 
 tion — with or without change in form — may also be made after an in- 
 terruption from another speaker. Here the repetition is merely resumptive 
 after an interruption. In both these forms of equivalent repetition the aim 
 is to emphasize a statement by iteration with an underlying desire to vary 
 the expression. 
 
 There are two classes of repetition which have a closer relation to the 
 style of Plautus than the preceding which would be characteristic of dia- 
 logue in general. One is the cla.ss in which we find an analysis of a general 
 statement — that is, a speaker makes a general statement and then analyzes 
 this into the particular facts. The other is that in which we find a particu- 
 lar statement which is repeated and made more general. 
 
 A fourth class is that in which a speaker repeats merely to give a sum- 
 mary of the details which he wishes to impress on the listener. Here he 
 gives the particular facts and follows them up with a general statement. 
 A fifth class is that in which a speaker has first made a negative state- 
 ment and then repeats this thought affirmatively. On the other hand a 
 speaker may make an affirmative statement which he repeats negatively. 
 Here the desire for variety is the strong point. We find, therefore, five 
 distinct classes of repetition. First, the equivalent repetition — both with 
 interruption and without ; second, the analj^sis of a general statement ; 
 third, the exemplification of a general statement; fourth, the summary of 
 details ; fifth, a negative repeated by an affirmative and vice versa. 
 
 The classes of repetition which have been pointed out above are of the 
 kind into Avhich most of the repetitions of everyday speech fall. We con- 
 stantly repeat and any lecturer, to bring home his point, is prone to re- 
 peat an important idea. Although the repetition of this thought baldly, 
 without variety, would bring home the point, the best emphasis is that 
 which is given to a statement by repeating the thought but with variety 
 in the form and expression of it. These general classes are open to various 
 stylistic variations and the exceptions to these classes will be noted in 
 treating the classes but will be considered at length later in the paper. 
 
 There are, howe\er, in Plautus numerous cases of repetitions which 
 in lieu of a better designation we may call "double repetitions." Here 
 the speaker makes a statement which is jepeated twice so that he has at 
 the end made the same statement three times — but usually with sufficient 
 variety in the form or figure to prevent the repetitions from being inane. 
 This class will be treated by itself since, with the exception of the fact of 
 the double repetition, the other characteristics of this class are those 
 which characterize the first five classes. 
 
11. EXPOSITION 
 
 A. EQUIVALENT REPETITIONS 
 
 EVEN the most casual reader of Plautus must have noticed that a 
 speaker often repeats his thought in the exact language of or at least 
 in form very close to the first statement. This class of repetition, simple 
 and obvious as it appears to be, repays some closer consideration in the 
 light that it throws upon the more complicated and less obvious forms of 
 repetition. There are also certain characteristics of this class which pre- 
 vent the repetition from being treated as dittography. The repetition in 
 this class is not haphazard. It is often made more probable and almost 
 necessary by an interruption of another speaker or, if no such interruption 
 occurs, the repetition is expressed in such different language or in such a 
 different form that the variety of language or construction gives a de- 
 sired variety to the expression. The result aimed at and produced is em- 
 phasis by iteration or by definition. This class may then be divided into 
 the two divisions : first, repetition without interruption and second, repeti- 
 tion which is merely resumptive after an interruption. In the first division 
 we find repetitions where the form remains the same and repetitions 
 where the form is not the same as that of the original statement. It will 
 be noticed that the repetitions of this class are first treated in formal di- 
 visions and then treated subjectively. 
 
 I. Without Interruption. 
 
 a. For iteration — ivith or zvitJiout change in form. 
 
 The first class of repetition is perhaps the simplest to understand. The 
 repetition is very close to the original statement though the form may 
 change. Furthermore this class is characterized by the fact that the 
 repetition is made for iteration without any defining element. A very 
 simple example is Mostel, 619 f. : "tu iube / obicere argentum ob os im- 
 purae beluae / lube homini argento os verberarier." The second sentence 
 beginning with lube merely reiterates the command and adds nothing 
 to the original statement. In actual fact the first statement is the stronger 
 of the two as Tranio there characterizes the Danista as impurae beluae. 
 In the Stichus, 408 ff., Epignomus says, "Nam iam Antiphonem con- 
 veni adfinem meum / cumque eo reveni ex inimicitia in gratiam." A few 
 lines later he repeats with "in amicitiam atque in gratiam convortimus." 
 Nothing is added to the original statement although between this and the 
 repetition Epignomus has given the reason why he and Antipho are 
 friends again — because he himself has returned home with wealth. These 
 
10 REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 
 
 two examples are taken from the diverbia. The following is from the 
 monologue of Philolaches, Mostellaria, 103 f., " laudant fabrum atque 
 aedes probant, sibi / quisque inde exemplum expetunt." He repeats with 
 "sibi quisque similis \olt suas." This is only one example of numerous 
 cases of repetition in this canticum which might be taken as a type of a 
 canticum in which statements are repeated ad nauseam. Philolaches 
 throughout repeats unimportant statements and nowhere in Plautus can a 
 more tiresome canticum be found. Yet these repetitions have a distinct 
 place in portraying the character of Philolaches who is a weak inefficient 
 young man. He has hit upon the parable of the house and overdoes the 
 comparison which might be forceful enough if made in simple terms. In 
 the same canticum Philolaches soliloquizes (1. 107) "hie iam aedibus 
 vitium additur, bonae quom curantur male." He then describes the effect 
 of the storm and finally at 113 repeats his first general statement, " ne- 
 quior f actus iam est usus aedium." Here the repetition is close but the 
 form is different from that of the original statement. Another example of 
 repetition for iteration in which the form is different though the repeti- 
 tion is close to the original statement occurs in the Men., 87 f., where 
 Peniculus gives directions for keeping your slaves satisfied "quem tu 
 adservare recte ne aufugiat voles / esca atque potione vinciri debet." He 
 repeats this last under a different form in the next line " apud mensam 
 plenam homini rostrum deliges." In the Stichus, 276 f., Pinacium ex- 
 claims, "itaque onustum pectus porto laetitia lubentiaque." Then in 1. 279 
 changing the form he repeats this statement " ripisque superat mi atque 
 abundat pectus laetitia meum." Subjectively all six examples belong to the 
 same class of repetition for iteration, while formally the first three differ 
 from the last three in the fact that in the first the form of the repetition is 
 the same as that of the original statement, in the last there is a distinct 
 change in the form and wording. 
 
 When the repetition is not so close to the original statement as in the 
 examples given, the formal difference is of course the most obvious. In 
 the Most. 427 Tranio boasts "ludos ego hodie vivo praesenti hie seni 
 faciam." In line 430 he repeats this statement "unde advenienti sarcinam 
 imponam seni." Here the repetition shows a distinct change in figure and 
 while it merely repeats the thought for iteration, yet the formal difference 
 is quite clear. In the True, 215 f., Astaphium soliloquizes, "verum apud 
 hunc mea era sua consilia summa eloquitur libere." The thought is re- 
 peated not closely but with a different form in "magisque adeo ei con- 
 siliarius hie amicust quam auxiliarius." A very distinct example occurs 
 in the Pseudolus, 448 f., "iam istaec insipientiast, / viam in propromptu 
 gerere." He then repeats under a very different form with "quanto satius 
 est/adire blandis verbis atque exquirere." In the first example there 
 was a distinct change of figure. In this last example the speaker, in addi- 
 tion to repeating his statement, does put the other side of the situation 
 more distinctly — first what you ought not to do and then what you ought 
 to do. In all three cases the formal difference in the repetition is clear. On 
 
REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS ii 
 
 the other hand there are very few examples in which the repetition is not 
 close and in which the form remains the same as that of the original state- 
 ment. The only case found which clearly falls under this division is in the 
 True, 200 f., where Astaphium says "celabat metuebatque te, ne tu sibi 
 persuaderes / ut abortioni operam daret puerumque ut enicaret." Here 
 the form of "puerumque ut enicaret" is the same as that of the original 
 statement but it adds nothing important to the "abortioni operam dabat" 
 even though the expression is quite different. 
 
 One of the commonest classes of repetition found in Plautus is that in 
 which the formal repetition is so close that the iteration shows a close 
 balance with the original statement. Here we find the examples ranging 
 from a very close word for word balance to a balance in which the repeti- 
 tion verbally varies considerably from the original statement. In the Most. 
 504, Tranio reports that the ghost said "scelestae hae sunt aedes, impia 
 est habitatio." Here the balance is very close. The same is true of the 
 Rudens, 197, "sed erile scelus me soUicitat, eius me impietas male habet." 
 The balance is not so close in such an example as Pseu. 687, "sed iam satis 
 est philosophatum. nimis diu et longum loquor," while in the Most. 184 f., 
 though the balance is preserved, yet such variety is given to the repetition 
 that the latter is made more complicated than the original statement. 
 Philolaches says, "infecta dona facio/periisti." Then he repeats this 
 statement with "quod promiseram tibi dono perdidisti." In the repetition 
 the perdidisti balances the infecta jacio while the dona of the origi- 
 inal statement is repeated in the quod promiseram tibi dono. That the 
 sense of rhythm and proportion was so strong that the balance-phrase — 
 verb-noun — phrase was intentional cannot be asserted. But it is obvious 
 in such a repetition that the periisti is the controlling word. Philolaches' 
 repetition of the infecta dona facio is made more plausible and almost 
 necessary by the periisti. He says, "1 take back my gifts" but then adds 
 "you are lost" — but to end thus would leave little emphasis on the gift, 
 so he repeats "what I had promised you — you have lost." Thus the peri- 
 isti makes clearer the balance between the two clauses. To have balance 
 between the original statement and the repetition, the form must of course 
 remain the same, but there are a very few cases where the form changes. 
 In the M. G. 506 f. Periplectomenus upbraids Sceledrus, "quodque inde 
 inspectavisti meum apud me hospitem / amplexum amicum, quom oscula- 
 batur, suam." Here the participle amplexum is repeated in the quom 
 clause. Another example occurs in the As. 802, "pulchre scripsti !" Then 
 the parasite repeats this thought in an ejaculation "scitum syngraphum !" 
 
 One of the most frequent forms of repetition is that in which the 
 thought is first expressed in a clause and is then repeated in a single word. 
 Of course the inverse order may occur. First there are examples in which 
 a clause is balanced by a noun. In the Most. 484 f. Tranio explains to 
 Theopropides "ut foris cenaverat / tuos gnatus, postquam rediit a cena 
 domum." The ut clause is repeated in a cena. A better example occurs 
 in the Pseudolus 427 f., "homines qui gestant quique auscultant crimina /, 
 
12 REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 
 
 si meo arbitratu liccat, omnes pendeant." Then the thought of the qui 
 clauses is repeated in the next line "gestores Unguis, auditores auribus." 
 While in this last example a relative clause is balanced by a noun, the 
 example is quite different from such a case as Captivi 343, "qui tua quae 
 tu iusseris mandata ita ut velis perferat." In this type, of which there 
 are a great many examples in Plautus, the relative clause is felt to be re- 
 dundant. In this class of repetition the form naturally differs and the ex- 
 amples given show repetition for iteration. 
 
 In the Aul. 191, Euclio complains "virginem habeo grandem, dote 
 cassam atque inlocabilem." He repeats the thought of inlocabilcm in 
 a negative sentence "neque eam queo locare quoiquam." This merely 
 iterates and does not define any more clearly the thought expressed in 
 the adjective. The adjective is clear enough without the repetition. The 
 same is true of Per. 622, "ah, di istam perdant ! ita catast et callida / ut 
 sapiens habet cor, quam dicit quod opust." From what has happened and 
 been said previously the meani-ng of the adjectives is clear enough for us 
 to regard the repetition in the ut and quam clauses as iteration rather than 
 definition. In the Stichus 538 the order is reversed, "priusquam abis, 
 praesente ted huic apologum agere unum volo." An example similar to 
 the last noun example occurs in the Mer. 227, "velut ego nocte hac quae 
 praeteriit proxima." Here the relative clause is felt to be redundant and 
 superfluous. 
 
 There are also a few examples in which the thought of an adverb is 
 repeated in a clause as in the Poe. 662 f., "at enim hie clam, furtum esse 
 volt." The thought of clam and furtum is then repeated in "ne quis sciat 
 neve arbiter sit." This is the best example of this class of repetition which 
 does not occur as often as the others — the noun and adjective. Another 
 example occurs in the Most. 657 f. where Tranio abuses the Danista, 
 "nullum edepol hodie genus est hominum taetrius." He repeats the 
 thought of taetrius in "nee minus bono cum iure quam danisticum." The 
 examples in which the thought of a verb is repeated in a clause are also 
 few in Plautus. The best example found is in the Bacc. 1191 "age iam, 
 id ut est, etsi est dedecori, patiar." Then Nicobulus repeats patiar in 
 "facere inducam animum." Most of the examples however are much 
 simpler than this. Take Pseu. 230 where Pseudolus says "audio, ere, equi- 
 dem atque animum adverto" or True. 125, "tuis servio atque audiens 
 sum imperils." These two examples, characteristic of this class in general, 
 are so simple and obvious that they are mentioned only to form an 
 analogy with the previous classes of a single word balanced by a clause. 
 
 Probably the most obvious and common type of repetition is that in 
 which a single word — noun, adjective or verb — is repeated in another 
 word of the same kind. Yet even here there is a wide variety. In the Stichus 
 215 f. Gelasimus complains "prae maerore adeo miser atque aegritudine/ 
 consenui." In this example aegritudine is merely a synonym for maerore 
 but this use of synonyms is, as Lorenz has noticed, one of the means of 
 repetition in Plautus. It is a common type and while stylistically it may 
 
REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 13 
 
 not differentiate the style of Plautus from other writers, it often shows 
 considerable variation from this rather bald use. In the Poe. 1062 f. 
 Hanno asks "ecquid meministi tuom parentum nomina / patris atque 
 matrisf" A variation of this is found in Cis. 718, "Nunc eam volt suae 
 matri et patri, / quibus natu est, reddere ultro." Sometimes Plautus varies 
 the use of synonyms still more as in Men. 1 102 where Messenio says 
 "Spes mihi est vos inventurum fratres germanos duos / geminos, una 
 matre natos et patre uno uno die." This last example shows considerable 
 development from the use of single words. Yet in no one of these exam- 
 ples does the repetition do anything more than iterate an idea which is 
 clear enough without the repetition. It will also be noticed that the form 
 of the repetition changes in the second example but remains the same in 
 the other cases. In this class the proportion of those cases in which there 
 is a formal difference to those in which there is no change is represented 
 about correctly by the examples given — that is, the ratio is one to three. 
 
 The use of synonyms is much more pronounced in the case of verbs than 
 it is in the above discussed case of nouns. Most. 83 f. offers the best ex- 
 ample of this kind of repetition. " Recordatus multum et diu cogitavi / 
 argumentaque in pectus multa institui / ego atque in meo corde si est 
 quod mihi cor, /eam rem volutavi et diu disputavi." Here the same idea is 
 expressed five times. The inultiiin is taken up by the viiclta and the diu 
 is also repeated. There is variation in the repetition however. First we 
 have verb and adverb repeated by verb and adverb. Then the same 
 thought is repeated twice by verb and noun, with a final repetition by 
 verb and verb. There is, then, not merely a repetition by synonyms but 
 some attempt is made to vary the expression. In the Trin. 130 f. and in 
 the Captivi 555 f. are two examples closely analogous to each other. In 
 the first Megaronides asks "quid secus est aut quid interest dare te in 
 manus?" In the second Hegio says "quibus insputari saluti fuit atque is 
 profuit." There is this difference between the two examples. In the first 
 there is an adverb and verb, in the second a noun and verb. But each is re- 
 peated by a single verb. In each example the form of the repetition 
 differs from that of the original. In the Bacc. 492 ff. the form remains the 
 same, "viden ut aegre patitur gnatum esse corruptum tuom,/suomsodalem 
 ut ipsus sese cruciat aegritudine!" In all the examples noticed, the second 
 verb is synonymous with the first and does not require any modifying 
 word to make this clear. In the Cis 160 f. the expression is much more 
 varied, "ilico / pedibus perfugium peperit, in Lemnum aufugit." Here 
 there is a sort of drop from the high-sounding bombastic phrase to the 
 simple verb. 
 
