Wackernagel's law and the placement of the copula esse in classical Latin (Supplementary volume) 0906014174, 9780906014172

Table of contents :
Contents
1. Some types of enclitics in Latin
2. The copula esse; some previous discussions
3. Non + esse
4. Patterns and some statistics
5. Split predicates and subjects
6. Esse as an auxiliary
7. The relative pronoun qui + auxiliary/copula
8. The orders predicate est subject, predicate subject est
9. The order subject est predicate
10. A pattern showing esse in initial position
11. The order (subject) predicate est
12. Conclusion

Citation preview

Supplementary Volume no. 18

WACKERNAGEL’S LAW AND THE PLACEMENT OF THE COPULA ESSE IN CLASSICAL LATIN J. N. ADAMS

THE CAMBRIDGE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY 1994

© CAMBRIDGE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY ISBN 0 906014 17 4

Printed by University Printing Services, Cambridge

Contents 1

Some types of enclitics in Latin

1

2

The copula esse; some previous discussions

6

3

Non + esse

9

4

Patterns and some statistics

14

5

Split predicates and subjects

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6

Member of antithesis and other rhetorical terms as host Adjectives of quantity and size as host Superlative adjectives as host Intensifiers as host Demonstratives as host Appendix: ‘clitic climbing’ Conclusion

Esse as an auxiliary 1 Auxiliary attached to a member of an antithesis 2 Auxiliary attached to adjectives of quantity and size 3 Auxiliary attached to a superlative adjective 4 Auxiliary attached to a demonstrative 5 Auxiliary attached to an anticipatory word 6 Auxiliary attached to a temporal adverb 7 Auxiliary attached to a negative 8

34

The pattern factus … est

7

The relative pronoun qui + auxiliary/copula 44 1 Auxiliary attached to the relative pronoun (and other subordinators) Relative + copula 2 Some further statistics relating to the auxiliary and its attachment to qui 3 4

8

Some further observations on the pattern est … factus in relative clauses

The orders predicate est subject, predicate subject est

54

9

59 The order subject est predicate 1 The influence of the subject ‘Thematic ’ statements 2 The Latin equivalent of the cleft construction (Fr.) c’est lui qui Va fait 3 4

Cato Agr. 109 and its interpretation

10

A pattern showing esse in initial position The ‘veridical’ and ‘assertive’ uses 1 A particular type of emphatic predicate 2 Focus on the tense/aspect of the copula 3 Concessive use (concession made by speaker, writer, or 4 agreement expressed) Concessive use (concession expected from reader, hearer) 5

69

11

The order (subject) predicate est

82

12

Conclusion Some main contentions 1 The enclitic characteristics of esse 2 Esse and Wackernagel’s law 3 The focusing role of some other verbs 4

84

PREFACE A version of this work was read at a meeting of the Cambridge Philological Society held at Christ’s College, Cambridge on 4 February 1993. I am grateful to those present on that occasion for their comments. I am particularly indebted to Professor P.H. Matthews, who read the whole manuscript and offered numerous very helpful observations and criticisms. A complementary paper, ‘Wackernagel’s law and the position of unstressed personal pronouns in Classical Latin’, is to appear in the Transactions of the Philological Society.

The aim of this work is to consider the placement of the copula esse in Classical Latin, and the possible relationship of its placement to Wackernagel’s law. The material which must be considered in such a study is so extensive that I have deliberately restricted myself to prose of the Classical period, without attempting in any systematic way to identify possible diachronic developments in the placing of the copula. As will become clear, many questions have had to be left unanswered; I have from time to time raised issues which in my opinion deserve to be investigated further. Nevertheless the diverse patterns of placement of the copula in the Classical period can be reduced to a system of sorts.

1

Some types of enclitics in Latin

Latin had a number of postpositives which were possibly enclitics,1 though the use of that term raises problems of definition. ‘Enclitic’ or more generally ‘clitic’ (which includes proclitics) tends to be used of an item which has no genuine independence. It links itself to a host which bears stress.2 By ‘host’ I mean the word before the enclitic, on which it leans. The absence of an accent does not, however, appear to be a universal or necessary feature of enclitics.3 In a dead language the accentual pattern of host + posited clitic may in any case be a matter of guesswork, though there is a certain amount of evidence for the accentual behaviour of a few enclitics in Latin, as we shall see. Wackernagel’s law is typically described in similar terms to those used by Watkins (1964, 1036): ‘One of the few generally accepted syntactic statements about IE is Wackernagel’s Law, that enclitics originally occupied the second position in the sentence.’4 The enclitics which are said to be placed second are a mixed lot: they include unstressed personal pronouns, usually in cases other than the nominative,5 sentence particles such as autem,6 various other particles such as κε in Greek,7 and sometimes the copula. Wackernagel himself (1892, 428–9) included the copula in his evidence from Latin.8 He quoted, for example, (1), where fore splits peraccommodatum and is thereby placed second in its clause, just as the pronoun mihi splits pergratum in (2): (1) (2)

Cic. Fam. 3.5.3 per fore accommodatum tibi Cic. Att. 1.4.3 per mihi gratum est9

Other scholars who have implied that esse tends to be placed second because of the operation of Wackernagel’s law include Kroll (1925, 92, 95), Scherer (1975, 222), Wanner (1987, 84),10 Giacalone Ramat (1990, 176) and Pinkster (1990, 169). Any definition (such as that of Watkins) which refers to the sentence or clause must now be modified in the light of Fraenkel’s work on colon division (1932, 1933, 1964, 1965, 1968). Fraenkel showed that long clauses can often be split into smaller units which he called ‘cola’.11 Some enclitics, such as unstressed pronouns in Latin, may be placed second in any colon of a clause, and not exclusi vely in the first. For example in (3), if de triumpho autem is treated as a ‘short colon’, a sort of heading which might have been followed by a pause in speech, then me no longer violates a posited rule of second-position placement: it is in second place in the second colon, and it breaks up a syntactic unit to get there:

(3)

Cic. Att. 7.2.6 de triumpho autem // nulla me cupiditas umquam tenuit12

2

J. N. ADAMS

It is possible for a pronoun to be placed at the end of a sentence, yet still occupy the second position in its colon: e.g. (4) Cic. Att. 12.50 qua re cum poteris, // id est cum Sexti auctioni operam dederis, // reuises nos (5) Cic. Sest. 28 uenisse tempus // iis qui in timore fuissent // – coniuratos uidelicet dicebat // – ulciscendi se There are various problems with conventional accounts of, or assumptions about, Wackernagel’s law which are now widely scattered in linguistic literature. In the first place, the use of a single blanket term ‘enclitic’ obscures the fact that, even in a single language such as Latin, the items which tend to be labelled ‘Wackernagel enclitics’ are a mixed lot which may behave in rather different ways. Secondly, once the assumption is made that enclitics mechanically occupy the second position in the clause or colon, then the first element or host tends to be treated as a matter of no importance. In this monograph I will on the contrary argue that the host is vitally important and that its position often determines the position of the enclitic. Thirdly, it can be argued for Latin that different enclitics which more often than not come second in a colon, do so for different reasons. Finally, the question must be asked whether all of the ‘Wackernagel enclitics’ are indeed regularly placed in second position in a colon in Latin, and whether that was in any case their original position. Evidence has recently been produced by Hale (1987) from Indo-Iranian languages suggesting that weak pronouns did not originally occupy the second position at all.13 A glance through any work of Cicero’s will turn up examples of unemphatic pronouns which, on a reasonable colon division, are later than second in their colon. What then determines their position? What is one to make of mihi in (6)? (6)

Cic. Att. 11.5.4 neque illius // neque cuiusquam mihi praeterea // officium deest?

Pronoun position, however, is another story which I leave for another occasion (but see further below, (456)-(459). For the purposes of this work I wish to distinguish between two, and perhaps three types of enclitics in Latin, without wishing to imply that these categories cover the field. (i) Sentence enclitics. Sentence clitics ‘have scope over the entire sentence. They may mark the utterance as a question, as reported speech, as polite, as firmly believed or speculative, or … they may be connectives showing the relationship of the clause to what precedes or follows.’14 This definition, made in reference to a non-Indo-

SOME TYPES OF ENCLITICS IN LATIN

3

European language, could with a few modifications be applied to Latin. An obvious sentence enclitic in Classical Latin is autem. Another is -ne, which marks a clause as interrogative.15 Sentence enclitics in Latin are not as straightforward a category as may be supposed. Autem is perhaps alone in being regularly placed in second position at all periods. Enim and igitur, on the other hand, are often at the head of a sentence in early Latin.16 They seem to have shifted to the second position as a change of meaning took place.17 This fact suggests that it is unsatisfactory to set up an undifferentiated class of ‘Wackernagel sentence enclitics’ which supposedly gravitated mechanically towards the second position regardless of semantic considerations. The point has been well illustrated by Janson (1979), but disregarded by linguists keen to find linguistic universals at work. Another particle which moves between the first and second positions in response to semantic factors is ergo.18 There are in addition various particles which show an increasing tendency to take the second position in Classical Latin, without ever achieving fixed second-position placement (e.g. scilicet, uidelicet, nimirum, itaque, tarnen).19 It is not my task here to deal with sentence particles in detail. I would merely state that those listed above do not, on the face of it, look like a unified class. As a group they show no more than a tendency to adopt the second position. (ii) ‘Internal’ or ‘non-sentential’ enclitics, recently called by Krisch (1990, 65) ‘NichtWackernagel-Enklitika’. These act not on the sentence as a whole, but on their host. The host may occupy different positions in the sentence, and as a result the enclitic need not occupy the so-called ‘Wackernagel position’.20 The clearest enclitic of this type in Latin is perhaps quidem.21 Its most distinctive use is contrastive,22 i.e. it is attached to one member of a contrasting pair: e.g. (7)

(8)

Cic. Cat. 3.11 atque ille primo quidem negauit; post autem aliquanto, toto iam indicio exposito atque edito, surrexit ‘at FIRST he denied it, but LATER …’ Cic. Orat. 171 et apud Graecos quidem iam anni prope quadringenti sunt cum hoc probatur; nos nuper agnouimus … ‘among the GREEKS … WE … ’

Quidem may be in second position in the clause if its host is in first, but its placement is more varied than that of, say, enim. For quidem placed late in a clause in positions where a sentence enclitic such as enim could not possibly stand, note: (9) (10)

Cic. Brut. 18 non me hercule, inquit, tibi repromittere istuc quidem ausim Cic. Fin. 4.43 itaque mihi uidentur omnes quidem illi errasse, qui …

There is some important evidence which suggests that, sometimes at least, quidem was unaccented. The combinations mequidem, tuquidem, siquidem (and a few other

4

J. N. ADAMS

comparable cases) sometimes show shortening of the first vowel.23 Latin monosyllables may have a long vowel or diphthong in final position (e.g. mē, tū, sī, dā, quī, quāē), but never a short vowel.24 Short vowels in monosyllables must be followed by at least one consonant (dăt, ĕst etc.). It follows that the combination sĭ + quidem could not possibly have borne two accents (i.e. sĭ quĭdem) such that the two elements were treated as independent words (accentual units). Si would only retain a short vowel if it formed an accentual unity with quidem, i.e. sĭquĭdem (cf. such words as fắcĭlis); consequently quidem would have to be unaccented. The host of quidem is generally the focus of the remark. Its character as such would be expressed in an English rendering by a falling pitch accent. I return to this notion of ‘focus’ later (5.1). Quidem can be described as a ‘focusing particle’. The contrastive or emphasising function of quidem has been well recognised, but in general it is true to say that the focusing role of some other enclitics in Latin (i.e. their role in marking the host as the focus of the clause) has not been systematically described. This essay will be mainly concerned with the relationship between enclitic and host, and it will be demonstrated that emphasising particles such as quidem are not the only focusing enclitics in Latin. Both the copula and the unstressed pronouns seem to have acquired such a function. One final point can be made about quidem which will be occasionally relevant to our later discussion. Not infrequently it is displaced, so that it follows not its expected (focal) host, but another word in the clause. This phenomenon, which has been well documented,25 does not take place haphazardly. Quidem often seems to be attracted to a pronoun, demonstrative or relative, apparently in defiance of the emphasis of the sentence: e.g. (11)

Cic. Brut. 227 uerbis non ille quidem ornatis utebatur sed tamen non abiectis

Here (non) ornatis and (non) abiectis are in antithesis; one might have expected non ornatis quidem. (12)

Cic. Fin. 1.16 cum miraretur ille quidem utrumque, Phaedrum autem etiam amaret

= miraretur quidem, or utrumque quidem (cf. (7) for quidem … autem) Miraretur and amaret are contrasted, as are utrumque and Phaedrum.26 (13)

Cic. Off. 1.33 decipere hoc quidem est, non iudicare27

(14)

Cic. Marc. 28 quae quidem [tua uita] quae miretur iam pridem multa habet; nunc etiam quae laudet exspectat

Miretur and laudet are in contrast, but quidem is placed behind the relative pronoun.28

SOME TYPES OF ENCLITICS IN LATIN

5

There appears to be a conflict between two different placement rules in passages such as these. A special affinity between quidem and demonstratives/relatives is able to override the normal rule whereby the enclitic attaches to one of the focused elements. I stress this affinity, because the copula too shows a tendency to gravitate to demonstratives and the relative pronoun. (iii) Unstressed pronouns. What is one to make of these? Ever since Wackernagel they have tended to be treated alongside sentence particles as second-position enclitics par excellence. There is however a fundamental difference between the behaviour of the pronouns and of the sentence enclitics in Latin. In (15), for example, (15)

Livy 7.33.17 oculos sibi Romanorum ardere uisos aiebant uesanosque uoltus et furentia ora

sibi is in a position which might have been occupied by, say, enim. It splits the syntactic unit oculos Romanorum, and is considerably removed from its verb uisos. In (16), on the other hand, (16)

Cic. Att. 6.2.9 ob eamque causam // tum ob ceteras // Salamini nos in caelum decretis suis sustulerunt

enim could not possibly be placed where nos is. The overlap between sentence enclitics and pronouns is only partial. It was moreover pointed out above (see (6)) that the unstressed pronouns do not go regularly to the second position in their colon. The ‘Wackernagel enclitics’ begin to look like a rather disparate group, at least on the evidence of Latin. Should the pronouns be put in a separate category, had they changed position between the time of Indo-European and Latin, or is there perhaps a similarity between their placement and that of, say, quidem? I will be arguing here that many uses of the copula esse in Latin are enclitic uses which resemble in some ways the second (quidem) type above. Since I have also referred to Krisch’s description of this type of enclitic as the ‘non-Wackernagel’ type, it follows that I will not be invoking Wackernagel’s law as it is conventionally understood to explain the placement of esse. Often however esse does appear to be behaving in accordance with Wackernagel’s law, and I shall attempt to explain this coincidence, which has some relevance to the relationship between sentence and non-sentence enclitics. I will argue that the copula has a marked tendency to attach itself to certain categories of hosts, and that its role (like that of quidem) is often a focusing one. An obvious question which must be faced, but probably cannot be decisively answered, is how esse acquired this role. I put off until the end consideration of the question on what criteria, phonological or otherwise, esse might be described as an ‘enclitic’.

2

The copula esse; some previous discussions

For the most part discussions of, or references to, Wackernagel’s law in Latin have concentrated on the position of particles and of unstressed pronouns. The question of the copula and its relevance to the law has either been oversimplified, or passed over in silence. A confusing and conflicting variety of views can be found in the literature on the placement of esse, but there has been little attempt to collect evidence systematically from the classical period. Scherer (1975, 222) stated that the copula normally goes to second position: ‘Für die Kopula esse … ist diese Enklisenstellung das Gewöhnliche.’ He quoted a sentence nihil est praeclarius (no reference given). A single three-place sentence of this type is an unreliable guide, because the number of possible orders is limited to six, a third of which would show est in second position. In any case est constantly attaches itself to negatives such as nihil in Latin (see Chap. 3). Far from regularly occupying the second position, the copula is often found at the end of a clause,29 not to mention a variety of other positions. Meillet (1906–8, 23), contrasting Latin with classical Sanskrit and Avestan, in which, it is said, the copula tends to occupy the normal place of ‘accessory words’ (i.e. enclitics), asserted that in Latin esse never systematically assumed the position for accessory words: ‘En latin le verbe “être” n’a même jamais pris d’une manière systématique cette place de mot accessoire au début de la phrase, ce qui montre que la règle générale de l’indo-européen avait cessé d’agir en latin au moment où sum a pris complètement le caractère de verbe “copule”.’ Meillet offered no data. On the other hand Pinkster (1990, 169) states (again without supporting evidence) that ‘another indication for the continued existence of this rule in Latin [i.e. ‘the rule assumed for Indo-European that certain unaccented words were placed immediately after an accented word in the first position’] is seen in the preference of words of different types, e.g. est, quis, quisque, for the second position of the sentence’. Wanner (1987, 84) makes the intriguing assertion (unsupported by any evidence) that ‘while Sanskrit places the verb there [i.e. in the second position] with a certain regularity, in Latin only the shallowest auxiliary forms of esse, fieri follow this trend sluggishly’. It is however unclear what exactly is meant. I will be returning to esse as an auxiliary later (Chap. 6). The most detailed discussions of the position of the copula in Latin are by Marouzeau (1908–9, 1910, 1938, 7–27, 1953, 34–7). Marouzeau avoided making any attempt to define the position of the copula within the narrow terms of Wackernagel’s law, and concentrated instead on the relationship of esse to what he called l’attribut

