-^'' 
 
 PA 
 
 6604 
 
 H44 
 
 1917 
 
 MAIN 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 
 m 
 
 "i'!:i-i 
 
 Tfe Sequence of Tenses in Plautus 
 
 A Thesis 
 
 Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School in partial fulfiHraent of 
 the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 
 
 By 
 Edward Hoch Heffner 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa. 
 1917 
 
'KQ' 
 
Mnttifrait^ of J^^ttnatllwanta 
 
 The Sequence of Tenses in Plautus 
 
 A Thesis 
 
 Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School in partial fulfillment of 
 the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 
 
 By 
 Edward Hoch Heffner 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa. 
 1917 
 
Lancaster, Pa. 
 Intelligencer Printing Co. 
 

 v4^ 
 
 The writer takes opportunity here to express his sincere 
 thanks to Prof. J. C. Rolfe, Prof. W. B. McDaniel, Prof. R. G. 
 Kent, Prof. G. D. Hadzsits, Prof. H. B. Van Deventer, and 
 Dr. T. A. Buenger, for the assistance and encouragement given 
 to him during the preparation of this thesis. 
 
 3G1263 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Chapter I 
 
 Page 
 
 Introduction I 
 
 Chapter II 
 
 Primary sequence dependent upon the perfect: 
 
 1. In final clauses, including substantive clauses developed from the 
 
 volitive 3 
 
 (a) Other than those dependent upon certum est and the perfect of 
 
 mereo and its compounds 3 
 
 (b) Dependent upon certum est 1 1 
 
 (c) Dependent upon the perfect of mereo and its compounds 12 
 
 2. In indirect questions 13 
 
 3. In relative clauses of characteristic 16 
 
 4. In consecutive clauses 18 
 
 5. In conditional clauses of comparison 22 
 
 Chapter III 
 
 Violations of the sequence principle: 
 
 1. Repraesentatio 23 
 
 2. Violations caused by other factors 32 
 
 Chapter IV 
 
 Apparent violations of the sequence principle: 
 
 1. In connection with the phrase quod sciam 34 
 
 2. Other apparent violations 35 
 
 Chapter V 
 Instances of mechanical conformity to the sequence principle 37 
 
 Chapter VI 
 Shift in the sequence 45 
 
 Chapter VII 
 Conclusion 46 
 
The Sequence of Tenses in Plautus 
 
 Introduction 
 
 The aim of this study has been to examine the tenses of the 
 dependent subjunctives in Plautus from two points of view: 
 in the first place, to determine to what extent the tense usage 
 is at variance with the familiar doctrine of the Sequence of 
 Tenses, and to explain the exceptions, real or apparent, to the 
 rules of Sequence; and, in the second place, to ascertain what 
 evidence there is against the theory that the dependent, just as 
 the independent, subjunctives denote absolute time and not 
 time relative to that of the verb in the principal clause. (See 
 below.) 
 
 In 1886-1888 Professor W. G. Hale made a violent attack 
 on the doctrine of the Sequence of Tenses {The Sequence of 
 Tenses in Latin, American Journal of Philology, VII. 446-465; 
 VIII. 46-77; IX. 158-177). His conclusion briefly summed up 
 in his own words is that "in dependent as in independent sub- 
 junctives, the tense conveys meaning, and owes its choice to 
 that fact" {A. J. P., VII. 465), or again, that ''the tenses of the 
 Latin subjunctive, alike in dependent and in independent sentences, 
 tell their own temporal story — that no such thing as is meant by 
 the doctrine of the Sequence of Tenses exists" {A. J. P., VIII. 59). 
 Professor B. L. Gildersleeve in a reply to the first two of Pro- 
 fessor Hale's articles took exception to Professor Hale's conclu- 
 sion (^. /. P., VIII. 228-231). In the third of Professor Hale's 
 articles he restates his doctrine briefly in the words, "the tenses 
 of the subjunctive convey meaning" (A. J. P., IX. 160), and 
 calls attention to the fact that his earlier statement "that no 
 such thing as is meant by the Sequence of Tenses exists'^ was in- 
 cautious. Some years later, A. T. Walker, now Professor of 
 Latin at the University of Kansas, dealt with the subject in his 
 doctoral dissertation (The Sequence of Tenses in Latin: A Study 
 Based on Caesar's Gallic War, Lawrence, Kansas, 1899), and 
 
2 The Sequence of Tenses in Plautus 
 
 partially refuted Professor Hale's argument. In 1913 the Joint 
 Committee on Grammatical Nomenclature {Report, 57, 60-62, 
 University of Chicago Press, 1913) suggested that the use of 
 the tenses in Latin be taught in accordance with Professor Hale's 
 doctrine. In December, 1914, Professor R. G. Kent read a 
 paper before the American Philological Association at its meeting 
 at Haverford College, entitled The ''Passing'' of the Sequence of 
 Tenses {The Classical Weekly, 9. 2-719-13), in which he examined 
 the material used in Professor Hale's articles together with a 
 certain number of additional examples drawn mainly from the 
 Latin commonly read in the Schools and in the first year of the 
 College {The Classical Weekly, 9. 3, footnote 10). Professor 
 Kent protested against the "the shelving of the principle of the 
 Sequence of Tenses" {The Classical Weekly, 9. 13). In the spring 
 of 191 5, Professor A. T. Walker {Sequence or Harmony of Tenses?, 
 The Classical Journal, 10. 246-251; 291-299) further discussed 
 the subject and argued for a retention of the term sequence. A 
 few brief discussions of Professor Kent's articles by Miss Susan 
 Fowler, of the Brearley School, New York City, by Miss Eliza- 
 beth Mcjimsey Tyng, of the Packer Collegiate Institute, and by 
 Professor B. M. Allen, of the Phillips Andover Academy, with 
 rejoinder by Professor Kent, appeared in the spring of 1916 
 {The Classical Weekly, 9. 193-198). 
 
 The text used as a basis in this investigation is the edition by 
 Lindsay in the Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis. 
 Chief among other editions consulted is that by Goetz and 
 Schoell. Unless otherwise stated, the citations are from Lind- 
 say's edition. Illustrative material drawn from authors other 
 than Plautus has been included, but the examples thus used are 
 not the fruits of a systematic investigation, and have been 
 embodied merely because they seemed to be helpful in explaining 
 the passages in connection with which they are quoted. 
 
II 
 
 Primary Sequence Dependent Upon the Perfect 
 
 In this Chapter are treated the instances of the perfect indica- 
 tive as a primary tense. Inasmuch as in the great majority of 
 cases the perfect takes the secondary sequence, it seemed ad- 
 visable to bring together here the examples of primary sequence, 
 largely because of their value in a comparative study of the 
 material in Chapter V. The perfect tense is primary when it 
 denotes the present resultant state from a past act, and secondary 
 when it denotes the past act. The line of division between the 
 two capacities in which this tense serves is frequently hard to 
 draw. Occasionally we find examples of the perfect clearly 
 denoting a present state and still taking the secondary sequence, 
 as may be seen from the examples in a portion of Chapter V 
 (pp. 40-44). The dependent subjunctives are treated in order 
 according to the syntax of the clause in which they stand. 
 
 I. In final clauses, including substantive clauses developed 
 from the volitive: 
 
 (a) Other than those dependent upon certum est and the 
 perfect of mereo and its compounds. 
 
 Amph. II sq. 
 
 (nam uos quidem id iam scitis concessum et datum 
 mi esse ab dis aliis, nuntiis praesim et lucro) : 
 
 Praesim stands in a substantive clause developed from the 
 volitive and depends on scitis concessum et datum esse. Although 
 the infinitives are in the perfect tense, Mercury wishes to call 
 attention not to the act of giving and granting of certain powers 
 and duties to him, but to his present possession of those powers. 
 The passage therefore means "you know by this time that I 
 have this duty, which has been granted and given to me, of 
 being in charge . . . .", which is a present state and requires 
 the primary sequence. 
 
 3 
 
4 The Sequence oj Tenses in Plautus 
 
 Amph. 64 sqq. 
 
 nunc hoc me orare a uobis iussit luppiter 
 ut conquistores singula in subsellia 
 eant per totam caueam spectatoribus, 
 si quoi fauitores delegates uiderint, 
 ut is in cauea pignus capiantur togae; 
 In this sentence itissit denotes the present state resulting 
 from the act of ordering. The principal clause means "I have 
 an order that . . . ." The acts denoted by eant and 
 capiantur are future relatively to the time of speaking. 
 Cf. M. G. 971 iussit, p. 9. 
 
 Amph. 195 
 
 me a portu praemisit domum ut haec nuntiem uxori suae, 
 At the time Sosia says these words to Mercury the message 
 with which he has been entrusted is still to be delivered to 
 Alcmena. The principal clause means "I am here, having 
 been sent ahead home from the harbor to announce . . . ," 
 which is a present resultant state and demands the primary 
 sequence. 
 
 For the converse of this, compare Horace Serm. II. 6. 34 sqq. 
 
 Ante secundam 
 Roscius orabat sibi adesses ad Puteal eras, 
 de re communi scribae magna atque nova te 
 orabant hodie meminisses, Quinte, reverti. 
 
 Amph. 869 sq. 
 
 simul Alcumenae, quam uir insontem probri 
 Amphitruo accusat, ueni ut auxilium/emm; 
 Vent is equivalent to adsum, a present state, and for this 
 reason governs the primary sequence. 
 
 Aul. 743 
 
 at ego deos credo uoluisse ut apud me te in neruo enicem. 
 Here uoluisse means "I have willed," "desire," which is a 
 present state and requires the primary sequence. 
 See on Capt. 267, p. 6. 
 
 Bacch. 350 sqq. 
 
 exorsa haec tela non male omnino mihi est: 
 ut amantem erilem copem facerem filium. 
 
Primary Sequence Dependent Upon the Perfect 5 
 
 ita feci ut auri quantum uellet sumeret, 
 quantum autem lubeat reddere ut reddat patri. 
 
 As is indicated by the secondary tense sumeret, the speaker 
 has his attention fixed on the past act denoted by feci, and for 
 this reason we might have expected him to use redderet instead 
 of reddat; but the present is substituted by the figure of repraesen- 
 tatio to indicate that the act of reddat is future relatively to that 
 of sumeret. 
 
 Goetz and Schoell punctuate with a comma at the end of 350 
 and a period at the end of 351. 
 
 See p. 26. 
 
 Bacch. 533 
 
 uerum postremo impetraui ut ne quid ei suscenseat. 
 
 Here the principal clause means "but at last I have him per- 
 suaded," which denotes a present state, and therefore demands 
 the primary sequence in the substantive clause. 
 
 Bacch 689 sq. 
 
 MN. ego patrem exoraui. CH, nempe ergo hoc ut 
 
 faceret quod loquor? 
 MN. immo tibi ne noceat neu quid ob eam vera suscenseat; 
 
 The tense of faceret shows that the speaker's attention is 
 fixed on the act of beseeching. The presents noceat and sus- 
 censeat are to be explained by repraesentatio. 
 
 Bacch. 1082 
 
 ego dare me meo gnato institui, ut animo opsequium 
 sumere possit; 
 
 Institui means "my mind is made up," "my decision is," 
 a present state, and therefore governs the primary sequence. 
 
 Capt. 35 sq. 
 
 hisce autem inter sese hunc confinxerunt dolum, 
 quo pacto hie seruos suom erum hinc amittat domum. 
 
 Hunc confinxerunt dolum is the equivalent of "they have this 
 piece of trickery devised," a present state, and therefore takes 
 the primary sequence. 
 
6 The Sequence of Tenses in Plautus 
 
 Capt. 266 sq. 
 
 nunc senex est in tostrina, nunc iam cultros adtinet. 
 ne id quidem, inuolucre inicere, uoluit, uestem ut ne 
 inqidnet. 
 Imiolucre .... uoluit .... is equivalent to "he has 
 no napkin on him to prevent staining," a present state, which 
 demands the primary sequence. Nunc, nunc iam enhance the 
 intensity of the present state. 
 See on Aid. 743, p. 4. 
 
 Capt. 378 sqq. 
 
 nunc ita conuenit inter me atque hunc, Tyndare, 
 ut tu aestumatum in Alidem mittam ad patrem, 
 si non rebitas hue, ut uiginti minas 
 dem pro te. 
 Conuenit . . . .is equivalent to "now there is this arrange- 
 ment .... that . . ," which is a present state requiring 
 the primary sequence. 
 
 Capt. 395 sqq. 
 
 dicito patri quo pacto mihi cum hoc conuenerit 
 
 de huius filio. PHILOC. quae memini, mora mera est 
 
 monerier. 
 TY. ut eum redimat et remittat nostrum hue amborum 
 
 uicem. 
 