 Analogous to the repetition of nouns and verbs is the repetition of ad- 
 jectives. But here there is no variety, no change in form, no attempt to 
 do anything except to give a synonym for an adjective which requires no 
 explanation. In the Most. 476 Tranio exclaims, "scelus, inquam, factum 
 est iam diu, antiquom et vetus." In the Poe. 1030 f. Hanno explains 
 "servom hercle te esse oportet et nequam et malum,/ hominem peregri- 
 
14 REPETITION OF THOUGHT Ix\ PLAUTUS 
 
 num atque advenam qui inrideas." Here the balance is noticeable be- 
 tween the two sets of repetition. In the Poe. 1240 occurs a repetition 
 which is very common in Plautus because of the character of a great many 
 of his plots. Hanno swears "atque equidem ingenuas liberas summoque 
 genere gnatas." A great many examples of this repetition of ingenuas 
 and liberas may be found in Plautus. In the Trin. 1096, Callicles uses 
 three different adjectives and then a phrase '"'probo et fideli et fido et cum 
 magna fide." Evidently having given a synonym for probo, he tries to 
 see how many variations he can find for fideli, keeping to the same root. 
 There is no defining element in this adjectival repetition nor is there any 
 change in form except in this last example where the simple adjective is 
 varied by an adjective and noun with a preposition. 
 
 There are three classes of repetition in which the form always remains 
 the same, but in which there are examples of both the iteration and de- 
 fining types. These three classes comprise instances of imperatives, con- 
 ditional clauses and questions. The first two are the most important. In 
 the class in which the imperative form is retained in the repetition there 
 is some variation. We find the simple type of Stichus 281 "propera, 
 Pinacium, pedes hortare" varied in such an example as Most. 461 where 
 Tranio cries " Fuge, obsecro, atque abscede ab aedibus. / Fuge hue, fuge 
 ad me propius." Here "Fuge" is repeated but although the action of 
 "abscede ab aedibus" is the same as that of "fuge ad me propius," yet the 
 first emphasizes the person spoken to, the listener, while the second em- 
 phasizes the speaker. In the Most. 10 ff. Grumio threatens "patiar, sine 
 modo adveniat senex /. Sine modo venire salvom quern apsentem comes." 
 Here there is some change in the form as the subjunctive adveniat 
 changes to the infinitive venire. In these three examples the repetition 
 keeps the form of the original statement — the imperative — and merely 
 reiterates the idea, but there is variation since in some cases there is rep- 
 etition merely of a single imperative while in others the imperative is 
 repeated with a variation in the subordinate elements. 
 
 In the following class the form changes but the repetition merely 
 iterates the first statement. The characteristic of this class is the occur- 
 rence of a conditional form. In the Trin. 567 Stasimus says "de istoc 
 quod dixti modo: / si ante voluisses, esses:" He then repeats this condi- 
 tion with "nunc sero cupis." But the repetition may also take the form 
 of a question as in the Capt. 529 f. "neque iam Salus servare, si volt, me 
 potest, nee copia est,/ nisi si aliquam corde machinor astutiam." He then 
 repeats this condition in the form of a rhetorical question "quam, malum? 
 quid machiner? quid comminiscar?" 
 
 Another type in which the form of the repetition differs from that of 
 the original is that in which there is a change in the person of the expres- 
 sion ; that is, the original statement describes an action in reference to the 
 speaker, the repetition iterates this same action in reference to another 
 person. In the Epi. 91 f. Epidicus exclaims " Corium perdidi." Then in 
 the next line "virgis dorsum dispoliet meum." The same is true of Bacc. 
 
REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 15 
 
 146, "immo neque habebis neque sinam." In Men. 107 1 ff. Messenio cries 
 "novi equidem hunc ! erus est mens." He repeats this thouglit with "ego 
 quidem huius servos sum." Nothing is defined in these examples. There 
 is merely a change in person. 
 
 In the classes of repetition so far considered there has been no one 
 word, the occurrence of which might be said to characterize a certain 
 type of repetition. The next two classes are characterized by such a word — 
 the one by nam, the other by ita. In the Mer. 980 Eutychus says "quern 
 quidem hercle ego, in exsilium quom iret, redduxi domum." Then he re- 
 peats the quom clause with "nam ibat exsulatum." In this repetition the 
 form changes but the nam clause has no defining or explanatory force. 
 It merely iterates the idea. In the Most. 760 f. Tranio says "nunc hinc 
 exemplum capere volt nisi tu nevis." Then he repeats this thought with 
 "nam ille eo maiore hinc opere ex te exemplum petit." In this example the 
 form remains the same but again there is no explanatory idea. In the 
 True. 16 occurs "poscendo atque auferendo, ut mos est mulierum / nam 
 omnes id faciunt, quom se amari intellegunt." Even here the nam omnes 
 id faciunt merely reiterates the idea contained in the ut mos clause. 
 Another type of this repetition is that in which a general statement is 
 given a particular application in a Jiam clause. But here one may question 
 whether the iterating element in the repetition is stronger than the de- 
 fining element. In the Trin. 23 ff. Megaronides asserts "amicum casti- 
 gare ob meritam noxiam / inmoene est facinus, verum in aetate utile / 
 et conducibile — nam ego amicum hodie meum / concastigabo pro com- 
 'merita noxia,/ invitus, ni id me invitet ut faciam fides." It seems that in 
 such a repetition the defining element is not very strong. There may be 
 some element of it in such a repetition — almost of necessity — but the 
 repetition is on the whole merely one of iteration. There are also numer- 
 ous examples which fall in with the above except that there is no nam in 
 the repetition. Take Poe. 802 f. "non sum nequiquam miles factus; paul- 
 lulum / praedae intus feci ; dum lenonis familia / dormitat, extis sum 
 satur factus probe." The thought is iterated but not defined any more 
 clearly than in the original paulbdum etc. Most. 532 f. has a certain de- 
 fining element but on the whole merely iterates. The Danista complains 
 "scelestiorem ego annum argento faenori / numquam ullum vidi quam 
 hie mihi annus optigit." He repeats with "a mani ad noctem usque in foro 
 dego diem,/ locare argenti nemini nummum queo." 
 
 Similar in character to those repetitions in which the repetition 
 is marked by nam, are those cases in which an ita appears in the 
 repetition. In the Mer. 94 f. Charinus says "lucrum ingens facio praeter- 
 quam mihi mens pater / dedit aestumatas mercis." Then he repeats with 
 "ita peculium conficio grande" which merely iterates his first statement, 
 adding nothing to it. Noticeable is the balance between lucrum 
 and peculium, ingens and grande, facio and conficio. Another example 
 of balance is shown in the Pseu. 299 f. "nimis miser sum, nummum 
 nusquam reperire argento queo; / ita miser et amore pereo et inopia 
 
i6 REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 
 
 argentaria." Here however "amore pereo" does add something to the 
 original miser. The greater number of the examples of this class are 
 much simpler, such as Casina 325, "nunc in fermento totast, ita turget 
 mihi" or Cis. 535, "et illud paveo et hoc formido, ita tota sum misera in 
 metu." Mention might here be made of Cur. 299 f. where Curculio says 
 " recte hie monstrat, si imperare possit. Nam ita nunc mos viget,/ ita nunc 
 servitiumst: profecto modus haberi non potest." Of this Langen writes 
 (Beitrage, p. 233 f.) "In dem Falle, dass sich — ita — auf das Folgende 
 bezieht, ist die verbindung mit dem Vorhergehenden durch nam nicht 
 ganz selten." 
 
 b. For defining — zuitJi or unthout ehange in form. 
 
 In the examples so far considered, the repetition, whether it retained 
 or changed the form of the original statement, merely reiterated the 
 original thought. Parallel to the various classes into which this larger 
 class of repetition by iteration was divided, are classes in which the rep- 
 etition does more than merely iterate the original statement. Here we 
 find a distinct defining element in the repetition. Except, then, for the 
 fact that the repetition defines rather than iterates, the following classes 
 will be found similar to those already considered. First there is that class 
 in which the repetition is very close to the original statement, yet has a 
 certain defining force. In the Men. 242 f. Men. replies to Messenio "Ergo 
 istuc quaeso certum qui faciat mihi / qui sese dicat scire eum esse 
 emortuom." Here the second qui clause repeats the thought of the first 
 qui clause and also defines istiie although the meaning is already clear 
 enough. The form of the repetition remains the same as that of the origi- 
 nal statement. In the Stichus 347 fT. Pinacium commands "munditias volo 
 fieri, ecferte hue scopas simulque harundinem,/ ut operam omnem ara- 
 neonem perdam et texturam inprobem." Then he defines this with 
 " deiciamque eorum omnis telas." Here again the form remains the same. 
 In the Most. 191 f. the nurse, Scapha, warns her mistress. "Stulta es plane/ 
 quae ilium tibi aeternum putes fore amicum et benevoletem /. Moneo 
 ego te: te ille deseret aetate et satietate." This last clause merely defines 
 the meaning of the first sentence. The thought is clear enough when 
 Scapha says that Philematium cannot expect her lover to be faithful 
 always. But then she makes her meaning clearer by defining this expres- 
 sion ; that is, she does more than reiterate the thought. The form of the 
 repetition does not differ materially from that of the original statement. 
 
 These two examples show a repetition which is rather close to the 
 original statement ; the following show a repetition which is not so close. 
 In the Most. 715 f. Tranio exclaims "hoc habet! repperi qui senem 
 ducerem," then he defines this with "quo dolo a me dolorem procul pel- 
 lerem" — the form of the repetition remaining the same as that of the 
 original statement. In the Trin. 233 f. Lysiteles reflects "nisi hoc sic 
 faciam, opinor, ut utramque rem simul exputem, index sim reusque ad 
 
REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 17 
 
 eac rem." Here the index clause defines more clearly the ut clause, the 
 form remaining the same. Another example is Rudens 1 1 79 f., "age 
 eamus, mea gnata, ad matrem tuam/quae ex te poterit argumentis hanc 
 rem magis exquirere." Then Daemones defines the relative clause by 
 another relative clause "quae te magis tractavit magisque signa pernovit 
 tua." Most of the examples belonging to this class of repetition keep the 
 form of the original statement. But in the Most. 1073 f. we find a change 
 in the form, "alter hoc Athenis nemo doctior dici potest." Then Tranio 
 defines this, changing the form, "verba illi non magis dare hodie quis- 
 quam quam lapidi potest." 
 
 Combining at once the characteristics of each of these two classes is 
 that class of repetition in which a short phrase is balanced by another 
 short phrase. Here the repetition is sometimes close, at other times less 
 close. In the M. G. 144 f. Palaestrio says " et sene sciente hoc feci: is 
 consilium debit." Here the is clause defines more clearly the sene sci- 
 ente. The form is different, otherwise the repetition is close to the origi- 
 nal phrase. In the Stichus 577 occurs " atque eccum tibi lupum in ser- 
 mone." Epignomus defines this with "praesens essuriens adest." Here 
 the form is the same and the repetition is close to the original statement. 
 In the Rudens 527 Labrax gives a very good example of this type of de- 
 fining repetition but balance is not so well maintained. He complains 
 "edepol, Neptune, es balineator frigidus." Then he defines this with 
 "cum vestimentis postquam aps te abii, algeo." Here the form distinctly 
 changes and there is a certain balance between the balineator and the 
 postquam clause, the frigidns and algeo. But most clear is the defining 
 quality of the repetition. Another example of balanced repetition occurs 
 in the M. G. 1220 f. "cum ipso pol sum locuta, / placide, ipsae dum 
 lubitum est mihi." Then Milphidippa repeats placide in otiose, and the 
 ipsae clause in nieo arbitratu. Here the balance is clear, the form 
 of the repetition changes but in the adverbial repetition there is merely 
 iteration while in the second part there is a distinct defining element. 
 
 It is to be expected that the defining characteristic of a repetition would 
 be most clear where the thought of a single word— noun, adjecti\e, or 
 verb — is repeated in a phrase. Here it is natural that such a repetition 
 should not merely reiterate the single word but should define it more 
 clearly. The monologue of Philolaches (Most. 120 f. ) offers an example 
 of this class, "primumdum parentes fabri liberum sunt." Then in the 
 next line he defines the fabri with "i fundamentum supstruont liberorum." 
 Of course in this class the form of the repetition is always different from 
 the word it defines. Another example similar to this one occurs in the Poe. 
 1 125 where Milphio says "praestrigator hie quidem Poenus probust." 
 Then he defines his meaning more clearly with "perduxit omnis ad suam 
 sententiam." The next two examples show some variation from this form 
 of a noun repeated and defined by a sentence. In the Ep. 274 f. Epidicus 
 says "sic faciundum censeo, /quasi tu cupias liberare fidicinam animi 
 gratia." Then he defines this by "quasique ames vehementer tu illam." 
 
i8 REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 
 
 Another form which this chiss of repetition takes is shown in the Pseu. 
 1 193 f., "j)raeceptor tuos quis te hanc falhiciam/docuit." In each of these 
 examples the meaning of the noun is defined and made clear in the repeti- 
 tion, yet nothing is really added, the meaning of the noun being clear 
 enough without the repetition. 
 
 Turning to the analogous repetition of the thought of an adjecti\-e, the 
 examples are in the main similar to those given in treating of the nouns. 
 In the Aul. 324 ff. Anthrax asserts, " coquos ille nundinalest." Then he 
 defines the adjecti\e -with "in nonum diem solet ire coctum." Similar to 
 this is Cur. 384 f. where Curculio answers Lyco "nil tu me saturum 
 monueris." Then two lines below he defines saturmn with "edepol ne 
 ego hie med intus explevi probe." In the Stichus 465 f. the repetition, in 
 addition to the defining element, also adds something to the adjective. 
 Gelasimus exclaims "Epignome, ut ego nunc te conspicio lubens!" Then 
 he explains and defines the lubens with "ut prae laetitia lacrumae 
 prosiliunt mihi !" In the Epi. 730 f. there is some variation. Epidicus 
 promises "invitus do hanc veniam tibi." Then he defines the invitus with 
 "nisi necessitate cogar." 
 
 Examples in which the thought of a verb is defined in a repetition are 
 much less numerous than the analogous cases of noun and adjective. In 
 the Bacc. 474 Mnesilochus says "erras, Lyde." Then she defines erras 
 wath "tu Pistoclerum falso atque insontem arguis," although the meaning 
 of erras is clear enough when taken in its context. Another example oc- 
 curs in the M. G. 50 f. "dum tale facies quale adhuc, adsiduo edes." 
 Then the soldier defines what he means or rather how Artrogus may 
 have such a pleasure "communicabo semper te mensa mea." This repeats 
 the thought of adsiduo edes but also adds something by explaining who 
 is to provide the food. 
 
 Belonging to this same defining class of repetition are those examples 
 which are characterized by the fact that the conditional form of the origi- 
 nal statement is lost in the repetition. In the Poe. 1280 f. Antamoenides 
 says "si ego minam non ultus fuero probe quam lenoni dedi, / tum pro- 
 fecto me sibi habento scurrae ludificatui." A few lines later (1286 f.) 
 he repeats the thought of the si clause "sic dedero : aere militari tetigero 
 lenunculum." Here the form changes and the repetition defines the origi- 
 nal statement. Similar to this example but with the conditional form in 
 the repetition is Mer. 382, "res adhuc quidem hercle in tutost, nam hunc 
 nescire sat scio / de ilia amica." Charinus then defines this statement, es- 
 pecially the res clause, with "quod si scirit, esset alia oratio." The form, 
 of course, changes. Analogous to these examples is True. 292 ff. where 
 Truculentus taunts Astaphium, "itane? erubuisti? quasi vero corpori reli- 
 queris/tuo potestatem coloris ulli capiendi, mala!" He then defines this, 
 changing the form, "buccas rubrica, creta omne corpus intinxti tibi." 
 
 The last two classes of repetition by iteration were those marked by 
 the occurrence of an ita or nam. The same classes are found in repetition 
 by definition. I will treat first that class which is marked by ita and then. 
 
REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 19 
 
 before treating the class marked by nam, will give example? of repetition 
 in which a nam does not occur but in which the explanatory element is 
 much stronger than in the ordinary repetition. Men. 468 shows the 
 simplest form which the ita repetition takes. Menaechmus II promises 
 Erotium "non faxo eam esse dices." Then he defines with "ita igno- 
 rabitur." The form of the repetition is somewhat different from that of 
 the original statement. In the Cap. 46 f. we find a more complicated rep- 
 etition, "sed inscientes sua sibi fallacia / ita compararunt et confinxerunt 
 dolum / itaque hi commenti de sua sententia / ut in servitute hie ad suoih 
 maneat patrem :/ita nunc ignorans suo sibi servit patri." Here there is 
 almost word for word balance — in servitute maneat — servit, ad suoin 
 patrem — suo patri. The defining element is strengthened by ignorans 
 in the repetition. In the Mer. 588 Charinus complains "sumne ego homo 
 miser, qui nusquam bene queo quiescere? / si domo sum, foris est animus, 
 sin foris sum, animus domist." He defines this statement in more particu- 
 lar form with "ita mi in pectore atque in corde facit amor incendium." 
 A simpler form is shown in the Rudens 1225 f. " Hercules istum infelicet 
 cum sua licentia!" Then Daemones defines this, especially the licentia 
 with "ita meas replevit auris quidquid memorabam 'licet.' " There are ex- 
 amples in which the ita according to Langen has the force of enini such 
 as, M. G. 402 f., "nescio quid credam egomet mihi iam,/ ita quod vidisse 
 credo./ Me id iam non vidisse arbitror." Langen (Beitrage, p. 232 f. ) 
 says of this example "hier steht ita vollig statt des spateren (nicht des 
 plautinischen, cfr unten) enim." Another example of this occurs in the 
 Trin. 542 ff., "tum autem Surorum, genus quod patientissumumst / 
 hominum, nemo exstat qui ibi sex menses vixerit:/ ita cuncti solstitial! 
 morbo decidunt." The ita clause defines and also repeats the thought ex- 
 pressed in nemo etc. But according to Langen, in the last two examples 
 the ita has the force of enim. It is to be noticed, however, that this causal 
 force of ita may easily be overworked and applied to practically every 
 example of repetition with ita found in Plautus. In such a simple example 
 as M. G. 522 f., "transcurre curriculo ad nos, ita negotiumst," one may 
 feel that ita possesses some of the force of enim but in actual fact on 
 closer examination it can be seen that the negotiumst does not so much 
 give the cause of the transcurre as that it defines the thought of haste. 
 