THE COPULA ESSE; SOME PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS

7

In the sentence seruus bonus est I call seruus S(ubject), est the copula and bonus the pred(icate). The ‘predicate’ is Marouzeau’s attribut. Marouzeau contended that there is a close bond between the predicate and the copula. The position of the copula is a function of the term with which it is in a direct syntactic relation, namely the predicate, and if it often occupies the second position in the clause, that is because the predicate, which it normally follows, often occupies the first place.30 Marouzeau at one point (1908–9, 236) describes the copula as ‘enclitic’ on the predicate: ‘Tout se passe done comme si la copule était enclitique par rapport à l’attribut. Si… on convient d’appeler enclitiques “des mots faibles qui se rattachent à des mots plus consistants et plus importants” …, rien n’empêche de considérer comme enclitiques, non plus certaines formes de la copule, mais toutes les formes de la copule dans certains cas.’ In Marouzeau’s view the basic order is therefore (seruus) bonus est, and deviations from this norm have to be examined for their special nuances. It is the great merit of Marouzeau that he stresses the variable, and often apparently unpredictable placement of the copula. It is undeniable that there is a liaison between esse and the predicate (marked by the commonplace order pred. + esse), of the sort which led to the coalescence of pote + est into a full verb (potest > possum). Marouzeau offers a mass of classified examples from comedy, and identifies (1938, 11) an important ‘assertive’ use (attribution asseverative) of the copula (marked by placement before the predicate: see below, Chap. 10). But the elements S + pred. + esse have six possible orders, and Marouzeau fails to provide a systematic discussion of each. The classifications which he does offer are at times over-subtle, and it is difficult to extract general principles from the mass of data. Moreover the suggestion that the copula is enclitic on the predicate is inadequately discussed. Esse is often, for instance, detached from its predicate. If it is ‘enclitic’ in the sentence seruus bonus est, does it cease to be enclitic in sentences in which it does not follow the predicate? Could est ever be described as enclitic on seruus in a sentence seruus est bonus? Many sentences containing the copula have a complex predicate, rather than a single word such as bonus. If, for example, est were placed at the end of a long predicate, might it be considered as enclitic on the whole group of words, or only on the last word of the group? And what if it were placed not at a periphery of the predicate, but at some point within it? And how are we to relate to Marouzeau’s formulation those cases in which the subject itself is complex, and the copula attached to just one part of that subject? In short, the notion of the copula as ‘enclitic’ requires further consideration, based on a substantial body of evidence taken from Classical prose. The evidence used in this monograph has been collected from Cato, Cicero, Caesar and to a limited extent Varro, Livy and Celsus. I attempt to keep in mind in the discussion below the different types, functions and behaviour of enclitics identified in the previous chapter. Perhaps the most enlightening observations on the placement of esse have been made in two brief discussions by Kroll (1921), (1925, 92, 94–5). In the first Kroll offered a critique of Marouzeau (1910), particularly for his use of metrical evidence (from comedy), and in the process he drew attention, in a rather unsystematic way, to

J. N. ADAMS

some of the most important features of copula placement in classical prose. He noticed a tendency for esse to be attached to emphatic words (1921, 35, 37–8), including the negative (33), and discussed briefly its placement in relative and subordinate clauses (36). In the other work Kroll again illustrated briefly the attachment of esse to emphatic words (1925, 94), but here, in an explicit reference to Wackernagel, he also showed an inclination to find esse gravitating to the second position in its clause (92; cf. 95). The relationship between secondposition placement, and attachment to an emphatic word, is not considered. Nor did Kroll seriously go into the question in what sense esse might be classed as ‘enclitic’. One particularly cogent criticism which Kroll (1921, 38) levelled at Marouzeau will be heeded here. Marouzeau, as noted above, concentrated on the relative placement of the two terms copula and predicate, without paying sufficient attention to the third element which is often present, namely the subject. It will be shown here that the position of the copula must frequently be explained in relation to that of the subject. Wackernagel himself (1892, 428–9), as we saw earlier, in part drawing on observations of Seyffert, noted a few conditions under which esse goes to the second position. I refrain from summarising those conditions here, but will return on occasions later to Wackernagel’s observations. A useful monograph is that of Vogel (1937), who built on the observations of Kroll and provided a detailed collection of material particularly from Caesar. He noted the attachment of esse to various types of emphatic or important hosts (such as demonstratives: 23). He also stressed that the final position of a colon as well as the initial position was a potentially focal slot. An emphatic predicate, for example, might in theory be placed at the end of a clause, with anteposition of the copula (20). I will refer to other observations of Vogel from time to time. The question of the final position of a clause as a focal position will be taken up briefly in 9.4. Kühner-Stegmann (1955, II 592–4, 602) offered a brief discussion of enclitics, in which (602) they quoted examples not only of esse, but also of other verbs described as ‘unaccented’, attached to the emphatic word of a clause. I return briefly in the conclusion (12.4) to the question of the ‘enclitic’ use of verbs other than the copula. Finally, some material on copula position in Latin, taken mainly from Marouzeau, can be found in Hofmann-Szantyr (1965, 405).

3

Non + esse I begin on relatively familiar ground, with some preliminary evidence of the way in which

esse is regularly attracted to one particular host, namely the negative non and some other negatives.31 The nexus between non and esse is shown by the fact that a negated passive

perfectum, gerundive, periphrastic future or adjectival predicate regularly takes the form (e.g.) factum non est or non est factum rather than non factum est. Non serves as the host of est (except under special conditions: see below). The following is a collection of all such negated forms in Caesar’s Gallic War (1–7): negated periphrastic verb-forms in (17), negated predicates in (18).

(17)

(18)

Gall. 1.36.5 redditurum non esse 1.42.4 non esse uenturum 1.47.2 uisa non est 3.18.5 amittendam non esse 4.29.4 prouisum non erat 5.33.4 reprehendendum non erat 5.55.2 non esse amplius fortunam temptaturos 6.5.3 non esse concertaturum 6.23.8 secuti non sunt 6.25.5 uisa non sint

Gall. 1.3.6 non esse dubium

1.14.2 non fuisse difficile 1.16.2 matura non erant 1.40.12 non fore dicto audientes 1.40.12 dicto audiens non fuerit 1.50.5 non esse fas 2.8.2 non esse inferiores 2.16.4 exercitui aditus non esset (existential) 5.33.2 profectionis auctor non fuisset 5.41.7 non esse consuetudinem populi Romani (existential) 5.51.2 non fore potestatem (existential) 5.54.3 dicto audientes non fuerunt 7.23.5 deforme non est

The variation in order between the first two examples in (17) well illustrates the principle which is at work here. Note also the different forms of the idiom dicto audiens est at Gall. 1.40.12 in (18).

10

J. N. ADAMS

It should be noted that the existential use of esse behaves in this respect exactly as the copula. Cf. (19) (20) (21) (22)

Cato, Agr. 43.1 si lapis non erit… si pertica non erit Cato, Agr. 54.2 si foenum non erit Cato, Agr. 112.1 cum uentus non erit Cato, Agr. 112.2 si pluuiae non erunt

Apparent exceptions to the rule (for the copula) are marked by a particularly close connection between non and the subject or predicate: e.g. (23)

Cic. De orat. 3.151 non magna laus est uitare uitium ‘It is no great praise’

For non magnus as a unit see Caes. Gall. 2.9.1 (24)

Caes. Gall. 5.52.2 non decimum quemque esse reliquum militem sine uulnere ‘not one in ten’

(25)

Caes. Gall. 3.25.2 non eadem esse diligentia ab decumana porta castra munita

(26)

Caes. Gall. 1.44.5 amicitiam populi Romani sibi ornamento et praesidio, non detrimento esse oportere.

In the structures non A sed B, or A non B (as in (26)), it is normal for the negative to be attached to either A or B: e.g. (27) (28) (29)

Cato, Agr. 2.7 patrem familias uendacem, non emacem esse oportett Cic. Cat. 1.27 ut abs te non emissus ex urbe, sed immissus in urbem esse uideatur Cic. De orat. 3.8 ut mihi non erepta L. Crasso a dis immortalibus uita, sed donata mors esse uideatur

Sometimes esse might be drawn away from a negative by another influential host: e.g. (30)

Cic. Lael. 14 ut nihil boni est in morte, sic certe nihil mali (existential)

Here boni/mali provide a contrast of opposites. It will be demonstrated below (5.1) that antithetical terms were favoured as hosts of the copula, and that tendency has here overruled the liaison between the negative and esse. A particularly clear illustration of the special relationship between negatives and esse is provided by the following example:

NON + ESSE

(31)

11

Cato, Agr. 6.2 alius bonus ntillus erit

Here the negative nullus is in fact part of the subject, since nullus and alius form a unit. Nullus has been detached from alius, which remains in subject position, and placed before erit. The predicate bonus has thereby been separated from the copula. Wackemagel’s law in its conventional sense is obviously not in operation here, because erit remains in its banal position at the end of the clause. A variant on the order adopted by Cato might have been nullus erit alius bonus. Similar in type to this example is: (32)

Catull. 39.16 nam risu inepto res ineptior nulla est

Nulla belongs with res, but it has been placed before est in penultimate position. Note too: (33)

Cato, Agr. 157.5 salubrius nihil est

Here Cato departs from his usual order S pred. est so that nihil can be placed before est, which has again remained in final position. In (34) – (34) Caes. Gall. 5.55.2 non esse amplius fortunam temptaturos – non semantically forms a unit with amplius, but the bond between non and esse overrides this unity. It is often the case that a negative is placed at the start of a clause. Neque, for example, may be obligatorily so placed, and non itself in strong negative assertions may also take the initial position (as in (34)). If the verb is the copula, the order will accordingly often be non esse S pred.: e.g. (35)

Cic. De orat. 3.24 neque esse ullam sententiam illustrem sine luce uerborum

(36)

Cic. De orat. 3.79 non est enim philosophia similis artium reliquarum

This example is of special interest, because the sentence enclitic enim, which is usually in second position, is placed not after non but after est.32 Non est is treated as a unit. Compare, e.g. (37) (38)

Cic. Cael. 30 nullum est enim fundamentum horum criminum Cic. Att. 1.1.2 nemo est enim ex iis … qui … firmior candidatus fore uideatur

12

J. N. ADAMS

(39) (40) (41) (42)

Cic. De orat. 3.20 nullum est enim genus rerum, quod … Cic. De orat. 3.105 nihil est enim … accommodatius Cic. De orat. 3.167 non est autem in uerbo modus hie, sed in oratione Cic. De orat. 3.176 nihil est enim tam tenerum neque tam flexibile …

Semantically est would be classified in (37) and (39) as existential, but the structure is the same as that of sentences in which est is copula (see also above, (19)–(22)). Est is attached to nullum, and it takes precedence over enim. Compare (43)

Cic. Att. 3.6 non fuerat mihi dubium

The unstressed pronoun mihi might have been expected to be placed second, in keeping with Wackernagel’s law as it is generally believed to operate; but non and fuerat are treated as an indivisible unit. Compare (44)

Cic. Pis. 29 ostendebatque nihil esse nos acturos, nisi prius …

Here esse takes precedence over the enclitic pronoun nos, so that it may attach to nihil. Also worth noting is the following existential example: (45)

Cic. De orat. 3.25 natura nulla est… quae …

Nulla would normally precede natura, but it has been postponed and placed in front of est. This example, when compared with (37) and (39), illustrates the fact that esse is not

assigned any particular place in the linear ordering of the clause; its position is determined by that of the negative. Haud, which was obsolescent by the classical period, shows the same sort of liaison with the copula as non: e.g. (46) (47)

Livy 9.2.5 haud erat dubium Livy 9.8.3 haud sum ignarus

The negative non was a relatively late development, being a compound of the inherited negative ne + oinom (the neuter of unus). Non is not found in the fragments of the Twelve Tables.33 Esse must have been locked on to non within the Latin period. There is nothing remarkable about the placement of a negative before a verb:34 one sees it, for example, in such early compounds as nequeo, nescio, *neuolo > nolo. What is interesting is that in the case of a periphrastic verb-form such as factum est, non precedes not the unit factum est but only the auxiliary. There would seem to be a form of enclisis in operation, with esse attracted to one type of strong host. This enclisis has nothing to do in the Latin period with any rule of colon-second placement of enclitics, because, as we have seen, non may move around in the colon, from first position to

NON + ESSE

13

second last, with esse always behind it. The question obviously arises whether esse also gravitates towards other types of strong hosts, regardless of the position of those hosts in the colon. If this can be shown to be the case, then Wackernagel’s law in the conventional sense must obviously be abandoned or at least modified as an explanation of copula placement in Latin. Those (including Kroll) who have commented on the liaison in Latin between non and esse have failed to address the apparent inconsistency between this rule and a rule of secondposition placement. Wackernagel himself drew attention to cases in Greek where negatives served as hosts of enclitics (1892, 335, 343, 380), but he did not examine in detail the implications of this tendency for his rule.

4

Patterns and some statistics

In a sentence consisting of subject, predicate and copula there are six possible orders of the three elements (if the subject and predicate are single terms). I give here some statistics showing the relative frequency of these orders in a variety of Classical texts: Cato Agr. 1–50 S pred. est S est pred. pred. S est pred. est S est S pred. est pred. S

68 5 10 2 1 —

Cic. Red. sen S pred. est S est pred. pred. S est pred. est S est S pred est pred. S

15 7 3 3 1 —

Cic. S. Rose. 1–60 Cic. Inv. 1.1–20 39 11 3 5 1 —

26 41 1 10 — —

Cic. De orat. 3.1–100 Celsus 4.1–10 38 23 4 14 10 2

52 4 9 12 — —

No diachronic change can be identified here. S pred. est is particularly frequent in Cato’s De agricultura, but it is almost as predominant in Celsus. The statistics reveal that S pred. est is the most common order. The same predominance of (S) pred. est is found in Greek (see

below, p. 82) I offer two further observations on these figures. First, the order S est pred. is abnormally frequent in Cicero’s De inuentione. The high figure undoubtedly has to do with the fact that the De inuentione is full of definitions. I return to this point later. Secondly, the order est S pred. is almost non-existent in the three most ‘technical’ texts (Cato, Agr., Cic. Inv., Celsus), but relatively common in the De oratore, a work which, though technical in theme, is conversational and discursive in style. There are also examples in the (parts of) speeches considered, and it will be seen later that Cicero often employs the order in his letters. It will be discussed separately below (Chap. 10).

5

Split predicates and subjects

The arrangement of subject, copula and predicate may be more complex when either the subject or predicate consists of more than one term. It is particularly common for the predicate to contain more than one word, and it may indeed be quite long. There are undoubtedly many cases where esse follows a long predicate in the pattern S pred. est, but sometimes esse is inserted within the predicate (or similarly within the subject). If esse breaks into a long subject or predicate, I refer to the phenomenon as a ‘split subject or predicate’.35 What causes esse to be placed not at the beginning or end of a long predicate, but at some point within it? The answer to this question has much to tell us about the nature of the copula as a focusing element, and about the determinants of its placement. I begin therefore with examples of split subjects and predicates. I shall then deal with another illuminating structure which does not belong conveniently with the six patterns listed above (in Chap. 4), namely the use of esse as an auxiliary and its placement in relation to the participle. Finally I shall turn to the six orders listed above.

5.1 Member of antithesis and other rhetorical terms as host

Esse is often attached to one member of an antithesis, splitting a subject or predicate in the process. One can draw a parallel between the placement of esse and that of quidem. The host of quidem is perhaps most frequently one member of an antithetical pair (see (7)). Similar to examples of esse following a contrastive term are those in which it follows one of a series of words in anaphora. In the discussion below I include one or two such cases alongside antithetical terms as host. I begin with an example of esse linked to a rhetorical word in anaphora. (48)

Caes. Gall. 5.7.8 saepe clamitans liberum se liberaeque esse ciuitatis

The second dependent clause might be paraphrased [se] × liberae ciuitatis × esse, with crosses marking the divisions between subject, predicate and copula. Esse is inserted within the predicate liberae ciuitatis. Freedom is the key idea here, and the importance of liber is shown by its repetition. Esse occupies the same place in its colon as se in the previous colon: both are attached to the adjectives in anaphora. Se is not, however, placed in what might be regarded as the conventional Wackernagel position. Often the subject pronoun in an acc. + infin. construction seems to be enclitic on the higher verb

16

J. N. ADAMS

Here se is placed further back, apparently so that it may be linked to the emphatic keyword

liberum. This example suggests the need for a refinement of Wackernagel’s law as it is conventionally thought to determine pronoun position in Latin. Here it seems to be the emphatic character of liberum which effects the placement of se; the nature of the host is influential, and it has power to attract not only the copula but also the unstressed pronoun. (49)

Cic. Balb. 27 quod commune liberorum est populorum, non proprium foederatorum

= quod × commune liberorum populorum × est

Liberorum and foederatorum are in antithesis. The position of est is determined by that of the antithetical host, not by a rule governing its placement in the clause as a whole. (50)

Cic. De orat. 3.37 quinam igitur dicendi est modus melior = quinam × modus melior dicendi × est36

In the context it is dicendi which is a contrastive word. Language (dicendi) is contrasted with delivery, as is made explicit in the next clause: nam de actione post uidero. The genitive dicendi is not only placed in the emphatic position before its determining noun; est is drawn to it. Est is in fourth position, unless one is to argue that quinam igitur forms a ‘Kurzkolon.37 (51)

Cic. Att. 1.1.1 Catilina… certus erit competitor = Catilina × certus competitor × erit

Cicero speculates about who will be standing for the consulship. Catiline is a definite candidate (in implied contrast to others, who are only possible candidates). (52)

Cic. Q.fr. 1.2.16 equidem cum spe sum maxima turn maiore etiam animo; spe, ut superiores fore nos confidam; animo, ut … = (S) × spe maxima × sum

There is an obvious contrast between spe and animo, which Cicero rather labours. (53)

Cic. Sest. 39 M. Crassus, quocum mihi omnes erant amicitiae necessi-tudines, uir fortissimus, ab eadem illa peste infestissimus esse meis fortunis praedicabatur = Crassus × infestissimus meis fortunis × esse praedicabatur

The alleged hostility (infestissimus) of Crassus to Cicero is contrasted with his actual friendship (omnes amicitiae necessitudines). The key-word of the predicate is infestissimus.