 Redimat and remittat depend on the perfect subjunctive 
 conuenerit in the indirect question in 395, which is equivalent 
 in meaning to "what arrangement there is . . . ," a present 
 state, and thus demands the primary sequence. 
 
 Capt. 837 
 
 nescioquem ad portum nactus es ubi cenes, eo fastidis. 
 Nactus es is equivalent to "you chance to have," which denotes 
 a present state, and therefore requires the primary sequence. 
 See on True. 280, p. 11. 
 
 Cas. 52 sqq. 
 
 pater adlegauit uilicum qui posceret 
 sibi istanc uxorem: is sperat, si ei sit data, 
 sibi fore paratas clam uxorem excubias for is; 
 filius is autem armigerum adlegauit suom 
 qui sibi eam uxorem poscat: 
 
Primary Sequence Dependent Upon the Perfect 7 
 
 Filius .... qui is equivalent to "his armor-bearer has a 
 commission . . .to," which is a present state, and therefore 
 demands the primary sequence. In 52 we should have expected 
 poscat for posceret, for the context of the passage shows that 
 adlegauit there as well as in 55 really denotes a present state, 
 although in the earlier verse the sequence is secondary. The 
 commands of both, that of father and son, are being carried out 
 at the time this passage is being spoken, and the girl's reply is 
 still to be received. The secondary tense posceret is due to a 
 mechanical sequence. 
 
 Cas. 105 
 
 praefeci ruri recte qui curet tamen. 
 
 Curet is in the present subjunctive because praefeci .... 
 qui'is equivalent to "I have a manager on my estate to," a present 
 state. We see from no that curet is future also relatively to 
 the time of speaking. 
 
 Epid. 354 sq. 
 
 nunc iterum ut fallatur pater tibique auxilium apparetur 
 inueni : 
 
 Inueni means "I know," and therefore takes the primary 
 sequence. Nunc emphasizes the idea of a present state. The 
 acts of fallatur and apparetur are future also relatively to the 
 time of speaking. 
 
 See on Capt. 569, p. 17; Merc. 254, p. 15; M. G. 767, p. 8 
 
 Epid. 444 sq. 
 
 non repperisti, adulescens, tranquillum locum 
 ubi tuas uirtutes explices ut postulas. 
 
 Repperisti is equivalent to habes, and therefore takes the 
 primary sequence. Explices is future also relatively to the 
 time of speaking. 
 
 Epid. 570 sq. 
 
 AC. Quid est, pater, quod me exciuisti ante aedis? PE. 
 ut matrem tuam 
 
 uideas, adeas, aduenienti des salutem atque osculum. 
 Ego te exciui ut, to be supplied in thought from exciuisti, is 
 
8 The Sequence of Tenses in Plauius 
 
 equivalent to "you are here, having been called out by me that 
 . • . . ," a present state, and therefore takes the primary 
 sequence. 
 
 Cf. Xen. Anab. I. 6. 6. riapexdXeaa u^xaq, avBpeq ^(Xot, oxox; 
 auv uijlTv PouXeu6[X£voi; o tt Slxatov eaxt xal 7cp6q Oewv xal icpit; avOpwzwv 
 TOUTo xpd^o) xept 'Op6vTa toutouI. 
 
 Jkfe«. 787-8 sq. 
 
 quotiens monstraui tibi uiro ut morem geras, 
 
 quid ille faciat ne id opserues, quo eat, quid rerum gerat. 
 
 Monstraui tibi is equivalent to "you know," and therefore 
 takes the primary sequence. 
 
 Merc. 667 sqq. 
 
 Quoniam a uiro ad me rus aduenit nuntius 
 rus non iturum, feci ego ingenium meum, 
 reueni, ut ilium persequar qui me fugit. 
 Reueni means "I am come back," a present state, and there- 
 fore takes the primary sequence. 
 
 M. G. 295 sq. 
 
 nam tibi iam ut pereas paratum est dupliciter nisi sup- 
 
 primis 
 tuom stultiloquium. 
 Paratum is an adjective here, and the sequence is therefore 
 primary. 
 
 See on Pseud. 579, p. 10. 
 
 M. G. 728 sq. 
 
 quae probast mers, pretium ei statuit, pro uirtute ut 
 
 ueneat, 
 quae improbast, pro mercis uitio dominum pretio pauper et, 
 Statuit means "is fixed," a present state, and therefore takes 
 the primary sequence. 
 
 The text of 728, however, is dubious. Goetz and Schoell in 
 their editio maior (1890) read quae probast et pretio digna, pro 
 uirtute ut ueneat. 
 
 M. G. 766 sqq. 
 
 mihi opus est opera tua, 
 Periplectomene ; nam ego inueni lepidam sycophantiam 
 qui admutiletur miles usque caesariatus, atque uti 
 
Primary Sequence Dependent Upon the Perfect 9 
 
 huic amanti ac Philocomasio hanc ecficiamus copiam, 
 
 ut hie earn ahducat habeatque. 
 Inueni is equivalent to scio^ and therefore takes the primary 
 sequence. 
 
 See on Capt. 569, p. 17; Epid. 355, p. 7; Merc. 254, p. 15. 
 
 M. G. 971 sq. 
 
 nunc te orare atque opsecrare iussit ut earn copiam 
 sibi potestatemque facias. 
 
 Nunc. . . . ^'«55i/ w^ here, as inylw^/t. 64, means "you now 
 have an order to," which is a present state, and requires the 
 primary sequence. The notion of present state is emphasized 
 by nunc. 
 
 See on Amph. 64, p. 5. 
 
 M. G. 1 145 sq. 
 
 nam ipse miles concubinam intro abiit oratum suam 
 ab se ut abeat cum sorore et matre Athenas. 
 Intro abiit is equivalent to intro est, a present state, and there- 
 fore the sequence is primary. 
 
 M. G. 1238 
 
 istuc curaui, ut opinione illius pulchrior sis. 
 Curaui means "provision is made . . . ," a present state 
 demanding the primary sequence. 
 
 M. G. 1269 
 
 induxi in animum ne oderim item ut alias, quando orasti. 
 
 Induxi in animum means "my mind is made up," a present 
 state demanding the primary sequence. Oderim, being a preter- 
 itive, has the meaning of a present. 
 
 Most. 941 sq. 
 
 nisi forte factu's praefectus nouos, 
 
 qui res alienas procures, quaeras, uideas, audias. 
 
 Factu's .... qui, "are prefect to . . . ," is a present 
 state calling for the primary sequence. 
 
 Pers. 325 sq. 
 
 nam iam omnis sycophantias instruxi et comparaui 
 quo pacto ab lenone auferam hoc argentum. 
 
10 The Sequence of Tenses in Plautus 
 
 Instruxi and comparaui mean "I have a plan drawn up and 
 prepared . . . ," a present state, and therefore require the 
 primary sequence. lam intensifies the present state. 
 
 Pers. 620 sq. 
 
 qur ego hie mirer, mi homo? 
 seruitus mea mi interdixit ne quid mirer meum malum. 
 Mi interdixit, "I am forbidden," a present state, demands the 
 primary sequence. 
 
 Poen. 772 sqq. 
 
 nunc hunc inimicum quia esse sciuerunt mihi, 
 eum adlegarunt suom qui seruom diceret 
 cum auro esse apud me; compositast fallacia 
 ut eo me priuent atque inter se diuidant. 
 
 Compositast means "is arranged," a present state, and therefore 
 demands the primary sequence. 
 
 Poen. 1018 sqq. 
 
 palas uendundas sibi ait et mergas datas, 
 ad messim credo, nisi quid tu aliud sapis, 
 ut hortum /oc^ia/ atque ut frumentum metat. 
 
 Ait datas .... means "says he has," a present state, 
 and therefore takes the primary sequence. 
 
 Pseud. 579 sqq. 
 
 nam ego in meo pectore prius ita paraui copias, 
 duplicis, triplicis dolos, perfidias, ut, ubiquomque hostibu' 
 
 congrediar 
 (maiorum meum fretus uirtute dicam, mea industria et 
 
 malitia fraudulenta), 
 facile ut uincam, facile ut spoliem meos perduellis meis 
 perfidiis. 
 Paraui .... perfidias is equivalent to "I am ready," 
 which is a present state and demands the primary sequence. 
 See on M. G. 295, p. 8. 
 
 Rud. 717 
 
 non hodie isti rei auspicaui, ut cum iurciiero fahuler. 
 Non .... auspicaui ut means "I am not prepared 
 for," a present state calling for the primary sequence. 
 
Primary Sequence Dependent Upon the Perfect ii 
 
 Rud. 927 
 
 fnunc haec tibi occasio, Gripe, optigit ut liberes ex populo 
 praeter tef. 
 
 The principal clause means "now you have this opportunity," 
 which is a present state and demands the primary sequence. 
 
 Trin. 15 
 
 dedi ei meam gnatam quicum aetatem exigat. 
 
 Dedi ei is equal to is habet, a present state, and therefore takes 
 the primary sequence. 
 
 True. 280 
 
 ut nacta es hominem quem pudeat probri! 
 
 Nancta es is equivalent to "you are come upon," a present 
 state, and thus requires the primary sequence. 
 See on Capt. 837, p. 6. 
 
 The following examples of final clauses in the present subjunctive de- 
 pendent upon the historical perfect are found in the Arguments: 
 Capt. Arg. 7 amittatur; Cure. Arg. 5 mittat; True. Arg. 3 tangat. 
 
 (b) Dependent upon cerium est. 
 
 In this section are given a few forms which are regarded as 
 dependent on certum est. Inasmuch as all these verbs belong 
 to the third conjugation, the forms here used may be future 
 indicatives or present subjunctives. We have the future in- 
 dicative in Merc. 472 certumst, ibo ad medicum atque ibi me toxica 
 morti dabo. Morris {A. J. P. XVIII. p. 145) notes that the 
 forms treated in this section "are not quite futures." Durham 
 {Subjunctive Substantive Clauses in Plautus, Cornell Studies XIII. 
 pp. 83-84) refers the substantive clauses dependent upon certum 
 est to the subjunctive of determined resolution. 
 
 Inasmuch as the phrase certum est always denotes a present 
 state, the sequence is always primary. 
 
 The examples are: 
 
 A sin. 248 
 
 nam si mutuas non potero, certumst sumam faenore. 
 
12 The Sequence oj Tenses in Plautus 
 
 Aul. 676 
 
 certumst, Siluano potius credam quam Fide. 
 
 Aul. 681 
 
 certum est, malam rem potius quaeram cum lucro. 
 
 Bacch. 382 
 
 certumst iam dicam patri, 
 
 Capt. 778 sq. 
 
 nunc certa res est, eodem pacto ut comici serui solent, 
 coniciam in coUum pallium, 
 
 Cas. 448 
 
 certum est, hunc Accheruntem praemittam prius. 
 
 Stick. 503 sq. 
 
 certumst amicos conuocare, ut consulam 
 qua lege nunc med — essurire oporteat. — 
 
 (c) Dependent upon the perfect of mereo and its compounds. 
 
 The jussive origin of this usage seems to be assured by the 
 fact that we have the negative ne in Men. 1 100. 
 
 These words sometimes take the primary sequence, meaning 
 "I am deserving of," etc., and at other times they take the 
 secondary sequence, thus indicating that in the latter instance 
 the speaker's attention is fixed upon the past act. The examples 
 of secondary sequence are here given for purposes of comparison. 
 
 The passages having the primary sequence are: 
 
 Capt. 421 sq. 
 
 pol istic me hau centessumam 
 partem laudat quam ipse meritust ut laudetur laudibus. 
 
 Epid. 442 sq. 
 
 uirtute belli armatus promerui ut mihi 
 omnis mortalis agere deceat gratias. 
 
 Men. 1067 
 
 non edepol ita promeruisti de me ut pigeat quae uelis 
 [opsequi]. 
 
Primary Sequence Dependent Upon the Perfect 13 
 
 Men. 1 1 00 
 
 promeruisti ut ne quid ores quod uelis quin impetres. 
 
 Pers. 496 
 
 tuom promeritumst merito ut faciam. 
 
 Poen. 1407 sq. 
 
 quamquam ego te meruisse ut pereas scio, 
 
 non experiar tecum. 
 Although meruisse is in the perfect, it means "are worthy of," 
 a present state, and thus takes the primary sequence. 
 