 Analogous to these examples of repetition with ita are such cases as 
 Poe. 917 f., "di immortales meum erum servatum volunt / et hunc dis- 
 perditum lenonem : tantum eum instat exiti." Here the tantum clause 
 defines the last part of the previous sentence, changing the form. The 
 same is true of Poe. 1 1 79 f. " hau sordere visust / festus dies, Venus, nee 
 tuom fanum : tantus ibi clientarum erat numerus." In the following ex- 
 ample the repetition is marked by eo. In the True, i 78 f. Diniarchus says 
 "In melle sunt linguae sitae vostrae atque orationes,/ facta atque corda 
 in felle sunt sita atque acerbo aceto." Then he repeats and defines this 
 with "eo dicta lingua dulcia datis, corde amara facitis." Examples of 
 repetition in which tantus or eo occurs are not very numerous in Plautus 
 
20 REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 
 
 and, since they are similar to those marked by the occurrence of ita, they 
 have been merely mentioned in discussing the latter. 
 
 Consider now a few examples of repetition in which the explanatory 
 element is much stronger than in the ordinary repetition but which is not 
 marked by Jiavi. In the Bacc. 361 ff. Chrysalus complains "credo hercle 
 adveniens nomen mutabit mihi" ; then he defines and explains this with 
 " facietque extemplo Crucisalum me ex Chrysalo." In this repetition the 
 explanatory character is very clear. This example differs from examples 
 already quoted in that the original statement does require a certain 
 amount of explanation and because of this lack of clearness the repetition 
 is much stronger as a defining repetition. In the Trin. 43 f. Megaronides 
 says "hie ille est senecta aetate qui factust puer." He then explains and 
 defines this with a relati\e clause "qui admisit in se culpam castigabilem." 
 Here the meaning of the original statement is clearer than is the mean- 
 ing of the original statement in the first example and for that reason the 
 repetition here has less explanatory force than the repetition in the pre- 
 vious example. In the Pseu. 281 f. Ballio says "nimio id quod pudet 
 facilius fertur quam illud quod piget." Then he explains this with "non 
 dedisse istunc pudet: me quid non accepi piget." Here again the meaning 
 of the original statement was fairly clear. In the Rudens 89 f. Plesidip- 
 pus apologizes to his friends "Et vos a vostris abduxi negotiis/neque id 
 processit qua vos duxi gratia." He explains and defines this by adding 
 "neque quivi ad portum lenonem prehendere." Here the meaning of the 
 original statement, taken in its context, would be clear to a certain extent 
 but might require some word of explanation. These four examples show 
 distinctly a class of repetition in which the original statement requires 
 a certain amount of explanation although the second statement is not 
 in any case so far removed from the original statement as to prevent us 
 from treating it as a repetition with a large amount of explanatory ele- 
 ment connected with it. 
 
 To pass now to the final class of repetition by definition — that which is 
 characterized by the occurrence of nam in the repetition. The simplest 
 form which this class takes is shown in the True, yj f., "nam mihi haec 
 meretrix quae hie habet, Phronesium,/suom nomen omne ex pectore ex- 
 movit meo,/ Phronesium." Diniarchus then explains with "nam phronesis 
 est sapientia." In the Men. 222 Culindrus says to Erotium "iam isti sunt 
 decem." This is clear enough but he repeats and explains his meaning 
 with "nam parasitos octo hominum munus facile fungitur." A very neat 
 example of this kind of repetition occurs in the Most. 700 f. where Tranio 
 says that trouble is waiting for the old man — " Res paratast mala in ves- 
 perum huic seni." Then he explains and defines with "nam et cenandum 
 et cubandumst ei male." Here the defining element in the repetition is 
 very clear. In the Rudens 485 ff. we find an example which is a little 
 different from those so far noticed — "Qui homo sese miserumet mendicum 
 volet,/ Neptuno credat sese atque aetatem suam." Then Labrax explains 
 with particular reference to his own case what happens if a man does en- 
 
REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 21 
 
 trust himself to Neptune, "nam si quis cum eo quid rei commiscuit, / ad 
 hoc exemplum amittit ornatum domum." Analogous to this last example 
 is Mer. 313 f., "si umquam vidistis pictum amatorem, em illic est / nam 
 meo quidem animo vetulus, decrepitus senex / tantidemst quasi si signum 
 pictum in pariete." These examples are sufficient to show that in this class 
 of repetition the defining character of the repetition is reenforced and 
 made more prominent by the occurrence of nam. But in actual fact save 
 for this nam, the defining character of these examples is not any stronger 
 than that which is found in the examples considered just previous to 
 this class. 
 
 At the beginning of the paper it was stated that this entire class of 
 repetition, so far considered, was characterized by the fact that the rep- 
 etition occurs without any interruption from another speaker. This large 
 class of repetition was then divided into repetition for iteration and rep- 
 etition for definition. In each of these two divisions it was also noticed 
 that the repetition might retain the form of the original statement but 
 on the other hand might show more or less variation from this form. . 
 
 2. Merely Resumptive after Interruption — for Iteration 
 
 The other class of equivalent repetitions is that which is characterized 
 by the fact that the repetition is in a way motivated and made more 
 plausible by an interruption from the listener. In the first place it may 
 be stated in regard to this class of repetition that practically every ex- 
 ample shows repetition by iteration. It might be expected that when a 
 speaker has made a statement and is then interrupted, he would rather 
 define his first statement than merely reiterate it. The only example which 
 was found to have any defining force was Poe. 761 f. Here Agoras- 
 tocles says "servom esse audivi meum/apud te." Lycus then interrupts 
 with "apud me? numquam factum reperies," to which Agorastocles 
 answers "nam ad te venit aurumque attulit./ita mi renuntiatumst, quibus 
 credo satis." Even here the defining element in the repetition is not very 
 strong. 
 
 Consider now the simplest examples of this class of repetition by itera- 
 tion after an interruption. In the Cur. 712 f. Therapontigonus says "me 
 ipso praesente et Lycone tarpezita." Cappadox interrupts with "non 
 ego te flocci facio; ne me territes" which causes Therapontigonus to re- 
 peat his statement practically word for word "me ipso praesente et 
 Lycone factum est." xA.nother exact repetition occurs in the M. G. 986 
 f. Palaestrio says "haec celox illiust quae hinc egreditur, inter- 
 nuntia." Then when Pyrgopolynices asks "quae haec celox f he answers 
 "ancillula illiust, quae hinc egreditur foras." Still another occurs in Most. 
 1000 f. Simo asserts " vidi ecferri mortuom." Theopropides ejaculates 
 "hem." Simo repeats " novom unum vidi mortuom ecferri foras." In each 
 of these three examples the repetition was motivated — in the second by a 
 
2Z REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 
 
 direct question but just as naturally in the other two by an expression of 
 disdain and disgust. 
 
 The greater number of examples of this class, however, show much 
 more variety than these simpler examples. In the Men. 855 f. Menaechmus 
 II threatens the old man "ita mihi imperas ut ego huius membra atque 
 ossa atque artua/comminuam illo scipione quem ipse habet."The old man 
 answers "dabitur malum, / me quidem si attigeris aut si proprius ad me 
 accesseris." Menaechmus says that he will obey the command of x^poUo, 
 "faciam quod iubes; securim capiam ancipitem atque hunc senem / osse 
 fini dedolabo assulatim viscera." The counter-threat of the old man moti- 
 vates the repetition of Menaechmus' threat. In the Cap. 605 f. Aristo- 
 phontes says "neque pol me insanum, Hegio, esse creduis / neque fuisse 
 umquam, neque esse morbum quem istic autumat." Hegio says "do tibi 
 operam — si quid est quod me velis" which causes Aristophontes to repeat 
 "sed hoc primum me expurigare tibi volo, me insaniam / neque tenere 
 neque mi esse ullum morbum nisi quod servio." In the Most. 810 f. 
 Tranio advises Theopropides "cave tu illi obiectes nunc in aegritudine / 
 te has emisse. Non tu vides hunc voltu uti tristi est senex?" Theopropides 
 agrees "video." But the slave cannot think of anything to say except to 
 reiterate his caution "ergo inridere ne videare et gestire admodum ; / 
 noli facere mentionem ted emisse." In the same play, 958 f., Phaniscus 
 tells the old man "numquam hie triduom unum desitum est potarier." Then 
 as Theopropides expresses his surprise and indignation "Quid aisf" the 
 slave repeats "Triduom unum baud intermissumst hie esse et bibi,/ scorta 
 ducere, pergraecari, fidicinas, tibicinas / ducere." In this repetition some- 
 thing is added and there is a certain defining element in the repetition. 
 The same play offers another good example of this kind of repetition. 
 Philolaches cries (386 f. ) "peril!" To this Tranio says " habe bonum ani- 
 mum : ego istum lepide medicabo metum !" Again Philolaches cries "nul- 
 lus sum" which causes Tranio to repeat his promise " Taceas : ego qui 
 istaec sedem meditabor tibi." These examples are sufficient to show the 
 character of this class of repetition and to point out to what extent the 
 interruption motivates the repetition. Except for this element of moti- 
 vation the instances of this type are not different from the instances in 
 which there is no interruption. 
 
 B. GENERAL— PARTICULAR 
 
 Consider now examples of those types of repetition which show a more 
 complicated form. The most important single type of repetition in Plautus 
 is that in which an attempt is made to particularize a general statement. 
 In the dialogue a general statement is made w^hich is not sufficiently clear 
 to the listeners. To make this general thought clear the speaker usually 
 does one of three things. Having made a statement which is indefinite 
 and vague rather than clearly general he repeats this in a more specific 
 form. There is usually a certain unity in the original statement but in a 
 
REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 23 
 
 great many cases a single word occurs in tliis statement, and it is the 
 meaning of this word which is made specific in the repetition. This class 
 in which an indefinite statement is made specific in the repetition offers 
 the widest variety in the examples. The second method used in this type 
 of repetition offers less variety but is much easier to understand. Having 
 made a general statement, the speaker analyzes this into details. Here in 
 the original statement there is usually a short phrase which requires 
 analysis. Less often it is the whole statement which is analyzed. The third 
 method is that in which a general statement is illustrated. The speaker 
 makes a general statement, often in the form of a proverb, and then makes 
 this particular by applying it to himself or to some other individual. Thus 
 in each case the repetition is merely to repeat the general thought with 
 precision of detail so that it may make a stronger impression on the minds 
 of the listeners. This end is accomplished better, as will be shown later, 
 by first giving the particular details and then ending with the general 
 thought or summary, that is, by reversing the process just outlined. 
 
 I. Indefinite Statement made Specific 
 
 The different classes into which this larger type may be divided will 
 in general be found to be more or less similar to the classes under which 
 equivalent repetitions were treated. Take first the simplest examples — 
 those in which the general thought is expressed in a single word — noun, 
 adjective or verb — while it is made particular in a phrase. In the M. G. 92 
 f. Palaestrio says "is deridiculost quaqua incedit omnibus." Then he 
 makes more particular the general idea of deridiculo with "itaque hie 
 meretrices, labiis dum nictant ei,/ maiorem partem videas valgis saviis" ; 
 that is, he gives the particular way in which the courtesans make fun 
 of the soldier. In the Trin. loi f. Megaronides complains "tum autem 
 sunt alii qui te \'olturium vocant." This general epithet volturium is 
 made particular with " hostisne an civis comedis parvi pendere." In the 
 Ep. 104 f. Stratippocles says "Rem tibi sum locutus omnem, Chaeribule." 
 He particularizes the general rem with "atque admodum / meorum 
 maerorum atque amorum summam edictaAi tibi." These three examples 
 show clearly enough the character of this class in which the general 
 thought of a noun is made particular, not by giving a long list of details 
 but merely by analyzing the particular form which the action (as ex- 
 pressed in the noun) takes in the situation under discussion. 
 
 The examples in which the general thought of an adjective is made 
 particular in a phrase are similar to the preceding noun examples. In the 
 Amph. 1 1 17 ff. Amphitruo exclaims "mira memoras, nimis formidulo- 
 sum facinus praedicas." Then he makes the general adjective fonni- 
 dtdosmn particular with "nam mihi horror membra misero percipit 
 dictis tuis." In other words he explains how the deed causes him fear. In 
 the Cas. 449 f. Olympio exclaims " ut tibi ego inventus sum obsequens !" 
 The adjective obsequens is made particular with "quod maxume / cupie- 
 
24 REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 
 
 bas, eius copiam feci tibi." Then he makes it even more particular 
 with "erit hodie tecum quod amas clam uxorem." Amphitruo 506 ff. 
 shows some variation : " nimis hie scitust sycophanta qui quidem meus 
 sit pater." Then Mercurius particularizes not merely the adjective but 
 also to a certain extent the noun with "opservatote, quam blande mulier 
 palpabitur." At first glance it may seem that the noun sycophanta is the 
 word whose general meaning Mercury wishes to make more particular. 
 But on closer consideration it will be found that sycophanta is clear 
 enough but that the adjective scitus needs to be made more particular. 
 
 So much for the adjective examples. The examples in which the general 
 thought of a \'erb is made more particular in a following phrase are of 
 the same order. In the Men. 481 Menaechmus II boasts "quoniam sentio 
 / errare, extemplo, quasi res cum ea esset mihi,/ coepi adsentari." The 
 general thought of adse.ntari is made particular with "mulier quidquid 
 dixerat, / idem ego dicebam." In the Poe. 578 f. Milphio warns CoUy- 
 biscus "vide sis calleas." After Collybiscus promises, he makes his warn- 
 ing more particular, " f ac modo ut condocta tibi sint dicta ad banc fal- 
 laciam." In the types just treated, in which the thought of a noun, ad- 
 jective or verb is repeated and made particular in a phrase, the examples 
 on the whole are not very satisfactory. Those given are the best ones which 
 I have found and in actual fact might be treated as the only clear ex- 
 amples since the others (not very numerous: about six in each class) are 
 not very good and, taken alone without those examples already treated, 
 they would probably show nothing very distinctive to differentiate them 
 from the equivalent repetitions. 
 
 There are a great many examples of this type of repetition which are 
 characterized and differentiated from other examples merely by the fact 
 that there is a more or less close balance between the thought as expressed 
 in a general way and its repetition in a more particular form. In the Rud. 
 54 f. Arcturus says "Ibi esse homines voluptarios / dicit, potesse ibi eum 
 fieri divitem." Here the meaning is clear enough as to how the leno may 
 grow rich in Sicily, but this general thought is made more specific with 
 "ibi esse quaestum maxumum meretricibus."The same is true of Men. 574 
 ff. " clientes sibi omnes volunt esse multos ;/ bonine an mali sint, id hau 
 quaeritant; res / magis quaeritus quam clientum fides / quoius modi 
 clueat." Menaechmus makes this specific with "si est pauper atque hau 
 malus nequam habetur,/ sin dives malust, is cliens frugi habetur." Here 
 it will be noticed that there is a resemblance between the general ex- 
 pression and the particular. In the Amph. 302 f. Sosia cries " formido 
 male/ne ego hie nomen meum commutem et Quintus fiam e Sosia." He 
 particularizes this with "quattuor viros sopori se dedisse hie autumat:/ 
 metuo ne numerum augeam ilium." A simpler example with closer 
 balance is found in Mer. 225 f. Demipho makes the indefinite statement 
 "miris modis di ludos faciunt hominibus." Then to lead up to his own 
 experience he makes his statement more specific with " mi risque exemplis 
 omnia in somnis danunt." 
 
REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 25 
 
 In all the examples of this type of repetition, there is a certain ex- 
 planatory element in the repetition of the general thought. But there are 
 many examples in which this explanatory element is so very strong that 
 it differentiates these examples from others of this type. In the Rud. 711" 
 f. Labrax complains, Shylock fashion, " meum ereptum est mihi." He 
 makes this specific with the explanation "meas mihi ancillas invito me 
 eripis." In the Epi. 493 f. Periphanes praises Epidicus " Epidice, frugi's, 
 pugnasti, homo es qui me emunxisti mucidum, minimi preti." Then in line 
 511 he makes his meaning clear by particularizing the action with "planis- 
 sume / meum exenteravit Epidicus marsuppium." The force of this ex- 
 ample is somewhat weakened by the conversation which goes on between 
 the two sentences. In the Trin. 533 ff. we find a more complicated ex- 
 ample, "Neque umquam quisquamst quoius illic ager fuit / quin pessume 
 ei res vorterit." Stasimus particularizes and makes this specific with "quo- 
 ium fuit,/ alii exsulatum abierunt, alii emortui,/ alii se suspendere. em 
 nunc hie quoius est / ut ad incitas redactust." Another example will show 
 clearly how these examples may be differentiated from those in which 
 the explanatory element is not so strong. In the Rud. 1281 ff. Labrax 
 complains " Quis me est mortalis miserior qui vivat alter hodie / quem ad 
 recuperatores modo damnavit PlesidippusT' He then particularizes and 
 explains with "abiudicata a me modo est Palaestra, perditus sum." 
 
 Often the general thought is expressed negatively and is then repeated 
 in more particular form affirmatively. In the Most. 690 f. Simo expresses 
 his satisfaction " melius anno hoc mihi non fuit domi / nee quod una esca 
 me iuverit magis." This statement is made specific with "prandium uxor 
 mihi perbonum dedit." A few lines later he repeats with "melius quom 
 prandium quam solet dedit." In the M. G. 654 f. Periplectomenus makes 
 the general statement "neque per vinum umquam ex me exoritur disci- 
 dium in convivio." He particularizes affirmatively with "si quis ibi est 
 odiosus, abeo domum, sermonem segrego. Venerem, amorem, amoenita- 
 temque accubans exerceo." This is the best example found. Of course, 
 the order may be reversed as in Men. 520 f. "omnes in te istaec recident 
 contumeliae." Then Peniculus particularizes with " f axo hand inultus 
 prandium comederis." In the Amp. 1103 ff. Bromia cries "sed puer ille 
 quem ego la\'i, ut magnust et multum valet." Then she adds, making the 
 thought more particular, "neque eum quisquam conligare quivit incuna- 
 bulis." Another example occurs in the Ep. 531 f. "multiplex aerumna 
 exercitam habet,/ paupertas, pavor territat mentem animi,/ neque ubi 
 meas conlocem spes habeo mi usquam munitum locum." 
 
 In this type we also find some examples in which the thought is ex- 
 pressed negatively both in the general statement and in the particular rep- 
 etition. In the Cap. 272 f. Philocrates says "quamquam non multum fuit 
 molesta servitus." He repeats this in more specific form with "nee mihi 
 secus erat quam si essem familiaris filius." In the Aul. 61 f. Euclio doubts 
 "nimisque ego hanc metuo male / ne mi ex insidiis verba inprudenti 
 duit." He particularizes this with "neu persentiscat aurum ubi est aj)- 
 
26 REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 
 
 sconditum." In the Rud. 47 f. Arcturus says "is leno, ut se aequom est, 
 flocci non fecit fidem." He makes this specific with "neque quod iuratus 
 adulescenti dixerat." 
 
 2. General Statement Analyzed 
 
 One of the most common forms which this type of repetition takes is 
 that in w^hich the thought is expressed in a general sense in one phrase 
 while the repetition is made particular in several. The thought is first 
 expressed generally and then the details are given. In the M. G. 1358 f. 
 Palaestrid complains " Eheu quom venit mi in mentem ut mores mutandi 
 sient." He gives the two details in "muliebres mores discendi, oblivescendi 
 stratiotici," Avhich particularizes the last phrase of his original statement. 
 A more complicated example occurs in the Mer. 85 i flf. where Charinus 
 makes the general statement "apparatus sum ut videtis : abicio super- 
 biam." He particularizes with " egomet sum mihi comes, calator, equos, 
 agaso, armiger,/ egomet sum mihi imperator, idem egomet mihi oboedio, 
 / egomet mihi fero quod usust." The best example found is Trin. 205 flf. 
 "qui omnia se simulant scire neque quicquam sciunt." Callicles then gives 
 the details "quod quisque in animo habet aut habiturust sciunt,/ sciunt 
 id quod in aurem rex reginae dixerit, /sciunt quod Juno fabulatast cum 
 love;/ quae neque futura neque sunt, tamen illi' sciunt." It will be noticed 
 that all the examples so far considered as belonging to this type of gen- 
 eral statement followed by repetition in more particular form fall into 
 two groups — those examples in which a statement which is rather indef- 
 inite than general is made more specific without any definite application 
 but merely by an explanatory repetition and those examples in which a 
 general statement is made particular by giving the details into which 
 this statement may be analyzed. The next two and last classes show- an 
 entirely different characteristic. 
 
 3. General Statement Illustrated 
 
 We often find in Plautus a general statement in the form of a proverb, 
 the gist of which is repeated by giving it a particular application. In the 
 Most. 790 f. Tranio cries " heus tu, si voles A-erbum hoc cogitare,/ simul 
 flare sorbereque hau factu facilest." He explains this with a particular 
 application "ego hie esse et illi simitu hau jjotui." The same play offers 
 another good example at 379 f., " Miserum est opus / igitur demum 
 fodere puteum ubi sitis faucis tenet." Philolaches follows this with the 
 particular application of the proverb "sicut ego adventu patris nunc 
 quaero quid faciam miser." In Stichus 139 f. Panegyris advises his father 
 "stultiast, pater, venatum, ducere invitas canes." He then gives the par- 
 ticular application "hostis est uxor in\'ita quae ad virum nuptum datur." 
 A more complicated example in which the proverb is not as clear as in the 
 examples just given occurs in Poe. 627 ff. " viam qui nescit qua dexeniat 
 
REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 27 
 
 ad mare,/ eum oportet amnem quaerere comitem sibi /. ego male loquendi 
 vobis nescivi viam." Lycus illustrates this with "nunc \'0s mihi amnes 
 estis ; vos certum est sequi :/ si bene dicetis, vostra ripa vos sequar,/ si 
 male dicetis, vostro gradiar limite." 
 
 The last class to be considered is quite similar to this class in which the 
 general statement takes the form of a proverb. The difference lies in the 
 fact that in the examples which follow, the general statement does not 
 take the form of a proverb although this general statement is given a 
 particular application in the repetition. In the True. 164 f. Astaphium 
 moralizes "dum vivit, hominem noveris : ubi mortuost, quiescat." Then 
 he applies this general statement to a particular individual, Diniarchus, 
 "te dum vivebas noveram." Most of the examples, however, are much 
 more complicated. In the Most. 414 f. Tranio makes the general state- 
 ment "Verum id videndumst, id viri doctist opus / quae dissignata sint 
 et facta nequiter / tranquille cuncta et ut proveniant sine malo,/ ni quid 
 potiatur quam ob rem pigeat vivere." He makes this particular by appli- 
 cation to himself. " Sicut ego ecficiam, quae facta hie turbavimus,/ pro- 
 fecto ut liqueant omnia et tranquilla sint / neque quicquam nobis pariant 
 ex se incommodi." In the Pseu. 401 ff. Pseudolus says "sed quasi poeta, 
 tabulas quom cepit sibi,/ quaerit quod nusquam gentiumst,/ reperit ta- 
 men,/ facit illud|Veri simile quod mendacium est." Then he applies this 
 to himself "nunc ego poeta fiam : viginti minas, quae nunc nusquam sunt 
 gentium, inveniam tamen." This larger type of repetition of general by 
 particular falls, then, into three distinct groups. First that in which an 
 indefinite statement is made specific in the repetition which defines or ex- 
 plains. Secondly that in which a general statement is analyzed into the 
 particular details. Thirdly that in which a general statement is given a 
 particular application, whether this statement is a proverb or not. 
 
 C. PARTICULAR STATEMENT FOLLOWED 
 BY GENERAL EXPRESSION 
 
 Corresponding to the general-j^articular type of repetition is that type 
 in which a statement is given first in a particular form and is then re- 
 peated in a more general way. This type, however, is much smaller than 
 the previous type and shows considerably less variation. The examples 
 fall into clearly defined classes much less easily than in the previous types. 
 After examining carefully all the examples of this type, I find that the 
 only definite classes for which there are enough examples to differentiate 
 them from the other examples are those in which there is a change in per- 
 son, those in which the form corresponds and those in which a negative 
 appears either in the particular statement or in the general repetition. 
 
 But first take a few examples which are distinctive in themselves and 
 which form no special class. In the i\s. 517 ff., Philaenium says "et meam 
 partem loquendi et tuam trado tibi ;/ ad loquendum atque ad tacendum 
 
28 REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 
 
 tute habeas portisculum." Then she generalizes the thought with "quin 
 pol si reposivi remum, sola ego in casteria / ubi quiesco, omnis familiae 
 caussa consistit tibi." Here the meretrix at first thinks only of herself and 
 the lena, and then thinks of the whole household in its relation to the lena. 
 It is probably that part of the first expression which refers to the lena — 
 namely the tuaui etc. — which calls to her mind tlie generalization which 
 follows. 
 
 In the Amphitruo 121 fT. Mercury is addressing the audience in his 
 long prologue. He says of Jupiter " in Amphitruonis vortet sese imaginem 
 omnesque eum esse censent servi qui vident." It is clear to the audience 
 that Jupiter can change himself into any form he pleases but Mercury 
 keeps up his garrulous tone with " ita vorsipellem / se facit quando 
 lubet." 
 
 In the Menaechmi (114 f. ) Menaechmus I abuses his wife " rogitas / 
 quo ego earn, quam rem agam, quid negoti geram / quid petam, quid 
 feram, quid foris egerim." He generalizes with "portitorem domum duxi, 
 ita omnem mihi / rem necesse eloqui est, quidquid egi atque ago." This is 
 practically a soliloquy as the matrona does not answer his abuse and per- 
 haps does not even appear. 
 
 Consider now the examples of the three classes mentioned above. In 
 the Ep. 59 f. Epidicus says "sed tamen optumum est." Tjien he makes this 
 statement general with "plus scire satiust quam loqui servom hominem." 
 Here there is a change from the first to the third person. In Per. 177 f. 
 there is a change from the second to the third. The maid Sophoclidisca 
 says to the meretrix "amas pol misera : id tuo'/ scatet animus." Then she 
 generalizes with "miser est qui amat. Certo is quidem nihilist / qui nihil 
 amat; quid ei homini opus vita est!" There are a few more examples of 
 this class. 
 
 In the next examples the form of the general repetition corresponds to 
 that of the particular statement. A very simple example occurs in M. G. 
 614 f. "quodne vobis placeat, displiceat mihi I" Then Pleusicles makes 
 it more general with "quis homo sit magis mens quam tu'sT' A more 
 complicated example is Bacch. 192 ff. "quia si ilia inventa est quam ille 
 amat, recte valet;/ si non inventa est, minus valet moribundusque est." 
 This particular thought is then generalized but the exact form of the 
 particular is retained. Evidently the speaker desired to keep the balance 
 between the two forms clear, "animast amica amanti : si abest, nullus est; 
 si adest, res nullast : ipsus est nequam et miser." 
 
 The simplest example of that class in which a negative occurs either in 
 the particular or in the general statement is Pseu. 436 f. "at enim nequi- 
 quam nevis ; /vel tu ne faceres tale in adulescentia." Then Callipho re- 
 peats this in a more general way, affirmatively "probum patrem esse 
 oportet qui gnatum suom / esse probiorem quam ipsus fuerit postulet." 
 A rather peculiar case is Most. 693 fT. "nunc dormitum iubet me ire: 
 minume." Then a few lines later (696) Simo repeats this with " voluit 
 in cubiculum abducere me anus." This particular statement is clear 
 
REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 29 
 
 enough — his wife has failed to persuade the old man to go to bed. He 
 then makes the general statement negatively " non bonust somnus de 
 prandio. apage." This is repetition not so much of what he has actually 
 said in the particular statement as of that which he has implied. An ex- 
 ample in which both the particular statement and the general repetition 
 are negative is Rud. 226 f. " neque quern rogitem responsorem quemquam 
 interea convenio." Ampelisca makes this general with "neque magis 
 solae terrae solae sunt quam haec loca atque hae regiones." In general 
 this type of repetition is not very satisfactory. A speaker does not general- 
 ize a particular thought as often or in as varied a form as he particu- 
 larizes and amplifies a general thought. His intention is usually not to 
 clarify his thought for the listener. The repetition is more often found 
 in a soliloquy. The speaker generalizes his thought more with reference 
 to himself than with reference to any individual listener. The examples, 
 however, are not numerous enough to form good definite classes, dis- 
 tinguished from each other, and only in the case of those few just pointed 
 out are there enough sufficiently like each other to be considered together. 
 But in spite of this the type of repetition is as clear but not as numerous 
 as the general-particular type. 
 
 D. SUMMARY OF DETAILS 
 
 Similar to the two types last considered is that type of repetition in 
 which the repetition forms a summary of the original statement. Here 
 again the examples are not numerous enough to form good definite classes 
 and as a type it is more analogous to the particular-general type than it is 
 to the general-particular. To make this type clear and to avoid con- 
 fusion with the particular-general, consider Bacch. 651 ff. " nequius nil 
 est quam egens consili servos, nisi habet / multipotens pectus / ubi quom- 
 que usus siet, pectore expromat suo./ nullus frugi esse potest homo,/ nisi 
 qui et bene facere et male tenet./ inprobis cum inprobus sit, harpaget 
 furibus /furetur quod queat; vorsipellem frugi convenit /esse hominem, 
 pectus quoi sapit / bonus sit bonis, malus / sit malis." Then Chrysalus 
 gives a summary of all this with the brief " utquomque res sit, ita animum 
 habeat." 
 
 In this type of repetition the examples, as has been said, are not suf- 
 ficient to form even the three classes which, with difficulty, were found 
 in the particular-general type. Analogous to the first example just given 
 is Cur. 178 f. "sibi sua habeant regna reges, sibi divitias divites,/ sibi 
 honores, sibi virtutes, sibi pugnas, sibi proelia." Then Phaedromus gives 
 a summary "dum mi apstineant invidere, sibi quisque habeant quod suom 
 est." In the Most. 729 f. Simo says to the slave " musice hercle agitis 
 aetatem, ita ut decet,/ vino et victu, piscatu probo, electili / vitam coli- 
 tis." Then after an interruption from the slave he makes a general sum- 
 mary with "prospere vobis cuncta usque adhuc processerunt." In the 
 Menaechmi 40 f. occurs another example ''immutat nomen avos huic 
 
30 REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 
 
 gemino alteri ;/ ita ilium dilexit qui surruptust alterum :/ illius nomeu 
 indit illi qui domi est,/ Menaechnio, idem quod alteri nomen fuit." Tlien 
 a few lines later this is summed up with "ne mox erretis, iam nunc 
 praedico prius :/ idem est ambobus nomen geminis fratribus." 
 
 AH of these examples first give the details, then repeat the thought 
 with a general summary. Hence the difference between these and the par- 
 ticular-general type lies in the fact that in the former the particular part 
 is given in detail, in the latter the particular part is a single statement. 
 Cas. 290 f. offers a form which is rather common in Plautus. Here Ly- 
 sidamus asks "sed utrum nunc tu caelibem te esse mavis liberum / an 
 maritum servom aetatem degere et gnatos tuosf" Then he sums up with 
 "optic haec tua est: utram harum vis condicionem accipe." The summary 
 idea here is not very strong ; yet the example seems to have the charac- 
 teristic of mo.st of the other examples. In such an example as Stichus 133 
 f. "Placet ille mens mihi mendicus : suos rex reginae placet./ idem animust 
 in paupertate qui olim in divitiis fuit," it seems to me that the second line 
 repeats the thought of the first line more as a summary than as a merely 
 general statement of the particular thought expressed in the first sentence. 
 On the whole this type of repetition demands no more definite classifi- 
 cation or treatment than the mere giving of a number of examples to 
 make the type clear in its relation to other types which afford more ex- 
 amples. 
 