SPLIT PREDICATES AND SUBJECTS

(54)

17

Cic. Leg. agr. 2.5 quae cum omnibus est difficilis et magna ratio, tum uero mihi praeter ceteros = quae (ratio) × difficilis et magna omnibus × est

Omnibus, part of the predicate, stands in contrast to mihi praeter ceteros. (55)

Caes. Gall. 5.29.2 breuem consulendi esse occasionem = occasionem consulendi × breuem × esse

The time for deliberation was short; it was action which was needed. Consulendi is loosely contrasted with facturos earlier in the passage: 5.29.1 contra ea Titurius sero facturos

clamitabat, cum … Titurius speaks against earlier speakers who had advised caution (5.28). (56)

Cic. De orat. 3.26 una fingendi est ars = ars fingendi × una × est

In this context a comparison is developed between sculpture (fingendi) and various other arts, including pictura. The pattern is identical to that in (55) above. The subject in each case consists of noun + genitive of a gerund, with the gerund providing a contrast with various other components of the context. In both examples the adjective (predicate) comes at the start, and that is undoubtedly because it too is focused. One can explain the position of est from its attachment to an antithetical element of the subject, but in the clauses as a whole another pragmatic factor is at work, i.e. the focusing of the predicate by initial placement (cf. below on (107), (108)). In neither case could esse reasonably be described as standing in the second position in its colon; in both indeed it is closer to the end of the colon than to the beginning. (56) is of additional interest because est could be translated as existential, = ‘there is’; or is the sense rather ‘one is the art of sculpture’? The distinction between esse as copula and the existential use is often by no means clear-cut. See further (57): (57)

Caes. Gall. 5.12.3 hominum est infinita multitudo creberrimaque aedificia fere Gallicis consimilia, pecorum magnus numerus = multitudo hominum × infinita × est… numerus pecorum × magnus ×

(est)

A split subject, with the genitive hominum preceding its determining noun. Hominum and pecorum are contrasted. Est might equally be interpreted as existential here (= ‘there is’), in which case the existential use would have followed the same principle of placement as that which we have seen for the copula. (58)

Cic. Fam. 7.2.3 quod fecissent numquam, nisi iis dolori meus fuisset dolor = meus dolor × dolori iis × fuisset

J. N. ADAMS

18

There is a clear-cut contrast between meus and iis. (59)

Cic. Fam. 2.17.7 quod autem meum erat proprium, ut alariis Transpadanis uti negarem, id etiam populo se remisisse scribit; quod uero illius erat solius, id mecum communicat. = quod × meum proprium × erat

There is a contrast between meum and illius (solius). (60)

Cic. Fam. 11.7.1 cum adhibuisset domi meae Lupus me et Libonem et Seruium, consobrinum tuum, quae mea fuerit sententia cognosse te ex M. Seio arbitror = quae × mea sententia × fuerit

Cicero’s sententia, which the addressee Brutus has learnt from Seius, is contrasted with the rest of the proceedings, which Brutus will learn from another source: reliqua, quamquam

statim Seium Graeceius est subsecutus, tamen ex Graeceio poteris cognoscere. (61)

Hirt. Gall. 8.7.5 compluris esse principes belli auctores, sed multi-tudinem maxime Correo obtemperare, quod ei summo esse odio nomen populi Romani intellexissent = compluris principes × belli auctores × esse.

Several chiefs were responsible for the war, but the multitude mainly obeyed one of them, Correus. Compluris and Correo are in opposition. In most of the examples quoted in this section ((48)-(61)), the subject or predicate is split by the copula in such a way that the copula attaches itself to an antithetical term. The process might be described in more general terms: the copula has been moved from its statistically ‘normal’ position after the predicate and hung instead on the focus of the remark. I use the term ‘focus’, which is notoriously vague, much as it is used by Quirk et al. (1985) (in reference to English) and by von Stechow (1991) (in reference to English and German). The identification of the focus of an utterance in English may be made from the intonation of that utterance: ‘a focussed constituent contains an intonational center, in German and English, generally a falling pitch accent’ (von Stechow (1991, 804)). Often in English the focus is placed at the end of the sentence (end-focus), as in Quirk (et al.)’s example (1985, 1365): (62)

I am painting my living room BLUE

But it may be moved from this predictable position to any other word in the sentence, in which case Quirk et al. (1985, 1365) use the term ‘marked focus’: e.g.

SPLIT PREDICATES AND SUBJECTS

(63)

19

I AM painting the living room blue

(‘focus on the operator’:38 perhaps in response to a remark of the type ‘surely you’re not painting the living room blue?’). Or: (64)

I am painting the LIVing room blue

Here ‘living room’ would probably be contrastive, as in a context such as: ‘I am painting the LIVing room blue, not the BATHroom.’ Focus in this sense cannot be consistently related to traditional distinctions made between the ‘given’ and ‘new’ elements of a sentence, or between ‘topic’ and ‘comment’.39 Often the focus will indeed be ‘new’, but not always. Consider the following: (65)

Here comes John. I will give HIM the job

Him is ‘given’, but is marked focus. Here the marked focus and theme (topic, given) coincide. I wish to draw particular attention here to (64) above, where the marked focus is a contrastive term. It is probably true to say that in sentences containing either an implicit contrastive term, as above, or an explicit contrast, the contrastive term(s) will be focus. This observation is directly relevant to the material collected earlier in this section. In English we can readily identify focus as defined here from the intonation pattern of the sentence. In Latin we do not even know if intonation had any part at all. But the written Latin which has survived is often highly rhetorical in composition, and antitheses are constant. If the copula is moved from clause-final position, or from the position after the predicate, in such a way that it is placed after an antithetical term, then it seems legitimate to say that it has been attached to the focus. I move on in the following sections to consider various different categories of split subjects/predicates, which, I would maintain, have in common the feature that the host of the copula within the split subject/predicate is the focus of the utterance. The various categories identified are not mutually exclusive, as we will see, but I have thought it useful to set up some distinctions which may be rather blurred.

5.2 Adjectives of quantity and size as host No. (66) is rearranged underneath into subject, predicate and copula: (66)

Caes. Gall. 5.41.3 omnem esse in armis Galliam = omnem Galliam × in armis × esse

20

J. N. ADAMS

It will be seen that esse is attached to just part of the subject, omnem. On the other hand in (67) esse follows part of the predicate, but it is the same word, omnis, which is the host: (67)

Cic. De orat. 3.60 omnium fuit facile princeps = (S) × omnium facile princeps xfuit

In (68) it is again part of the subject to which esse is attached, and once again omnis is the host: (68)

Caes. Civ. 1.71.2 omnium esse militum paratissimos animos = animos omnium militum × paratissimos × esse

In (66)-(68) esse is in second position in its clause, but that is hardly the case in (69), where omnium is again the host, but est is in third place on any reasonable colon division: (69)

Cato Agr. 157.2 et acerrima omnium est istarum = (S) × acerrima omnium istarum × est

There seems therefore to be no general rule of second-position placement at work. Nor is the grammatical structure of the clause influential, since esse is inserted indifferently within either subject or predicate. The obvious common denominator is the host word omnis, the grammatical status of which is insignificant. A particularly illuminating example can be seen in (70), though it is not strictly a case of a split subject or predicate: (70)

Cic. Mil. 16 quem immortalem, si fieri posset, omnes esse cuperent

Esse has been taken out of the accusative + infinitive clause quem immortalem (esse) so that it can hang on omnes. Moreover it seems not to have moved forwards, but backwards, within its sentence. Such movement is not at all in keeping with the conventional understanding of Wackernagel’s law. Alternatively one might say that omnes has intruded leftwards into the dependent acc. + infin. construction. However one looks at the structure of the sentence, there seems to be a special liaison between omnes and esse which has caused an interlacing of the higher (main) clause and the dependent acc. + infin. A very similar case can be found in (71): (71)

Cic. Cael. 8 talem te omnes esse existiment40

Omnis belongs to the general class of adjectives of quantity and size, adjectives of the type which often take on special emphasis. They form a coherent group in Latin, and behave in at least one respect differently from ‘objective’ adjectives such as Romanus (as in the phrase populus Romanus). Whereas Romanus regularly follows

SPLIT PREDICATES AND SUBJECTS

21

populus, adjectives such as omnis, magnus, summus, multus, ingens, infinitus and totus are normally placed before the noun.41 Just as anteposition of an objective adjective (including possessive adjectives such as meus, tuus etc.) is the ‘marked’ position used in contrasts and the like (e.g. Romanus populus), so the regular anteposition of magnus, omnis etc. may be taken as a reflection of their potentially focal character.42 In some of the examples cited above omnis can be readily interpreted as focus. (66), for example, admits of the translation ‘the WHOLE of Gaul is under arms’, and (69) ‘… is the bitterest of ALL’. A further possible point of similarity between the antithetical terms as focus seen in the previous section, and adjectives of quantity or size, is that dimensional adjectives are ‘relative’.43 They exist in polar (antonymous) pairs, such as ‘big-small’, ‘ many-few’, ‘all-no(ne)’, etc. They may therefore be inherently contrastive. Whatever the case, it is strikingly true that in many examples where the copula splits a predicate or subject, it attaches itself to such dimensional adjectives. I intend to illustrate the phenomenon further in this section, without analysing every single context to determine whether it is justifiable to see the adjective as the focus. I suspect that, when the adjective of quantity or size acts as host of the copula, it is not always strictly the focus in the sense established in the previous section (see, e.g. (76) below, where tibilmihi are surely the foci). But such adjectives may in Latin (and Greek: see below) so commonly have carried the focus that as a class they had acquired an almost mechanical role of hosting focusing elements (such as quidem and the copula), even in contexts in which they are not easily analysable as focus. It was seen earlier ((11)–(14)) that the focusing particle quidem is sometimes displaced from the genuine focus of an utterance to a favoured host which need not in the context be focused. The similar patterns of placement of dimensional adjectives in both Greek and Latin (see further below) suggest that they had a focal character which was inherited from the parent language. When the copula is attached to an adjective of this type, the host word is a determinant of the order, in that the postpositive is linked to a particular type of host and not simply placed in the second position in its clause whatever the nature of the first word. As it happens, adjectives of this sort are very frequently placed at the head of the clause, and consequently an attached esse will often be second. But that position is not invariable. There is an obvious similarity between the behaviour of esse, and that of quidem. With (66)-(69), compare (10), where omnes is the host of quidem. I list below some further examples in which first omnis, then various other adjectives of quantity or size, serve as hosts of the copula within a split subject or predicate: (72)

Caes. Civ. 1.12.1 omniumque esse Iguuinorum optimam erga se uoluntatem = uoluntatem erga se omnium Iguuinorum × optimam × esse

22

J. N. ADAMS

Here omnium forms part of a complex subject (cf. (68)). (73)

Caes. Gall 6.13.2 in hos eadem omnia sunt iura quam dominis in seruos = omnia iura in hos × eadem × sunt

(74)

Caes. Gall 5.29.3 magno esse Germanis dolori Ariouisti mortem = Ariouisti mortem × magno dolori Germanis × esse

Here the predicate magno Germanis dolori precedes the subject, an order which typically focalises the predicate (see p. 54), and esse is intrusive within that predicate. (75) (76)

Caes. Civ. 1.79.3 tum magno erat in periculo res = res × magno in periculo × erat Cic. Fam. 7.18.1 non tibi maiori esse curae… quam mihi = (S) × maiori curae tibi × (non) esse

Note that here esse is in fourth position in the colon, unless a colon division is to be placed after the antithetical term tibi which is in opposition to mihi. (77) (78) (79) (80)

Cic. Cat. 3.22 quo etiam maiore sunt isti odio supplicioque digni = isti × maiore odio supplicioque digni × sunt Cic. De orat. 3.83 quae mihi persuades maxima esse adiumenta = quae × maxima adiumenta × esse Caes. Gall. 7.21.1 summum esse Vercingetorigem ducem = Vercingetorigem × summum ducem × esse Cic. Imp. Pomp. 28 qui extrema pueritia // miles in exercitu summi fuit imperatoris = (S) × miles in exercitu summi imperatoris × fuit

Is a colon division to be placed after exercitu? If not, fuit comes late in its colon. (81)

Caes. Gall. 7.32.3 summo esse in periculo rem = rem × summo in periculo × esse

The structure is exactly the same as in (75). (82)

Hirt. Gall. 8.7.5 quod ei summo esse odio nomen populi Romani intellexissent = nomen populi Romani × summo odio ei × esse

He (Correus) was the one who had the greatest hatred for the name of the Roman people.

Esse seems to be in later than second position in the colon.

SPLIT PREDICATES AND SUBJECTS

23

I conclude this section with some further remarks about adjectives of quantity and size. It was pointed out by Fraenkel (1928, 41–2, 83–4, 123–4, 164) that adjectives of this class (including numerals) both in Greek and Latin have a marked tendency to be separated from their noun, even when the copula is not present. Note for example the following striking case: (83)

Cic. Flacc. 85 maximas audio tibi, L. Luculle, qui de L. Fiacco sententiam laturus es, pro tua eximia liberalitate maximisque beneficiis in tuos uenisse hereditates44

Pearce (1966, 168–9) collected a number of remarkable examples from Classical prose: e.g. (84) (85)

Cic. Phil. 12.9 omnis aequo animo belli patitur iniurias Caes. Gall. 6.27.4 omnes in eo loco aut ab radicibus subruunt aut accidunt arbores

For some separations in Homer, see (86)-(88): (86) (87) (88)

Homer, Il. 9.474 ἀλλ’ ὅτε δὴ δεκάτη μοι ἐπήλυθε νὺξ ἐρεβεννή Homer, Il. 9.483 πολὺν δέ μοι ὤπασε λαόν Homer, Il. 1.239 ὁ δέ τοι μέγας ἔσσεται ὅρκος

One might be tempted therefore to see the examples listed in this section not as cases of

esse locking on to adjectives of quantity or size, but as typical separations in which esse happens to be placed immediately after the first of the disjoined terms. I would accept that the evidence of Fraenkel and Pearce does reveal an inherited characteristic of these adjectives – namely their tendency to be detached from the noun for emphasis – but it would not be plausible to argue that the position of esse in all such cases is merely accidental. In (66), for example, two elements, the copula and predicate (esse, in armis), intervene between omnem and Galliam. These elements are in an abnormal order (copula, predicate); the usual order (see the statistics given above, p. 14) has been reversed so that esse can be attached to the focused adjective. Nevertheless the separations illustrated by Fraenkel and Pearce do make obvious the special character of certain adjectives of quantity and size in Latin, and help to explain their attraction of focusing clitics such as quidem, as well as of esse. The splitting of a predicate or subject by the copula which gravitates towards a term of the class discussed in this section can be paralleled in other Indo-European languages. For Greek examples see:45 (89) (90)

Lys. 1.7 πασῶν ἦν βελτίστη Lys. 3.36 ἡγοῦμαι πᾶσιν εἶναι δῆλον

24

J. N. ADAMS

I do not have sufficient material to establish whether the phenomenon was as commonplace and well-developed in Greek as it undoubtedly was in Classical Latin. Note too the following example from Serbo-Croat:46 91)

Veliki je pisac Lav Tolstoj ‘Great is writer Leo Tolstoi’ 5.3 Superlative adjectives as host

We have already seen some superlatives (or superlative-equivalents) to which esse is attracted ((78)–(82)). Here I illustrate the phenomenon further by means of some adjectives which do not belong to the class of terms of quantity or size. (92)

(93)

Cic. Fam. 6.21.2 tu, qui coniunctissima fuisti mecum et sententia et uoluntate = tu × coniunctissima mecum sententia et uoluntate × fuisti Cic. Fam. 10.24.5 moderatissimi atque humanissimi fuit sensus = (S) × moderatissimi atque humanissimi sensus × fuit 5.4 Intensifiers as host

In (1) we saw an example of fore splitting the intensifying prefix per from its base (per fore accommodatum), and similarly in (2) an enclitic pronoun splits per from gratum (per mihi gratum). In such cases there is reason to believe that the intensifier is the focus, and that as such it has attracted the focusing enclitic. Note in particular: (94)

Cic. Att. 1.20.7 per mihi, per inquam, gratum feceris

The repetition of per, and the use of inquam after its second occurrence, shows that it is per which is the focus. Shackleton Bailey translates: ‘I shall be most, most grateful if…’ Accordingly it is no surprise to find that often a predicate comprising intensifier + adjective (adverb) is split by the copula, which gravitates to the intensifer: e.g. (95)

Cic. Fam. 16.22.1 etsi enim et audio te et uideo libenter, tamen hoc multo erit, si ualebis, iucundius

Here it is of note that the si-clause is inserted after erit (rather than after multo). Erit was felt to belong with multo (cf. (190)). (96) (97)

Cic. Cat. 1.27 quae mihi uita mea multo est carior Cic. Att. 3.15.5 sed multo est melius abrogari (cf. 3.19.1)

SPLIT PREDICATES AND SUBJECTS

(98) (99) (100) (101) (102) (103) (104)

25

Cic. De orat. 3.92 non multum est maius Caes. Gall. 5.14.1 ex eis omnibus longe sunt humanissimi Cic. De orat. 3.65 ualde autem est absurdum47 Cic. De orat. 3.42 si plane fuerit rusticanum Cic. De orat. 3.119 aliis generibus alii loci magis erunt apti Catull. 23.27 nam sat es beatus Cic. Att. 7.2.7 turpiter fuit maleuolus

There is obviously some overlap between this category and those examples in which the copula is attached to adjectives of quantity or size (note (95)-(98)).