 The passages having the secondary sequence, showing thereby 
 that the speaker's attention is fixed upon the past act, are the 
 following: 
 
 Amph. 1 141 sq. 
 
 tu cum Alcumena uxore antiquam in gratiam 
 redi : hau promeruit quam ob rem uitio uorteres; 
 
 Aul. 222 
 
 nam de te neque re neque uerbis merui uti facer es quod 
 facis. 
 
 Aul. 735 sq. 
 
 quid ego <de te> demerui, adulescens, mali, 
 quam ob rem ita facer es meque meosque perditum ires 
 liberos? 
 
 For demerui Goetz and Schoell read commend. 
 
 Epid. 712 
 
 merui ut fierem. 
 
 Men. 490 
 
 quid de te merui qua me caussa perderes? 
 
 For other instances of the secondary sequence dependent on forms 
 of merui, cf. Terence And. 281; Hec. 580. 
 
 2. In indirect questions. 
 
 A sin. 36 
 
 modo pol percepi, Libane, quid istuc sit loci: 
 
14 The Sequence of Tenses in Plautus 
 
 Percept is equal to scio, a present state, and therefore takes 
 the primary sequence. 
 
 Bacch. 575 sq. 
 
 nunc me ire iussit ad earn et percontarier 
 utrum aurum reddat anne eat secum semul. 
 
 Nunc .... iussit means "I have an order . . ," 
 a present state caUing for the primary sequence. 
 
 Capt. 46 sqq. 
 
 sed inscientes sua sibi fallacia 
 ita compararunt et confinxerunt dolum 
 itaque hi commenti de sua sententia 
 ut in seruitute hie ad suom maneat patrem: 
 Commenti <sunt> is equivalent to " they have this plan thought 
 out," a present state, and therefore takes the primary sequence. 
 Goetz and Schoell, and Morris following them, bracket 48, 
 making maneat depend on 47. 
 
 Capt. 466 sqq. 
 
 neque ieiuniosiorem neque magis ecfertum fame 
 uidi nee quoi minu' procedat quidquid facere occeperit, 
 ita[que] uenter gutturque resident essurialis ferias. 
 Vidi is equivalent to "I know," a present state calling for 
 the primary sequence. 
 
 Cure. 371 sq. 
 
 Beatus uideor: subduxi ratiunculam, 
 quantum aeris mihi sit quantumque alieni siet: 
 
 Subduxi ... is equivalent to "my account is balanced," 
 a present state, and therefore takes the primary sequence. 
 
 Cure. 608 
 
 dixi equidem tibi unde ad me hie peruenerit. 
 Dixi equidem tibi is the equivalent of scis, a present state, 
 and therefore takes the primary sequence. 
 See on M. G. 1097 sq., p. 15. 
 
 Epid. 285 
 
 et repperi haec te qui apscedat suspicio. 
 
Primary Sequence Dependent Upon the Perfect 15 
 
 Repperi is the equivalent of scio, and thus takes the primary 
 sequence. 
 
 Men. 755 
 
 sed id quam mihi facile sit hau sum falsus. 
 Hau sum falsus is equivalent to scio, a present state, and 
 therefore takes the primary sequence. 
 
 Merc. 253 sq. 
 
 nisi capram illam suspicor 
 iam me inuenisse quae sit aut quid uoluerit. 
 The principal clause means "I suspect that I now know 
 . . . ," a present state, and therefore takes the primary 
 sequence. 
 
 See on Capt. 569, p. 17; Epid. 355, p. 7; M. G. 767, p. 8. 
 
 Merc. 344 
 
 neque is quom roget quid loquar cogitatumst. 
 Cogitatumst is equivalent to scio, a present state, and demands 
 the primary sequence. 
 
 M. G. 867 
 
 modo intellexi quam rem mulier gesserit. 
 Intellexi is equivalent to scio, a present state, and thus takes 
 the primary sequence. 
 
 M. G. 1097 sq. 
 
 dixi equidem tibi 
 quo id pacto fieri possit clementissume. 
 Dixi .... is equivalent to "you know," a present 
 state calling for the primary sequence. 
 See on Cure. 608, p. 14. 
 
 Pers. 81 sq. 
 
 Omnem rem inueni, ut sua sibi pecunia 
 
 hodie illam facial leno libertam suam. 
 Inueni means "I know," and therefore takes the primary 
 sequence. 
 
 See on Epid. 355, p. 7; M. G. 767, p. 8. 
 
1 6 The Sequence of Tenses in Plautus 
 
 Poen. 547 
 
 scitis rem, narraui uobis quod uostra opera mi opu' siet. 
 Narraui uobis is equivalent to scitis, and therefore demands 
 the primary sequence. 
 
 Poen. 557 sqq. 
 
 itane? temptas an sciamus? non meminisse nos ratu's 
 quo modo trecentos Philippos Collybisco uilico 
 dederis, 
 Ratu's .... is equivalent to "don't you believe that 
 we remember how . . . ," a present state, and thus takes 
 the primary sequence. Ratu's refers to the same time as temptas. 
 
 Rud. 6ii sq. 
 
 nunc quam ad rem dicam hoc attinere somnium 
 numquam hodie quiui ad coniecturam euadere. 
 The principal clause means "I am come to no conclusion," 
 a present state calling for the primary sequence. 
 
 Rud. 924 sq. 
 
 nam ego nunc mihi, qui inpiger fui, 
 
 repperi ut piger si uelim siem: 
 Repperi is equivalent to scio, and therefore takes the primary 
 sequence. 
 
 Rud. 1026 
 
 mane, iam repperi quo pacto nee fur nee socius sies. 
 
 See preceding example and Epid. 285, p. 14. 
 
 True. 382 sq. 
 
 sed quod ego facinus audiui adueniens tuom 
 quod tu hie me apsente noui negoti gesseris? 
 Audiui is equivalent to scio, a present state, and thus takes 
 the primary sequence. 
 
 3. In relative clauses of characteristic. 
 
 Some of these relative clauses in addition to the notion of 
 characteristic also contain that of cause or of opposition, as will 
 be noted in the proper places. The examples are: 
 
Primary Sequence Dependent Upon the Perfect 17 
 
 Amph. 176 sqq. 
 
 satiust me queri illo modo seruitutem: 
 hodie qui fuerim liber, eum nunc 
 potuit pater seruitutis: 
 Potuit .... means "has put into the power of slavery," 
 a present state, and therefore fuerim in a relative clause of 
 characteristic with the accessory notion of opposition, is in a 
 primary tense. 
 
 Asin. 85 sq. 
 
 dotalem seruom Sauream <huc> uxor tua 
 
 adduxit, quoi plus in manu sit quam tibi. 
 
 Adduxit .... is equivalent to "has here . . . ." 
 
 Libanus wishes to call attention to the existing state of affairs 
 
 in Demaenetus's house, due to the former conduct of the old 
 
 gentleman's wife. The primary sequence is therefore required. 
 
 Capt. 568 sqq. 
 
 TY. tu enim repertu's, Philocratem qui superes ueriuerbio. 
 
 AR. pol ego ut rem uideo, tu inuentu's, uera uanitudine 
 
 qui conuincas. 
 
 Repertu's and inuentu's .... are equivalent to "you 
 
 are known to be one who . . . ," denoting a present state, 
 
 and therefore they take the primary sequence. 
 
 See on Epid. 355, p. 7; Merc. 254, p. 8; If. G. 767, p. 15. 
 
 Epid. 80 
 
 numquam hominem quemquam conueni unde abierim 
 lubentius. 
 Numquam .... conueni is equivalent to "I do not 
 know," a present state, and therefore takes the primary se- 
 quence. 
 
 Men. 473-4 sq. 
 
 pro di inmortales! quoi homini umquam uno die 
 boni dedistis plus qui minu' sperauerit? 
 Quoi .... dedistis is equivalent to quis habet . , . 
 a present state, and therefore sperauerit, dependent on dedistis, 
 in a clause of characteristic with the added notion of opposition, 
 is in the primary sequence. 
 
1 8 The Sequence of Tenses in Plautus 
 
 4. In consecutive clauses. 
 
 The subjunctive in consecutive clauses is a development of 
 the subjunctive of contingent futurity (Bennett Latin Language 
 §360,6) where some condition is implied. Thus hie liber est 
 talis ut quemvis iuuet originally meant: "this book is of such a 
 nature as anyone you please would like" {i. e., if he should see 
 it). The transition then was readily made to "this book is of 
 such a nature that anyone you please likes it." The subjunctive 
 in consecutive clauses thus takes the place of the indicative 
 logically expected to express actuality. Because of this the 
 tenses in these clauses are used with their indicative values, and 
 to this extent show exceptions to sequence. 
 
 The examples of the perfect indicative governing consecutive 
 clauses with the primary sequence are: 
 
 'Amph. 815 
 
 quid ego feci qua istaec propter dicta dicantur mihi? 
 
 Dicantur denotes a result continuing into the present. Feci 
 is an aoristic perfect, and the primary tense dicantur therefore 
 violates the rule of sequence. 
 
 Bacch. 605 sqq. 
 
 et tu, integumentum, uale. 
 in eum [nunc] haec reuenit res locum, ut quid consili 
 dem meo sodali super arnica nesciam, 
 
 In eum locum denotes a present state, "affairs 
 
 are in such a state." The sequence of nesciam is therefore 
 regular. 
 
 Capt. 410 sqq. 
 
 nam tua opera et comitate et uirtute et sapientia 
 fecisti ut redire liceat ad parentes denuo, 
 quom apud hunc confessus es et genus et diuitias meas: 
 The principal clause means "the arrangements effected 
 through your .... are such," which is a present state. 
 The primary sequence in liceat is therefore regular. 
 
 Capt. 931 sqq. 
 
 fecisti ut tibi, 
 Philocrates, numquam referre gratiam possim satis, 
 proinde ut tu promeritu's de me et filio. 
 
Primary Sequence Dependent Upon the Perfect 19 
 
 The present possim denotes a result continuing into the present 
 and future. Fecisti is an aoristic perfect, and the primary 
 tense possim thus violates the rule of sequence. 
 
 Cas. 252 sq. 
 
 sed quid ais? iam domuisti animum, potius ut quod uir 
 
 uelit 
 fieri id facias quam aduorsere contra? 
 Iam domuisti animum means "is your temper by this time 
 under control," which is a present state. The primary tense 
 facias is therefore regular. 
 
 Cist. 10 sq. 
 
 ita in prandio nos lepide ac nitide 
 accepisti apud te, ut semper meminerimus. 
 The perfect meminerimus denotes a result continuing into 
 the present and future. Accepisti is an aoristic perfect, and the 
 primary tense meminerimus thus violates the rule of sequence. 
 
 Men. 712 
 
 quid tandem admisi in me ut loqui non audeam? 
 
 Audeam denotes a result continuing into the present. Admisi 
 is an aoristic perfect, and the primary tense audeam thus violates 
 the rule of sequence. 
 
 M. G. 514 sq. 
 
 ita sum coactus, Periplectomene, ut nesciam 
 utrum me <ex>postulare priu' tecum aequiust — 
 The principal clause means "I am in such straits," which is 
 a present state. The primary sequence is therefore required 
 in nesciam. Goetz and Schoell read 515 Vtrum me <ex> postulare 
 tecum aequom siet. The different reading, however, does not 
 affect the interpretation of the sequence. 
 
 Poen. 553 sq. 
 
 scimus rem omnem, quippe omnes simul 
 dedicimus tecum una, ut respondere possimus tibi. 
 Dedicimus is equivalent to "we know," a present state, and 
 therefore takes the primary sequence. 
 
20 The Sequence of Tenses in Plautus 
 
 Cf. with the illustrations in the preceding section, the following ex- 
 amples of the present subjunctive dependent upon the perfect indica- 
 tive and expressing a result continuing into the present. 
 
 Li\'y III. 68. 10 natura hoc ita comparatum est, ut qui apud multi- 
 tudinem sua causa loquitur gratior eo sit, cuius mens nihil praeter pub- 
 licum commodum videt. 
 
 Livy X. 28. 12 datum hoc nostri generi est, ut luendis periculis pub- 
 licis piacula simus: 
 
 Tac. Ann. IV. 8. 8 ita nati estis, ut bona malaque vestra ad rem pub- 
 licam pertineant. 
 
 With the foregoing examples of the present subjunctive (or of 
 its equivalent, the perfect, in the case of preteritives) denoting 
 a result continuing into the present, we ought to compare the 
 following group of examples of the imperfect dependent upon 
 the perfect indicative, and denoting a result exclusively in the 
 present. Since we expect the tenses in result clauses to have 
 their indicative values (p. 18), and thus to form an exception to 
 the principle of sequence, we should have expected the present 
 and not the imperfect in these passages. See on the use of 
 tenses in result clauses Lane Latin Grammar'^ §1757 (2); Gilder- 
 sleeve-Lodge Latin Grammar §513; Allen and Greenough New 
 Latin Grammar §485 c; Bennett Latin Grammar §268, 6, 7. 
 
