W. M. Lindsay, Syntax of Plautus

---

The relation of Relative to Antecedent has some peculiar features in Old Latin, which must be stated at some length. (For fuller details, see Buch: de attractione quae dieitur inversa apud scriptores latinos, Strasburg, 1888.) We often find the Antecedent recurring in the Relative Clause, e.g.

• Epid. 41 “est causa, qua causa simul mecum ire veritust”,
• Rud. 997 “quo colore est, hoc colore capiuntur pauxilluli”,
• Aul. 574 “ego te hodic reddam madidum, si vivo, probe, tibi quoi decretum est bibere aquam”,
• Merc. 1015 “immo dicamus senibus legem censeo prinsquam abeamus, qua se lege teneant contentique sint.”

This repetition is suitable to legal precision and is often found in laws, e.g. Lex Agraria “quaestores co iure ea lege viatores … sublegunto, quo iure qua lege quaestores … sublegerunt.”

But when the Antecedent is mentioned only once, it is, curiously enough, in the Relative Clause, rather than in the Main Clause, that Plautus seems to prefer to place it. When it stands in the Relative Clause, it is naturally attracted to the Case of the Relative; and so we have that peculiar feature of Old Latin the ‘Attraction of the Antecedent to the Relative’ (imitated in Virgil's “urbem quam statuo, vestra est” 1.573). It seems very strange that in a line like Amph. 1009 “Naucratem quem convenire volui, in navi non erat”, Plautus should prefer Naucratem to Naucrates; but that is evidently the favoured mode of expression with him.

As other examples of Attraction may be cited:—

• Cas. 975 “quid fecisti scipione (-nem: MSS.) aut quod habuisti pallium?”
• Mil. 155 “hic illest lepidus quem dixi senem.”
• Mil. 598 “ne uspiam insidiae sient concilium (= concilio) quod habere volumus.”
Curc. 419 “istum quem quaeris ego sum” (cf. Epid. 448).
• Ter. Andr. prol. 3 “populo ut placerent quas fecisset fabulas.”
• Cist. 61 “indidem (= ibidem) unde oritur facito ut facias stultitiam sepelibilem” (cf. Caecilius 266 “venire illi (= eo) ubi sitast sapientia).”

and as examples of Plautus' predilection for the Relative clause:

• Curc. 433 “ut ei detur quam istic emi virginem . . . et aurum et vestem.”
• Capt. 179 “nisi qui meliorem adferet quae mihi atque amicis placeat condicio magis.”
• Truc. 275 “pignus da ni ligneae haec sint quas habes Victorias.”
• Pers. 373 “dicat quod quisque volt.”

With this importance attached to the Relative Clause we may connect the very frequent omission of the Antecedent, e.g.

• Amph. 652 “omnia adsunt bona, (sc. ei) quem penest virtus”,
• Capt. 574 “quem patrem (sc. eius), qui servus est?”,
• Curc. 581 “ego illam reddidi, (sc. ei) qui argentum a te attulit”,
• Mil. 355 “cedo vel decem; edocebo minime malas ut sint malae, (sc. eo) mihi solae quod superfit”,
• Bacch. 991 “A. eugae litteras minutas! B. (sc. ei) qui quidem videat parum; verum, (sc. ei) qui satis videat, grandes satis sunt”,
• Cas. 427 “quid opus est, (sc. ei) qui sic mortuus?”

But is is often used, even when the Subject has been placed in the Relative Clause, e.g.

• Most. 250 “mulier quae se suamque aetatem spernit, speculo ei usust”,
• Trin. 137 “ille qui mandavit, eum exturbasti ex aedibus”,
• Trin. 985 “quia illum quem ementitu's, is ego sum ipsus Charmides”;
• cf. Most. 315 “nam illi ubi fui, ind(e) effugi foras.”

We find the same phenomena in other dependent Clauses; (1) the repetition of the Antecedent — e.g. Bacch. 442 “quom patrem adeas postulatum, puero sic dicit pater”, Cas. 393 “nunc tu, Cleustrata, ne a me memores malitiose de hac re factum aut suspices, tibi permitto” — which is the true explanation of the apparent use of hic, iste, ille for is in lines like

• Mil. 1083 “si hic pridie natus foret quam illest, hic haberet regnum in caelo”,
• Pseud. 430 “nam istaec quae tibi renuntiantur … fors fuat an istaec dicta sint mendacia”,
• Mil. 1053 “nisi tu illi fers suppetias, iam illa animum despondebit”,
• Aul. 656 “hunc si amitto, hic abierit”,
• Mil. 275 “hic illam vidit osculantem, quantum hunc audivi loqui”

— contrast, e.g.

• Mil. 352 “sed ego hoc quod ago, id me agere oportet”,
• Poen. 644 “hunc chlamydatum quem vides, ei Mars iratust”

(2) the attraction of the Antecedent, e.g.

• Trin. 423 “pater (= patri) quom peregre veniet, in portast locus”,
• Cist. 592 “vir tuus (= virum tuum) si veniet, iube domi opperirier”;

even when a Relative Pronoun plays the part of Antecedent, e.g.

• Bacch. 128 “qui (= quem) si decem habeas linguas, mutum esse addecet”,
• Rud. 972 “quos (= qui) quom capio, . . . mei sunt.”

The ordinary treatment of Relative and Antecedent prevails in Plautus when the Relative is in Genitive, Dative, or Ablative Case or is accompanied by a Preposition or is in Accusative Case before an Infinitive, e.g.

• Capt. 113 “maiores (sc. catenas) quibus sunt iuncti, demito”,
• Capt. 573 “nam ille quidem, quem tu esse hunc memoras, hodie hinc abiit Alidem”;

also when the Relative Clause does not come first in the sentence, e.g. Amph. 546 “nunc te, nox, quae me mansisti, mitto, ut concedas die.”