5.5 Demonstratives as host Demonstratives (whether pronouns or adjectives), which have a strong element of deixis,48 and are usually contrastive or focused in some way, often provide the host of esse when it splits a subject or predicate.49 Many of the examples in this section might have been included in 5.1, but it is convenient to treat demonstratives as a separate class. Note first: (105) Caes. Gall. 3.8.1 huius est ciuitatis longe amplissima auctoritas omnis orae maritimae regionum earum, quod et nauis habent Veneti plurimas … = longe amplissima auctoritas omnis orae maritimae regionum earum × huius ciuitatis × est ‘By far the most extensive authority over the whole sea shore … belongs to this last state’ Caesar has just listed three ciuitates. Huius is anaphoric and contrastive, referring to the last of the three. This example is similar to the next. (106) Cic. De orat. 3.42 quae quidem (suauitas) ut apud Graecos Atticorum, sic in Latino sermone huius est urbis maxime propria = quae (suauitas) × maxime propria huius urbis × est

Huius is also contrastive here; there is a comparison in the context between the speech of Athens and of Rome. The antithetical part of the predicate goes to the fore (huius urbis), and the deictic word of that genitive phrase has est attached. I quote now two structurally similar examples from different writers:

(107) Cic. Cat. 2.27 iam non possum obliuisci // meam hanc esse patriam, // me horum esse consulem = hanc patriam × meam × esse

26

J. N. ADAMS

(108) Caes. Gall. 1.44.8 prouinciam suam hanc esse Galliam, // sicut illam nostram = hanc Galliam × prouinciam suam × esse In both passages a contrastive or emphatic predicate is placed first (meam, prouinciam suam), followed by the subject, with esse attached in both cases to the demonstrative part of the subject. Hence (107) ‘this country is mine, I am consul of these men’, and (108) ‘his province was this (part of) Gaul, just as that was ours’. In (107) esse occurs twice, both times in significant positions. Meam and me are placed at the head of their cola, and thereby form the rhetorical figure anaphora. There is however a second pair of emphatic terms, haec and horum, which provide a secondary case of anaphora. In the first colon the subject hanc patriam is split, with esse following hanc. In the second colon it is is the predicate horum consulem which is split, with esse again attached to the demonstrative. The first demonstrative is an adjective, the second a pronoun: there is clearly no point in distinguishing between demonstrative adjectives and pronouns serving as the host of esse. (108) contains a double antithesis. The subjects (hanc (Galliam), illam (Galliam)) are contrasted, as are the predicates (prouinciam suam, (prouinciam) nostram). The contrast between hanc and illam is brought out by the attachment of esse to the first, and the contrastive predicates are given the focal positions at the beginning and end of the utterance. (107) and (108) have something to tell us about the possible relationship between copula placement and Wackernagel’s law. The two cola containing hanc esse have an identical syntactic structure. In (107) esse occupies the third slot in the linear order of its colon, and in (108) it occupies the fourth. The place of esse cannot be related to any ‘law’ of second-position placement. Its placement is a function in each case of two factors operating together: (i) both writers have focused the predicate by assigning it to the head of its colon; (ii) both have attached esse to the stressed demonstrative component of the following subject (cf. on (56) above for a similar combination of determinants operating together). The apparently differing positions of esse in the two cola are entirely due to the differing lengths of the anteposed predicates. It is worth noting that the colon containing esse in (107) has only four words. This is by no means an unusually short colon on Fraenkel’s criteria.50 Those scholars who have accepted the general validity of Wackernagel’s law (particularly as a description of pronoun position) have tended to take a loose view of what constitutes ‘second’ position.51 But in a colon of only four (or fewer) words, an item which is only ‘as good as’ second (i.e. third) may be closer to the end of the colon than to the beginning. That is so of esse in both (107) and (108). A ‘law’ of second-position placement which can have this effect must at least be subjected to review. In (107) and (108) the crucial determinant of the position of esse is undoubtedly the position which Cicero and Caesar chose to assign to its host. The place of esse in relation to the colon boundaries is an irrelevance.

SPLIT PREDICATES AND SUBJECTS

27

I move on to some further examples of the copula attached to demonstratives: (109) Caes. Gall. 3.13.5 cum his nauibus nostrae classi eiusmodi congressus erat ut una celeritate et pulsu remorum praestaret, reliqua pro loci natura, pro ui tempestatum, illis essent aptiora et accommodatiora = reliqua × aptiora et accommodatiora illis × essent ‘When our fleet encountered these ships it proved its superiority only in speed and oarsmanship; all else, having regard to the locality and the force of the storms, was more suitable and adapted to them (H.J. Edwards (Loeb), adapted)

Illis is implicitly contrastive (with nostra classis); it is part of the predicate. (110) Cic. Fam. 12.14.8 sed medius fidius // ea esse eum opinione … Note the position of the unstressed pronoun eum here. It is not second in the colon, even if one allows that sed medius fidius is a short colon. It has been forced into third position because esse has attached itself to the focused demonstrative ea. (111) Caes. Gall. 1.32.4 hoc esse miseriorem et grauiorem fortunam Sequanorum quam reliquorum, quod soli ne in occulto quidem queri neque auxilium implorare auderent = fortunam Sequanorum × hoc miseriorem et grauiorem × esse × ( quod …) This example may serve to introduce a whole category of disjunctions. The adverbial hoc, which belongs closely with the comparative adjectives and may be treated therefore as a component of the predicate, is anticipatory, in that it foreshadows the quod-clause which follows. As such it is strongly focused: ‘the lot of the Sequani is the more pitiable and serious in THIS respect, namely that…’ The disjoined demonstratives illustrated so far have mostly had the kind of anaphoric reference which demonstratives usually have: that is, they have been backward-looking, referring to something in the preceding context. But demonstratives, whether pronominal/ adjectival or adverbial, may also look forward. Anaphoric reference may be forward-looking (anticipatory) as well as backward-looking.52 Anticipatory demonstratives were undoubtedly emphatic. They are often placed early in the colon, and are frequently separated from the rest of the predicate by esse. I illustrate here a variety of examples, both adjectival/pronominal and adverbial, to which esse is attached. With (111), compare: (112) Cic. De orat. 3.143 hoc erunt inferiores quod … (113) Caes. Gall. 4.30.1 quae hoc erant etiam angustiora quod …

J. N. ADAMS

28

In the following cases an anticipatory demonstrative adjective forming part of the predicate is separated from its associated terms: (114) (115) (116) (117)

Cic. Att. 5.12.3 eo sis animo quo ... Cic. Att. 6.1.6 sed tamen hoc sum anim o: si ... Cic. De orat. 3.32 cum ille is sit orator u t ... Caes. Gall. 5.41.5 sese tamen hoc esse in Ciceronem populumque Romanum animo u t ...

Here are some detached anticipatory adverbials: Cic. Pis. 44 horum alterum sicfuisse infrenatum ... ut ... Cic. De orat. 3.25 tamen ita sunt uaria saepe ut ... Cic. De orat. 3.38 quod uidemus ita esse necessarium ut ... Cic. Pis. 20 neque tam fui timidus u t ... Cic. De orat. 3.124 nam neque tam est acris acies in naturis hominum et ingeniis u t ... (123) Caes. Gall. 5.27.4 quod nono adeo sit imperitus rerum u t ... (124) Caes. Civ. 1.22.6 adeo esse perterritos non nullos ut ... (118) (119) (120) (121) (122)

5.6 Appendix: ‘clitic climbing’ I move on finally in this chapter to a special category of examples, which may be illustrated first by the following: (125) Cic. De orat. 3.26 qui omnes inter se dissimiles fuerunt, sed ita tamen ut neminem sui uelis esse dissimilem = neminem x sui dissimilem x esse (uelis) There is a contrast between the notions of differing from other (sculptors), and ‘differing from oneself’. Various sculptors were different from one another, but we would not wish any of them to be different from what he himself was (sui dissimilem). Dissimilis is repeated, and becomes banal in the second clause. The contrastive element here is sui, which is definitely the focus of the second clause. Yet it does not have esse directly attached. Instead esse follows the higher verb uelis, and the whole unit uelis esse is attached to sui. This example is not unique, and it may perhaps be related to a tendency for clitics to ‘climb out’ of infinitival clauses and to cliticise on to the higher verb.53Cliticisation of the copula on the higher verb might, it appears, take precedence over the tendency which has so far been illustrated for the copula to attach itself to the focal term of a clause. Instead, the higher verb with its enclitic esse is linked to the focus. In the example quoted, uelis esse splits the predicate sui dissimilem in order to

SPLIT PREDICATES AND SUBJECTS

29

hang on the antithetical term sui, but there are many other cases where the focal predicate or subject, whether it be an antithetical term or not, does not need to be split because it comprises a single term. I do not restrict myself here to cases such as (125) which entail the splitting of a predicate or subject. It is worthwhile to digress slightly to illustrate in general the attachment of units consisting of matrix verb + esse to the focus of a clause. The types of focus in the following list have for the most part been illustrated earlier. I start with a significant example: (126) Cic. Att. 13.22.3 scripta nostra nusquam maio esse quam apudote

Nusquam and apud te are contrasted, with malo esse attached to the first of the pair. The sequence nūsquām mālo ēssĕ consists of a string of long syllables. The clausula would have been improved if esse had been placed before malo, in direct contact with esse (nusquam ēssĕ mālŏ: a double trochee). It follows that the order was not determined by the requirements of the clausula. Similarly in (127) if fuisse had been placed before the verb the clausula (double trochee) would have been unchanged: (127) Cic. Att. 13.32.3 Postumium autem, cuius statuam in Isthmo meminisse te dicis, Aulum nesciebam fuisse There are undoubtedly cases where the order matrix verb + esse (fuisse) produces a better clausula than might have been achieved by the reverse order, but examples (126) and (127) show that the rhythm of the clausula cannot be invoked as the primary determinant of the pattern. The determinant lies deeper, perhaps in an inherited feature of the language. The same pattern can be found in Greek:54 e.g. (128) Lys. 12.40 βεβαιοτέραν ἐνόμιζον εἶναι (129) Lys. 12.49 εὖνοί φασιν εἶναι I quote a selection of examples of such ‘clitic climbing’ in Latin with little or no further comment on the clausula: (130) (131) (132) (133) (134)

Plaut. Most. 125 nec sumptus ibi sumptui ducunt esse Cato, Agr. 6.1 optimam ducunt esse Cato, Agr. 6.4 optimus ducunt esse Cato, Agr. 127.2 incenatum iubet esse Metellus Numidicus, Orat. fr. 6 (Malcovati p. 212) quoniam se ampliorem

putat esse

(135) Cic. Verr. 1.13 de iure enim libertatis et ciuitatis suum putat esse iudicium, et recte putat (136) Cic. Leg. agr. 2.5 hoc ... beneficium ... cum adoanimiomeiofructum atqueolaetitiam duco esse permagnum, turn adocuramosollicitudinemque multo magis

30

J. N. ADAMS

Ad animi meifructum atque laetitiam is in contrast with ad curam sollicitudinemque. The structure of the first clause is: hoc beneficium x permagnum ad animi mei fructum atque laetitiam x esse duco. Duco esse thus splits the predicate. (137) (138) (139) (140) (141) (142) (143) (144) (145)

Cic. Mur. 15 summam uideo esse in te, Ser. Sulpici, dignitatem generis Cic. Mur. 15 paria cognosco esse ista in L. Murena Caes. Gall. 4.3.1 publice maximam putant esse laudem quam ... Cic. Cael. 44 diutius molestae non soient esse Cic. Att. 7.2.5 nihil potuit esse iucundius Cic. Att. 13.6.4 qui turn non potuerat esse legatus Cic. Att. 13.45.1 non uidebatur esse dubium Cic. Att. 5.18.1 Bibulus nondum audiebatur esse in Syria Varro, Rust. 1.2.3 nullam arbitror esse (existential)

Note that in the last six examples esse has been detached from negatives by the higher verb. It was seen earlier (Chap. 3) that a predicate + copula combination such as molestus est if negated typically becomes either molestus non est or non est molestus. The order of (140) corresponds to molestus non est, whereas that of (143) corresponds to non est molestus. It follows that non has been placed in exactly the same positions in relation to matrix verb + esse as those it typically occupies in relation to esse alone. Matrix verb + esse behave as a unit.

(146) Cic. Att. 7.3.10 quod si δήμους oppida uolumus esse (147) Cic. Att. 12.19.4 praesertim cum hoc alterum neque sincerum neque firmum putemfore (148) Cic. Att. 7.3.2 qua re celeritas nostri reditus ἀμεταμέλητος debet esse (149) Cic. De orat. 3.165 etenim uerecunda debet esse translatio Note that esse debet and debet esse would give the same clausula. (150) Varro, Rust. exercendae (151) Varro, Rust. (152) Varro, Rust. secundus ubi

1.2.23 neque ideo non in quo agro idoneae possunt esse non

1.6.5 quod segetes meliores existimantur esse campestres 1.7.9 primus ubi uineae possint esse bono uino et multo, hortus inriguus, tertius ubi salicta, ...

A particular manifestation of the pattern shows the auxiliary esse separated from an associated participle by the higher verb:

(153) Plaut. Persa 171 satis tibi spectatam censebam esse (154) Cato, Agr. 158.1 ubi iam coctum incipit esse

SPLIT PREDICATES AND SUBJECTS

31

(155) Cic. S. Rose. 47 haec conficta arbitror esse a poetis (156) Cic. Quinci. 74 defensum neget esse Quinctium (157) Cic. Cael. 51 quoniam emersisse iam e uadis et scopulos praeteruecta uidetur esse oratio mea (158) Cic. Phil. 2.74 deprehensus ddicebatur esse cum sica (159) Cic. Phil. 2.112 caritate te et beneuolentia ciuium saeptum oportet esse It must be noted finally that esse is not invariably placed after the higher verb with the focus before. With the examples quoted above, compare, for instance:

(160) Cic. Att. 12.5b hunc Fannium qui scripsit historiam generum esse scripseram Laeli (161) Cic. Att. 13.19.4 u t nullae esse possent partes meae (162) Cic .Att. 13.19.5 aptius esse nihil potuit (163) Varro, Rust. 1.2.2 et simul cogitans portam itineri dici longissimam esse The factors which combined to determine the placement of esse in these numerous examples were clearly complex and various, and I am unable to do more here than identify a pattern and raise the question of its relationship to what appear to be alternative patterns. I have used the expression ‘clitic clim bing’ here for want of a better description. Indeed, given that (e.g.) arbitror esse (145) is positioned as if it were simply esse, it might be more accurate to describe the phenomenon as ‘higher verb lowering’. I conclude this section with an example of a different type:

(164) Cic. Att. 13.33.1 neglegentiam miram! semelne putas mihi dixisse Balbum et Faberium professionem relatam? ‘Amazing carelessness! As though Balbus and Faberius had not told me time and again that the declaration had been presented!’ (Shackleton Bailey) Here the unstressed enclitic pronoun is not placed second in the sentence, after the focus semel, but instead it seems to have cliticised onto the higher verb like esse in many of the examples quoted above. The unit putas mihi then follows the focus.

5.7 Conclusion In this chapter all of the elements which have been illustrated as not only hosting esse but as causing it to intrude within a predicate or subject of more than one term have been focused or contrastive in some way: antithetical terms (5.1), adjectives of quantity or size (5.2), superlative adjectives (5.3), intensifiers (5.4), and focused demon-

32

J. N. ADAMS

stratives, including anticipatory terms (5.5). If esse is an enclitic (see below, p. 86), then it does not merely gravitate mechanically towards the second slot in the linear order of the colon. It selects certain categories of hosts, which may or may not occupy the first slot. It follows that the question where esse is placed in the colon cannot be divorced from the question where the categories of focused terms which serve as its hosts are typically placed. In discussions of clitics in Indo-European languages the nature of the host term has traditionally been disregarded. I intend to show elsewhere that it is not only the copula in Latin which has a preference for focused and intensive terms as its host. Unstressed personal pronouns are often attached to the same types of terms, and they need not, contrary to widespread belief, be placed in the second position in their colon, at least in Classical Latin. I have deliberately chosen in this chapter not to offer any statistics showing, say, the frequency with which esse is attached to or separated from hosts such as omnis, magnus etc. It would not do to imply that there was a necessary connection between omnis, magnus etc. and the copula, such that if (e.g.) magnus and est were constituents of the same clause, est would obligatorily be placed after magnus. There might be another potential host of the copula in the clause (such as an antithetical term: see e.g. (52)), in which case a competition took place between the two focused terms to host the copula. Moreover the basic, unmarked order S pred. est might be preferred (particularly in some writers and in some types of texts) to a marked order displaying a dislocation of the copula from its statistically most ‘norm al’ host, the predicate. Esse had a focusing role which gave it the potential to move about within the clause, but equally a writer might choose to place it mechanically after the predicate. The factors determining the placement of esse are thus so complex that it would be pointless to compile crude statistics tabulating cases of attachment of esse to (e.g.) magnus vs. cases of separation. Every example of separation would have to be examined in its own right, to determine what countervailing factor or factors might have influenced the placement of esse. I illustrate these contentions with a significant example: (165) Cic. Cat. 1.19 cum a me quoque id responsum tulisses, me nullo modo posse isdem parietibus tuto esse tecum, quia magno in periculo essem quod isdem moenibus contineremur This example should be compared with (75) above, where the same predicate (magno in periculo) is used in conjunction with the copula. In the earlier example the copula is attached to the dimensional adjective (magno erat in periculo). In (165), however, there is a contrast between safety (tuto esse) and danger, and the antithetical term periculo has been preferred to the dimensional term as host. A choice constantly had to be made by a writer between adopting the basic order (S) pred. est, and attaching esse to a focal term, and there might be more than one candidate for the role of focus.55 Plain statistics, divorced from a consideration of the pragmatic role of the

SPLIT PREDICATES AND SUBJECTS

33

constituents of a clause, would have little to tell us about the determinants of copula position. The placement of esse when it is an auxiliary verb throws further light on its focusing role, or (to put it the other way around) on its attraction to focused or intensive hosts. I move on in the next chapter to esse as auxiliary.