 The examples listed in the section below are therefore particu- 
 larly significant as illustrations of mechanical conformity to 
 the principle of sequence. 
 
 Bacch. 1067 sqq. 
 
 curatum est — esse te senem miserrumum. 
 hoc est incepta efficere pulchre: ueluti mi 
 euenit ut ouans praeda onustus cederem; 
 Cederem, as is seen from the rest of Chrysalus' speech, denotes 
 a result beginning in the present. We should therefore have 
 expected cedam instead. The imperfect is due to mechanical 
 sequence. 
 
 Cas. 47 sqq. 
 
 postquam ea adoleuit ad eam aetatem ut uiris 
 placere posset, eam puellam hie senex 
 amat ecflictim, et item contra filius. 
 The whole context of the passage shows that posset denotes 
 a result beginning in the present. Mechanical sequence caused 
 the imperfect. 
 
Primary Sequence Dependent Upon the Perfect 21 
 
 Pers. 172 sq. 
 
 nam equidem te iam sector quintum hunc annum, quom 
 
 interea, credo, 
 oui' si in ludum iret, potuisset iam fieri ut probe litteras 
 sciret. 
 Sciret in a substantive clause of result dependent on potuisset 
 denotes a result exclusively present, as is shown by iam (173). 
 The sequence is mechanical. 
 
 Pseud. 13 1 8 sq. 
 
 hoc ego numquam ratu' sum 
 fore me ut tibi fierem supplex. 
 The begging begins at the time of speaking. Hence we should 
 have expected the present subjunctive. The sequence of fierem 
 is mechanical. 
 
 Since the subjunctive tenses in result clauses are used with their in- 
 dicative values (p. 18), it follows that the perfect subjunctive, in the same 
 manner as the perfect indicative, is both primary and secondary. Ex- 
 amples of its use as a primary tense are naturally rare. When used as 
 a secondary tense it represents a result merely as a fact without any 
 reference to the continuance of the act. When the writer wishes to re- 
 present the result as continuous he uses the imperfect subjunctive de- 
 pendent upon secondary tenses. 
 
 The examples of the perfect subjunctive as a secondary tense in result 
 clauses are: 
 
 Amph. 431 
 
 factumst illud, ut ego illic uini hirneam ebiberim meri. 
 
 M. G. 262 sqq. 
 
 nam ill' non potuit quin sermone suo aliquem familiarium 
 
 participauerit de arnica eri, sese uidisse earn 
 
 hie in proxumo osculantem cum alieno adulescentulo. 
 
 Pers. 55 sq. 
 
 nam numquam quisquam meorum maiorum fuit 
 quin parasitando pauerint uentris suos: 
 
 Pers. 582 sq. 
 
 nam generi lenonio 
 numquam ullus deu' tam benignus fuit qui fuerit propitius. 
 
 Compare with the four preceding examples of result clauses in the per- 
 fect subjunctive the following examples of the same usage in Caesar De 
 Bella Gallico (A. T. Walker: The Sequence of Tenses in Latin, p. 40, Law- 
 
22 The Sequence of Tenses in Plautus 
 
 rence, Kansas, 1899): II. 21. 5 defuerit; III. 15. 4 pervenerit; V. 15. I 
 ftierint and compulerint; V. 54. 4 fuerit; VII. 17. 3 caruerint. This last 
 passage is particularly interesting for the reason that caruerint is coor- 
 dinated with siistentarejit, the former stating a historical fact, the latter 
 representing a resulting condition that continued for some time, namely, 
 as long as the grain was scarce. On the matter of shift of tenses in 
 result clauses dependent upon the same verb, see Gildersleeve-Lodge 
 Latin Grammar §513, Note 2; Lane Latin Grammar'^ §1759- 
 
 In the first three of the four passages on page 20 the perfect indicative 
 should probably be considered aoristic, although Gildersleeve-Lodge 
 Latin Grammar §513, Note i, say that "examples "^of the use of the aoristic 
 perfect subjunctive after an aoristic perfect indicative > are not found 
 in early Latin." 
 
 5. In conditional clauses of comparison. 
 
 True. 292 sq. 
 
 itane? erubuisti? quasi uero corpori reliqueris 
 tuo potestatem coloris ulli capiendi, mala! 
 Erubuisti, from the' inceptive erubesco, means "you are red," 
 a present state, and therefore the primary sequence is required 
 in reliqueris in the conditional clause of comparison. 
 
Ill 
 
 Violations of the Sequence Principle 
 I. Repraesentatio. 
 
 As might be expected from the colloquial character of Plautus, 
 this figure, which involves the retention of a primary tense where 
 the sequence called for a secondary, is fairly common. We 
 find different varieties of the figure, as noted in the discussions 
 on the examples below. 
 
 Atnph. 72 sqq. 
 
 siue adeo aediles perfidiose quoi duint, 
 
 sirempse legem iussit esse luppiter, 
 
 quasi magistratum sibi alteriue amhiuerit. 
 
 In the forms duint and amhiuerit we have repraesentatio. The 
 use of this figure in this sentence enables the speaker to preserve 
 the true character of the conditions. 
 
 Amph. 115 
 
 sed ita adsimulauit se, quasi Amphitruo siet. 
 
 Here, again, as in the preceding example, the use of reprae- 
 sentatio in siet enables the speaker to preserve the character of 
 the condition. 
 
 Amph. 205 sqq. 
 
 eos legat, Telobois iubet sententiam ut dicant suam: 
 si sine ui sine bello uelint rapta et raptores tradere, 
 si quae asportassent reddere, se exercitum extemplo domum 
 redducturum, abituros agro Argiuos, pacem atque otium 
 dare illis ; sin aliter sient animati neque dent quae petat, 
 seseigitursummauiuirisque eorumoppidum oppugnassere. 
 
 Iubet is an historical present. We have repraesentatio in dicant, 
 uelint, sient, dent, and petat. The secondary tense asportassent 
 shows that in 207 the speaker gives iuhet its true value. In 
 sient, dent, and petat he passes back into the former manner of 
 expression. 
 
 23 
 
24 The Sequence of Tenses in Plautus 
 
 Amph. 225 sq. 
 
 conuenit, uicti utri sint eo proelio, 
 urbem, agrum, aras, focos seque uti dederent. 
 Exeunt and conloquontur (223, 224) show that conuenit is 
 historical present. The primary tense uicti sint is an instance 
 of repraesentatio. This is another passage in which the historical 
 present is viewed first as a primary tense, then as a secondary, 
 as is shown by the imperfect subjunctive dederent. 
 
 Amph. 486 sqq. 
 
 sed Alcumenai huius honoris gratia 
 pater curauit uno ut fetu fieret, 
 uno ut labore apsoluat aerumnas duas 
 et ne in suspicione ponatur stupri 
 et clandestina ut celetur consuetio. 
 Apsoluat, ponatur, and celetur depend on fieret. The rule of 
 sequence therefore called for the imperfect subjunctive in these 
 forms. The presents are due to repraesentatio. Curauit denotes 
 a present state, for the sense of the principal clause is "there is 
 this provision . . . ." Instead of j^^re/ we should therefore 
 have expected fiat. The sequence of fieret is mechanical. 
 Goetz and Schoell read: 
 
 Sed Alcumenae honoris huius gratia 
 Pater curabit uno ut fetu proferat 
 ******* 
 
 Vno ut labore absoluat aerumnas duas, 
 Et ne in suspicione ponatur stupri 
 Et clandestina ut celetur consuetio. 
 This reading makes absoluat, ponatur, and celetur depend on the 
 primary proferat, and thus makes the sequence regular. 
 
 The historical present is somewhat more commonly treated as primary, 
 but in the following passages it is conceived according to its sense, that 
 is, as a past, and therefore takes the secondary sequence. 
 
 Amph. 207 asportassent dependent on uelint reddere, 206, 
 
 Amph. 215 deducerent 
 Amph. 226 dederent 
 Aul. 319 liceret 
 Bacch. 291 gereretur 
 Bacch. 302 sciscerent 
 Cas. 891 opprimeret 
 
 respondent, 21^, 
 conuenit, 225, 
 infit, 318, 
 sentio, 290, 
 auferimus, 301, 
 cupio, 891, 
 
Violations of the Sequence Principle 25 
 
 (editors read variously) 
 Merc, giforet dependent on mittit, 90, 
 
 M.C. Arg. II. 5 nuntiaret " " navigat, 5, 
 
 M.G.Arg.U. 7 veniret " " scribit, 7, 
 
 Pers. Arg. 3 emeret " " suadet, 4, 
 
 (Goetz and Schoell have emere) 
 Pers. $2)^ facer em dependent on facto, 537, 
 Rud. 602 darem " " uidetur, 601, 
 
 Trin. 14 aleret " " uideo, 14. 
 
 In Stick. 366 sq. 
 dum percontor portitores, ecquae nauis uenerit ex Asia, negant uenisse, 
 the historical present indicative takes the perfect subjunctive as a pri- 
 mary tense. 
 
 Amph. 745 sq. 
 
 quipp' qui ex te audiui, ut urbem maxumam 
 expugnauisses regemque Pterelam tute occideris. 
 
 As is seen from 203-247, 412-415, the storming of the city 
 preceded the slaying of king Pterela. Occidisses would naturally 
 mean that the storming and the killing had been synchronous. 
 Occideris is an instance of repraesentatio used of necessity. What 
 the speaker wishes to indicate is that the act of occideris was 
 anterior to audiui but later than oppugnauisses. 
 
 Cf. with this example Professor R. G. Kent's comment {The 
 Classical Weekly 7. 77) on Caesar B. G. I. 40. 7 Denique hos 
 esse eosdem quibuscum saepe numero Helvetii congressi non 
 solum in suis, sed etiam in illorum finibus plerummque 
 superassent, qui tamen pares esse nostro exercitui non potuerint. 
 
 Amph. 1 122 sq. 
 
 is se dixit cum Alcumena clam consuetum cubitibus, 
 eumque filium suom esse qui illas anguis uicerit; 
 Dixit is historical perfect. We should therefore have expected 
 uicisset by the regular rule of sequence. Vicerit is an example 
 of repraesentatio. 
 
 A sin. 442 sq. 
 
 aibat reddere quom extemplo redditum esset; 
 nam retineri, ut quod sit sibi operis locatum ecficeret. 
 Quod .... locatum depends on the secondary ecficeret. 
 The sequence rule therefore calls for esset locatum. The perfect 
 sit locatum is due to repraesentatio. 
 
26 The Sequence of Tenses in Plautus 
 
 AuL 550 
 
 pol ego te ut accusem merito meditabar. 
 
 Inasmuch as accusem precedes meditabar, its tense was prob- 
 ably determined in the speaker's mind before that of the principal 
 verb. On the other hand the force of meditabar may readily 
 extend into the present. We find passages where the transition 
 from parataxis to hypotaxis is going on, and under such con- 
 ditions often the tense of the subjunctive verb in the independent 
 stage is responsible for exceptions in the sequence. The position 
 of the subjunctive clause with respect to the principal clause is a 
 factor to be reckoned with in sentences of this type where there 
 are violations in the sequence. Furthermore the connection 
 between the dependent and the independent clause is occasionally 
 very loose and thus results in irregularities in the sequence. 
 Compare, for example, Terence Phor. 933 sq.: 
 
 ut filius 
 cum ilia habitet apud te: hoc nostrum consilium fuit. 
 Here, inasmuch as the purpose clause precedes the principal 
 clause, we probably have a mild instance of anacoluthon. 
 
 Accusem may be plain repraesentatio, but it is possible that 
 its tense is due to one of the other factors mentioned. 
 
 Cf. Ennius Ann. I. 86 sq. (Vahlen") 
 
 sic exspectabat populus, atque ora tenebat 
 rebus, utri magni victoria sit data regni. 
 
 Repraesentatio caused the primary tense sit data. 
 
 Bacch. 287 
 
 occepi ego opseruare eos quam rem gerant. 
 Occepi opseruare called for the secondary sequence. The 
 primary gerant is due to repraesentatio. 
 
 Bacch. 351 sqq. 
 
 ut amantem erilem copem facerem filium, 
 ita feci ut auri quantum uellet sumeret, 
 quantum autem lubeat reddere ut reddat patri. 
 
 The rule of sequence called for the secondary redderet instead 
 of reddat. The primary tense is due to repraesentatio. 
 