 E. NEGATIVE-AFFIRMATIVE. AFFIRMATIVE- 
 NEGATIVE 
 
 The last types into which repetitions were divided were those in which 
 a statement is first made negatively and is then repeated affirmatively and 
 those in which a statement is made affirmatively while the repetition is 
 negative. Of the two types the latter is by far the more important. In 
 contrasting these two types the same points are true which were noticed 
 in contrasting the type in which a general statement is made particular 
 in the repetition with that type in which a particular statement is gen- 
 eralized in the repetition. On considering all the examples it has been 
 found that a speaker is much more apt to repeat negatively an affirmative 
 statement than he is to make first a negative statement and then repeat 
 this affirmatively. In the first place there are a great many more examples 
 of the affirmative-negative type and secondly the examples of this type 
 fall much more readily into clearly defined classes than is the case in the 
 negative-affirmative type. This is directly opposite to the usage of other 
 Latin writers. It is much more common to find a thought expressed nega- 
 tively and then repeated affirmatively. This is the regular rhetorical usage. 
 The negative expression takes the place, as it were, of a subordinate 
 clause, that is, it is as if the thought were expressed in a concessive clause. 
 Then this is repeated affirmatively. This is the usage in practically all 
 other Latin writers. In Plautus, however, the case is different. Here the 
 
REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 31 
 
 natural way of making a repetition is the more common. It is more natu- 
 ral for one to make a statement affirmatively and then repeat it nega- 
 tively and it is to be expected that in such a type of literature as the plays 
 of Plautus, this usage should prevail. In no other types of repetition do we 
 find a more important bearing on the style of Plautus than in these 
 two types which prove that the natural way of expressing and repeating 
 a thought prevails over the more rhetorical way. 
 
 I. Negative-affirmative 
 
 Consider first the type in which a speaker makes a negative statement 
 and then repeats it affirmatively. A good general example of this type is 
 Ru. 131 f. "non hercle, adulescens, iam hos dies complusculos / quem- 
 quam istic vidi sacruficare neque potest/ Clam me esse si qui sacruficat:" 
 Daemones repeats affirmatively with "nunc intervallum iam hos dies 
 multos fuit." This will make the general character of the type clear. Let 
 us now attem]:)t a classification. In the Trin. 1 128 f. Callicles expostulates 
 with Charmides who is praising his integrity "si quid amicum erga bene 
 feci aut consului fideliter, non vidcor incrnisse landcm, culpa caniissc 
 arbitror." Here there is a close balance between the negative and affirma- 
 tive presentation of the same thought. It is not possible to assert without 
 hesitation that there is repetition in "culpa caruisse arbitror." It may 
 be merely contrast without repetition. Two other examples will suffice 
 to make this class clear. In the Cas. 575 Lj^sidamus becomes panic-stricken 
 and expresses his fear, first negatively and then affirmatively "metuo ne 
 non sit surcla atque haec audiverit." Here the repetition is much clearer 
 than in the first example. The same is true of Rudens 883, "non sum hospes, 
 repudio hospitium tuom." These three examples with twelve others fall 
 into a distinct class which is characterized by the fact that the phrases are 
 short and balanced. In the next examples the balance is more pronounced 
 because both the negative and affirmative sides of the thought take the 
 form of a condition, that is, the form of the negative statement is retained 
 in the affirmati\e repetition and about six cases were found in which this 
 form is conditional. In the Cur. 372 f. Lyco complains "quantum aeris 
 mihi sit quantumque alieni siet:/ dives sum, si' non reddo eis quibus 
 debeo." He presents the other side affirmatively retaining the conditional 
 form "si reddo illis quibus debeo, plus alieni est." In the same play at 513 
 f. occurs another example "indignis si male dicitur, male dictum id esse 
 dico." This is repeated affirmatively with "verum si dignis dicitur, bene 
 dictumst meo quidem animo." In this second example there is ac- 
 tually no negative word in the original statement but the indignis and the 
 male express a negative thought. At first sight, it may seem in these ex- 
 amples that there is no repetition, that they are rather contrasts than repe- 
 tition. But in actual fact the first statement implies the second and for 
 that reason the second, by implication, is considered as a repetition of 
 the first. 
 
32 REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 
 
 The next examples show a different characteristic. Here the negative 
 side is presented in a phrase, the thought of which is then repeated in a 
 single word. In the Bacc. 982 f. Chr)'salus answers the "Quid aitf" of 
 Nicobulus with "\erbum nullum fecit." He follows this with "lacrumans 
 tacitus auscultabat quae ego loquebar." The tacitus repeats the thought 
 of the "verbiim nnllinn fecit. Another example occurs in Men. 123 "atque 
 adeo ne me nequiquam ser\-es, ob eam industriam / hodie ducam scortum 
 ad cenam atque aliquo condicam foras." The tndustriaui repeats the 
 thought of the ne clause. 
 
 The following cases are considered separately because of the occurrence 
 of some particular negative such as nemo, ui/iil, numqtiam, ne, etc. The 
 first of these offers the best examples. In the Most. 704 f. Simo solilo- 
 quizes "neminem sollicitat sopor." This negative expression is repeated 
 affirmatively in "omnibus ire dormitum odio est." In the Stichus 674 f. 
 Stephanium gi\'es another example in "mirum videri nemini vostrum 
 volo, spectatores,/ quid ego hinc quae illic habito exeam." He expresses 
 this affirmatively with " f aciam vos certiores." In the As. 756 the Para- 
 site writes " alienum hominem intro mittat neminem." This is expressed 
 affirmatively in "fores occlusae omnibus sint nisi tibi." 
 
 The examples in which "numquam" occurs in the negative expression 
 are few — only five — but are interesting from the fact that the negative 
 expression is general in its tone while the affirmative expression is more 
 particular. In the True. 231 f. Astaphium philosophizes on love "neque 
 umquam erit probus quisquam amator nisi qui rei inimicust suae." A few- 
 lines later this same thought is made more particular affirmatively "pro- 
 bus est amator, qui relictis rebus rem perdit' suam." In the Cis. 48 f. the 
 Lena says "nam si quidem ita eris ut volo, numquam hac aetate fies." She 
 expresses this more particularly in the affirmative expression, "semper- 
 que istam quam nunc habes aetatulam optinebis." 
 
 There are a few examples in which the thought is first expressed nega- 
 tively in a prohibition and then affirmatively with an imperative. Here 
 there is considerable balance as in Pseu. 232 "nihil curassis, liquido es 
 animo." A longer example occurs in Aul. 608 ff. Euclio is hiding his 
 money "tu modo ca^e quoiquam indicassis aurum meum esse istic, Fides 
 
 / edepol ne illic pulchram praedam agat, si quis illam invenerit / 
 
 aulam onustam auri ; \'erum id te quaeso ut prohibessis, Fides." The 
 affirmative follows in "vide, Fides, etiam atque etiam nunc, salvam ut 
 aulam aps te auferam :/ tuae fide concredidi aurum, in tuo loco et fano 
 est situm." 
 
 Analogous to the last example are those in which there is a balance be- 
 tween ne and ut as in Pseu. 764 f. "nunc ibo ad forum atque onerabo 
 meis praeceptis Simiam, quid agat, ne quid titubet." The thought of the 
 ne clause is then repeated in "docte, ut hanc ferat fallaciam." The 
 same is true of Most. 422 f. where Tranio bids the slave tell his master 
 " facturum me ut ne etiam aspicere aedis audeat,/ capite obvoluto ut 
 fugiat cum summo metu." Here the ut clause does add something to the 
 
REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 33 
 
 thought of the ne clause though it was hardly to be expected that the 
 old man would stand in front of the house if he didn't dare look at it. 
 
 The examples which follow are characterized by the occurrence of a 
 comparative in either the negative or affirmative expression while a posi- 
 tive form appears in the other. In the Rud. 359 f. Tranio applauds Nep- 
 tune "nee te aleator nullus est sapientior : profecto nimis lepide iecisti 
 bolum." Another good example of this kind of repetition occurs in Most. 
 270 f. "non videor vidisse lenam callidiorem ullam alteras." Philo- 
 laches makes this affirmative, dropping the comparative idea " ut lepide 
 atque astute in mentem \enit de speculo malae." There are about six ex- 
 amples of this kind of repetition in Plautus. Here, as in all the other 
 classes of this type of repetition, it is noticeable that there are very few 
 examples. 
 
 There are some examples in which there is a doubling of the negative 
 or affirmative, sometimes of both. In the Capt. 401 f. we find the repeti- 
 tion taking the peculiar form of negative repeated by affirmative and 
 then by another negative as "neque te commeruisse culpam (neque me 
 ad^•orsatum tibi) / beneque ero gessisse morem in tantis aerumnis tamen; 
 / neque med umquam deseruisse te neque factis neque fide rebus in dubiis, 
 egenis." A different form is shown in the Amph. 237 f. "sed fugam in se 
 tamen nemo convortitur / nee recedit loco quin statim rem gerat." Then 
 this same thought is repeated twice in affirmative sentences "animam 
 amittunt priusquam loco demigrent:/ quisque ut steterat iacet o|Dtinetque 
 ordinem." 
 
 The last examples to be treated under this type of negative-affirmative 
 repetition show no actual negative in the first clause but seem on the 
 whole to fall within this type because of the essentially negative character 
 of this first statement. When in the Most. 288 f. Scapha rebukes her mis- 
 tress with "purpura aetati occultandaest, aurum turpi mulieri," this is 
 practically a negative statement, the thought of which is then repeated 
 affirmatively in "pulchra mulier nuda erit quam purpurata pulchrior." 
 The same is true of Bacc. 412 f. "nam apsque te esset, ego ilium haberem 
 / rectum ad ingenium bonum /. Nunc propter te tuamque pravos factus 
 est fiduciam / Pistoclerus." It may be stated again that on the whole 
 this type of repetition in which a negative statement is repeated affirma- 
 tively does not show examples in such number as to make the classes satis- 
 factory. 
 
 2. Affirmative-negative 
 
 The class which shows the opposite arrangement to that of the nega- 
 tive-affirmative class offers considerably more material. Here a speaker 
 first makes a statement affirmatively and then repeats it negatively. Not 
 only are the examples of this type more numerous but the classes in which 
 these examples may be divided are much clearer cut and the treatment 
 of this type, for this reason, is much more satisfactory and on the whole 
 the results of the investigation of this type arid the preceding tend to 
 
34 REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 
 
 prove that a speaker is more apt to repeat an affirmative thought nega- 
 tively than he is to first make a statement negatively and then repeat it 
 affirmatively. 
 
 In the types of repetition so far considered, in each there were found 
 examples in which the thought as first expressed in a single word was re- 
 peated in a clause. There are a few examples of this same class found in 
 the tvpe of repetition now under discussion. In the Most. 627 f. Tranio 
 tries to soothe the old man Theopropides with " Paululum / Quasi quad- 
 raginta minas." The thought of the Paulnlmn is repeated negatively in the 
 prohibition "ne sane id multum censeas." This is said in order to forestall 
 any objection from the old man. In the Cur. 20 f. Phaedromus tries to be 
 funny and says of the ostiuiii, "bellissumum hercle vidi et taciturnis- 
 sumum " repeating the thought of the last adjective in the negati\'e clause 
 "numquam ullum verbum muttit." This he then explains with "quom 
 aperitur, tacet,/quom ilia noctu clanculum ad me exit, tacet." A similar ex- 
 ample is Pseu. 385 f. "ad eam rem usust hominem astutum, doctum, cau- 
 tum et callidum." In the next line the thought of the adjectives is repeated 
 in "non qui vigilans dormiat." A rather more complicated example oc- 
 curs in the Pseu. 133 f. Ballio rebukes the slaves with "exite, agite exite, 
 ignavi, male habiti et male conciliati." The thought of these last two 
 phrases is then amplified in the negative "quorum numquam quicquam 
 quoiquam venit in mentem ut recte faciant." In this example the male 
 habiti is treated as expressing a thought which might have been ex- 
 pressed by a single word, such as igiiavi. Altog'ether there are about 
 fifteen examples of this class of repetition in which the thought of a 
 single word is repeated negatively in a phrase or clause. 
 
 In all the types so far considered it was found that there were a great 
 many examples in which a certain balance was maintained between the 
 repetition and the original statement. This balance varied in dififerent 
 examples. Sometimes it consisted merely of the fact that the form of the 
 original statement was retained in the repetition. Sometimes there was a 
 closer balance, even so much as word for word. This is true of the present 
 type of repetition with the same variety in the strength of the balance. 
 First consider the examples in which the balance occurs in two phrases 
 in the same sentence. In the Most. 348 Tranio soliloquizes without seeing 
 the revellers, " occidit spes nostra, nusquam stabulum est confidentiae." 
 Here the balance is word for word — with the addition of the negative. 
 In the following negative sentence "nee Salus nobis saluti iam esse, si 
 cupiat potest," the thought is repeated in a more general fashion. In the 
 Rud. 995 Gripus replies to Trachalio's objection that there is no fish 
 such as viduluvi pisccm, "verum rare capitur, nuUus minus saepe ad 
 terram venit." Here again the balance is obvious between rare and 
 minus saepe, capitur and ad terram venit. In the Bacc. 735 f. Chrysalus 
 dictates "Chrysalus mihi usque quaque loquitur nee recte, pater./ 
 quia tibi aurum reddidi et quia non te defrudaverim." Here the balance 
 is very clear because the thought is expressed and repeated in the 
 
REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 35 
 
 same kind of a clause — "quia — quia; tibi — te; aurum reddidi — non 
 defrudaverim." Another example will perhaps make this class sufficiently 
 clear though it is noticeable that in this last example the balance is not as 
 obvious as in the preceding examples. In the Trin. 188 f. Megaronides 
 cries "occlusti linguam, nihil est qui respondeam." Here the linguam 
 is balanced by the qui clause and the occlusti by the ;////// est. To get 
 a clearer impression of this class take Amph. 409 where Sosia asks 
 "quid igitur ego dubito, aut cur non intro eo in nostram domum!" Here 
 there is a certain explanatory element in the repetition but the form of 
 the original question is retained in the repetition. In this same connection 
 we might consider an example in which the balance is retained but in 
 which no actual negative occurs, as Most. 188 f. "tu ecastor erras quae 
 quidem ilium expectes unum atque illi morem praecipue sic geras atque 
 alios asperneris." The last phrase is practically the negati\-e of the //// . . . 
 geras. There are a great many examples of this class. 
 
 Balance between the original statement and the repetition is shown not 
 only in phrases in the same sentence, but also in two different sentences. 
 The balance here is often much clearer than in the previous class. In the 
 Trin. 973 ff. the sycophant rebukes Charmides "postquam ego me aurum 
 ferre dixi, post tu factus Charmides." This thought is then repeated nega- 
 tively "prius tu non eras quam auri feci mentionem." The first sentence 
 would be clear enough to the listener but the sycophant wants to confirm 
 himself in the belief that this is not the real Charmides. In the Most. 239 
 f. Philematium's desire is quite different. She threatens Scapha first af- 
 firmatively "si quid tu in ilium bene voles loqui, id loqui licebit." But 
 she feels that this may not be enough to prevent Scapha from speaking 
 anything abusive so she threatens her in the negative with "nee recte si 
 illi dixeras, iam ecastor vapulabis." Here there is some additional thought 
 but the balance is clear. The same is true of As. 188 f. "si ecastor nunc 
 habeas quod des, alia verba praehibeas." Cleareta then adds negatively 
 "nunc quia nihil babes, maledictis te eam ductare postulas." Here there 
 is an additional thought though the connection in which these lines are 
 spoken would make the first statement imply the second to the listener. 
 The balance is between the ^7' and the quia clauses and the alia verba prae- 
 hibeas and the maledictis te eam ductare postulas. In the Poe. 1186 f. 
 and 1 20 1 f. the balance is even clearer as here almost the exact words 
 are repeated. Adelphasium warns her sister " eo sumus gnatae genere ut 
 deceat nos esse a culpa castas." Then later she puts this negatively "non 
 eo genere sumus prognatae, tam etsi sumus servae, soror, ut deceat nos 
 facere quicquam quod homo quisquam inrideat." Here she amplifies the 
 thought of culpa in the clause quod . . . inrideat. There are about six- 
 teen examples of this class of repetition in Plautus. 
 
 In the t}'pe in which a thought was first expressed negatively and then 
 repeated affirmatively attention was called to those examples in which a 
 prohibition or command occurs. There are a number of such examples in 
 the affirmative-negative type. A very simple example which is common 
 
36 REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 
 
 in Plautus occurs in the As. 638 "bono animo es, ne formida." Nothing 
 is added to the thought of the command. The listener is, however, more 
 impressed when the command is first made affirmatively and then nega- 
 tively. A similar example is Mer. 113 where Acanthio cries "abige aps 
 te lassitudinem," making this thought negative in "cave pigritiae prae- 
 vorteris." The balance between the command and the prohibition is clear. 
 Another example will perhaps be sufficient, Pseu. 127 "omnibus amicis 
 notisque edico meis / in hunc diem a me ut caveant, ne credant mihi." 
 Here there is a variation from the direct command and prohibition to a 
 verb edico which gives the force of a command and prohibition. Alto- 
 gether about fifteen examples of this class were found in Plautus. 
 
 Somewhat analogous to the examples just considered are those which 
 are marked by the occurrence of a ne in the negative repetition. Here 
 the variation occurs in the form which the expression of the original 
 thought takes. In the Most. 539 f: Tranio is panic-striken "manufesta 
 res est, nisi quid occurro prius / hoc ne senex resciscat." The ne clause 
 repeats in negati\-e form the thought of the maiuifesta res est. In the 
 Bacc. 342 Nicobulus comments "censebam me ecfugisse a vita mari- 
 tuma," repeating this idea negatively in "ne navigarem tandem hoc aeta- 
 tis senex." There are only six cases of this class in Plautus. 
 