6

Esse as an auxiliary

A common pattern in Classical Latin is that seen in the following example: (166) Cic. Pis. 2 Piso est a populo Romano factus, non iste Piso The passive periphrasis factus est is split in two, with est attaching itself to the first word of the sentence. A slightly more complex case can be seen in: (167) Cic. Att. 4.16.8 nam in Campo Martio // saepta tributis comitiis // marmorea sumus et tecta facturi ‘In the Campus Martius booths for the comitia tributa, of marble and roofed, we are about to m ake’ Here marmorea undoubtedly begins a new colon. Sumus has been detached from the future participle facturi, and placed second in the colon. Should we say that esse has gone mechanically to the second position in these clauses, or that it has been attracted to a focused first element? Almost certainly the latter. In (166) there is an obvious antithesis between Piso (‘a Piso’, ‘the name Piso') and iste Piso ( ‘this particular bearer of the nam e’), and est has been attracted to the first member of the antithesis. It was seen in 5.1 that the copula esse (as distinct from the auxiliary use) often behaves in precisely this way. Similarly in (167) marmorea presents striking information and is implicitly contrastive, in that such saepta would normally not be of marble. There is in general a striking similarity between the placement of the auxiliary esse and that of the copula as illustrated in the previous chapter. When the auxiliary is detached from its participle and placed earlier in the clause, it frequently moves towards exactly the same categories of focused elements as those which often cause esse to split the constituents of the predicate or subject. I now illustrate some of the categories of terms to which est (…factus) is attached. 6.1 Auxiliary attached to a member of an antithesis (168) Caes. Gall. 6.40.7 quorum non nulli ex inferioribus ordinibus reliquarum legionum // uirtutis causa // in superiores erant ordines huius legionis traducti

ESSE AS AN AUXILIARY

35

A particularly clear example of the phenomenon. Inferioribus and superiores are contrasted opposites. There had been a transfer from lower ranks of the other legions, to higher ranks of this. Erant has been moved forward to the second of the antithetical pair, thereby splitting superiores from ordines. IIn superiores stands at the start of a colon. (169) Caes. Gall. 3.9.4 pedestria esse itinera concisa aestuariis, nauigationem impeditam propter inscientiam locorum ... sciebant (170) Caes. Gall. 1.18.10 (nam equitatui quem auxilio Caesari Aedui miserant Dumnorix praeerat): eorum fuga // reliquum esse equitatum perterritum (171) Cic. Red. sen. 38 nihil umquam senatus de P. Popilio decreuit, numquam in hoc ordine de Q. Metello mentio facta est. tribuniciis sunt illi rogationibus // interfectis inimicis // denique restituii

Sunt is not only moved up behind the contrastive word, but there is a colon (comprising a clause-equivalent ablative absolute) intervening between the colon in which Sunt belongs syntactically and that in which it is located. (172) Cic. Red. sen. 36 quoniam in rem publicam sum pariter cum re

publica restitutus

Strictly in and cum are the contrasted terms, but as proclitics they are treated as indi­visible from their noun. See further (228). (173) Cic. Sest. 27 quae quidem turn mutatio non deprecationis est causa facta, sed luctus (174) Cic. De orat. 3.39 sed usitatis ita poterit uti, lectissimis ut utatur, is qui in ueteribus erit scriptis studiose et multum uolutatus A paradox. He who wallows in ancient texts will be able to use the most choice words from current speech. (175) Ovid, AA 3.657 sed semel est custos longum redimendus in aeuum ‘But just once must a guard be bribed; that will last a long tim e’ (176) Mart. 3.62.6 aurea quod fundi pretio carruca paratur, quod pluris mula est quam domus empta tibi 6.2 Auxiliary attached to adjectives of quantity or size It was shown above (5.2) that esse is often attracted to adjectives of quantity or size. For the auxiliary removed from its participle and placed as a postpositive behind such adjectives, note:

36

J. N. ADAMS

(177) Caes. Gall. 5.10.3 itaque ex eo concursu nauium // magnum esse incommodum acceptum There is a colon division after nauium; on the face of it there is an ‘interlocking’ word order here (with magnum and incommodum belonging together, and esse and acceptum). To describe the order thus would be facile. If acceptum is seen as the predicate and magnum incommodum the subject, it becomes obvious that this is a typical case of a split subject, caused by the movement leftwards of esse to

magnum.

(178) Caes. Gall. 5.18.2 magnas esse copias hostium instructas (179) Cic. Pis. 37 lege autem ea quam nemo legem praeter te et conlegam tuum putauit // omnis erat tibi Achaia Thessalia Athenae cuncta Graecia addicta Note that the liaison between omnis and erat forces the pronoun tibi into third position. (180) Cic. Cat. 2.11 omnia sunt externa unius uirtute terra marique pacata. domesticum bellum manet, intus insidiae sunt, intus inclusum periculum est, intus est hostis Here there is a contrast between external peace (externa … pacata) and internal troubles. The whole phrase omnia externa really provides one member of an antithesis, with externa the key word. Esse is therefore slightly displaced, and the displacement is caused by its affinity with omnia. This type of displacement is similar to that illustrated at (11)—(14), where quidem selects a demonstrative as its host rather than the expected antithetical term (cf. also (76)).56

(181) Cic. De orat. 2.1 si homines non eruditi summam essent prudentiam atque incredibilem eloquentiam consecuti (182) Cic. Cat. 4.9 fortasse minus erunt hoc auctore et cognitore huiusce sententiae mihi populares impetus pertimescendi (183) Plaut. Most. 959 triduom unum est haud intermissum (184) Caes. Gall. 3.14.5 una erat magno usui res praeparata a nostris (185) Caes. Gall. 5.29.6 unam esse in celeritate positam salutem (186) Cic. Phil. 1.9 turn uero // tanta sum cupiditate incensus ad reditum (187) Cic. Phil. 2.5 tantam essent gloriam consecuti (188) Caes. Civ. 2.39.2 exiguas esse copias missas 6.3 Auxiliary attached to a superlative adjective (189) Cic. Cael. 69 hie etiam miramur, si illam commenticiam pyxidem // obscenissima sit fabula consecuta?

ESSE AS AN AUXILIARY

37

6.4 Auxiliary attached to a demonstrative (190) Cic. De orat. 3.9 quis enim non iure beatam L. Crassi mortem illam, quae est a multis saepe defleta, dixerit, cum horumo ipsorum sit, qui turn cum ilio postremum fere conlocuti sunt, euentum recordatus? The combination hic ipse is by its very nature emphatic. This example is remarkable for the length of the separation of the auxiliary from its participle. The placement of the relative clause strongly suggests that (horum) ipsorum sit is a unitary constituent (with sit enclitic on ipsorum). For the placement of a subordinate clause in this position, cf. (95). It should also be observed that the verb is deponent. The auxiliary esse might be drawn away from its participle both in active and in deponent verbs. See (191): (191) Cic. De orat. 3.16 quo in genere orationis utrumque oratorem cognoueramus, ido ipsum sumus in eorum sermone adumbrare conati Note id ipsum, and cf. hic ipse in (190). (192) Cic. Att. 3.8.2 sed haeco est pridie data quam ilia

Haec and illa are in antithesis. (193) Cic. Pis. 11 quas leges ausus est non nemo improbus, potuit quidem nemo conuellere, quam potestatem minuere, quo minus de moribus nostris quinto quoque anno iudicaretur, nemo tarn effuse petulans conatus est, haeco sunt, o carnifex, in prooemio sepulta consulatus tui

Haec summarises various institutions and powers mentioned earlier in the sentence which no-one has been able to eradicate in the past, and is obviously marked focus, though given in the context. (194) Plaut. Most. 636 quid eo est argento factum ? (195) Cic. De orat. 3.54 uero enim oratori, quae sunt in hominum uita, quandoquidem in ea uersatur orator atque ea est ei subiecta materies, omnia quaesita, audita, lecta, disputata, tractata, agitata esse debent Note that here est follows a demonstrative which participates in a rhetorical repetition; ea is marked focus. Cf. (48). (196) Bell. Afr. 92.4 ab eoque sunt metu periculoque liberati (197) Cic. Cat. 3.4 itaque ut comperi ... comitemque eis adiunctum esse T. Volturcium, atque huic esse ad Catilinam datas litteras

38

J. N. ADAMS

Huic is both given and marked focus. To these examples might be added cases in which esse follows an emphatic personal pronoun: (198) Cic. Phil. 2.27 an L. Tillius Cimber // me est auctorem secutus? (199) Cic. Phil. 2.116 nisi uero aut maioribus habes beneficiis obligatos quam ille quosdam habuit ex eis a quibus est interfectus, aut tu es ulla re cum eo

comparandus

This example might have been classified as showing attachment of esse to one member of an antithetical pair.

6.5 Auxiliary attached to an anticipatory word I here illustrate the attraction exercised on the auxiliary by forward-looking anaphoric elements. (200) Cic. De orat. 3.35 quod non est ita, diligentissimeque hoco est eis, qui instituunt aliquos atque erudiunt, uidendum, quo sua quemque natura maxime ferre uideatur (201) Caes. Gall. 3.29.2 eiusmodio sunt tempestates consecutae uti ... (202) Cic. De orat. 3.3 tamen omnium consensu // sico esse turn iudicatum57... (203) Cic. De orat. 3.32 ad nosmet ipsos iam reuertor, quoniam sico fuimus semper comparati, ut ... administrata (204) Cic. Cat. 3.18quam quam haecom nia, Quirites, ita sunt a me

u t ... (205) Cic. Pis. 7 atque ita est a me consulatus peractus ut ... (206) Cic. Pis. 15 huic enim populo ita fuerat ante uos consules libertas insita ut ...

6.6 Auxiliary attached to a temporal adverb Adverbs meaning ‘then’ (= ‘at that tim e’), ‘now ’ ( ‘at this tim e’), ‘immediately’ ( ‘at that/this very tim e’; cf. ipse alongside hic/ille) are of course demonstratives, and they could therefore have been included in a previous section. I illustrate examples of this kind separately, because temporal adverbs were undoubtedly as a class influential hosts of esse. (207) Cic. Cat. 2.19 quod si iam sint id quod summo furore cupiunt adepti (208) Cic. Cat. 3.29 quamquam iam est periculum depulsum

ESSE AS AN AUXILIARY

39

(209) Cic. Cael. 18 qui cum et ex publica causa // iam esset mihi quidem molestam, sibi tamen gloriosam uictoriam consecutus (210) Cic. Red. sen. 14 cum uero edam litteris studere incipit et belua immanis cum Graeculis philosophari, turn est Epicureus non penitus illi disciplinae ... deditus, sed captus ... (211) Cic. Att. 1.13.1 ego enim te arbitror // caesis apud Amaltheam tuam uictimis // statim esse ad Sicyonem oppugnandum profectum (212) Plaut. Most. 648 continuo est alias aedes mercatus sibi (213) Cic. Cat. 3.14 qui una cum hoc Furio // semper erat in hac Allobrogum sollicitatione uersatus

Semper is not strictly the same as the other adverbs which appear in this section, in that it is not demonstrative. It may be paraphrased ‘at all tim es’, and is therefore analogous to adjectives of quantity and size acting as host (cf. omnis). 6.7 Auxiliary attached to a negative If a negative is placed early in a clause, it may have the effect of drawing an auxiliary to itself: (214) Plaut. Mil. 629 nam equidem hau sum annos natus praeter quinquaginta et quattuor (215) Metellus Numidicus, Orat. fr. 6 (p. 212 Malcovati) quern ego mihi neque amicum recipio neque inimicum respicio, in eum ego non sum plura

dicturus (216) Cic. Cat. 1.11 non est saepius in uno homine summa salus periclitanda rei publicae (217) Cic. Cat. 1.29 non est uehementius seueritatis ac fortitudinis inuidia quam inertiae ac nequitiae pertimescenda (218) Cic. Cat. 4.7 alter intellegit mortem a dis immortalibus // non esse supplici causa constitutam, sed ... (219) Cic. Cat. 4.8 quod uidelicet intellegebant // his remotis // non esse mortem ipsam pertimescendam (220) Cic. Pis. 27 neque est ille uir passus in ea re publica quam ipse decorarat atque auxerat diutius uestrorum scelerum pestem morari (221) Cic. Pis. 44 ut ea ex prouincia quae fuerit ex omnibus una maxime triumphalis // nullam sit ad senatum litteram mittere ausus (222) Cic. Pis. 79 non sum ego propter nimiam fortasse constantiae cupiditatem adductus ad causam58 (223) Cic. Pis. 90 quorum nihil est quod non sit lege Iulia ne fieri liceat sanctum diligenter

40

J. N. ADAMS

(224) Cic. Phil. 2.81 nec enim est ab homine numquam sobrio postulanda prudentia Here enim takes precedence over est. (225) Cic. Att. 4.18.1 nondum est plane expeditus (226) Cic. De orat. 3.47 ex quo uereor ne nihil sim tui nisi supplosionem pedis imitatus So far a correlation has been observed between the factors determining the detachment of the auxiliary esse from its participle, and the conditions under which, as a copula, esse is displaced so as to split either a complex predicate or a long subject. W hether functioning as auxiliary or copula, esse is often drawn to one member of an antithetical pair, to adjectives of quantity or size, to emphatic demonstratives and to anticipatory words. Similarly, just as the copula is regularly attached to non, so the auxiliary may be moved from its participle and attached to a negative placed early in its clause. For the sake of clarity I have listed the various elements to which esse may be drawn separately, but they have something in common. Each is emphatic or focused: esse is often placed after the focus of a clause. Esse can be said to have a focusing function, at least in the types of structures which have been looked at so far; it remains to look at the six different orders in which subject + predicate + esse may occur.

6.8 The pattern factus ... est I have discussed hitherto in Chap. 6 cases in which the auxiliary moves to the left away from its participle and selects the focus of the clause as its host. But when an auxiliary is detached from its participle the pattern is not necessarily est …factus. A compre­hensive account of auxiliary placement would have to deal not only with the banal order est factus and indeed est factu, but also with separations in the order factus … est. I here offer a few cursory observations on this last pattern, which at first sight seems in some cases at least to be motivated by a combination of two determinants: fronting of the participle for a special reason, and clitic attachment of the auxiliary to a focused constituent. The operation of these two determinants can be illustrated from the following example:

(227) Cic. De orat. 3.8 ut mihi non erepta L. Crasso a dis immortalibus uita, sed do nata mors esse uideatur Here the participles erepta and donata are opposites in a strong contrast, and they have been fronted in a non A sed B structure. But uita and mors provide a secondary contrast of opposites. Esse leans on the second member of the second contrasting pair. In many

ESSE AS AN AUXILIARY

41

of the cases of separations quoted in previous sections, esse might appear to occupy the second position in its clause. Here, however, it is third or even fourth constituent in its colon. In no sense can its placement be related to W ackernagel’s law. The following case is similar:

(228) Cic. Cat. 1.27 ut abs te non emissus ex urbe, sed immissus in urbem esse uideatur Here emissus and immissus are contrasted, as are ex urbe and in urbe. Logically in the second antithesis it is ex and in which are in opposition, but the prepositional phrases are indivisible and the auxiliary is accordingly tacked on to the whole phrase (see (172)).59 Despite the apparent linking of esse in the two sentences just quoted to a focused term, it is likely that the major determinants of the pattern factus … est were (i) the need felt in certain contexts to highlight the participle by moving it forward in the sentence to an abnormal position away from its auxiliary; and (ii) the role which might be given to a disjoined word-group of the typ factus … est in effecting a disjunction of two other elements, and thereby directing the focus on to one (usually the first) of those two disjoined elements. I illustrate further determinant (i):

(229) Cic. S. Rose. 137 turn uero in isto bello non recreatus neque restititus sed subactus oppressusque populus Romanus est Here is the familiar structure non A sed B. The focus lies on the contrasted pairs of participles, not on populus Romanus. The function of the placement of populus Romanus seems to be purely to push the focused participles forward to a position disjoined from est. (230) Cic. Phil. 1.7 nec ita multum prouectus reiectus Austro sum in eum ipsum locum unde conscenderam ‘Without having travelled forward far, I was driven back to the very place from which I had started’.

Reiectus is in a contrast with prouectu. The disjunction of reiectus from the auxiliary apparently confers on it a prominent position appropriate to its antithetical character. The function of Austro is to effect the disjunction, that is to throw reiectus into relief. Austro is not itself obviously focused. (231) Livy 9 .13.4 itaque non fusi modo hostes sunt sed ne castris quidem suis fugam impedire ausi Apuliam dissipati petiere

42

J. N. ADAMS

Here again the focus is on the participle fusi, enclosed by non … modo, rather than on the term before the auxiliary. These examples throw a new light on (227)-(228). The element common to the examples quoted so far in this section is the fronting of emphatic participles by detaching them from their auxiliary. Esse is not necessarily tacked on to a focused term. If there is a secondary antithesis present in the context, as in (227)-(228), then one of the contrasted terms might be placed before esse.60But fundamentally the pattern factus … est seems to be a form of disjunction which gives to factus a marked position which it would not have if conjoined with its auxiliary. In the pattern est…factus, est is attracted leftwards to a focused host, whereas in the pattern factus … est it need not have such a host at all. I cite a few further cases of type (i). (232) Cic. Cat. 2.14 non ille a me spoliatus armis audaciae, non obstupefactusoacoperterritus mea diligentia, nono de spe conatuque depulsus,osedo indemnatus innocens in exsilium eiectuso a consule ui et minis esse dicetur The rhetorical weight of the sentence lies on the protracted non A sed B construction, though here the words which disjoin eiectus from esse may have an emphasis of their own. (233) Cic. Cael. 76 amputandao plura sunt illi aetati, si quidem efflorescit ingeni laudibus, quam inserenda

Amputanda and inserenda are antithetical. I turn now to determinant (ii). It will be useful to begin with a negative characteristic of (e.g.) (233) above. Amputanda and sunt are disjoined, but there is no other disjunction associated with the verb-phrase: plura stands on its own. Now contrast (234) below: (234) Cic. Cat. 3.15 his decretao uerbis est Here there is a double disjunction, in that his is separated from uerbis, just as decreta is separated from est. The focus is on the anticipatory demonstrative his. Decreta has been brought into service to separate his from uerbis, and thereby to place the focus on the first of the disjoined terms. Presumably decreta est together might instead have been placed between his and uerbis. The order of (234) seems to be an alternative to his est uerbis decreta. The difference between his decreta uerbis est and his est uerbis decreta might repay investigation, but it is beyond my scope to pursue the question here. There is though clearly a functional overlap between the phenomenon of disjunction, and the cliticisation of esse on to the focus of an utterance. But it would

43

ESSE AS AN AUXILIARY

be a mistake to interpret his … uerbis in the sentence his est uerbis decreta merely as a case of disjunction which happens to be effected by est. Esse, as we have seen, can attach itself to, and thereby focalise, words such as hic even when that attachment does not entail a disjunction of hic from another word. I conclude with two more examples of the same type as (234): (235) Cic. S. Rosc. 149 haec acta res est ut ...

(236) Cic. Phil. 1.21 altera promulgata lex est Finally I give some selective statistics showing the distribution of the patterns factus …

est and est … factus in Cicero, Caesar and Livy:

ffactus … est S. Rosc. Quinct. Cat. 1-4 Cael. Pis. Caes. Civ. 2

Cic.

Livy 9.1-18

9 6 8 5 1 1 16

est … factus 1 1 26 23 16 7 1

In Cicero’s two earliest speeches (S. Rose., Quinct.) factus … est predominates by 1 5 :2 , whereas in the three later works est … factus predominates by 65 : 14. Caesar has est … factus more often than factus … est, but in Livy it is factus … est which markedly predominates. The significance of these variations is unclear to me. Livy’s exploitation of the pattern factus … est might prove worthy of investigation.

7

The relative pronoun qui + auxiliary/copula

In the previous chapter various types of hosts were identified which had the power to attract the auxiliary leftwards. There is at least one other condition under which esse (auxiliary, and also copula) often moves towards the start of its colon. I refer to the tendency for esse to be attached to the relative pronoun qui. Such placement is not necessarily related to the focusing function of esse discussed earlier. I deal at length in this chapter with the relationship between esse and qui. Following on from the previous chapter, I begin with qui + auxiliary, and then consider qui + copula separately. 7.1 Auxiliary attached to the relative pronoun (and other subordinators) The relative pronoun is a common host for the auxiliary. I give below statistics from a selection of Cicero’s works and from one book of Caesar showing the frequency with which the auxiliary (in the pattern est…factus) is attached to the relative pronoun. For simplicity I exclude esse + future participle or gerundive and restrict m yself to the type est…

factus.