 See p. 5. 
 
Violations of the Sequence Principle 27 
 
 Bacch. 589 sqq, 
 
 me misit miles ad eam Cleomachus, 
 uel ut ducentos Philippos reddat aureos 
 uel ut hinc in Elatiam hodie eat secum semul. 
 We should have expected redderet and iret in the purpose 
 clauses dependent on misit. The presents are due to repraesen- 
 tatio. 
 
 Bacch. 689 sq. 
 
 MN. ego patrem exoraui. CH. nempe ergo hoc ut 
 
 faceret quod loquor? 
 MN. immo tibi ne noceat neu quid ob eam rem suscenseat; 
 Noceat and suscenseat depend on exoraui. The rule of sequence 
 called for the imperfect subjunctive instead of the present. 
 The present is due to repraesentatio. 
 
 Capt. 27 sqq. 
 
 coepit captiuos commercari hie Aleos, 
 
 si quem reperire posset qui mutet suom, 
 
 ilium captiuom : 
 The rule of sequence called for the secondary mutaret depen- 
 dent upon posset. The present mutet is due to repraesentatio. 
 
 Capt. 1002 sqq. 
 
 quasi patriciis pueris aut monerulae 
 aut anites aut coturnices dantur, quicum lusitent 
 itidem haec mihi aduenienti upupa qui me delectem datast. 
 The act of delectem is fully past at the time these verses are 
 spoken. The rule of sequence therefore called for delectarem. 
 The present is due to repraesentatio. 
 
 Cas. 680 sqq. 
 
 id hue 
 missa sum tibi ut dicerem, 
 ab ea uti caueas tibi. 
 Missa sum means "I am here," a present state, and the sec- 
 ondary dicerem is therefore due to a mechanical adherence to the 
 principle of sequence. Caueas dependent on dicerem violates 
 the rule of sequence. In relation to the time of speaking, caueas 
 
28 The Sequence of Tenses in Plautus 
 
 represents a future idea, and dicerem a present idea. The rule 
 of sequence of tenses would throw both these verbs into the 
 imperfect subjunctive; but by the use of repraesentatio in caueas, 
 the time distinction is preserved. 
 
 B^ however, has dicam instead of dicerem. 
 
 Caueas may be due to parataxis, but this seems less likely 
 than the explanation given. 
 
 Cist. 1 68 sq. 
 
 ill' clam opseruauit seruos <qui eam proiecerat> 
 quo aut quas in aedis haec puellam deferat. 
 
 The act of deferat is completely past at the time these verses 
 are spoken. The sequence called for deferret. The present is 
 due to repraesentatio. It is to be noted that this and the follow- 
 ing example, together with M. G. 131 deferat, violate the theory 
 of non-sequence. 
 
 Cist. 565 sqq. 
 
 immo meretrix fuit; sed ut sit, de ea re eloquar. 
 iam perducebam illam ad me suadela mea: 
 anus ei amplexa est genua plorans, opsecrans 
 ne deserat se: 
 
 The act of deserat is fully past at the time of speaking. The 
 rule of sequence therefore called for the imperfect subjunctive 
 instead of the present. The present is due to repraesentatio. 
 
 Cure. 558 sqq. 
 
 postquam rem diuinam feci, uenit in mentem mihi, 
 ne trapezita exulatum ahierit, argentum ut petam, 
 ut ego potius comedim quam ille. 
 
 The acts of the dependent subjunctives in this passage are 
 fully past at the time of speaking. The rule of sequence there- 
 fore called for the secondary tenses. The primary tenses are 
 due to repraesentatio. 
 
 Epid. 414 sqq. 
 
 te pro filio 
 facturum dixit rem esse diuinam domij 
 quia Thebis saluos redierit. 
 
Violations of the Sequence Principle 29 
 
 The act of redierit is fully past at the time of speaking. Hence 
 the rule of sequence called for redisset. The primary tense 
 redierit is due to repraesentatio. This example illustrates the 
 commonest form of repraesentatio — that in subordinate clauses 
 in indirect discourse. Cf. Amph. 72 sqq., p. 23; Amph. 209, p. 
 23; Amph. 1 123, p. 25; Asin. 443, p. 25; Merc. 419, p. 29; Most. 
 1 124, p. 30; Pseud. 597, p. 30. 
 
 Men. 453 sq. 
 
 non ad earn rem otiosos homines decuit deligi, 
 qui nisi adsint quom citentur, census capiat ilico? 
 The text of these lines is bad. If we accept the reading here 
 given, the act of capiat is past at the time of speaking. The rule 
 of sequence called for the imperfect subjunctive instead. The 
 present is due to repraesentatio. 
 
 Men. 1056 sq. 
 
 quom argentum dixi me petere et uasa, tu quantum potest 
 
 praecucurristi obuiam, ut quae fecisti infitias eas. 
 
 By the rule of sequence we ought to have ires instead of eas. 
 
 The present subjunctive is due to repraesentatio. H. N. Fowler 
 
 (edition of Men., p. 173) notes that Brix thought that metrical 
 
 reasons caused the substitution of eas for ires. 
 
 Merc. 419 
 
 dixit se redhibere si non placeat. 
 
 The act of placeat is completely past at the time of speaking 
 The rule of sequence called for placeret. The present is due to 
 repraesentatio. 
 
 M. G. 129 sqq. 
 
 ego quoniam inspexi mulieris sententiam, 
 cepi tabellas, consignaui, clanculum 
 dedi mercatori quoidam qui ad ilium deferat 
 meum erum, qui Athenis fuerat, qui hanc amauerat, 
 ut is hue ueniret. 
 Dedi is an aoristic perfect. We should therefore by the rule 
 of sequence have had deferret instead of deferat. The present 
 subjunctive is due to repraesentatio. Veniret has the sequence 
 
30 The Sequence of Tenses in Plautus 
 
 we expect. Deferat violates the non-sequence rule, which would 
 call for deferret. 
 
 Cf. Cist. 169 deferat, p. 28; Cist. 568 deserat, p. 28. 
 
 M. G. 962 sq. 
 
 uah ! egone ut ad te ab libertina esse auderem internuntius, 
 qui ingenuis sati' responsare nequeas quae cupiunt tui? 
 Nequeas dependent on auderem violates the rule of sequence. 
 The present subjunctive is due to repraesentatio. 
 
 Most. 1 122 sqq. 
 
 Vbi somno sepeliui omnem atque obdormiui crapulam, 
 
 Philolaches uenisse <dixit> mihi suom peregrehuc patrem 
 
 quoque modo hominem ad<uenientem> seruos ludificatu' 
 
 sit, 
 
 ait se metuere in conspec<tum sui patris pr>ocedere. 
 
 The rule of sequence called for ludificatus esset. The primary 
 tense ludificatu' sit is due to repraesentatio. 
 
 However, the text of this passage is very bad. 
 
 Poen. 600 sqq. 
 
 scilicet, 
 et quidem quasi tu nobiscum adueniens hodie oraueris 
 liberum ut commostraremus tibi locum et uoluptarium 
 ubi ames, potes, pergraecere. 
 Ames, potes, and pergraecere dependent on the secondary 
 commostraremus violate the rule of sequence which called for 
 the imperfect subjunctive in this clause. The present sub- 
 junctives are due to repraesentatio. 
 
 Poen. 1056 sq. 
 
 qui potuit fieri uti Carthagini 
 gnatus sis? 
 Potuit fieri is an aoristic perfect. The rule of sequence there- 
 fore called for gnatus esset instead of gnatus sis. The primary 
 tense is due to repraesentatio. 
 
 Pseud. 596 sq. 
 
 ut ego oculis rationem capio quam mi ita dixit eru' meu' 
 
 miles, 
 septumas esse aedis a porta ubi ille habitet leno . . . 
 
Violations of the Sequence Principle 31 
 
 Dixit is an aoristic perfect. The rule of sequence therefore 
 called for hahitaret instead of habitet. The present subjunctive 
 is due to repraesentatio. 
 
 Pseud. 795 sq. 
 
 quin ob earn rem Orcus recipere ad se hunc noluit, 
 ut esset hie qui mortuis cenam coquat; 
 
 Coquat dependent on the secondary tense esset violates the 
 rule of sequence, which called for the imperfect subjunctive in 
 both verbs. The present subjunctive is due to repraesentatio. 
 
 Rud. 124 sqq. 
 
 PL, die quod te rogo, 
 ecquem tu hie hominem crispum, incanum uideris, 
 malum, peiiurum, palpatorem — DA. plurumos, 
 nam ego propter eiusmodi uiros uiuo miser. 
 PL. hie dico, in fanum Veneris qui mulierculas 
 duas secum adduxit, quique adornaret sibi 
 ut rem diuinam /aaa/, aut hodie aut heri. 
 
 Faciat dependent on the secondary tense adornaret violates 
 the rule of sequence, which called for the imperfect subjunctive 
 in both verbs. The present faciat is due to repraesentatio. 
 Adornaret depends on ecquem tu uideris implied from 125. The 
 secondary sequence is required in this clause even though it 
 depends on uideris which in turn depends on the primary tense 
 dico, for uideris refers to the past. Peculiar, however, is the 
 use of the subjunctive adornaret side by side with the indicative 
 adduxit. 
 
 Rud. 408 sqq. 
 
 ut lepide, ut liberaliter, ut honeste atque hau grauate 
 
 timidas, egentis, uuidas, eiectas, exanimatas 
 
 accepit ad sese, hau secus quam si ex se simus natae! 
 
 In this sentence the use of repraesentatio enables the speaker 
 to preserve the character of the conditional clause of comparison. 
 Adherence to the sequence rule would have resulted in essemus 
 natae, which would have been identical with the tense of the 
 contrary to fact condition. 
 
32 The Sequence of Tenses in Plautus 
 
 2. Violations caused by other factors. 
 
 Cure. 225 sqq. 
 
 paues parasitus quia non rediit Caria: 
 adferre argentum credo; nam si non fer at, 
 tormento non retineri potuit ferreo 
 quin reciperet se hue essum ad praesepem suam. 
 Ferat stands in a future less vivid condition dependent on 
 potuit. The perfect indicative potuit is irregular, because the 
 verb really refers to the future. We find the perfect subjunctive 
 occasionally in the apodosis of future less vivid conditional 
 sentences, to emphasize the certainty of the conclusion. So 
 Cas. 424 sqq. Because potuit is a verb of possibility, the indica- 
 tive here may be accounted for by the fact that it is the regular 
 mood used with such verbs in the apodosis of unreal conditions. 
 The speaker's mind may be shifting between these two types 
 of conditions. See Gildersleeve-Lodge Latin Grammar §597, 
 Rem. 3 (a). It may well be that the irregularity in the sequence 
 oi ferat is due to the fact that at the time the conditional clause 
 was spoken the speaker had not yet formulated in his mind 
 the verb of the conclusion. If this was the case, we have here 
 a slight anacoluthon. 
 
 Amph. 815 dicantur 
 See p. 18. 
 
 Capt. 932 possim 
 See p. 18. 
 
 Cist. II meminerimus 
 See p. 19. 
 
 Men. 712 audeam 
 See p. 19. 
 
 Rud. 217 sq. 
 
 leibera ego prognata fui maxume, nequiquam fui. 
 
 nunc qui minu' seruio quasi serua forem nata? 
 V. 217 shows that the speaker has the notion of contrary to 
 fact in mind. The use of the sequent form would have obscured 
 
Violations of the Sequence Principle 33 
 
 what she meant to say. The violation of sequence is due to the 
 limited power of the tenses. 
 
 Trin. 991 sq, 
 
 immo, saluos quandoquidem aduenis — 
 di te perdant, si te flocci facio an periisses prius. 
 We should have expected Sy. to say di te perdant, si te flocci 
 facerem an periisses prius, but for vividness facio is substituted 
 for facerem. What the speaker wishes to say is not . . . 
 "if I should care a straw whether you had been hanged before" 
 (yougot here), but . . . "if I do care . . ." We cannot 
 be absolutely certain as to the exact order in which the clauses 
 of this sentence were formulated in the speaker's mind. The 
 sentence may be regarded as wavering between parataxis and 
 full hypotaxis, the order of thought being "would that you had 
 been hanged before, I'll be hanged if I care a straw whether 
 this had happened to you." The intensity of the thought 
 would naturally tend to check the hypotactic process. Compare 
 with this passage Cic. ad .4/^. VIII. 6. 4 moriar, si magis gauderem, 
 si id mihi accidisset, where the thought runs "I would not 
 (now) more rejoice, if this had happened to me, upon my life I 
 wouldn't." Cicero had to retain the secondary gauderem and 
 accidisset in violation of the sequence principle, for had he made 
 these verbs conform to sequence and written gaudeam and acci- 
 derit the contrary to fact notion would have been sacrificed and 
 that of future less vivid come in to take its place. But that 
 would have meant something quite different from what was in 
 his mind. The non-sequence was necessary. If the sentence 
 be regarded as fully hypotactic, we may explain the tense of 
 periisses as being due to the fact that its association with the 
 more common imperfect in this type of sentence, caused the 
 speaker to disregard the fact that here he was making it depend 
 on the present facio. 
 