 Many examples of every type of repetition in Plautus show a distinct 
 explanatory element in the repetition. This explanatory force may be 
 made clearer by the occurrence of a nam. The type under considera- 
 tion shows about twenty examples of this class of repetition. In this class 
 are many examples which might be grouped under the classes already 
 noticed but it has seemed best to differentiate those examples in which 
 the repetition does not show any great explanatory effect and those which 
 have this characteristic. Take first two examples in which the explan- 
 atory element in the repetition is not increased and made obvious by the 
 occurrence of a nam. In the Most. 107 1 f. Theopropides tells how he 
 will trick Tranio "sensim mittam lineam." He explains this negatively 
 with " dissimulabo me horum quicquam scire." Here the negative is im- 
 plied. The context would show clearly enough to the spectator what 
 Theopropides is planning to do when he says "sensim mittam lineam" but 
 the next sentence is perhaps more necessary than is the case in Rud. 269 
 f. where Ptolemacratium rebukes the girls " ergo aequius vos erat / candi- 
 datas venire hostiatasque." She offers a note of explanation negatively 
 with "ad hoc / fanum ad istuc modum non veniri solet." Most of the ex- 
 amples, however, show a nam in the repetition. In the Most. 237 f. Philo- 
 laches is listening to Scapha's advice to Philematium and in his anger 
 threatens "in te hercle certumst principi ut sim parens experiri," explain- 
 ing this more definitely with "nam neque edes quicquam neque bibes 
 apud me his decern diebus." In the Stich. 155 f. Gelasimus complains "Fa- 
 mem ego fuisse suspicor matrem mihi," repeating this negatively in 
 "nam postquam natus sum, satur numquam fui." Another example simi- 
 lar to these is Poe. 1053 "ergo hie apud med hospitium praebebitur," 
 
REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 37 
 
 this being repeated in "nam hau repudio hospitium neque Carthaginem." 
 Here something is added to the thought. The nam clause does more than 
 merely repeat and explain the first statement. 
 
 The most interesting examples of this type, however, are those which 
 show considerably more variety and can be classed in one group only 
 by the fact that nequc connects the original statement and repetition. 
 Neque is one of the copulative conjunctions which denote union and 
 seems to connect both the sentences and their meaning. Because of this 
 fact in the examples now to be considered there will be found a closer con- 
 nection between the original statement and the repetition. It cannot, how- 
 ever, be stated that in these examples the repetition merely presents in 
 negative form the original statement. There is considerable variety as the 
 different examples will show. One of the best examples is in the Most. 766 
 f. where Simo remarks of the situation of his house "immo edepol vero, 
 quom usquequaque umbra est, tamen / sol semper hie est usque a mari ad 
 
 vesperum nee mi umbra hie usquamst nisi si in puteo quaepiamst." 
 
 Here the repetition does practically nothing more than to repeat in nega- 
 tive form the original statement. 
 
 In the Most. 174 f. the example is a little different. Philolaches, in con- 
 cealment, tells what he will do to Scapha "ergo ob istoc verbum te, 
 Scapha, donabo ego hodie — aliqui." This is repeated negatively "nee 
 patiar te istanc gratiis laudasse quae placet mi." Another example of the 
 same kind occurs in the Capt. 985 "quia mos est oblivisci hominibus / 
 neque novisse quoiius nihili sit faciunda gratia." In both these examples 
 the balance between the original statement and the repetition is clear. 
 
 In the Most. 235 f. Scapha is trying to make clear to Philematium how 
 precarious her situation is " iam ista quidem apsumpta res erit." Here she 
 makes a general statement which she follows with the causes " dies noc- 
 tesque estur, bibitur / neque quisquam parsimoniam adhibet." Then 
 having analyzed it both affirmatively and negatively she sums it all up 
 in a short phrase " sagina plane est." Another good example occurs in 
 the Amph. 1053 ff. "spes atque opes vitae meae iacent sepultae in pec- 
 tore." This thought Bromia repeats negatively in "neque ullast confiden- 
 tia iam in corde, quin amiserim." In the Rud. 674 f. Palaestra wails "sed 
 nunc sese ut ferunt res fortunaeque nostrae,/ par moriri est." She makes 
 this general with "neque est melius morte in malis rebus miseriis." In all 
 these examples, the connection is very close between the original state- 
 ment and the negative repetition. There are about fifty examples of this 
 class in which the neque connects the original statement and the repeti- 
 tion. 
 
 The monologue of Philolaches in the Mostellaria has furnished ex- 
 amples for the other types of repetition and the discussion of this type of 
 affirmative-negative may be closed with the citation of another example 
 from this monologue. In 92 f. Philolaches remarks "ei rei argumenta 
 dicam / atque hoc baud videtur veri simile vobis,/ at ego id faciam esse 
 ita ut credatis" repeating this thought with "profecto esse ita ut praedico 
 
38 REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 
 
 vera \incam." But not satisfied with this, he repeats it negatively, "atque 
 hoc vosmet ipsi, scio proinde uti nunc /ego esse autumno, quando dicta 
 audietis / mea, haud aliter id dicetis." These repetitions are in keeping 
 with the character or situation of Philolaches and do not arise from a 
 desire to make his thought clear. It is characteristic of him to vacillate, 
 to be undecided what to do and naturally he likes to hear himself talk as 
 a sort of consolation for his bad actions. 
 
 This ends the first part of the paper in which repetitions, as found in 
 Plautus, were classified and discussed. The introduction summed up these 
 classes but before passing to the second part of the paper in which the 
 stylistic variations of these classes will be discussed it may be well to 
 make clear once more the diflferent types of repetition. First there were 
 the so-called equivalent repetitions which were divided into those in 
 which there was no interruption and those in which an interruption 
 occurs. Secondly the type in which a general statement was made particu- 
 lar in the repetition. Thirdly the type in which a particular statement was 
 made general; fourthly the type in which the repetition is a summary of 
 the original statement, and fifthly the type in which a negati\'e statement 
 was made afifirmative in the repetition or vice versa. 
 
III. STYLISTIC VARIATIONS IN USE 
 
 A. EMPLOYMENT OF THE CLASSES 
 DISCUSSED IN II 
 
 THE first part of this paper dealt with the characteristics of the five 
 groups into which repetitions in Plautus were divided. The second 
 part will deal with the stylistic variations in use. In many examples, in fact, 
 in most of the examples given in the first part of the paper, the speaker's 
 chief aim was to repeat a statement in a stronger form to force his mean- 
 ing more clearl}^ upon the listener. This desire, however, did not prevent 
 him from varying the expression of the original statement when he re- 
 peated the thought. But in the majority of cases it cannot be said that 
 the speaker — that is, Plautus — had any great feeling for improving the 
 stylistic expression or that any artistic feeling caused a repetition. In what 
 immediately follows, an attempt will be made to treat of certain forms 
 of repetition in Plautus which have a closer bearing on the study of his 
 style. 
 
 There were found in Plautus four stylistic variations of repetitions. 
 The first type is that in which a statement is made, then another thought 
 is expressed, this being followed by a repetition of the first statement. 
 Finally the speaker repeats the thought of the original second statement. 
 We find a scheme of repetition which might be expressed by a-b-a-b. The 
 second type is that in which a speaker makes a statement which is fol- 
 lowed by the expression of an entirely different thought which is re- 
 peated. Finally the speaker repeats the first statement. Here the scheme 
 may be expressed a-b-b-a. The third type is that in which a statement 
 is made. The speaker drops this thought for a moment and then after 
 making another statement he returns to the repetition of the first state- 
 ment. Here the scheme is a-b-a. The fourth type is that in which we find 
 a distinct play on words. In this the speaker has a distinct stylistic mo- 
 tive in playing on the meaning of certain words to make his thought 
 clearer. All four groups show a clear stylistic variation and merely dis- 
 close the employment which may be made of the groups which were dis- 
 cussed in the first part of the paper. The examples are much fewer and the 
 special characteristics of each example are, therefore, more noticeable 
 than was the case in the early groups. 
 
 I. a-b-a-b 
 
 Consider first that type in which one statement is followed by a second 
 statement, the repetition of the first being followed by the repetition of 
 
40 REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 
 
 the second. These examples follow the scheme a-b-a-b. Thirty-three 
 cases of this type were found in Plautus, not so widely different from 
 each other but that distinct characteristics could be found differentiating 
 certain examples into a group. It is noticeable that considerable variety 
 appears in this type of stylistic variation. 
 
 The first group noticed was that in which the phraseology of the rep- 
 etition of "a" was close to the original statement, while in the case of "b" 
 and its repetition it was different. Nine examples showed this character- 
 
 (a) 
 istic. In the Most. 562 Tranio laments " nc ego sum miser scclcstiis, iiatus 
 
 (t>) , (a) 
 
 dis iiiiinicis ouiiiibus / . iam illo praesente adibit / ne ego homo sum miser 
 
 (b) 
 / iia et liiiie et ilhne mi exhibent uegotium." Here the ne ego sum miser 
 is repeated almost exactly while the phraseology of natus dis inimicis 
 ovinibus differs quite considerably from ita et hinc et illinc mi exhi- 
 bent negotitivt. Again in the True. 23 ff. Deniarchus soliliquizes "non 
 omnis aetas ad perdiscendum sat est / amanti dum id perdiscat, qnot 
 
 (a) 
 
 pereat modis; / neque eam rationem eapse umquam educet Venus,/ quam 
 
 penes amantum summa summarum redit,/ quot avians excmplis liidi- 
 
 (a) (b) 
 
 ficeturj quot modis pereat quotquc exoretur exorabilis." Here there is 
 exact repetition of quot modis pereat while the thought of quot amans 
 exemplis ludificetur is the same but is expressed differently in quotque 
 exoretur exorabilis. 
 
 In the Men. 719 f. the matrona in her anger exclaims "non ego istaec 
 
 flagitia possum perpeti / jiam vied aetatem viduam esse viavelim / quam 
 istaec flagitia tna pati quae tu facis." Menaechmus II goads her on and 
 
 she repeats "quas fabulasf non, inquam, patiar praeterhac quin vidua 
 
 .(b) 
 vivam quam tuos mores perferam." Here non ego istaec flagitia possum 
 perpeti is repeated in slightly different terms in the non patiar while 
 nam .... facis is repeated in the quin clause. It will be noticed that 
 the repetition is not as close as in the previous example. Neither is it so 
 
 (a) (b) 
 
 close in the Pseudolus 502 f. "quia illud malum aderat, istuc aberat 
 
 longius /illud erat praesens, hide erant dieculae." But there is a closer 
 similarity in the phraseology of qui illud malum aderat and illud erat 
 praesens than there is between the other parts of the two sentences. 
 
 Corresponding to this group are those examples which show a phrase- 
 ology in "b" and its repetition which is close, while that of "a" and its rep- 
 
REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 41 
 
 etition is different. In the Aul. 409 ff. Congrio complains "ita vie miscriim 
 
 (a) (b) 
 
 et meos discipulos fustibus male contuderunt,/ totus doleo atque oppido 
 
 (a) (^). 
 
 peril, ita me iste habuit senex gymnasium./ attat perii liercle ego miser." 
 
 Here the phraseology of totus doleo atque oppido perii and attat perii 
 hercle ego miser is close while the phraseology of ita me .... con- 
 tuderunt differs considerably from the repetition of this thought — ita 
 me .... gymnasium. Again in the Amph. 265 Mercury says "quando 
 
 (a) (b) 
 
 imago est liuius in me, certum est eludere homineui." In 295 he repeats 
 
 (a) (b) 
 
 this in "timet homo, deludam ego ilium." Here the phraseology of timet 
 homo differs considerably from quando .... in me although the 
 thought is the same. Deltidam ego ilium is not very different from 
 certum est eludere hoviinem. These are the only two examples found. 
 
 In the last two examples the phraseology of the repetition of "b" 
 differed from that of the original statement. There are also examples in 
 which the phraseology of both "a" and "b" of the repetition differs from 
 that of the original statements. In the Cur. 187 f. Palindrus says " pariter 
 
 (a) (b) (a) 
 
 hos perire amando video, uterque insaniunt./ viden ut misere moliuntur? 
 
 (b) 
 
 nequeunt complecti satis." Here the repetition a-b-a-b is clear enough 
 but the phraseology is different. Again in the Foe. 674 the advocati 
 
 assert "neque nos hortari neque dehortari decet hominem peregrinum. 
 
 ttiam rem tu ages, si sapis / nos tibi palumbem ad aream usque adduxi- 
 
 (a) (b) 
 
 mus." In this tuam rem tu ages si sapis is clear enough but they re- 
 
 peat the thought with very different phraseology in nunc te ilium meliust 
 
 capere, si captum esse vis. Here the repetition does add something to the 
 original statement in the way of explanation but the thought of the 
 original statement, taken in its context, is clear enough. In the Pseu. 601 
 
 (a) 
 f. Pseudolus catches sight of Harpax and reflects "novo consilio nunc mi 
 
 .(b) 
 opus est,/ nova res haec subito mi obiectast." He repeats this not very 
 
 (.^). . . 
 closely with "hoc praevortar principio; illaec omnia inissa habeo quae 
 
 (b) 
 
 ante agere occepi." 
 
 Another example will show how different the phraseology of the rep- 
 
42 REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 
 
 etition may be from that of the original statement. In the True. 733 
 
 Astaphium rebukes Diniarchus "plus enim es intro missus quoni dabas: 
 
 sine vicissivi qui daiii operant oh illud quod / dant operis utier." Then 
 
 (^). . . 
 
 she repeats with entirely different phraseology " litteras didicisti: quanda 
 
 (b) 
 
 scis, sine alios discere." There are seven examples of this group found in 
 
 Plautus. 
 
 The next group to be considered is that in which there is a close bal- 
 ance between the original statement and the repetition. Six examples of 
 this type were found in Plautus. In the As. 504 ff. Cleareta asks "nequeon 
 
 (a) .(b) 
 
 ego ted inierdictis facere inansuetein meisf / an ita tu cs animata ut qui 
 expers matris imperio siesf" After an interruption from Philaenium he 
 
 (^). 
 repeats with "an decorum est advorsari meis te praeceptis? / hoccine est 
 
 (b) 
 
 pietatem colcre, viatris imperiuvi winuere?" A closer balance is seen in 
 
 (a) 
 the Cis. 653. Lampadio savs " nulla m ego me vidisse credo viagis anum 
 
 excruciabilem / quam illaec est: quae dudum fassast mihi, quaene in- 
 fitias eat?" The first part of this is repeated in 660 f. " scelestiorem in 
 terra nullam esse alteram," the second in "omnia infitiare iam quae 
 dudum conjessa est viihi." The same close balance is seen in the Amph. 
 
 (a) (b) 
 
 641 ff. "sed Jioc me heat saltern / quoin perduellis vicit et domum laudis 
 
 (a) 
 compos revenit." Alcumena repeats the first part in "id solacio est" and 
 
 (b) 
 the second part in "dum viodo laude parta domum recipiat se." Here 
 there is a close balance between both "a" and "b" and their repetitions. The 
 best example occurs in the Most. 816 f. 845 f. Theopropides cries " a page 
 
 (a) (b) 
 
 istinn perductorem, non placet, quidquid est. Erraho potisquam perdue- 
 
 (a) 
 tet quispiam." Later he repeats with " apage istum a me perductorem, 
 
 (b) . 
 nil moror ductarier. quidquid est, erraho potius quam perductet quis pi- 
 am." Here the balance is very noticeable — so much so that if the repeti- 
 tion had occurred in closer proximity to the original statement, it might 
 be considered as dittography. 
 
 Another group belonging to this stylistic variation is characterized by 
 the fact that there is a change in person. In the Cis. 366 Gymnasium 
 
REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 43 
 
 says "jiiiser errat ut ego dixi. lepidast materies." Then he repeats these 
 
 (a) (b) 
 
 two statements with " ludam ego hunc, nam occaslo videtur." In this ex- 
 ample the person of "a" changes in the repetition to the first but repeats 
 the thought which was expressed in the third person in the original state- 
 ment. The person of "b" remains the same. Another example occurs in 
 the Trin. 692 ff., " quis me improbior perhibeatur esse? haec famigeratio 
 
 / te honestet, me conlutulentet, si sine dote duxeris." Lesbonicus repeats 
 
 , . . . ^^) . . . (^) 
 
 this changing the person, " tihi sit emoliimentuin honoris, miJii quod 
 
 obiectent siet." 
 