Total no. of examples of est...

qui

est attached to quis cum

factus61

Cic. S. Rosc.

Quinct. Cat. 1-4 Cael. Pis. Phil. 1-2 De orat. 3.1-54 Caes.Ciu. 2

other subordinating conjunctions

26 23 16 16 11 7

— — 5 3 1 3 2 2

1 — 2

— 1 3

—

—

—

—

1

—

—

101

16

5

8

5

1 1

1 — —

1 3

— — 2 1 1 1

Of 101 examples, almost 16% show attachment of esse directly to the relative pronoun; there are other cases of est…factus in relative clauses where est is separated from the relative, but I leave these aside for the moment. The significance of these statistics is

THE RELATIVE PRONOUN QUI + AUXILIARY/COPULA

45

difficult to interpret in isolation, but it should be noted that est is attached to qui and cum, which, when temporal, can be classified as a temporal relative, rather more often than to other subordinating conjunctions. There would seem to be a special bond between qui and esse, but more decisive evidence is required before such a conclusion can be upheld. That the relative was a favoured host for ess can be more clearly demonstrated from a consideration of the placement of the copula esse (as distinct from the auxiliary use) in relation to qui. 7.2 Relative + copula When Wackernagel (1892, 428-9), following Seyffert, quoted a few examples from Cicero where est follows a relative (or interrogative) pronoun, he was more concerned to establish the tendency for esse to be placed second under a variety of conditions than to argue that it had a particular bond with the relative. In this section I consider the question whether esse is more frequently placed second in relative than main clauses. It has long been recognised that verb-final position is more common in relative than in main clauses.62 Accordingly, if just one verb, esse, could be shown to be more frequent in second (as distinct from a later) position in relative than in main clauses, that would be compelling evidence that the relative pronoun had some sort of special liaison with the copula, or at least that there was some other factor motivating the placement of esse immediately behind the relative. I give here statistics from three texts (Caesar, Gall. 1, Bell. Afr., Cic. De orat. 3.1-60) showing the incidence of qui est vs. qui …est (where est may be anywhere in its clause other than next to the relative pronoun; by est I mean all forms of the copula). For comparison I also demonstrate the relative frequency with which verbs other than esse are placed immediately after the relative pronoun.

Caes. Gall. 1 Bell. Afr. Cic. . De orat. 3.1-60

Caes. Gall. 1

Bell. Afr. Cic. De orat. 3.1-60

qui est

qui … est

8 11 7

6 15 10

26

31

qui V

qui ... V

6 7 8

107 84 84

21

275

46

J. N. ADAMS

The significance of the figures for esse is brought out by the figures for other verbs. In relative clauses verbs other than esse are 13 times more common late in their clause than in juxtaposition with the relative pronoun. Esse, on the other hand, is almost as frequently placed next to the relative pronoun as at some later point. Some further observations can be offered on the above statistics. (i) In the Bell. Afr., of the 15 cases of esse separated from the relative pronoun, 8 are of the root fu- rather than es- (fuit at 3.1, 21.2, 34.3, 37.5, 38.2, 74.1 , fuerunt at 44.2, fuerunt at 31.2). On the other hand, of the 11 examples of esse in second position, only one is of the root fu- (44.1). It follows that forms of the root es- are in second position 10 times, in a later position 7 times. In Caesar, Gall. 1, 2 of the 6 examples of the pattern qui… esse have a verb-form of the root fu- (13.2, 31.1), whereas none of the 8 examples of qui esse has a form of esse of root fu-. Forms of the root es- are thus in second position 8 times, and postponed 4 times. Similarly in Cicero, De orat. 3.1-60 none of the 7 cases of qui esse shows the root fu -, whereas 4 of the 10 cases of qui… esse do show this root (11, 26, 26, 60). In this text, then, forms of the root es- are in second position 7 times, in a later position 6 times.

qui est Caes. Gall. 1

Bell. Afr. Cic. De orat. 3.1-60

qui … est

8 10 7

4 7 6

25

17

—

qui fuit Caes. Gall. Bell. Afr. Cic. De orat. 3.1-60

Forms of root es-

Forms of root fu-

qui …fuit

1 —

2 8 4

1

14

It can be seen that es- is more often juxtaposed with qui than postponed, whereas fuis rarely juxtaposed with qui. At this point it is appropriate to take up an observation of W att (1980) which was referred to earlier (n. 32). W att’s statistics show that in Cicero, in the competition for position between esse and enim early in the sentence, the form est was far more likely to be given precedence over enim than any other form, and that forms of root fu- hardly ever precede enim. It might have been revealing if Watt had given details of the host

THE RELATIVE PRONOUN QUI + AUXILIARY/COPULA

47

terms which precede esse/enim, but even in the absence of such information it seems reasonable to conclude that est had a more pronounced clitic character than forms of root fu-, and that may well be because, as a monosyllable, it was unaccented. In our own material cited at (36)-(42), est precedes enim and autem in attachment to negatives (non, nullus). It is surely not an unrelated phenomenon that we now find es- linked with particular frequency to qui in clauses of the sort in which other verbs tend to occupy the final position. If the negative was an ancient host of the copula, it would seem to follow that the relative pronoun too had an ancient and special relationship with the copula, a relationship manifested only as a relic in the Classical period by the tendency for forms of root es- to hang on the relative. Disyllabic as well as mono­syllabic forms may have been unaccented, at least under certain conditions (see below, p. 87); on the unaccented disyllabic particle quidem, see above, p. 4. (ii) In Bell. Afr., of the 7 verbs other than esse which are juxtaposed with qui, 5 are compounds of sum (3.1 praeerat, 10.1 abest, 29.2 praeerat, 63.1 aberant, 68.1 aberat), and another is a periphrastic passive formed with erat, with erat standing next to the relative pronoun (6.1 erat missus). (iii) To the examples of qui est in Cicero De orat. 3.1 -60 might be added 9 quae est … defleta, 10 a quo erant … seruata. I have not classified such split periphrastic passives as cases of qui est in this section. There is a comparable example at Caes. Gall. 1.16.1 (frumentum quod essent publice polliciti). (iv) Frequently, particularly in Cicero, when esse is postponed in a relative clause, its position can be seen to have been determined by another of the influences which have been identified as determinants of its placement in this monograph: e.g. De orat. 3.25 quae … tamen ita sunt uaria (attachment to the anticipatory demonstrative adverb ita\ cf. the formula quae cum ita sint/essent, and cf. 5.5, 6.5), 43 in quibus minimum est litterarum (attachment to a word of quantity), 47 ea quae ... maxima essent (attachment to a superlative adjective expressing size), 56 qua nihil est ... iucundius (attachment to a negative). For forms of root fu -, see 60 is qui ... omnium fuit facile princeps (attachment, as often, to omnis), 26 in qua praestantes fu e ru n t... (attachment to an emphatic superlative-equivalent). I conclude that, except where another determinant of position was at work, esse was much more likely than any other verb to be placed immediately after the relative pronoun in a relative clause, particularly in forms of the root es- as distinct from fu-. Fu- forms always have at least two and often three syllables, whereas the root es- is probably most often found in the monosyllabic form est. It is likely that this distinction is relevant to the different behaviour of the two roots. I will return to fui and its placement later (on (367); also 12.2).

48

J. N. ADAMS

It is not only esse that tends to attach itself to the relative pronoun. That same tendency for quidem has been noted above (see (14), where quidem is drawn away from a contrastive term to the relative), and, even more strikingly, the nominative pronominal forms ego and tu display a marked affinity with the relative.63Krisch ( 1990, 68-9 with n. 13) noted that relatives often host enclitics such as weak pronouns in other early Indo-European languages. We have seen numerous cases of anaphoric elements (demonstratives and temporal adverbs: see 5.5, 6.4, 6.6) acting as hosts of the copula, and the relative pronoun is the anaphoric element par excellence. But it was not necessarily the anaphoric character of demonstratives as such which caused them to be favoured as hosts. The demon­stratives illustrated earlier, though generally referring back to something given in the context, also usually expressed marked focus. It is that characteristic which they share with the other hosts of the copula identified here. The relative pronoun, however, though thematic, is rarely also the marked focus of its clause. The frequent attachment of the copula to relative pronouns is therefore not necessarily a manifestation of the same phenomenon as that so far identified. It is necessary to dismiss at this point a doctrine which has become well established concerning the status of the relative pronoun (and of subordinators) in early Latin. Hofm ann-Szantyr (1965, 399) refer to the frequent placement of the relative pronoun in the ‘enclitic’ position, particularly in Old Latin. They had in mind cases in which qui is placed not at the head of its clause but in second (or indeed a later) position. If qui were a clitic, it would be hard to see why esse (and indeed enclitics such as quidem and unstressed pronouns)64 should so readily have favoured it as a host. The idea that in early Latin qui was enclitic owes much to Marouzeau’s misleading presentation of the facts (1949, 121-35). He states (1949, 121): ‘Les mots qu’on peut appeler subor­donnants: relatifs et conjonctions de subordination, semblent avoir participé en latin ancien de la construction des mots

accessoires; ils tendent à occuper dans la phrase la place seconde, après le premier mot autonome ’ (my italics). He goes on to state on the next page that in the most ancient legal

texts ‘la position seconde semble être la règle’ (for such subordinators). This assertion, followed by quotation of three passages from the Twelve Tables showing ubi and si (twice) in second position, does not stand up to examination. In fact in the Twelve Tables considered as a whole relative pronouns and subordinating conjunctions almost invariably occupy the first position (si 25 times, ni 6 times, cum once, donee once, cui 3 times, qui 5 times, qua, quod and quo once each). The only two examples of postponed subordinating conjunctions are at 1.6 rem ubi pacunt and 8.21 patronus si clienti fraudem fecerit. In this second case the post­position of si throws patronus into focus, as is appropriate in a polarised opposition of the type patronus/cliens. The truth is that in the early literary language there was probably a greater readiness than in Classical Latin to postpone a subordinator so that the first place might be given to an important element in the sentence. Pinkster (1990, 170) puts it correctly thus: ‘The occurrence of words of these categories [i.e. subor­dinators] in the second or later position is rather caused by the need to place other

THE RELATIVE PRONOUN QUI + AUXILIARY/COPULA

49

words in the first position of the sentence, than by the fact that the words themselves are unaccented.’ The idea that relative pronouns were ‘enclitic’ in early Latin can be discarded. But the problem of the relationship between attachment of esse on the one hand to qui and on the other to the categories of words discussed earlier in this work is a real one. There is evidence that originally in Latin restrictive relative clauses preceded the main clause.65 As typical cases of relative clauses of this type I quote: (237) C. Sempronius Gracchus, Orat. fr. 32 (p. 184 Malcovati) quae uos cupide ... adpetistis atque uoluistis, ea si temere repudiaritis, abesse non potest quin ... (238) Metellus Numidicus, Orat. fr. 6 (p. 212 Malcovati) quem ego mihi neque amicum recipio neque inimicum respicio, in eum ego non sum plura dicturus In sentences such as these the relative pronoun is anaphoric in the ‘anticipatory’ sense, in that it is picked up by a following demonstrative. The focused nature of the relative is sometimes more obvious in this type of sentence. It should be noted that in both sentences the relative is immediately followed by a personal pronoun (or string of pronouns); these are no doubt clitics. Perhaps the tendency for esse to gravitate to the relative pronoun is partly explicable as a relic of the attraction exercised by relative pronouns which were anticipatory in this way. It may not be possible to explain decisively why esse is so frequently linked to the relative pronoun, but it would be a mistake merely to make the assumption that the phenomenon is a relic of a more general ‘law’ whereby Indo-European enclitics went to the second position. The evidence of Greek and Latin is overwhelming that, whatever the normal place of other enclitics, the most basic position for the copula was after the predicate. It was therefore just as likely to be in final position in a clause as second. Its tendency to follow the relative, which would not usually be its predicate, suggests not a rule of second-position placement, but a special status for the relative pronoun as a host of clitic elements. Attachment to the relative may be a phenomenon independent of, and earlier than, attachment to the types of focused constituents which have been identified in this paper as typical hosts of the copula in Classical Latin.

7.3 Some further statistics relating to the auxiliary and its attachment to qui I return to the auxiliary and its relationship to qui. I offer here some statistics illus­ trating the relative frequency of the patterns qui est … factus and qui … est … factus. The following figures comprise every example of qui or a subordinator followed by est … factus (i.e. perfect participle; forms in -urus and -endus are excluded) in the works of Cicero and Caesar listed in section 7.1.

50

J. N. ADAMS

qui est … factus

qui … est … factus 9 (adjusted figure 6: see below)

16

cum (etc.) est …factus

cum (e tc .)... est …factus 19

13 figure for cum alone

8

5

figure for other subordinators (i.e. excluding cum) 5

14

Overall, est is attached to a relative/subordinator 29 times, compared with 28 examples in which additional constituents are inserted between the subordinator and the auxiliary. I return to these latter cases in the next section. Esse can be seen to be more commonly linked directly to qui than to other subor­ dinators taken en masse, particularly if slight adjustments are made to the figures. In the adjusted figure I have excluded in the second column (qui… est …factus) cases where the relative is accompanied by a noun (Pis. 64 quo ex ordine, Cat. 3.25 quo in bello, Cael. 73 in qua prouincia). The unaccompanied relative pronoun has est (... factus) linked to it 2.6 times more often than separated (1 6 :6 ). Similarly cum est (... factus) outnumbers cum ... est(.. .factus) by 8 : 5. In other types of subordinate clauses, however, esse is less commonly attached immediately to the subordinator (sub. ...e st ... (factus) predominates by 14 : 5). I exclude from consideration the few cases in the material where an interrogative pronoun introduces the clause containing the separation. Since cum (originally quom) is of the same root as the relative, the relative would appear to have had a special bond with esse which subordinators as a class did not share. Various questions remain unanswered and may be unanswerable. A glance at the statistics on p. 44 will show that, whereas in Cicero’s middle and late works the pattern est … factus (whether in main or subordinate clauses) is common, in his earliest speeches, the Pro Roscio Amerino and Pro Quinctio, it hardly ever occurs. The only example in the Pro Roscio is in an indirect question, where esse follows the inter­rogative pronoun (78), and the only example in the Pro Quinctio is in a cum-clause (29 a quibus cum esset certum auxilium petitum; cf. 53, where esset is separated from a gerundive). It is hard to believe that in these two early speeches conditions would nowhere else have accommodated the pattern est … factus. The conclusion is inescapable that in the appropriate conditions a writer had available a stylistic choice (between est … factus and, e.g., factus est), and that Cicero in his early speeches chose, for whatever reasons, not to exploit the full variety of orders open to him. The language

THE RELATIVE PRONOUN QUI + AUXILIARY/COPULA

51

could clearly accommodate dislocations of esse under certain conditions, but there was no condition which could compel such a dislocation. Esse, if it was enclitic, was clearly not one of those clitics (like Romance weak pronouns) which are subject to rigid rules of placement. It would have to be regarded as peripatetic, selecting its host from a variety of possibilities. I return below (12.2) to the nature of esse as a mobile clitic. I conclude this section with a remark about interrogative pronouns as hosts of esse. In section 7.1 I chose to give statistics for quis as host alongside those for qui as host, because Wackernagel had lumped together cases of qui est and quis est (1892,428-9). But attachment of the copula to the interrogative quis should not necessarily be assumed to be the same phenomenon as attachment to qui. Interrogative quis (which in the material considered here usually introduces an indirect question) is often focused in much the same way as the other hosts of the copula discussed above: e.g. (239) Cic. S. Rosc. 78 dubitate etiam nunc, iudices, si potestis, a quo sit Sex. Roscius occisu, ab eone qui propter illius mortem in egestate et in insidiis uersatur, cui ne quaerendi quidem de morte patris potestas permittitur, an ab eis qui quaestionem fugitant The interrogative pronoun is obviously the focus: it is picked up by ab eone and an ab eis.

(240) Cic. Cat. 2.6 uideo cui sit Apulia attributa, quis habeat Etruriam, quis agrum Picenum, quis Gallicum Another indirect question. That the interrogative pronoun is focused is shown by its repetition.66

7.4 Some further observations on the pattern e s t ... factus in relative clauses The statistics given in the preceding section show that esse, if separated from its participle in a relative (or subordinate) clause, does not necessarily come immediately after qui etc. The question arises under what conditions it might be postponed in relative or cumclauses. Consider the following passages: (241) Cic. De orat. 3.9 cum horum ipsorum sit, qui turn cum ilio postremum fere conlocuti sunt, euentum recordatus

Sit follows a focused demonstrative. (242) Cic. Cat. 3.14 qui una cum hoc Furio // semper erat in hac Allobrogum sollicitatione uersatus

52

J. N. ADAMS

Here erat follows the temporal adverb semper, which probably should be analysed as beginning a colon within the relative clause. (243) Cic. Cael. 18 qui cum et ex publica causa // iam esset mihi quidem molestam, sibi tamen gloriosam uictoriam consecutus Similar to (242). Esset attaches to a temporal adverb which begins a colon embedded in the temporal clause. (244) Cic. Cael. 68 sed scire cupio quid habeat argumenti ista manumissio; in qua aut crimen est Caelio quaesitum aut quaestio sublata ...

Est is placed after the first member (crimen) of an antithesis. (245) Cic. Quinct. 11 cum me esset attente auditurus Philippus Me is emphatic (loosely contrastive). (246) Cic. Phil. 2.88 sed ad auspicia redeamus, de quibus Idibus M artiis fuit in senatu Caesar acturus

Fuit follows a temporal expression. Various categories of words familiar from earlier chapters may be preferred to qui/ cum as hosts of the auxiliary, in which case the auxiliary will often be pushed into a later position in the clause. There may, as it were, be a competition among potential host-terms to precede the copula. It should, however, be stressed that there was no compulsion on a writer to separate an auxiliary from its participle in a relative clause. Separations of the type illustrated in this section, where esse seeks out (or is attracted to) a focal host, are readily related to the behaviour of the copula as seen in earlier chapters, but it remains unclear what factors might have motivated a writer to leave the auxiliary instead behind its participle. It is, however, clear enough that there was an optional focusing use of the auxiliary (copula) available, in relative as well as main clauses. A different pattern again can perhaps be seen in the following examples: (247) Cic. Cael. 29 cum is non suo crimine sed multorum uitio sit in quoddam odium iniustum uocatus If non suo crimine sed multorum uitio were a colon (or indeed two cola) in the sense of that term as used by Fraenkel, one would expect (on the evidence of examples such as (242) and (243) above) a new colon to begin with a focused word to which sit was attached. The whole (antithetical) phrase is apparently the host of sit, in which case sit is the fourth constituent of the clause.