 Cf. Horace Serm. I. 9. 45 sqq. 
 
 haberes 
 magnum adiutorem, posset qui ferre secundas, 
 hunc hominem velles si tradere; dispeream, ni 
 summosses omnes. 
 
IV 
 
 Apparent Violations of the Sequence Principle 
 I. In connection with the phrase quod sciam. 
 
 The phrase quod sciam, "as far as I know," is found several 
 times in connection with the perfect tense, seemingly in violation 
 of the principle of sequence. This, however, is a stereotyped 
 expression and sciam does not depend on the perfect with which 
 it stands but on est to be supplied in thought. Thus, for ex- 
 ample, in the first illustration below, the full thought is "indeed 
 it never happened in my presence, {lit.) so far as is that which I 
 know {quoad id est quod sciam), so far as my knowledge goes." 
 Sciam thus stands in a relative clause of characteristic dependent 
 on an implied est, and the sequence really is not violated. 
 
 The construction is found in: 
 
 Amph. 749 
 
 mequidem praesente numquam factumst, quod sciam. 
 
 Capt. 172 sq. 
 
 sed num quo foras ^ 
 
 uocatus <es> ad cenam? HE. nusquam, quod sciam. 
 
 Epid. 638 
 
 EP. non me nouisti? TE. quod quidem nunc ueniat in 
 mentem mihi. 
 Veniat .... mihi is equivalent to sciam. 
 
 Men. 500 sq. 
 
 non edepol ego te quod sciam umquam ante hunc diem 
 uidi neque gnoui; 
 
 True. 199 
 
 nam equidem illi uterum, quod sciam, numquam extumere 
 sensi. 
 
 In clauses dependent on noui Plautus always uses the primary sequence. 
 The following are the examples. 
 
 34 
 
Apparent Violations of the Sequence Principle 35 
 
 M. G. 451 sq. 
 
 ego istam domum 
 neque moror neque uos qui homines sitis noui neque scio. 
 
 M. G. 924 sq. 
 
 numquam uidit: 
 qui nouerit me quis ego sim^ 
 
 Most. 969 
 
 scio qua me eire oportet et quo uenerim noui locum. 
 
 Trin. 283 
 
 noui ego hoc saeculum moribus quibu', siet: 
 
 2. Other apparent violations. 
 
 A sin. 7 sciretis 
 See p. 40. 
 
 Merc. 633 
 
 EV. quid ego facerem? CH. quid tu faceres? men rogas? 
 
 Faceres is a past deliberative retained in its paratactic form 
 and not subordinated to rogas. Inasmuch as faceres precedes 
 rogas it seems better to explain the passage on the basis of 
 parataxis than on that of hypotaxis. Professor W. G. Hale 
 (v4. /. P. VIII. 61, footnote) mentions this form as "an exception 
 to the Law of Sequence." However, even if the subjunctive 
 clause follows the indicative, it is not safe to assume in sentences 
 of this type that the hypotaxis is complete. Cf. Cic. In Vatin. 
 2. 5 sed quaero a te cur C. Cornelium non defenderem. In this 
 sentence it seems better to understand the order of thought 
 to be "but, I ask you, why was I not to defend Gains Cornelius?" 
 
 Most. 157 sq. 
 
 lam pridem ecastor frigida non laui magi' lubenter 
 nee quom me melius, mea Scapha, rear esse deficatam. 
 There is a mild anacoluthon here. Verse 158 continues as if 
 numquam fuit quom lauerim had gone before. Rear is logically 
 parenthetical. The sentence may have begun in the form: 
 nee fuit (or laui) quom, ut reor, melius deficata essem. Or instead 
 of reor the parenthetical verb may have been rear, a so-called 
 deliberative subjunctive. Then too, instead of essem the form 
 
36 The Sequence of Tenses in Plautus 
 
 may have been fuerim, as we see by comparing Terence Haul. 
 1025. If the parenthetical verb was in the indicative, it was 
 thrown into the subjunctive upon being subordinated to the 
 impUed fuU (or laui) , because the quom-clause denotes character- 
 istic. Cf. qtiod sciam, p. 34. The present subjunctive was 
 required in the gwow-clause because either /m^/ or laui here denotes 
 time extending into the present. Most. 89 arbitrarer, which is 
 in origin the same kind of subjunctive, depends on cogitaui and 
 follows sequence. 
 
 Most. 1004 sq. 
 
 promisi foras, 
 ad cenam ne me te uocare censeas. 
 Censeas is not in subordination to promisi, but is a separate 
 sentence in the process of becoming a parenthetical clause of 
 purpose. 
 
 Pers. 116 sqq. 
 
 iam heri narraui tibi 
 tecumque oraui ut nummos sescentos mihi 
 dares utendos mutuos. SAT. memini et scio 
 et te me orare et mihi non esse quod darem. 
 As is seen from heri (116), orare and esse are historical presents 
 and govern the secondary sequence. 
 
 Rud. 379 
 
 si amabat, rogas, quid faceret? 
 See note on Merc. 633, p. 35. 
 
 Stich. 255 dares 
 See p. 43. 
 
 True. 292 reliqueris 
 See p. 22. 
 
V 
 
 Instances of Mechanical Conformity to the Sequence 
 
 Principle 
 
 In this chapter are treated the dependent subjunctives which 
 follow the rules of sequence in disregard of the claims of absolute 
 time. 
 
 The first group contains the forms dependent upon a secondary 
 tense and denoting time present or future relatively to that of 
 speaking, but thrown into the secondary sequence because they 
 are dependent upon a secondary tense which denotes present 
 time (e. g., Asin. 589), or else they are by accessory circumstances 
 thrown into dependence upon a secondary tense {e. g., Most. 
 183). 
 
 Asin. 588 sqq, 
 
 LE. attatae, modo hercle in mentem uenit, 
 
 nimi' uellem habere perticam. LI. quoi rei? LE. qui 
 
 uerberarem 
 asinos, si forte occeperint clamare hinc ex crumina. 
 Vellem is a potential subjunctive referring to the present. 
 Verberarem in a purpose clause depending on uellem therefore 
 denotes future time. In spite of this fact uerberarem is secondary. 
 The sequence is therefore mechanical. 
 
 Asin. 674 sq. 
 
 nimi' bella es atque amabilis, et si hoc meum esset, hodie 
 
 numquam me orares quin darem: 
 
 Orares in a contrary to fact conclusion denotes present time, 
 
 and darem in the substantive clause dependent on orares must 
 
 refer to time future to orares. If the dependent subjunctive 
 
 had independent tense value, we should have dem and not darem. 
 
 Bacch. 553 sqq. 
 
 PI. opsecro hercle loquere, quis is est. MN. beneuo- 
 
 lens uiuit tibi. 
 nam ni ita esset, tecum orarem ut ei quod posses mali 
 isicexe faceres . 
 
 37 
 
38 The Sequence of Tenses in Plautus 
 
 Orarem is the condition of a present contrary to fact conditional 
 sentence. Inasmuch as faceres stands in a volitive clause 
 dependent on orarem, it denotes time future to that at which 
 Mnesilochus speaks. Facias would have been required if the 
 dependent subjunctives expressed time independently of the 
 leading verb. 
 
 Bacch. 1069 cederem 
 See p. 20. 
 
 Cas. 48 posset 
 See p. 20. 
 
 Most. 182 sq. 
 
 SC. ita tu me ames, ita Philolaches tuo' te amet, ut 
 
 uenusta es. 
 PHILOL. quid ais, scelesta? quo modo adiurasti? ita 
 ego istam amarem? 
 Ita .... amarem, which is the reported form of ita 
 Philolaches tuos te amet, a wish for something in the future, is 
 thrown into the secondary sequence, because it is made to depend 
 on adiurasti. Inasmuch therefore as the wish must refer to 
 the future as regards the time of speaking, nothing but an arbi- 
 trary adherence to a mechanical sequence could cause the 
 speaker to shift the tense of the subjunctive from amet to amaret 
 upon making the subordination. 
 
 Pers. 173 sciret 
 See p. 21. 
 
 Poen. 681 sq. 
 
 CO. uidere equidem uos uellem quom huic aurum darem. 
 ADV. illinc procul nos istuc inspectabimus. 
 Vellem is a potential subjunctive in the present. The tem- 
 poral clause dependent on uellem refers therefore to the future, 
 although we actually have the imperfect, which is due to me- 
 chanical sequence. Darem cannot possibly refer to the past. 
 Note also inspectabimus, which is synchronous with darem. 
 
 Poen. 1066 
 
 patrem atque matrem uiuerent uellem tibi. 
 
Mechanical Conformity to the Sequence Principle 39 
 
 Vellem is another potential subjunctive referring to the pres- 
 ent. Again uiuerent is mechanically secondary. 
 
 Poen. 1 25 1 sq. 
 
 primum, si id fieri possit, 
 ne indigna indignis di darent, id ego euenisset uellem; 
 
 The text of this passage is uncertain with regard to possit 
 and euenisset. Goetz and Schoell note that the reading of A 
 is POSSI(Me/ E)T. Lindsay gives posset for A. For euenisset 
 Goetz and Schoell note that all the MSS except A have euenire. 
 If the reading posset be accepted, the 5z-clause forms the protasis 
 of a present contrary to fact conditional sentence. In that 
 case darent dependent on posset is an instance of mechanical 
 sequence. Vellem must refer to the present, and we should 
 therefore on the theory that the dependent subjunctives denote 
 absolute time, have expected eueniret and not euenisset. The 
 present subjunctive in a present contrary to the fact protasis 
 is used in Plautus in A sin. 188 habeas; 393 sit; Aul. 523 metiiam; 
 Bacch. 635 sit; Epid. 331 haheam; Most. 555 sit (text corrupt 
 here); Pers. 215 sim; Pseud. 274 possim; also Terence And. 310 
 sis. See on this point Bennett Syntax of Early Latin, I. pp. 
 273-274; Lane Latin Grammar'^ §2075; Allen & Greenough New 
 Latin Grammar §517 e. and n. i and 2; Gildersleeve-Lodge 
 Latin Grammar §596. 2, Possit, if accepted as the true reading 
 above, may be regarded as future less vivid. 
 
 , Pseud. 12,19 fierem 
 See p. 21. 
 
 True. 138 sqq. 
 
 ego expedibo. 
 rem perdidi apud uos, uos meum negotium apstulistis. 
 si rem seruassem, fuit ubi negotiosus essem. 
 
 The perfect indicative fuit is here used instead of the plu- 
 perfect subjunctive in the apodosis of a past contrary to fact 
 conditional sentence to denote what was likely or certain to 
 happen. Essem dependent on fuit is put in the imperfect by 
 mechanical sequence, for the context shows that negotiosus 
 essem means "where I might now be employed." 
 
40 The Sequence of Tenses in Plautus 
 
 In the following section are grouped the imperfect subjunc- 
 tives dependent upon secondary tenses, but denoting acts 
 distinctly future from the standpoint of the speaker, and thus 
 taking the secondary sequence mechanically and in disregard 
 of the claims of absolute time. 
 
 Amph. 85 conciderent 
 See p. 45. 
 
 Amph. 464 sq. 
 
 amoui a foribus maxumam molestiam, 
 
 patri ut liceret tuto illam amplexarier. 
 The act of liceret is clearly future relatively to the speaking, 
 and the secondary is therefore mechanical. 
 
 Amph. 487 fieret 
 See p. 24, 
 
 A sin. 6 sqq. 
 
 nunc quid processerim hue et quid mi uoluerim 
 dicam: ut sciretis nomen huiius fabulae; 
 nam quod ad argumentum attinet, sane breuest. 
 nunc quod me dixi uelle nobis dicere 
 dicam: huic nomen graece Onagost fabulae; 
 Sciretis depends on processi to be supplied in thought from 
 processerim, and is mechanically secondary, for the name of 
 the play is not given until 10. 
 
 Asin. 336 sq. 
 
 em ergo is argentum hue remisit quod daretur Saureae 
 pro asinis. 
 Inasmuch as the money for the asses is still to be paid at the 
 time of speaking, the present subjunctive was to be expected 
 instead of daretur. The sequence used is mechanical. 
 