 The last group shows a balance which is more noteworthy than the 
 balance noticed in some of the other examples. The characteristic which 
 differentiates the four examples of this class from the groups already dis- 
 cussed is that here we have the thought first expressed by a single word 
 and then repeated in a phrase. The best example occurs in the Stichus, 
 
 (a) (b) (a) (b) 
 
 309 f. "aperite atque adproperaie, fores facile ut pateant, removete mo- 
 ram." Here the balance is very noticeable. In both "a" and "b" the thought 
 is first expressed by a single word and then repeated in a longer phrase. 
 A second example will perhaps be sufficient to make this group clear. In 
 the Per. 812 f. Paegnium asks " viden ut tuis dictis pareo? Sed quin tu 
 
 (a) (b) (a) (b) 
 
 ineis contra item dictis servis / atque hoc quod tibi suadeo facis?" Here 
 
 the nicis dictis is repeated in quod tibi suadeo while servis is re- 
 
 peated in facts. This example is not as good as the first because here 
 in "a" a pronominal adjective and a noun are balanced by a quod clause 
 while in "b" verb balances verb. 
 
 2. a-b-b-a 
 
 The second type of repetition in which we find stylistic variation is 
 that in which a statement is made by a speaker who then expresses a 
 different thought. After repeating this latter, he returns to a repetition 
 of the first statement. The scheme here is a-b-b-a. The groups into which 
 this type may be divided are in the main similar to those into which the 
 type just treated was divided. Consider first examples in which there is 
 a close resemblance between "a" and its repetition, and also between "b" 
 and its repetition. In the five examples found there is considerable varia- 
 
 (a) 
 tion. Take first a very simple example such as Most. 7 f. "abscede ab aedi- 
 
 ^^) . ,, . (^) 
 
 bus./abi rus." Tranio repeats this in very close form with "abi dierecte, 
 
44 REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 
 
 absccdc ab ianua." A more complicated example is seen in the Bacc. 358 f. 
 
 (a) (b) 
 
 where Chrysalus asks " scd quid jacturuuist, quoin hoc sencx resciverit." 
 
 (b) 
 He repeats this last clause with " quovi se excucurrisse illuc frustra sciverit 
 / nosque aurum abusos?" Here the form remains the same and the second 
 quom clause does not really add anything to the first statement as it is 
 clear enou^-h wiiat Chrvsalus means. He repeats the thought of "quid 
 
 (a) \^ . ^^ '. (a) 
 jacturumsi /" with "quid niihi fiet posica." Here again the form is re- 
 tained and both "a" and "b" show a close resemblance to their respective 
 
 (^) 
 repetitions. In the same play 321 f. Chrysalus says " non edepol scio ; 
 
 verum hand opinor." After Nicobulus asks "fertne partem tertiam!" 
 
 (b) (a) 
 
 Chrysalus repeats "non hercle opinor. verum verum nescio." Here the 
 closeness is obvious. This example, in addition to the fact that the repeti- 
 tion is motivated by an interruption, is noticeable for the summary which 
 Chrysalus adds in " projecto de auro nil scio nisi nescio." 
 
 Another example occurs in the Pseu. 510 f. where Pseudolus threatens 
 
 » ^^^ . . ^^) 
 
 "dabis./iam dtco ut a me caveas." After an interruption from Simo, he re- 
 peats, reversing the order of the first statements but keeping the repeti- 
 
 tions close to the original, " praedico tit caveas. / dico, inquam, ut caveas. 
 
 (a) ' 
 
 cave./ em istis inihi tu hodie manibus argienUim dabis." The repetition 
 is somewhat fuller than the original statement. 
 
 The second group, of which there are three cases, is characterized by 
 the fact that the repetition of "a" shows a close resemblance to the origi- 
 nal statement while the repetition of "b" is quite different from the origi- 
 
 (a) 
 
 nal statement. In the Men. 756 f. the old man complains "nam pernicitas 
 
 (b) (b) (a) 
 
 deserit: consitus sum / senectute, onustum gero corpus, vires / reliquere." 
 Here there is a close resemblance between pernicitas deserit and vires 
 reliquere while the repetition onustum gero corpus repeats the thought 
 of, but differs considerably in phraseologv from consitus sum senectute. 
 
 The same is true of Epi. 590 " tua istaec culpast, non mea /. negat haec 
 filiain me suam esse." This last thought is repeated in a different form in 
 
 (b) 
 "non ergo haec mater mea est" while the first expression is repeated in 
 
 (a) 
 closer form in " postremo haec mea culpa non est." 
 
 An attempt was made to find some examples in which there was a close 
 
REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 45 
 
 resemblance between "b" and its repetition and a corresponding diversity 
 in the expression of "a" and its repetition. But the only two examples 
 which might, by considerable stretch of the imagination, be said to 
 possess this characteristic are not very good. They will be cited for what 
 thev are worth. In the Stichus 508 f. Pamphilippus replies to Antipho's 
 
 (a) (b) 
 
 good wishes "satis aps te accipiavi, nisi vidcam inilii tc amicuni esse, Anti- 
 
 (^) . ^^) . . 
 
 pho /. nunc quia te amicum mi experiar esse credetur tibi." All that can 
 
 be said of this example is that the repetition of the first expression is not 
 
 as close as the repetition of the second expression, though the repetition 
 
 of the latter is not very close. The second example is perhaps even weaker. 
 
 In the Bacc. 121 f. Lydus rebukes Pistoclerus "an non putasti esse uin- 
 
 qiiani. O Lyde es barbarus ... is stultior es barbaro poticio. qui tantiis 
 
 (^) . . • 
 
 natu deorum nescis noniina." The same comment which was made in re- 
 gard to the first example may be made here. 
 
 A fourth group shows a change in construction in the repetition of 
 both "a" and '"b" from that of the original statement. There are three 
 examples of this group, the best of which occurs in the As. 249. Libanus 
 
 (^). . . (^) 
 
 soliloquizes "nunc te meliust expergiscier / atque argento comparando 
 
 fingere fallaciaui." He repeats this last statement with considerable vari- 
 
 . _ (b) 
 
 ation in "igitur inveniendo argento ut fingeres fallaciam." Then he re- 
 
 peats his first statement, varying the form of this also "quin tu aps te 
 socordiani ovinem reice et segnitiem amove." In the True. 556 f. Cyamus 
 
 (a) 
 cries "qui bona sua pro stercore habet, foras iubet ferri. metuit / publi- 
 
 (b) 
 cos: viundissinius fit." He repeats this last changing the form "puras 
 
 esse sibi volt aedis." Then he repeats the foras iubet ferri with "douii 
 quidquid habeat cicitur, llw." 
 
 There are two examples in which there is a balance between "a" and 
 its repetition and also between "b" and its repetition. In the Pseu. 667 
 
 (a) (b) 
 
 Pseudolus cries, " Di immortales conservavit me illic homo adventu suo." 
 
 (b) (a) 
 
 In the next sentence suo viatico repeats the last phrase while redduxit 
 repeats the thought of conservavit. In the Mer. 571 f. occurs "meum 
 (a) (b) ^^ ^^ (b) (a) 
 
 animum gestas" then " scis quid acturus siein." Here the balance is clear. 
 
46 REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 
 
 These differ from other examples in that here verb is balanced by \'erb, 
 and phrase by phrase. 
 
 A very neat example of this type ot repetition is found in the Amph. 
 
 648 f. Alcumena soliliquizes "virtus praemiiim est optuviuni: / virtus 
 
 ovniibus rebus aiiteit profecto." She repeats with "virtus ovinia in sese 
 
 (a) 
 hahet, / omnia adsunt bona quein penest virtus." In the repetition of these 
 two thoughts, which are really only two ways of regarding virtus, virtus 
 omnia in sese habet keeps more clearly to the construction of its original 
 statement than does omnia adsunt bona quern penest virtus. Here the 
 thought passes from virtus to the person who possesses virtus. 
 
 3. a-b-a 
 
 The third type in which we find stylistic variation is not as satisf actor}- 
 as the two just treated. In this type a speaker makes a statement, then in 
 the next sentence changes the thought, finally returning to the first state- 
 'ment. The scheme here might be written a-b-a. This group differs from 
 the class of "equivalent repetitions" in that here there is no interruption 
 from another speaker as was the case in the earlier class. Here the speaker 
 drops his first thought but does not repeat it after an interruption from 
 another speaker but merely returns to it after a digression. Eighteen ex- 
 amples of this type were found. These seemed to fall most naturally into 
 two groups. There are eight which are characterized by the fact that the 
 form and wording of "a" was similar while in the other ten the form 
 and wording of the repetition was not close to that of the original 
 statement. In the Cap. 487 Ergasilus soliloquizes " abeo ab illis, postquam 
 video me sic ludificarier." Then he drops this thought of deception but 
 returns to it in "quoniam me ibi video ludificarier." Here the repetition 
 is close as is the case in the As. 720 f. where Leonida urges Argyrippus 
 "opta id quod ut contingat tibi vis." Then after an interruption, before 
 repeating this statement he says "ad me adi vicissim atque experire," 
 repeating his first command in "exopta id quod vis maxume tibi evenire." 
 Here again the repetition is close. 
 
 Those examples of this type in which the repetition is not so close are 
 much more interesting. The three best examples occur in the Trinummus. 
 In the lines 320 ff. Philto says "is probus est quem paenitet quam probus 
 sit et frugi bonae." He then drops this thought but repeats it again in 
 "qui ipsus se contemnit, in eost indoles industriae." Here the form and 
 wording is not close although there is a certain balance between the origi- 
 nal statement and the repetition. In line 397 f. Philto exclaims "miser ex 
 animo fit, factius nihilo facit." He goes back to the first statement and re- 
 peats it in considerably different form, "Suae senectuti is acriorem 
 hiemeni parat." The third example occurs at line i r 10 f. where Stasimus 
 
REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 47 
 
 reflects "hie meo ero amicus solus firmus restitit." He repeats this with 
 " sed hie unus, ut ego suspicor, servat fidem." But between these two sen- 
 tences he has said " ncquc deniutavit animuin dc fin/ia fide." This may be 
 considered as a negative repetition of the first statement. But in spite of 
 that the example seems to fulfil the characteristic of the class since the 
 negative expression may be said to express the reverse of the first state- 
 ment and for that reason the last sentence returns to the first expression. 
 On the whole this type does not offer as good examples as the two previ- 
 ous types. And on closer observation it may be seen that many of the ex- 
 amples might be classed under other types already discussed in the first 
 part of the paper. 
 
 4. Play on Words 
 
 The fourth and last type to be considered in discussing the stylistic 
 variations of repetitions in Plautus is that in which we find a play on 
 words. Here the repetition lies in the fact that the thought or image 
 brought before us by a single word is repeated by the occurrence of that 
 same word or of a word connected in root with it. There is considerable 
 gradation in the strength of the repetition. The group is not important 
 enough for very detailed analysis and only a few examples will be pointed 
 out to show the variation found. In the Most. 204 f. Philematium rebukes 
 Scapha "solain ille me soli sibi suo sumptu liberavit:/ illi me soli censeo 
 esse oportere opsequentem." Here the same adjective is repeated. The 
 same is true of Pseu. 27 f. where Calidorus asks "cur inclementer dicis 
 lepidis litteris, lepidis tabellis lepida conscriptis manu." Here, however, 
 the adjective is applied to three different objects. In the Trin. 972 the 
 sycophant rebukes Charmides with " abi sis, nugator: nugari nugatori 
 postulas." Here the repetition lies in a verb which repeats the thought as 
 first expressed by a noun. In the Per. 7 occurs "qui ero suo servire volt 
 bene servos servitutem." Here we find a verb and two nouns from the 
 same stem, expressing the same thought. These examples are sufificient to 
 show that there is some variation in the examples. They also show that 
 the group is not very important. 
 
IV. DOUBLE REPETITIONS 
 
 IN all the examples so far considered, both in the exposition and discus- 
 sion of the various classes of repetition in Plautus and also in the dis- 
 cussion of the st)distic variations of repetitions found in Plautus a thought 
 was repeated only once. In most cases the desire of the speaker was to 
 vary the expression of his thought but that desire for variety in the ex- 
 pression did not overshadow the other desire, that of impressing his 
 thought the more strongly upon the listener by repeating it. The next 
 type of repetition to be considered shows a distinct difference in these two 
 points from all the types so far discussed. This type is characterized, in 
 the first place, by the fact that a statement is made which is then repeated 
 not once but twice: secondly, in this type the desire in the speaker's mind 
 may be to impress his statement on the listener's mind by repeating it 
 twice but this desire, in contrast with the case in the other types, is over- 
 shadowed by the desire for variety. In repeating his thought once, a 
 speaker may feel that he can express his idea more aptly with some varia- 
 tion but in most of the examples so far considered, it cannot be said defi- 
 nitely that the speaker had in equal degree, both the desire for variety 
 and also the desire of impressing the listeners. In the examples now to be 
 considered there seems to be a combination of the desire to vary the ex- 
 pression and the desire to enforce his thought on the listener. Considerable 
 variety is shown in this class of repetitions — from those in which all three 
 statements are very much alike to those which show a distinct change in 
 the form and wording of repetitions, from those which show repetition of 
 single words to those which show repetition of thoughts important for the 
 plot of the play and especially for the portrayal of the character who ex- 
 presses them. 
 
 The first group into which these double repetitions may be divided is 
 that in which the examples show a close similarity in all three expressions 
 of the same thought. There are eighteen examples of this group in 
 Plautus. In the Most. 1033 f- Theopropides is highly indignant at the 
 manner in which he has been tricked by Tranio and cries " deludificatust 
 me hodie indignis modis." Simo asks "quid tu ais !" to which Theopropides 
 answers "deludificatust me hodie in perpetuom modum" and ends the 
 scene by repeating again " Quis med exemplis hodie eludificatus est." In 
 these three expressions, there is very little variation. Theopropides is 
 indignant at being made a fool of and harps upon this thought not so 
 much to impress it upon the listener as to give vent to his feelings and 
 finally winds up by leaving the stage with the other old man to tell him 
 how Tranio has tricked him. In the True. 613 Stratophanes threatens 
 Cyamus "iam hercle ego te hie hac offatim conficiam." Then in 626 he re- 
 
REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 49 
 
 peats "iam ego te hie offatim conficiam; offatim occidi optumum est." 
 Here the reason for the repetition is obvious. Stratophanes is worked up 
 and threatens Cyamus — not once but thrice — to impress his threat upon 
 Cyamus as well as to give vent to his own anger. In the As. 204 ff. Ar- 
 gyrippus upbraids Cleareta " aliam nunc mi orationem despoliato prae- 
 dicas, / longe aliam inquam, linguam praebes, nunc atque olim quom 
 dabam, / aliam atque olim quom inliciebas me ad te blande ac benedice." 
 He then goes on to explain what he means by the change in the attitude 
 of Cleareta towards him. 
 
 The next group in this type is characterized by the fact that the two 
 repetitions are less connected with the original statement than was the 
 case in the first examples given. There are twenty-one (21) such ex- 
 amples in Plautus. In this group there are three distinct kinds of ex- 
 amples. There are first those examples in which the form and construc- 
 tion are similar in all three statements. In the Capt. 993 Hegio laments 
 "eo miser sum quia male illi feci si gnatus meust." He repeats with "eheu 
 quom ego plus minusque feci quam me aequom fuit" and then again in 
 "quod male feci, crucior." Here he gives only one reason why he is 
 wretched but he gives it three times with the same form and construction. 
 In the Cas. 817 f. Pardalisca bids Cleustrata "sensim super attolle limen 
 pedes, nova nupta ; / sospes iter incipe hoc, uti viro tuo / semper sis 
 superstes." He repeats this last expression, keeping the ut clause 
 "tuaque ut potior pollentia sit vincasque virum victrixque sies." Then 
 this occurs again in "tua vox superet tuomque imperium." In the first 
 repetition the thought really occurs three times so that here we find 
 double repetition within repetition. A third example occurs in the Rudens 
 ■691 f. where Tranio tries to reassure the girls "sedete hie modo, ego hinc 
 vos tamen tutabor, aram habete hanc / vobis pro castris." He repeats 
 with "moenia hinc ego vos defensabo" and again, making the expression 
 somewhat fuller but really adding nothing to the thought " praesidio 
 Veneris malitiae lenonis contra incedam." The greater number of the ex- 
 amples of this group ( eleven ( 11) in all) do not show such a close simi- 
 larity in the form of all three expressions. Here the similarity lies be- 
 tween the original statement and one repetition or between the two repe- 
 titions themselves. In the examples it was found that a speaker is more 
 likely in repeating a statement twice to retain the form of the original 
 statement in the first repetition and change in the second repetition than 
 to do either of the other two things — to make the second repetition like in 
 form to the original statement or to make the form of the two repetitions 
 like to each other but different from that of the original statement. In the 
 Trin. 83 ff. Callicles explains to Megaronides "nam nunc ego si te sur- 
 rupuisse suspicer / loA'i coronam de capite ex Capitolio / quod in colu- 
 mine astat summo." He repeats the thought of the si clause, keeping 
 the same conditional form "si id non feceris atque id tamen mihi lubeat 
 suspicarier ," repeating a second time but changing the form in "qui tu id 
 prohibere me potes ne suspicer?" A better example occurs in the Bacc. 
 