THE RELATIVE PRONOUN QUI + AUXILIARY/COPULA

53

Note also: (248) Cic. Pis. 64 uidere équités Romani non possunt, quo ex ordine // uir praestantissimus et ornatissimus L. Aelius est te consule relegatus Again est does not obviously have a single-word host: is the host the whole laudatory expression uir – Aelius? Long cola as hosts deserve to be investigated in their own right. It is clear from the material in this chapter that there are vestiges in Classical Latin of a tendency for esse (copula and auxiliary) to cliticise on to the relative pronoun qui. The question under what influences periphrastic passive verbs take the forms they do in relative clauses (e.g. qui factus est, qui est factus, qui factus … est, qui est…factus, etc.) is a complex one which it is beyond the scope of the present work to consider in detail. I have been concerned only to establish with selective evidence the attracting power of qui, while drawing attention in passing to the additional problems raised by the forms of periphrastic verbs containing the auxiliary esse.

8

The orders predicate est subject, predicate subject est

The previous discussion has concentrated on dislocations. Little has been said so far about the six orders in which the three elements subject, copula and predicate might in theory occur. The question arises whether in any of these patterns esse can be interpreted as ‘enclitic’ in the sense which that term has tended to be given above, i.e. as attached to a focused host. The answer to this question in general terms is that in two patterns, predicate est subject and subject est predicate, est does often have a comparable role to that seen above, but a complex variety of other determinants has to be taken into account. In another pattern, est S pred. (also est pred. S, which is less frequent), a completely different use of the copula must be recognised. I begin with the order pred. est S. This order may help to explain the phenomenon which has been illustrated at length, that is the tendency for esse to be linked to an emphatic (often initial) word. There is no mystery about why a predicate should sometimes be fronted. If the predicate is taken to the head of the clause, statistically an abnormal position, it is almost certain that the writer will be seeking to throw it into relief. Homer, for example, who habitually uses the order subject predicate copula, sometimes places the predicate first for obvious effect: e.g.

o Homer, Il. 2.129-30 τόσσον ἐγώ φημι πλέας ἔμμεναι υἷας Ἀχαιῶν | Tρώων o Homer, Il. 9.30 δὴν δ’ ἄνεῳ ἦσαν τετιηότες υἷες Ἀχαιῶν o Homer, Il. 9.63 ἀφρήτωρ ἀθέμιστος ἀνέστιός ἐστιν ἐκεῖνος o Homer, Il. 9.116-17 ἀντί νυ πολλῶν | λαῶν ἐστιν ἀνὴρ ὅν … In (249) and (252) the predicate contains an adjective of quantity, and in (251) it is a rhetorical tricolon. The focused character of initial predicates in Latin can be seen from the following two examples: (253) Caes. Gall. 5.34.1 illorum esse praedam atque illis reseruari quaecumque Romani reliquissent = praedam x illorum x esse Note the rhetorical repetition of ille at the head of the next clause.

THE ORDERS PREDICATE EST SUBJECT, PREDICATE SUBJECT EST

55

(254) Caes. Gall. 5.31.2 facilemo esse rem, ... si modo unum omnes sentiant ac probent; contra in dissensione nullamo se salutem perspicere = rem x facilem x esse Note the loosely antithetical nature of the two sentences: if they agreed, everything was

easy; if they disagreed, there would be no safety; the negative nullam has the enclitic pronoun attached, just as facilem has esse. See further: (255) Cic. De orat. 3.34 si paene innumerabileso sint quasi formae figuraeque dicendi (256) Cic. De orat. 3.120 ornatissimaeo sunt igitur orationes eae quae ... (257) Cic. De orat. 3.122 nostra est enim ... nostraoest inquam omnis ista prudentiae doctrinaeque possessio (258) Caes. Gall. 5.12.4 sed eius exiguaoest copia (259) Caes. Gall. 5.13.4 breuioresoesse quam in continenti noctes In the examples quoted in (255)-(259) the predicates belong to the classes of words which typically act as hosts of the copula, such as adjectives of quantity and size. Such words are focused almost by definition. Note too the rhetorical anaphora in (257) (with which compare (253) above), and also that in (256) and (257) the sentence clitics igitur and enim have been forced into third place (cf. (36)-(42)). Example (257) is particularly illuminating. Inquam ‘I say’ logically may be taken as underlining the repetition of nostra, but in both clauses est is inseparable from nostra. In examples (255)-(259) the placement of the copula could be explained in two ways. First, let us assume that the inherited unmarked position of the copula was after the predicate. That is its preferred place in a good deal of Greek (see p. 82), and also, as we have seen, in Classical Latin. If for some reason the predicate is placed at the head of the clause, and if it can be assumed that there was a special liaison between the predicate and copula (of the type which led to the coalescence of pote + est), then one would expect the predicate still to be followed by the copula, i.e. with the latter in second position in the clause. But if the predicate is placed at the start of the clause, it is bound to be positively the focus. A reinterpretation of the role of the copula in such sentences becomes possible. It may be seen not simply as following its predicate, but as leaning on a focused term at the head of the sentence. It is possible that in examples such as these the order predicate-copula was reinterpreted as showing emphatic host + copula, though such a reinterpretation may not be enough in itself, as we will see (p. 85), to explain the acquisition by esse of its focusing function. I turn briefly to the order pred. S. est, which, predictably, is relatively rare (see the statistics, p. 14). A predicate at the start of a clause is almost invariably focused; it should normally attract esse to itself, if the view of the behaviour of esse put forward here has any validity, and that attraction entails the order pred. est S rather than pred. S est.

J. N. ADAMS

56

Here are all the examples of pred. S est in Cato’s De agricultura: (260) (261) (262) (263) (264) (265) (266) (267) (268) (269) (270) (271)

1.5 scito pro ratione fructum esse 1.5 uideto quam minimi instrumenti sumptuosusque ager ne siet 2.6 reliqua quae sint 5.5 scibit in mente familiae quid sit 14.4 tegula integra quae erit, quae non erit ... 14.4 conliciares quae erunt 14.4 uallus quot erunt 19.2 inter arbores medium quod erit 28.2 arbores crassiores digitis quinque quae erunt 38.2 altero ... in altero ignis erit 109 uinum asperum quod erit, lene et suaue si uoles facere 142 uilici officia quae sunt

In most examples esse follows a relative (or occasionally interrogative) pronoun. These are clearly special cases. Esse is enclitic on favoured hosts, and the predicate is placed in the focus position outside the clause. The type of relative clause seen here (with the copula at the end of the clause, immediately preceded by the relative pronoun) seems to have been an old Italic type. Note the following Oscan examples: (272) Vetter 1(A) sakaraklúm herekleís [úp] slaagid púd íst (273) Vetter 28 [… iní tiurr]is nertrak ve[ru urublan]u píís sent (214) Vetter 84 fiisíais púmperiais prai mamerttiais pas set. There is however one writer of those considered in this monograph in whom the order pred. S est is abnormally frequent, namely Celsus. In the sample sections examined (4.1-10) there are 9 examples of the order: (275) (276) (277) (278) (279) (280) (281) (282) (283)

4.1.3 diuersae uiae sint 4.2.5 nisi intolerabilis dolor est 4.2.5 si ex uino uel cruditate origo est 4.5.2 aliud ... malum grauedo est 4.5.2 turbida urina est 4.5.4 si aeque tenuis quarto die pituita est 4.7.4 facilis ad bonam ualetudinem recursus est 4.9.2 melius huic rei lycium est 4.10.3 si sicca tussis est

In some of these examples the predicate in initial position is highlighted (e.g. (277), and particularly (283), where sicca is contrastive (marked focus) and tussis is the (given) topic). The predicate acquires emphasis purely from its position, and does not

THE ORDERS PREDICATE EST SUBJECT, PREDICATE SUBJECT EST

57

attract the copula. Here we seem to have an indication of a weakening of the clitic character of esse. Esse adopts a mechanical position at the end of the clause, and a pragmatic factor - that is, the assignment of the focus to the opening slot - on its own is sufficient to stress the predicate. These examples bring to light a potential incon­ sistency between clitic placement of esse, attached, say, to a focused predicate, and the purely functional placement of the predicate in a key slot of the sentence, unsupported by the attachment of esse. The copula was eventually to be given a mechanical position (before the predicate) in the Romance languages, and in examples such as (277) and (283) there is visible a breakdown in the liaison between the focused predicate and the enclitic copula of a sort which must have preceded the establishment of a fixed position for the copula. I shall have occasion to return below (9.4) to func­ tionally determined placement of the predicate and its potential inconsistency with clitic placement of the copula. The complexity of the above group of examples is further shown by the fact that in at least two cases ((278), (282)) it is the subject (preceding the copula) rather than the anteposed predicate which is ‘new ’ or contrastive in the context. The attachment to such focal elements of the copula is in accord with the principle which has been illustrated extensively already, but it is abnormal that the predicate should be assigned the initial position. Whatever Celsus’ motives for that may have been, the one unifying feature of the nine examples seems to be that the copula is mechanically given the final position, regardless of the pragmatic role of the item which immediately precedes it. Cliticisation of the copula on the focus is not in consistent operation, and the mechanical placement of the copula argues a loss of clitic character. For a comparable example in Cicero to (277) and (283) above in Celsus, see: (284) Cic. . De orat. 3.170 ita fit ut omnis singulorum uerborum uirtus atque laus tribus exsistat ex rebus: si aut uetustum uerbum s i t ... aut factum uel coniunctione uel nouitate, ... aut translatum

Vetustum, which is in a contrast with factum ... and translatum, is predicate; it is placed to the fore, without the attachment of sit. Another writer who, like Celsus, makes frequent use of the order pred. S est, with the predicate taking its emphasis purely from initial placement, is Livy: e.g. (285) Livy 9.4.14 at foeda atque ignominiosa deditio est (286) Livy 9.7.6 tristior deinde ignominiosae pacis magis quam periculi nuntius fuit (287) Livy 9.9.12 si sana mens fuisset (288) Livy 9.21.4 et quamquam anceps dimicatio erat (289) Livy 9.24.2 aut tempore longinqua aut praeceps periculo uictoria esset (290) Livy 9.24.5 fore ut minus intentae in custodiam urbis diurnae stationes ac nocturnae uigiliae essent

58

J. N. ADAMS

(291) Livy 9.28.5 quo apertior aditus ad moenia esset (292) Livy 9.30.8 uino, cuius auidum ferme id genus est Note finally: (293) Petron. 25.1 quia bellissima occasio est It would be hazardous on the basis of such selective evidence from Celsus, Livy and Petronius to argue for a diachronic development, but the possibility might well be investigated further whether the order pred. S est becomes more frequent (relatively to S pred. est) from the Augustan period onwards.

9

The order subject est predicate

9.1 The influence of the subject This order is the most complicated to explain, with a variety of determinants. It should follow from what has been argued so far that one determinant might be the nature of the subject. Certain types of subject ought to attract the copula. That this was in fact the case can be illustrated from Cato. It was noted earlier (Chap. 4) that S est pred. is greatly outnumbered in Cato by S pred. est (by 68 : 5 in chapters 1-50). Below I list all examples of S est pred. in the De

agricultura:

(294) 1.7 uinea est prima, ... secundo loco hortus irriguus 5.1 haec erunt uilici officia 5.2 uilicus ne sit ambulator 9 hoc est praedium quod ... 28.2 id erit ei rei primum ... 76.4 haec erit placenta semodialis 109 id uinum erit lene et suaue et bono colore et bene odoratum 157.1 prima est ‘leuis’ quae nominatur 157.1 ea est grandis 157.2 altera est crispa 157.2 haec est natura et aspectu bona 157.2 nulla est illius modi medicamento 161.4 id est optimum ad earn rem. I have noted just 13 examples, half of which (7) show a demonstrative in subject position before est. We have already seen abundant evidence that demonstratives were favoured hosts of the copula; in the 7 examples above therefore the order is determined on the one hand by the tendency for esse to cliticise on to demonstratives, and on the other by the general tendency of Latin to place anaphoric constituents at the head of a clause. Almost all of these anaphoric pronouns refer to the previous discussion; haec at 5.1 on the other hand is the anticipatory use which has been seen elsewhere. Three of the other examples listed (1.7, 157.1-2 prima est … altera est) share a structural characteristic. A double contrast is presented, on the one hand between the ordinals ‘first, second’, and on the other between the items named.67 It is a feature of Latin of all periods that est is regularly inserted between subject and predicate (or

60

J. N. ADAMS

predicate and subject) in double antitheses. This pattern can obviously be related to the tendency, illustrated abundantly above, for esse to follow one member of an anti­thetical pair. It must also be assumed that the position after esse was felt to be the appropriate place for a member of a secondary antithesis. In another case (157.2) the subject is a negative (nulla). Est is regularly enclitic on non in Cato (see p. 10); cf. 6.2 alius bonus nullus e r i t , discussed above (31). In the list at (294) only those examples are included which have the three expressed components subject, copula and esse. Note the following case of a postponed predicate, where S is not expressed: (295) Cato, Agr. 134.2 precor uti sies uolens propitius ... The order of this prayer formula is probably determined by the mood of the verb. Just as an imperative is often placed at the head of a clause, so a subjunctive expressing a wish may be given prominence in the same way.68 Such examples fall into a wider class displaying ‘focus on the operator’ (for which, see below, p.69). So far it has been established that in Cato esse usually follows the predicate. This pattern may however be overruled if the subject contains a demonstrative or a negative. Esse behaves as an enclitic on these elements, and given that it will usually attach to them the pattern S pred. est may be converted to S est pred. For comparison with Cato I now consider all examples of the order S est pred. in Cicero, S. Rose. 1-60 and Celsus 4.1-10. The 11 examples in Cicero fall into the following categories, most of them familiar from the preceding discussion. Twice esse is attached to a relative pronoun, and once to an interrogative: (296) 6 bona patris .... quae sunt sexagiens (297) 56 quae est cautior (298) 34 quid est in hac causa Four times it follows an anaphoric pronoun: (299) 41 at is quidem

fuit

omnium constantissimus

Here quidem takes precedence over fuit, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that is quidem is a unit. (300) 49 id erit ei maxime fraudi (301) 53 id erit certi accusatoris officium (302) 56 id est suspiciosum Twice esse belonging in an accusative + infinitive construction follows the matrix verb. These patterns must be related to those discussed earlier under ‘clitic climbing’

THE ORDER SUBJECT EST PREDICATE

61

(5.6), though there are additional complexities here which it is beyond my scope to attempt to elucidate. The relationship between a matrix verb and its dependent infinitive deserves further investigation: (303) 51 qui se fateatur esse rusticum (304) 53 uerum haec tu quoque intellegis esse nugatoria There is an example of a double antithesis of the type seen in Cato (1.7): (305) 18 cum hie Roscius esset Ameriae, . . . iste Roscius Romae Here strictly hic and iste provide the contrastive part of the subject, but Cicero has apparently chosen to treat hic Roscius and iste Roscius as unitary constituents (cf. on (338) below). In the following passage sunt has been linked to an antithetical subject: (306) 9 commoditati ingenium, grauitati aetas, libertati tempora sunt impedimento Strictly this example might have been excluded here, because impedimento is only part of the predicate; it has as well a contrastive element (libertati), which is placed in the focus position at the start of the colon. There are only four examples of the order in the sample chapters of Celsus: (307) (308) (309) (310)

4.1.1 quae sunt in partibus 4.4 quae sunt acerrima, id e s t . . . 4.6.2 isque esset in sanguine 4.9.3 cibi uero esse debent neque nimium acres neque asperi

Three of these cases are again of recognisable type: esse follows either a relative or a demonstrative pronoun. Example (310) has a long rhetorical predicate; on this pattern, see below (on (314), and also 9.4). It will be seen that in samples of Cato, Cicero and Celsus, three writers who span the period from the second century B.C. to the first century A.D., there is a high degree of sameness about most examples of the pattern S est pred. It is usually the nature of the first element which determines the position of esse, in that esse is consistently attracted to certain types of host-subjects. The patterns identified so far in this section could be extensively illustrated from Classical Latin. I list below a few examples classified according to the subject which has attracted the copula.