 Asin. 929 
 
 iam surrupuisti pallam quam scorto dares? 
 
 The act of dares would be manifestly future to the time of 
 speaking. The secondary sequence is therefore used mechan- 
 ically, where the primary was to be expected. 
 
Mechanical Conformity to the Sequence Principle 41 
 
 Bacch. 645 sqq. 
 
 nunc amanti ero filio senis, 
 quicum ego bibo, quicum edo et amo, 
 regias copias aureasque optuli, 
 ut domo sumeret neu foris quaereret. 
 The acts of sumeret and of quaereret are manifestly future to 
 the time of speaking. The sequence in these verbs is therefore 
 mechanically secondary. 
 
 Cas. 52 posceret 
 See p. 6. 
 
 Cas. 604 
 
 quin eapse me adlegauit qui istam arcesserem. 
 The act of arcesserem is distinctly future to the time of speak- 
 ing. The secondary sequence is therefore mechanical. 
 
 M. G. 138 sqq. 
 
 itaque ego paraui hie intus magnas machinas 
 qui amantis una inter se facerem conuenas. 
 nam unum conclaue, concubinae quod dedit 
 miles, quo nemo nisi eapse inferret pedem, 
 in eo conclaui ego perfodi parietem 
 qua commeatus clam esset hinc hue mulieri; 
 The imperfects facerem and esset denote the relation to the 
 past verbs paraui and perfodi respectively, though the ideas 
 which they denote are definitely thought of as future to the time 
 of speaking. The secondary sequence is therefore mechanical. 
 
 M. G. 956 
 
 nam hoc negoti clandestino ut agerem mandatumst mihi. 
 
 The act of agerem is clearly future to the time when these 
 words were spoken. The secondary sequence is therefore 
 mechanical. 
 
 M. G. 1 158 
 
 id nos ad te, si quid uelles, uenimus. 
 The idea of uelles is clearly future to the time of speaking. The 
 secondary sequence is therefore mechanical. Cf. Amph. 870 
 
42 The Sequence of Tenses in Plautus 
 
 feram; and Merc. 669 persequar, where ueni and reueni take 
 the primary sequence though the force of those verbs is not 
 appreciably different from that of uenimus here. Cf. further 
 Poen. 1276 redirent and Caesar B. G. IV. i. 10 Atque in earn 
 consuetudinem adduxerunt, ut locis frigidissimis neque vestitus 
 praeter pellis haberent quicquam, quarum propter exiguitatem 
 magna est corporis pars aperta, et lavarentur in fluminibus. 
 Haberent and laverentur in result clauses dependent upon addux- 
 erunt are indisputably present, as is shown by est, and the im- 
 perfect subjunctive is due to mechanical sequence. 
 
 Most. 420 sqq. 
 
 iussit maxumo 
 opere orare ut patrem aliquo apsterreres modo 
 ne intro iret ad se. 
 
 The imperfects are used to denote the relation to the iussit, 
 though the acts denoted by the subjunctives are definitely 
 thought of as future to the time of speaking. The secondary 
 sequence is therefore mechanical. 
 
 Most. 714 sqq. 
 
 tempus nunc est senem hunc adloqui mihi. 
 hoc habet! repperi qui senem ducerem, 
 quo dolo a me dolorem procul pellerem. 
 accedam. 
 
 The acts of ducerem and pellerem are thought of as distinctly 
 future to the time of speaking. The secondary sequence is 
 therefore mechanical. 
 
 Perfect forms of reperio taking the primary sequence are 
 found as follows: Capt. 568 superes; Epid. 285 apscedat; Epid. 
 445 explices; Rud. 1026 sies. 
 
 True. 81 daret depends on the aoristic perfect. 
 
 For the sequence of verbs governed by perfect forms of inuenio, 
 which have approximately the same meaning as the perfect 
 forms of reperio, see pp. 7, 8, 15, and 17. 
 
 Most. 1 126 sq. 
 
 nunc ego de sodalitate solus sum orator datus 
 qui a patre eiius conciliarem pacem. 
 
Mechanical Conformity to the Sequence Principle 43 
 
 The act of conciliarem is thought of as distinctly future to the 
 time of speaking. The secondary sequence is therefore mechani- 
 cal. 
 
 Pers. 304 sq. 
 
 quae dixi ut nuntiares, 
 satin ea tenes? 
 
 The act of nuntiares is distinctly thought of as future to the 
 time when these words are spoken. The sequence is therefore 
 mechanical. 
 
 Pseud. 55 sqq. 
 
 ea caussa miles hie reliquit symbolum, 
 expressam in cera ex anulo suam imaginem, 
 ut qui hue adferret eiius similem symbolum 
 cum eo simul me mitteret. ei rei dies 
 haec praestituta est, proxuma Dionysia'. 
 CALL eras ea quidem sunt: 
 The imperfect subjunctives are used to denote the relation 
 to reliquit, though the acts which they denote are thought of as 
 definitely future to the time of speaking. The secondary se- 
 quence is therefore mechanical. 
 
 Pseud. 1233 
 
 qui ilium ad med hodie adlegauit mulierem qui abduceret. 
 The act of abduceret is manifestly future to the time of speak- 
 ing. The secondary sequence is therefore mechanical. 
 
 Stich. 247 sqq. 
 
 CR. Panegyris 
 
 rogare iussit ted ut opere maxumo 
 
 mecum simitu ut ires ad sese domum. 
 
 GE. ego illo mehercle uero eo quantum potest. 
 
 iamne exta cocta sunt? quot agnis fecerat? 
 
 CR. ilia quidem nullum sacruficauit. GE. quo modo? 
 
 quid igitur me uolt? CR. tritici modios decem 
 
 rogare, opinor, te uolt. GE. mene, ut ab se[se] petam? 
 
 CR. immo ut a uobis mutuom nobis dares. 
 The act of ires is manifestly future to the time of speaking. 
 The sequence is therefore mechanical. Dares depends on iussit 
 
44 The Sequence of Tenses in Plautus 
 
 me rogare carried along in thought from w. 248-9, and the 
 sequence is thus normal. lussit me rogare denotes a request 
 to be made on Gelasimus manifestly after the speaking of v. 255. 
 Hence the secondary tense dares is due to mechanical sequence. 
 
 Trin. 442 sqq. 
 
 meu' gnatus me ad te misit, inter te atque nos 
 adfinitatem ut conciliarem et gratiam. 
 tuam uolt sororem ducere uxorem ; et mihi 
 sententia eademst et uolo. 
 The act of conciliarem is thought of as definitely future to the 
 time of speaking. The imperfect is used to denote the relation 
 to misit, and the sequence is therefore mechanical. 
 
VI 
 
 Shift in the Sequence 
 
 By virtue of the fact that the perfect indicative may be either 
 primary or secondary, it sometimes happens that one and the 
 same verb is regarded in these two senses in the same sentence, 
 and the sequence changes to suit the particular viewpoint that 
 the speaker or writer has for the moment. 
 
 Amph. 64 sqq. 
 
 nunc hoc me orare a nobis iussit luppiter 
 
 ut conquistores singula in subsellia 
 
 eant per totam caueam spectatoribus, 
 
 si quoi fauitores delegatos uiderint, 
 
 ut is in cauea pignus capiantur togae; 
 
 siue qui ambissent palmam <his> histrionibus 
 
 seu quoiquam artifici (seu per scriptas litteras 
 
 seu qui ipse amhisset seu per internuntium), 
 
 siue adeo aediles perfidiose quoi duint, 
 
 sirempse legem iussit esse luppiter, 
 
 quasi magistratum sibi alteriue amhiuerit. 
 Eant and capiantur denote the present state resulting from 
 Jupiter's act, whereas ambissent and amhisset indicate that the 
 speaker's point of view has shifted and that he now thinks of 
 the actual ordering. Duint and amhiuerit are primary by 
 repraesentatio. In 81 sqq.: 
 
 hoc quoque etiam mihi in mandatis <is> dedit 
 
 ut conquistores fierent histrionibus: 
 
 qui sibi mandasset delegati ut plauderent 
 
 quiue quo placeret alter fecisset minus, 
 
 eius ornamenta et corium uti conciderent. 
 the repraesentatio has been dropped and the speaker has the past 
 act in mind. Moreover, conciderent is slavishly secondary, for 
 the actual punishing of the offenders would take place after the 
 speaking of these verses, that is, at the end of the performance. 
 
 Amph. 205 sqq. 
 See p. 23. 
 
 Amph. 225 sqq. 
 See p. 24. 
 
 45 
 
VII 
 
 Conclusion 
 
 In summarizing this investigation we must bear in mind that 
 the large majority of dependent subjunctives can readily be 
 explained according to either theory of tense usage which one 
 happens to prefer, that of sequence or that of non-sequence. 
 What conclusions then are we to draw from a study of the excep- 
 tions to the two respective theories? 
 
 In so far as the exceptions to the doctrine of sequence are 
 concerned, it is to be noted that if we exclude repraesentatio, of 
 which there are forty-six instances pp. 23-31, there are but seven 
 examples (four of which are in result clauses) remaining (pp. 
 32-33), all of which can be explained on logical grounds. A few 
 exceptions, moreover, would, in the nature of things, be expected. 
 
 As to the exceptions to the doctrine that the dependent sub- 
 junctives denote absolute time and not time relative to the verb 
 on which they depend, we note that their number is much larger, 
 thirty-eight examples (pp. 37-44), which are arranged in two 
 groups of eleven and twenty-seven respectively. In the ex- 
 amples of the first group nothing but a mechanical application 
 of the rule of sequence can have caused the secondary subjunc- 
 tives where the claims of absolute time called for a primary 
 tense. The examples of the second group (pp. 40-44) will not 
 all seem equally convincing to all readers, but when studied as a 
 group they give conclusive evidence of a tendency to use the 
 imperfect tense of the subjunctive to denote an act which from 
 the standpoint of the speaker is distinctly and definitely future. 
 Naturally this tendency can be seen in other but less cogent 
 examples. How strongly the feeling for the secondary imperfect 
 dependent upon the perfect was established may be observed 
 in the examples of clauses in the imperfect subjunctive denoting 
 a result lying exclusively in the present (pp. 20-21). Again, in 
 the case of the secondary forms dependent upon the imperfect 
 subjunctive in contrary to fact conditions and in potential 
 subjunctives (pp. 37-39), where the requirements of absolute 
 time called for a primary tense, to explain the tense by saying 
 
 46 
 
Conclusion 47 
 
 that "the modal feeling in the speaker's mind which expresses 
 itself in the main sentence is, in the nature of things, very likely 
 to continue in the speaker's mind in the subordinated sentence 
 or sentences, either quite unchanged or but slightly shaded" 
 (W. G. Hale, ^. /. P. VIII. 54), is to grant that there is such an 
 influence as we commonly call the sequence of tenses. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 The following list includes the works to which reference was 
 made more or less constantly. Works less freely consulted are 
 not listed here, although the writer made use of numerous 
 editions of the plays of Plautus other than the ones mentioned 
 below, as well as of all the standard Latin grammars in English, 
 in French, and in German. 
 
 Allen and Greenough, New Latin Grammar, New York, 1903. 
 
 Auden, H. W., Pseudolus of Plautus, Cambridge, 1896. 
 
 Bennett, C. E., Latin Grammar, Boston, 1908. 
 
 Bennett, C. E., The Latin Language, Boston, 1907. 
 
 Bennett, C. E., Syntax of Early Latin, The Verb, Boston, 1910. 
 
 Brix, Julius, Ausgewdhlte Komodien des T. M. Plautus, Leipzig, 1873. 
 
 Draeger, A., Historische Syntax der Lateinischen Sprache, Leipzig, 1874. 
 
 Durham, C. L., Subjunctive Substantive Clauses in Plautus, Cornell Studies 
 
 in Classical Philology, XIIL 
 Elmer, H. C, T. Macci Plauti Captivi, Boston, 1900. 
 Fennell, C. A., T. Macci Plauti Stichus, Cambridge, 1893. 
 Fowler, H. N., The Menaechmi of Plautus, Boston, ^910. 
 Gildersleeve, B. L., The Sequence of Tenses in Latin, American Journal of 
 
 Philology, VI n, 228-231, 1887. 
 Gildersleeve-Lodge, Latin Grammar, third edition. New York, 1905. 
 Gray, J. H., T. Macci Plauti Asinaria, Cambridge, 1894. 
 Gray, J. H., T. Macci Plauti Epidicus^ Cambridge, 1893. 
 Hale, W. G., The Sequence of Tenses in Latin, American Journal of Philology, 
 
 VIL 446-465, 1886; VIIL 46-77, 1887; IX. 158-177, 1888. 
 Hale-Buck, Latin Grammar, Boston, 1903. 
 