50 REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 
 
 1099 f. where Philoxemus complains "hoc, hoc est quod cor peracescit. 
 hoc est dcmum quod percrucior." This is an example of equivalent repe- 
 tition. He then explains with "me hoc aetatis ludificari," repeating this 
 with the same form in " immo edepol sic ludos factum / cano capite." He 
 repeats again but in a different form with "atque alba barba miserum 
 me auro esse emunctum." A third example of this same class is in the M. 
 G. 944 f. where Periplectomenus bids the girls "abeamus ergo intro, haec 
 uti meditemur cogitate" repeating this in " ut accurate et commode hoc 
 quod agendumst exsequamur," but changing the form in the second rep- 
 etition "ne quid ubi miles venerit, titubetur." 
 
 In the Stichus 39 ff. there is a similarity in form between the original 
 statement and the second repetition. Pamphila explains to Paneg}-ris 
 "quia pol meo animo omnis sapientis / suom officium aequom est colere 
 et facere." She repeats this in "moneo ut tuom memineris officium" and 
 then again, going back to the form of the original statement in "omnibus 
 obnixe o})ibus / nostrum officium meminisse decet." In the Rudens 458 
 ff. the form of the two repetitions is similar. Sceparnio reflects " Pro di 
 inmortales ! in aqua numquam credidi / voluptatem inesse tantam." He 
 repeats this twice in "ut banc traxi lubens" and "ut sine labore banc ex- 
 traxi" with the same form in the two repetitions but different from the 
 form of the original statement. 
 
 There are a few examples in this group (five in all) in which the form 
 and construction differ in all three expressions of the same thought. The 
 best example of this occurs in the Ep. 666 f. where Periphanes upbraids 
 Epidicus and asks Apoecides "satine illic homo ludibrio nos vetulos de- 
 crepitos duos habet." After an interruption he repeats with different form 
 (671 ) "quot illic homo hodie me exemplis ludificatust atque te" and still 
 again with a different form in " ut illic autem exenteravit mihi opes 
 argentarias !" Another example is in the Stichus 70 f. Panegyris advises 
 Pamphila " exorando, hand advorsando sumendam operam censeo." She 
 repeats with different form in "advorsari sine dedecore et scelere summo 
 hau possumus." and again in "consilium dabo, verum ut exoremus." 
 
 In the next group the chief characteristic is that the original statement 
 is a short one and the repetitions are also short, preserving a sort of bal- 
 ance with the first. Trin. 705 f. will show what is meant by this group. 
 Here Stasimus applauds Lysiteles "facile palmam habes : hie victust, 
 vicit tua comoedia." This shows three ways of expressing the same 
 thought — each in a short phrase with a certain balance. The same is true 
 of Cas. 509 f. where Chalinus boasts "nostra omnis lis est — nostro omine 
 it dies; iam victi vicimus." Here again the thought is expressed in three 
 short phrases with a clearer balance than was the case in the first example. 
 There were found about thirty-five cases of this group in Plautus. In 
 about ten the phrasing of the three statements was close, in the others 
 there was some variation. In the Rudens 702 ff. Tranio assures the 
 priestess "Venus, aequom has petere intellego : decet aps te id impetrari / 
 ignoscere his te convenit." Here in the three expressions there is a cer- 
 
REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 51 
 
 tain amount of similarity. The same is true of Poe. 1 187 f. where Hanno 
 prays "Juppiter qui genus colis alisque hominum, / per quem vivjmus 
 vitalem aevom, / quem penes spes vitae sunt hominum omnium." In the 
 Pseu. 423 ff. the phraseology is quite different in the three statements. 
 Pseudolus says "occisa est haec res, haeret hoc negotium" and then for the 
 third time "ibi nunc oppido opsaeptast via." The last is considerably dif- 
 *ferent in form from the first two. In the Most. 1 108 f. Theopropides up- 
 braids Tranio "dedisti verba." The slave asks "qui tandem f" Theopro- 
 pides repeats in very different form "probe med emunxti." He elaborates 
 this in " immo etiam cerebrum quoque omne e capite emunxti meo." A 
 clearer case of balance is seen in Cas. 875 f. where Olympio reflects 
 "neque quo fugiam neque ubi lateam neque hoc dedecus quo modo celem." 
 He offers another example a few lines later in "ita nunc pudeo atque ita 
 nunc paveo atque ita in ridiculo sumus ambo." 
 
 There are eight examples in which the original statement takes the 
 form of a question, which form is retained in the two repetitions. In the 
 Mer. 652 f. Eutychus asks "quis modus tibi exsilio tandem eveniet, qui 
 finis fugaef" Then a third time in "quae patria aut domus tibi stabilis 
 esse poterit." Another example is in the Pseu. 1080 where Simo asks 
 "quid ait? quid narrat? quaeso quid dicit tibi?" 
 
 Another group of these double repetitions is that in which a thought 
 is first expressed in a single word — adjective or noun — and is then ex- 
 panded into a clause. In the Rudens 1027 Gripus tries to get rid of 
 Trachalio "sine me hinc abire, tu abi tacitus tuam viam." He repeats, in 
 more detailed form, the thought of "tacitus" — first in the negative "nee 
 tu quoiquam indicassis" and then in "tu taceto." Another example similar 
 to this occurs in the M. G. 618 ff. where Pleusicles explains his distress to 
 Periplectomenus "me tibi istuc aetatis homini facinora puerilia/obicere." 
 He expands the thought of the adjective first negatively in "neque te 
 decora neque tuis virtutibus" and then affirmatively in "quae istaec 
 aetas fugere facta magis quam sectari solet." In the Pseu. 773 the Puer 
 soliloquizes "neque ego amatorem mi invenire ullum queo / qui amet me, 
 ut curer tandem nitidiuscule." Here the thought, as first expressed in the 
 noun "amatorem" is repeated in the qui and ut clauses. In the Cas. 313 f. 
 the example is a little different from those just quoted but resembles them 
 enough to be classed with them. Olympio threatens Cleustrata "quid tu 
 me tua, era, libertate territas? / qui si tu nolis filiusque etiam tuos, / vobis 
 invitus atque amborum ingratiis / una libella liber possum fieri." Here 
 the thought is first expressed in a clause and then repeated in two short 
 adjectival phrases. This example is then classified with the others because 
 it shows the reverse characteristic of the previous in which the thought 
 was first expressed in a single word and then repeated in a clause. There 
 are twelve (12) examples of this class in Plautus. 
 
 A group somewhat similar to the last example is that in which a 
 thought is expressed three times in adjectival phrases. There are about 
 five such examples in Plautus. In the Pseu. 1253 f. Pseudolus soliloquizes 
 
52 REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 
 
 "ita victu excurato, ita magnis munditiis divis dignis / itaque in loco 
 festivo sumus festive accepti." Here the thought of the splendid reception 
 is stated three times in adjectival phrases and a fourth time in the adverb 
 festive. In the same play 759 ff. we find two examples of double repe- 
 tition, the second one belonging to this class. Pseudolus says "quidquid 
 incerti mi in animo prius aut ambiguom fuit, / nunc liquet, nunc defaeca- 
 tumst cor mihi ; nunc perviamst." This is an example of short phrases. In* 
 the following lines he gives an example of repetitions with adjectival 
 phrases, "omnis ordine his sub signis ducam legiones meas / avi sinistera, 
 auspicio liquido atque ex sententia." This example is not as good because 
 in the second repetition ("ex sententia") there is no adjective but here 
 again the balance is clear. The next example is better. In the M. G. 413 f. 
 Philocomasium repeats the same idea twice when she speaks of the turbu-- 
 lent sea "quom me in locis Neptuniis templisqne iurbnlentis / servavit, 
 saevis fluctibns ubi sum adflictata multum." 
 
 In the next group of double repetitions the examples are characterized 
 by the fact that the thought of an adjective is repeated twice in other ad- 
 jectives. In the Rudens 257 f. Palaestra characterizes herself and Am- 
 pelisca as "miseras, inopes, aerumnosas." In the greater number of ex- 
 amples the second repetition has a noun combined with an adjective but 
 this noun really adds nothing to the thought of the adjective with which 
 it is combined as in the Poe. 130 "dubias egenas, inopiosas consili" or M. 
 G. 1369 "dicant te mendacem nee verum esse, fide nulla esse te." Similar 
 to these are such examples as Men. 972 where Messenio reflects " recorde- 
 tur id, qui nihili sunt, quid eis preti / detur ab suis eris, / ignavis, impro- 
 bis viris." In the Pseu. 1142 we find "quia tu te ipsns coram praesens 
 praesentem vides." 
 
 There are about ten examples in which a thought is expressed in three 
 nouns. In the Trin. 141 ff. occurs a very good example. Callicles replies 
 to Megaronides " ut quod meae concreditumst / taciturnitati clam, fide et 
 fiduciae." Having expressed the same thought in three different nouns he 
 varies it in "ne enuntiarem quoiquam neu facerem palam" which adds 
 nothing to the thought. A simpler example is Pseu. 672 if. "hie doli, hie 
 fallaciae omnes, hie sunt sycophantiae" or the Trin. 333 f. where Ly- 
 siteles says " per comitatem edepol, pater, / praeterea aliquantum animi 
 causa in deliciis disperdidit." Here the balance is closer because each 
 noun is governed by a preposition. 
 
 The greater number of repetitions in which a thought is first expressed 
 in a single word and then repeated in single words occurs in the case of 
 verbs. This is the most natural form of repetition, to change one verb for 
 another verb which expresses the same idea. There are about thirty-three 
 such examples in Plautus. The only variation shown here is that some- 
 times the third verb is strengthened by an adverb or a phrase which, how- 
 ever, adds nothing to the thought. Only a few examples need be men- 
 tioned as this group is clear without any explanation. In the Per. 257 
 Sagaristio soliloquizes "quod ego non magis somniabam neque opinabar 
 
REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 53 
 
 neque censebam." A similar example occurs in the Trin. 263 where 
 Lysiteles reflects "mille modis, amor, ignorandumst, procul abhibendust 
 atque apstandust." As in the first example the same form of the verb is 
 retained. In the Most. 1060 f. Tranio decides how he is to treat Theopro- 
 pides "praeoccupabo atque anteveniam et foedus / feriam." In this ex- 
 ample the "foedus feriam" is practically equal to a single verb but in the 
 Per. 53 f. "servo atque optineo et magna cum cura colo" in the second 
 repetition the adjectival phrase emphasizes and strengthens the idea con- 
 tained in the three verbs. 
 
 There were found in this group of double repetition about sixteen ex- 
 amples in which the thought was expressed and then repeated in 
 imperatives. In the Cis. 197 f. Auxilium advises the audience "vincite 
 virtute vera" then "perdite perduellis, parite laudem et lauream." Simi- 
 lar to this is Pseu. 152 f. " hoc animum advortite, hue adhibete auris quae 
 ego loquor quae loquor advortite nunciam." Often one of the repe- 
 titions is not an imperative but contains the idea of one as in the Poe. 1035 
 f. Agorastocles advises Milphio "maledicta hinc aufer, linguam compes- 
 cas face" and then again in "maledicere huic temperabis, si sapis." 
 Here the second repetition is not an imperative but yet has the force of 
 one. There may of course be a negative idea in one of three statements as 
 in the Most. 74 f. where Tranio abuses Grumio " molestus ne sis nunciam, 
 i rus, te amove." 
 
 In most of the examples a thought was expressed affirmatively twice 
 and once negatively if a negative appears at all but about ten examples 
 were found in which a thought was expressed negatively three times. In 
 the Most. 450 f. Theopropides rebukes Tranio because there isn't any 
 sign of life about the house. " Natus nemo in aedibus / servat neque qui 
 recludat neque qui respondeat." In the Trin. 227 f. Lysiteles soliloquizes 
 "sed hoc non liquet nee satis cogitatumst" and then again a few lines 
 later (233) " de hac re mihi satis hau liquet." In the Rudens 940 fif. Gri- 
 pus shows his suspicion of Trachalio "nil habeo, adulescens, piscium, ne 
 tu mihi esse postules ; / non vides referre me uvidum retem sine squamoso 
 pecu!" The "ne tu mihi esse postules" at first glance may not seem to be 
 a repetition of the "nil habeo piscium" but in actual fact all such phrases 
 in which a prohibition follows a negative statement are merely repetitions 
 of that negative statement. 
 
 Before closing the discussion of these double repetitions, attention may 
 be called to an example of a more complicated repetition in the Stichus 
 48 f. where Panegyris says to Pamphila "nolo ego, soror, me credi esse 
 immemorem viri" repeating this in "neque ille eos honores mihi quos 
 habuit perdidit." Then she says "et me quidem haec condicio nunc non 
 paenitet" repeating this in "neque est cur studeam has nuptias mu- 
 tarier." She passes to a third thought in "verum postremo in patris 
 potestate est situm" which she repeats in " faciendum id vobis quod paren- 
 tes imperant." She has made three statements each of which she repeats. 
 
 The number and character of the examples of "double repetition" 
 
54 REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 
 
 found in Plautus show clearly enough, on being compared with the ex- 
 amples discussed in the first part of the paper that a speaker is not so apt 
 to repeat his thought twice as he is to be satisfied with varying the origi- 
 nal expression in a single repetition. 
 
V. CONCLUSION 
 
 IN conclusion it may be well to sum up the results of this investigation 
 although these were perhaps made sufficiently clear in the introduction 
 and in the discussion which followed. It has been found that repetitions 
 of thought in Plautus (of which there were about twelve hundred ( 1200) 
 clear examples and a few hundred not so clear) had been so expressed 
 that they could be divided naturally into the five classes discussed in the 
 first part of the paper. By far the greater number were classified as 
 "equivalent repetitions" in which the repetition was more or less exact, 
 and was made either merely for iteration or for the purpose of defining 
 more clearly the original statement. In these repetitions a further dis- 
 tinction was drawn between those examples in which the repetition was 
 more or less motivated or caused by an interruption from another speaker 
 and those in which there was no interruption. 
 
 The second type of repetition was that in which the original expression 
 was general in its character. This general statement was then either ana- 
 lyzed into its various details or made more specific or in case it was a 
 proverb was given a particular application. 
 
 The third type was that in which the original statement, particular in 
 its nature, was made general in the repetition. 
 
 The fourth type was characterized by the fact that here we found that 
 the repetition gave a summary of the details which form the original 
 statement. 
 
 The fifth type had two divisions. First, that group in which, as in most 
 writers, the thought was expressed first negatively and then affirmatively. 
 This rhetorical usage was found to be less common in Plautus than the 
 natural usage of first making a statement affirmatively and then ex- 
 pressing this same thought negatively. The conclusion to be drawn from 
 this .fact was simply that in such a type of literature as the plays of Plau- 
 tus, the rhetorical element, common in Tacitus, Cicero, and other writers, 
 is subordinated to the natural way of expressing and repeating any 
 thought. 
 
 The second part of the paper was devoted to the discussion of the 
 stylistic variations which were found in use in Plautus. These were first 
 that group in the examples of which a speaker expresses one thought, 
 drops this for another, returns to the first and finally repeats the second. 
 In the second group the speaker makes a statement, then changes to 
 another thought which he repeats, finally returning to the first statement. 
 The third group showed examples in which a speaker makes a statement, 
 drops this thought for a moment and then repeats it. Here there was no 
 interruption from another speaker as was the case in some of the examples 
 
S6 REPETITION OF THOUGHT IN PLAUTUS 
 
 of "equivalent repetitions." The fourth group consisted of examples of 
 repetitions which show a play on words. This part of the paper showed 
 that Plautus often tried to vary the repetition and the form and order in 
 which it was made so as to give some variety to the expression and pre- 
 vent the repetition from appearing too bald. 
 
 In the third part of the paper it was shown that there were a consider- 
 able number of examples of repetition in Plautus in which a statement 
 was repeated not once but twice. Here the number and the character of 
 the examples found proved that it was not very natural for a speaker to 
 repeat his thought more than once. In general it may be stated that suf- 
 ficient variety was found in the examples of repetition in Plautus to show 
 that at the bottom of most of the examples there lay some further motive 
 than the mere desire for emphasis. 
 

 LOAN PbRIOD 1 ' " ~ 
 
 HOME USE 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 fORM NO. Doa, .0., 'T'r,Zi^''^Z%''''''''' 
 
 ®$ 
 
Gaylord Bros. 
 
 Makers 
 Syracuse, N. Y. 
 
 PAT, JAN. 21,4908 
 
 U.C. BERKELEY UBRARIE 
 
 coembflsi? 
 
 
 z 
 
 .--C^ — 1„-»^- V C^Vt 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
r 
 
 .■ -^^r-smm