 Holtze, Fr. W., Syntaxis Priscorum Scriptorum Latinorum, Leipzig, 1861. 
 Kent, R. G., Some Tense Sequences in Caesar, De Bella Gallico, The Classical 
 
 Weekly 7. 77-78, 1913. 
 Kent, R. G., The "Passing" of the Sequence of Tenses, The Classical Weekly, 
 
 9. 2-7; 9-13, 1915. 
 Kiihner, Raphael, A usfuhrlicheGrammatik der Lateinischen Sprache, Hannover, 
 
 1912. 
 Lane, G. M., Latin Grammar for Schools and Colleges (revised by Morgan), 
 
 New York, 1903. 
 Lindsay, W. M., T. Macci Plauti Comoediae, Oxford, 1903, 1910. 
 Lindsay, W. M., Syntax of Plautus, Oxford, 1907. 
 
 Loewe, Goetz, Schoell, T. Macci Plauti Comoediae, ed. mai., Leipzig, 1884. 
 Lorenz, Aug. O. Fr., Ausgewdhlte Komodien des T. M. Plautus, Berlin, 1866, 
 
 1876. 
 Morris, E. P., Captives and Trinummus of Plautus, New York, 1898. 
 Morris, E. P., Pseudolus of Plautus, Boston, 1895. 
 
 48 
 
Bibliography 49 
 
 Palmer, Arthur, T. Macci Plauti Amphitruo, London, 1890. 
 
 Sonnenschein, E. A., T. M. Plauti Mostellaria, second edition, Oxford, 1907. 
 
 Sonnenschein, E. A., Rudens, ed. min., Oxford, 1901. 
 
 Stoltz u. Schmalz, Lateinische Grammatik, Miinchen, 19 10. 
 
 Tyrrell, R. Y., Miles Gloriosus of T. Maccius Plautus, London, 1899. 
 
 Wagner, Wilhelm, T. Macci Plauti Aulularia, London, 1901. 
 
 Walker, A. T., The Sequence of Tenses in Latin: A Study Based on Caesar's 
 
 Gallic War, Lawrence, Kansas, 1899. 
 Walker, A. T., Sequence or Harmony of Tenses?, The Classical Journal, 10. 
 
 246-251; 291-299, 19 1 5. 
 
INDEX LOCORUM 
 
 Page 
 
 Amph. 12 praesim 3 
 
 " 64 iussit 4 
 
 " 66 eant 4) 45 
 
 " 67 uiderint 45 
 
 " 68 capiantur 4. 45 
 
 " 69 ambissent 45 
 
 " 71 ambisset 45 
 
 " 72 duint 23, 45 
 
 " 74 ambiuerit 23, 45 
 
 ' 82 fierent 45 
 
 " 85 conciderent 40, 45 
 
 " 115 siet 23 
 
 " ^77 fuerim 17 
 
 195 nuntiem 4 
 
 " 205 dicant 23 
 
 " 206 uelint 23 
 
 " 207 asportassent 23, 24 
 
 209 sient, dent, petal 23 
 
 *' 215 deducerent 24 
 
 225 uicti sint 24 
 
 226 dederent 24 
 
 " 431 ebiberim 21 
 
 465 liceret 40 
 
 " 487 fieret 24 
 
 " 488 apsoluat 24 
 
 " 489 ponatur 24 
 
 " 490 celetur 24 
 
 " 746 occideris 25 
 
 " 749 sciam 34 
 
 " 815 dicantur 18 
 
 " Sjoferam 4. 41 
 
 " 1 123 uicerit 25 
 
 " 1142 uorteres 13 
 
 Asin. 7 sciretis 35, 40 
 
 36 sit 13 
 
 86 sit 17 
 
 " 188 habeas 39 
 
 " 248 sumam 11 
 
 " 336 daretur 40 
 
 " 393 sit 39 
 
 " 443 sit locatum 25 
 
 " 589 uerberarem 37 
 
 Page 
 
 " 675 darem 37 
 
 " 929 dares 40 
 
 Aul. 319 liceret 24 
 
 ' 523 metuam 39 
 
 ' 550 accusem 26 
 
 ' 676 credam 12 
 
 ' 681 quaeram 12 
 
 ' 736 faceres, ires 13 
 
 ' 743 uoluisse 4 
 
 ' 743 enicem 4 
 
 Bacch. 287 gerant 26 
 
 " 291 gereretur 24 
 
 " 302 sciscerent 24 
 
 353 reddat 5, 26 
 
 " 382 dicant 12 
 
 " 533 suscenseat 5 
 
 555 fi^ceres 37 
 
 " 576 reddat, eat 14 
 
 " 590 reddat 27 
 
 " 591 eat 27 
 
 " 607 nesciam 18 
 
 " 648 sumeret, quaereret 41 
 
 " 690 noceat, suscenseat. . . 5, 27 
 
 " 1069 cederem 20, 38 
 
 " 1082 possit 5 
 
 Capt. Arg. 7 amittatur 11 
 
 " 28 mutet 27 
 
 " 36 amittat 5 
 
 " 49 maneat 14 
 
 " 173 sciam 34 
 
 " 267 uoluit 6 
 
 " 267 inquinet 6 
 
 " 379 mittam 6 
 
 " 381 detn 6 
 
 " 397 redimat, remittant 6 
 
 " 411 liceat 18 
 
 " 422 laudetur 12 
 
 " 467 procedat, occeperit 14 
 
 " 568 superes 17 
 
 " 569 inuentu's 7, 8, 15, 17 
 
 50 
 
Index Locorum 
 
 51 
 
 Page 
 
 Capt. 570 conuincas 17 
 
 " 779 coniciam 12 
 
 " 837 cenes 6 
 
 " 837 nanctus es 6, 11 
 
 " 932 possim 18 
 
 " 1004 delectem 27 
 
 Cas. 48 posset 20, 38 
 
 " 52 posceret 6, 41 
 
 " 56 poscat 6 
 
 " 105 curet 7 
 
 " 25s facias 19 
 
 ' ' 424 luserim 32 
 
 " 425 fecerim 32 
 
 " 426 creauerim 32 
 
 " 448 praetnittam 12 
 
 " 604 arcesserem 41 
 
 " 681 dicerem 27 
 
 " 682-3 caueas 27 
 
 " 891 opprimeret 24 
 
 Cist. 1 1 meminerimus 19 
 
 " 169 deferat 28 
 
 " 568 deserat 28 
 
 Cure. Arg. 5 tnittat 11 
 
 " 226 ferat 32 
 
 " 372 sit, siet 14 
 
 " 559 abierit, petam 28 
 
 " 560 comedim 28 
 
 " 608 peruenerit 14 
 
 " 608 dixi 14 
 
 Epid. 80 abierim 17 
 
 " 285 apscedat 14 
 
 " 331 habeam 39 
 
 " 354fallatur, apparetur 7 
 
 " 355 inueni 7, 8, 15, 17 
 
 " 416 redierit 28 
 
 " 443 deceat 12 
 
 " 445 explices 7, 42 
 
 " 571 uideas, adeas, des 7 
 
 " 638 ueniat 34 
 
 " 712 fierem 13 
 
 Men. 454 capiat 29 
 
 " 475 sperauerit 17 
 
 Page 
 
 Men. 490 perderes 13 
 
 " 500 sciam 34 
 
 " 712 audeam 19 
 
 " 755 «■< 15 
 
 " 787-8 geras 8 
 
 " 789 opserues 8 
 
 " 1057 eas 29 
 
 " 1067 pigeat 12 
 
 " 1 100 ores 13 
 
 Merc. 91 foret 25 
 
 " 254 inuenisse 7, 8, 15 
 
 " 254 sit, uolueril 15 
 
 " 344 loquar 15 
 
 " 419 placeat 29 
 
 " 472 ibo, dabo il 
 
 " e^ifaceres 35 
 
 " 669 persequar 8, 42 
 
 M.G.Arg.ll. 5 nuntiaret 25 
 
 " " 7 veniret 25 
 
 " " 131 deferat 29 
 
 " " 12,9 facerem 4^ 
 
 " " 143 esset 41 
 
 " " 263 participauerit 21 
 
 " " 295 pereas 8, 10 
 
 " " 295 paratum est 8 
 
 " " 452 sitis 35 
 
 " " 514 nesciam 19 
 
 " " 728 ueneat 8 
 
 " " 729 pauperet 8 
 
 " " 767 inueni 8, 15 
 
 " " 768 admutiletur 8 
 
 " " 769 ecficiamus 9 
 
 " " 770 abducat, habeat 9 
 
 " " 867 gesserit 15 
 
 " " 925 sim 35 
 
 " " 956 ogerew 41 
 
 " " 963 nequeas 30 
 
 " " 971 iussit 4 
 
 " " 972 facias 9 
 
 " " 1097 dixi 15 
 
 " " 1098 possit 15 
 
 " " iii\6 abeat 9 
 
 " " 1158 uelles 41 
 
 " " 1238 sis 9 
 
 " " 1269 oderim 9 
 
52 
 
 The Sequence of Tenses in Plautus 
 
 Page 
 
 Most. 89 arbitrarer 36 
 
 158 rear 35 
 
 183 amarem 37, 38 
 
 421 apsterreres 42 
 
 422 iret 42 
 
 555 sit 39 
 
 715 ducerem 42 
 
 716 pellerem 42 
 
 942 procures, quaeras, 
 
 uideas, audias 9 
 
 969 uenerim 35 
 
 1005 censeas 36 
 
 1 124 ludificatu sit 30 
 
 1 127 conciliarem 42 
 
 Pers. Arg. 3 emeret 25 
 
 " 56 pauerint 21 
 
 " 82 facial 15 
 
 " 119 darem 36 
 
 " 173 sciret 21, 38 
 
 215 sim 39 
 
 " 304 nuntiares 43 
 
 " 326 auferam 9 
 
 " 496 faciam 13 
 
 " 538 facerem 25 
 
 583 fuerit 21 
 
 " 621 mirer 10 
 
 Poen. 547 siet 16 
 
 554 possimus 19 
 
 559 dederis 16 
 
 603 ames, pates, 
 
 pergraecere 30 
 
 681 darem 38 
 
 775 priuent, diuidant 10 
 
 1020 fodiat, metat 10 
 
 1057 gnatus sis 30 
 
 1066 uiuerent 38 
 
 1252 darent, euenisset 39 
 
 1276 redirent 42 
 
 1407 pereas 13 
 
 Page 
 
 Pseud. 57 adferret 43 
 
 " 58 mitteret 43 
 
 " 274 possim 39 
 
 " 579 po-raui 10 
 
 " 583 uincam, spoliem 10 
 
 " 597 habitet 30 
 
 " 796 coquat 31 
 
 " 1233 abduceret 43 
 
 " 1319 fierem 21, 39 
 
 Rud. 129 adornaret 31 
 
 130 faciat 31 
 
 218 forem nata 32 
 
 379 faceret 36 
 
 410 simus natae 31 
 
 602 darem 25 
 
 61 1 dicam 16 
 
 ■jl-j fabuler 10 
 
 925 siem 16 
 
 927 liberes 11 
 
 1026 sies 16 
 
 Stick. 249 ires 43 
 
 " 255 dares 36, 43 
 
 " 366 uenerit 25 
 
 " 503 consulam 12 
 
 Trin. 14 aleret 25 
 
 " 15 exigat II 
 
 283 siet 35 
 
 " 443 conciliarem 44 
 
 " 992 periisses 33 
 
 True. Arg. 3 tangat 11 
 
 " 81 daret 42 
 
 " 140 essem 39 
 
 " \()() sciam 34 
 
 " 280 nancta es 1 1 
 
 " 280 pudeat II 
 
 " 292 reliqueris 22, 36 
 
 " 383 gesseris 16 
 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFOENIA LIBRARY, 
 BERKELEY 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 Books not returned on time are subject to a fine of 
 50c per volume after the third day overdue, increasing 
 to $1.00 per volume after the sixth day. Books not in 
 demand may be renewed if application is made before 
 expiration of loan period. 
 
 IMl P 19J0 
 
 6J^jl491B 
 
 STACKS 
 
 JUN 6 1979 
 
 DEC 6 1979 
 
 JUN ' 1988 
 J^i K . ) 7 
 
 AUTO DISC ^ 
 
 IBfs 
 
 50m-7,'29 
 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 UC.BEBKELEYUBIIHH1ES 
 
 llllllllllll