62

J. N. ADAMS

Negative subject (311) Cic. De orat. 3.56 qua nihil est hominibus iucundius (312) Cic. De orat. 3.105 nihil est enim ad exaggerandam et amplificandam orationem accommodatius (313) Cic. De orat. 3.176 nihil est enim tam tenerum neque tam flexibile Note the postponement of enim in (312) and (313). Demonstrative subject (314) Cic. Att. 3.7.3 id est maximum et miserrimum mearum omnium miseriarum

Est might conceivably have been attracted to maximum, but this order leaves the long rhetorical predicate intact in final position. We shall consider in 9.4 the possibility that such long predicates were sometimes deliberately placed at the end (see also (310) above). (315) Cic. De orat. 3.64 non poterunt ipsi esse ... otiosi (316) Cic. De orat. 3.67 quamquam id fuit Socraticum maxime (317) Cic. De orat. 3.80 is sit uerus, is perfectus, is solus orator The repetition of is shows its emphatic character. (318) Cic. De orat. 3.175 in quo illud est uel maximum

Illud is anticipatory. (319) Cic. Att. 7.3.2 quin nunc ipsum non dubitabo rem tantam abicere, si id erit rectius Double antithesis (320) Cic. De orat. 3.67 quamquam Academicorum nomen est unum, sententiae duae (321 ) Cic. De orat. 3.74 cui disciplina fuerit forum, magister usus et leges ... The order is possibly pred. est S. (322) Cic. De orat. 3.78 in qua Velleius est rudis, unusquisque nostrum uersatus (323) Cic. De orat. 3.88 ita fit ut agitatio rerum sit infinita, cognitio facilis

THE ORDER SUBJECT EST PREDICATE

63

If the position of the copula is, at least in part, determined by its tendency to hang on a focused host, then it follows that the order S est pred. will sometimes be determined by the special emphasis of the subject. I quote some miscellaneous examples of the phenomenon. (324) Cic. De orat. 3.78 quid enim meus familiaris C. Velleius afferre potest quam ob rem uoluptaso sit summum bonum Pleasure as the supreme good is by implication contrasted with different ideals of different philosophical schools; in the next sentence the speaker refers to the uirtus of the Stoics. (325) Cic. De orat. 3.153... aut inusitatumouerbum aut nouatum aut translatum. inusitatao sunt prisca fere ac uetustate ab usu cotidiani sermonis iam diu intermissa Three types of uerbum are listed; inusitata, looking back to just one of these, is strongly contrastive. It is ‘given’, but at the same time it is the marked (contrastive) focus. The predicate here is also notably long (see above on (310)). (326) Cic. De orat. 3.155 sic uerbi translatio instituta est inopiae causa, frequentata delectationis. nam gemmareo uites, luxuriemo esse in herbis, laetasoesse segetes etiam rustici dicunt

Verbi translatio (metaphor) became popular as a means of giving pleasure (delectationis (causa)). Even rustici use metaphors. In all three of the illustrations the metaphorical word is put at the head of the phrase (gemmare, luxuriem, laetas). The second and third examples concern us here. In the second the order is S est pred. (though esse may be intended as existential), in the third pred. est S. The item occupying the initial position is placed there as the focus of each example. In the last two examples, whether that initial item is subject or predicate, it has esse attached. Esse seeks out the focused word, whatever its grammatical status. (327) Cic. Pis. 67 quamquam omniso (luxuries) est uitiosa atque turpis Apparently the expressed part of a subject, omnis, has attracted est. Cf. (328) Cic. Att. 3.20.1 quam omniao essent ex sententia

9.2 ‘Thematic’ statements In this section I illustrate a special class of subjects, particularly well represented in the works of Caesar, which seem to attract the copula and generate the order S est pred.

64

J. N. ADAMS

I refer to the subjects of what may be described as ‘thematic statements’, of which the following will serve as an example:69 (329) Caes. Gall. 4.1.3 Sueborumo genso est longe maxima et bellicosissima Germanorum omnium Sentences of this type recur throughout the works of Caesar. An important statement is made about a place, a people or a practice which is the theme of the passage. The thematic subject is placed first, with esse following. The copula may be followed by the predicate alone, as in (329), or alternatively the attachment of the copula to the theme may entail splitting a complex subject and/or detaching an auxiliary use of esse from its participle. The opening words of the Gallic War nicely illustrate the possible effects of such placement: (330) Caes. Gall. 1.1.1 Galliaoest omnis diuisa in partis tris

Gallia is the theme of the sentence, and it has taken precedence over omnis as host of est. The subject Gallia omnis is accordingly split, and likewise est is separated from its participle. I quote below a selection of such thematic statements, a number with the straightforward order S est pred.: (331) Caes. Gall. 6.16.1 natiooest omnium Gallorum admodum dedita religionibus (332) Bell. Alex. 5.1 Alexandreaoest fere tota suffosa (333) Caes. Gall. 3.19.1 locusoerat castrorum editus et paulatum ab imo accliuis circiter passus mille (334) Caes. Gall. 6.19.4 funeraosunt pro cultu Gallorum magnifica et sumptuosa (335) Caes. Gall. 7.55.1 Nouiodunumo erat oppidum Aeduorum ad ripas Ligeris opportuno loco positum (336) Caes. Civ. 2.37.5 castraoerant ad bellum ducendum aptissima natura loci et munitione et maris propinquitate et aquae et salis copia I have used ‘them e’ loosely in this section, and not in any technical sense. The subjects in the sentences quoted vary in their pragmatic role. In (329), for example, Sueborum gens is ‘given’ in the context (i.e. it is the ‘theme’ or ‘topic’), but equally it is the marked focus, in that various peoples are loosely contrasted in the previous context. Here is a case where the topic/theme coincides with the marked focus (for which phenomenon, see above, p. 19, and also (325)). In (334), on the other hand, funera is both ‘new ’ and the focus. The sentences in this section thus contain for the most part focused terms, whether given or new, with the copula attached. I have treated them as a separate group, not because they differ in essence from e.g. (324)—(325), but

THE ORDER SUBJECT EST PREDICATE

65

because they have in common the feature that they express ethnological or geographical assertions, and illustrate particularly well the pattern focused subject + copula. (335) will serve to illustrate another feature of some of these examples. Nouiodunum is mentioned here for the first time. It is new, and definitely the focus. But the long predicate, which falls into two clear parts (oppidum Aeduorum // ad ripas Ligeris opportuno loco positum), presents equally new information about the focused subject. It is not uncommon for a writer to use the copula to mark a clear division between the subject and a long predicate carrying salient information (cf. (325)). It is difficult to isolate the determinant of the order decisively in such a case: the copula focuses the subject, but equally the new information about that subject is left at the end of the sentence or clause. This pattern is particularly common in definitions (as in the De inuentione: see above, Chap. 4, for the frequency of S est pred. in this work); I return to such examples in 9.4. 9.3 The Latin equivalent of the cleft construction (Fr.) c ’est lui qui Ta fait The focusing role of esse and the influence exercised by a focused subject in determining the order S est (pred.) may be further illustrated from another special category of examples. Löfstedt (1966-7, especially 259-63) has identified the nearest equivalent in Latin of the cleft construction of French seen in the heading to this section. From his examples I choose just one: (337) Livy 8.25.10 Charilaus fuit qui ad Publilium Philonem uenit ‘It was Charilaus who ... / Charilaus was the one who

Charilaus is contrastive in the context (with another name mentioned in the previous sentence). It is strongly focused, with fuit attached. The qui-clause is in effect the predicate. This order could function as an equivalent of the modern cleft construction precisely because of the focusing role of esse. 9.4 Cato, Agr. 109 and its interpretation Cato, Agr. 109, quoted in part at (294) above, shows that the placement of the copula in any given case may be extremely awkward to interpret. The example will also serve to introduce a possible different determinant of the order S est pred., referred to in connection with (335) above, which it is however difficult to establish with any certainty. I quote first the whole of the passage: (338) Cato, Agr. 109 uinum asperum quod erit, lene et suaue si uoles facere, sic facito ... id uinum erit lene et suaue et bono colore et bene odoratum

66

J. N. ADAMS

It will be seen that the long predicate lene … odoratum is to some extent repeated from the previous sentence. The information which it expresses is not entirely new. It is possible then that the focus is on the future tense of erit. But employed thus the copula normally precedes both the subject (if expressed) and the predicate (in that order) (see p. 76). Another p. 76). Another possibility is that id uinum has been treated as a unit, with the demonstrative component responsible for the attraction of erit (cf. (305)).70 An alternative possibility is that it is the length of the predicate which has determined its postponement. The order subject est predicate sometimes seems to be found when the predicate is long, complex or rhetorical, and contains the salient information of the sentence. If this were a correct interpretation of Cato 109 and of other examples which I will come to, then it would have to be allowed that the order was determined not by the attachment of esse as enclitic to a focused host, but by a different (and inconsistent) tendency for the focus of the utterance, or alternatively detailed information expressed in a predicate of some length, to be placed at the end of the sentence.71 The functional exploitation of the final position for this purpose is a well established principle of Classical Latin word order in sentences not containing a copula, as may be illustrated by the following example: (339) Cic. Att. 1.6.2 (Quintus frater) secum habebat hominem χρηστομαθῆ, D. Turranium Pinkster (1990,178) quotes this sentence with the following comment: ‘In this sentence

Quintus frater is Topic (not explicitly present). The most salient information (Focus) is ... in final position. Habere is a relatively “ colourless” verb. What Cicero wants to say is not that his brother has brought a scholar with him, but who or what kind of person he has brought with him .’ The new information comes last. If it is correct to see an inconsistency between the attachment of esse to the focus, and the placing of the focus in final position (i.e. after esse), then that inconsistency would presumably reflect the fact that esse was losing its clitic character and that functional patterns of ordering were becoming more influential. The starting-point for a transition from clitic placement of esse to functional placement of the focused predicate at the end of the clause might possibly have been in those cases where (i) a complex predicate did not offer an obvious host for the copula, and (ii) it was convenient in the interests of clarity to have a demarcation between the subject and the complex predicate. Note (340), which is typical of numerous definitions in the De Inuentione: (340) Cic. Inv. 1.9 memoria est firma animi rerum ac uerborum ad

inuentionem perceptio The new information (i.e. the essence of the definition) comes after est. If est were placed at the end of the whole sentence, there would be an initial ambiguity about the agreement of firma.

THE ORDER SUBJECT EST PREDICATE

67

Further examples of rhetorical or weighty predicates, or predicates containing markedly ‘new ’ information, which are located after the copula, can be found in (341)-(349): (341) Cic. Sest. 21 utile est rei publicae nobilis homines esse dignos

maioribus suis (342) Cic. Att. 7.2.6 dedecus est nostrum, nostrum inquam, te coniungens (343) Cic. Att. 12.53 hie nobiscum sunt Nicias et Valerius Here the names are introduced as new to the context. (344) Caes. Gall. 1.31.13 hominem esse barbarum, iracundum, temerarium (345) Caes. Gall. 5.12.7 loca sunt temperatiora quam in Gallia, remis-

sioribus frigoribus (346) Caes. Gall. 6.15.2 atque eorum ut quisque est genere copiisque

amplissimus (347) Caes. Gall. 6.29.4 siluam, quae est totius Galliae maxima (348) Caes. Civ. 1.70.4 montem, qui erat in conspectu omnium excelsissimus (349) Petron. 44.14 nunc populus est domi leones, foras uulpes The predicates in (346)-(348) contain a superlative, which is placed right at the end of the clause. Note particularly (347)-(348), in both of which the copula and predicate are in a relative clause. The potentially strong initial position is taken by the relative pronoun. The superlative accordingly goes to the other strong position, at the end of the clause.72 It is, however, often impossible to be sure that a pragmatic delaying of the predicate is the only or indeed the primary determinant of the order in such cases. Not infre­ quently it may be argued that it is attraction exercised by the subject which determines the placement of the copula. Such a view might be argued, for example, from (345) above, which might readily have been cited in section 9.2 alongside (333). Similarly in (340) memoria can be interpreted as marked (contrastive) focus, since Cicero is contrasting and distinguishing the various partes of rhetoric. If it was convenient to place the long predicate at the end, it was equally convenient to attach est to the focus. In any definition the term to be defined is bound to be thematic in some sense, and its thematic character (see 9.2 above) may have been enough in itself to attract the copula. For some definitions in another writer displaying the order S est pred., see: (350) Vitr. 1.1.1 ea nascitur ex fabrica et ratiocinatione. fabrica est continuata ac trita usus meditatio ad propositum deformationis ...

ratiocinatio autem e s t ... Both fabrica and ratiocinatio are ‘given’, but also marked (contrastive) focus.

68

J. N. ADAMS

Similarly in those relative clauses in which an emphatic superlative adjective is in final position (see above), the tendency for the copula to attach itself to the relative is at least as important a determinant of the final placement of the predicate as is the focal potential of final position. Note further:

(351) Cic. De orat. 3.41 nam de uoce nondum ea dico quae sunt actionis,o sed hoc quod mihi cum sermoneo quasi coniunctum uidetur Actionis is in a contrast (with sermone). Has it been placed after sunt because sunt has attached itself to quae, or because Cicero was exploiting the potential of final placement? Neither possibility can be ruled out. The inherited affinity between qui and esse made it possible for a writer (or speaker) to place salient material in final position in a relative clause. In the following passage (352) Cic. Att. 3.7.2 reliqua tempora sunt nonoiamoadomedicinamosedoad

finemodoloris - the long postponed predicate contains the point of the sentence, but equally rreliqua tempora can be interpreted as loosely contrastive with what precedes. In this case one might say that the clitic placement of esse (here attached to a contrastive subject) and the pragmatic postponement of salient information operate in harmony. It is worth recalling finally that the order subject copula predicate was to become the norm for the Romance languages. In some of these examples we perhaps see it making its appearance as a marked rhetorical order. Predicates placed after the copula require a more systematic treatment than I have been able to give them here. A purely statistical comparison of the frequency of S pred. est vs. S est pred.73would be of little point because the determinants of S est pred. are so various and difficult to pin down. In the pattern S est pred. the role of the subject is just as influential in determining the order as the role of the predicate, whereas in the pattern S pred. est S is rarely a factor at all. In making a numerical count of S pred. est vs. S est pred. one would therefore not necessarily be comparing like with like.

10

A pattern showing esse in initial position 10.1 The ‘veridical’ and ‘assertive’ uses The uses of the copula discussed so far have mainly been postpositive, in that esse follows a host and often seems to give it emphasis. But esse is not always postpositive. There is a use of the copula which Kahn (1973, 331-70), speaking of Greek, calls the ‘veridical’. In this construction in Latin esse precedes the subject (if expressed) and the predicate and is often at the beginning of its clause. Used thus, ‘the verb expresses the truth of statements and cognition or the being-so of facts and states-of-affairs’ (Kahn (1973, 335)). Typically the veridical use is contrasted or associated with a verb of saying (Kahn (1973, 335; also 337)). The veridical use is nothing other than a particular manifestation of ‘focus on the operator’. In an example of this phenomenon seen earlier (see (295)) the focus was on the mood of the copula, but this form of focusing may have other functions, as for example that of stressing the truth content of the predicate. I will discuss in this section various nuances conveyed by a focused operator, making use to some extent of the traditional semantic distinctions drawn in this connection, as for example between the veridical and the ‘assertive’ uses. In the example (295) there was no subject expressed, but a subject may of course be present in conjunction with a focused copula; if so it has a favoured position (see below). Clearly if placed in initial position esse cannot be enclitic. One must therefore allow that, depending on the function in which it was used, esse might be either post- positive/ enclitic, or ‘mobile’ in the sense used by Dover (1968b, 12) (and hence capable of beginning a clause). There is nothing implausible about such a dual role for the copula. The personal pronouns provide a parallel of sorts: they might be enclitic, or alternatively if emphatic they could be placed at the start of a colon (see 12.1). It seems likely that the accentual pattern of ‘stressed’ pronouns in Latin was different from that of enclitic pronouns; and similarly there may also have been a difference between the accentuation of the ordinary copula and that of the veridical use. On the nature of esse as a clitic, see below, 12.2. I turn now to the veridical and related ‘assertive’ uses, and attempt to identify some of the patterns in which they occur. A clear case of the veridical use in Latin is at Cic. De orat. 3.61, though the order there is not relevant to our argument: (353) Cic. De orat. 3.61 cum tamen omnes se philosophi Socráticos et did uellent et esse arbitrarentur

70

J. N. ADAMS

‘All philosophers both wanted to be called “ Socratics” , and they thought that they were’ Here there is an explicit contrast between being said to be, and being in fact. Esse in this passage could not possibly be deleted,74even if Socraticos were expressed a second time. The ordinary copula, on the other hand, at least in the present indicative, and above all the auxiliary use, could be deleted. Normally when the copula is in a structure which contains a contrast, esse is attached to the contrastive element, whether that be the subject, predicate, or part of the subject or predicate. Here, however, it is esse itself which is contrastive. There is obviously something ‘stronger’ about esse used thus, and that strength may have been reflected in the accentual pattern. It seems justifiable to argue from the intonation pattern appropriate in English when the sentence is translated ( ‘. .. they thought that they W ERE’) that this veridical use is a form of focus on the operator. Very similar to the above are: (354) Cic. Sest. 96 quibus ex generibus alteri se popularis, alteri optimates et haberi et esse uoluerunt and: (355) Cic. Brut. 95 summus orator est habitus et fuit, ut apparet ex orationibus, scriptor sane bonus ‘He was considered an excellent orator, and he was in fact a good writer (whatever the truth about his oratory)’ Here the subject is not expressed. I do not exclude from this section examples which do not have all three of the components subject, predicate and copula. W hether or not a subject is expressed, the distinctive feature of the veridical copula is that it comes at the head of its colon. Also veridical is: (356) Cic. De orat. 3.16 nam fuit uterque, ut exposui antea, cum studio atque ingenio et doctrina praestans omnibus, turn in suo genere perfectus ‘For the truth is (despite what people may think) that both were The popular belief about the oratorical style of the subjects Crassus and Antonius is stated in the previous sentence. Here we have an assertion of the true state of affairs against this false view. The contrast between reality and assertion is not as explicit as in the previous example. This example has a typical structure. Esse precedes both its subject and predicate. The subject (uterque) comes after esse, and it refers to something ‘given’, in that

A PATTERN SHOWING ESSE IN INITIAL POSITION

71

Antonius and Crassus have been named in the previous sentence. There then follows, at the end of the clause, a long and emphatic predicate which contains the salient information that the sentence is putting across. In this typical pattern the slot following esse is often, but not always, ‘weak’, in the sense that it tends to express the topic of the sentence which is already given from the context. Sometimes this subject could be omitted without detriment to the sense. It is frequently a pronoun. I would stress the potential ‘weakness’ of the slot after esse, because it provides a contrast with the slot before esse. A different emphasis would be given to the utterance if the order were uterque fuit... The cases of veridical constructions seen so far might be paraphrased ((353), (354)) ‘is in reality’ (as distinct from mere appearances) and (356) ‘the truth is that’ (in contrast to what you might say). The following example fits loosely into this second category: (357) Cic. De orat. 3.47 sunt autem ea multo et plura et maiora quam dicis Here, however, there is not such a conflict between what is asserted and what the other speaker has said. The difference is one of degree, with the second speaker building on, or going further than, what has been previously asserted. De orat. 3.113 might be classed as a type of veridical use: (358) ... ut illud, sitne aliquando mentiri boni uiri ‘(The question is investigated), for instance, whether it is genuinely the case that to lie sometimes is the duty of a good m an’ There is no expressed verb of saying in correlation with the sit-clause, but implicit seems to be some such notion as ‘as some people say’. The indirect question considers the veracity of an assumption or assertion sometimes made. The order is est S (mentiri) pred. (boni uiri). The next two examples are similar to each other: (359) Cic. De orat. 3.145 in qua uelim sit illud quod saepe posuisti ‘I should be glad to think that that which you have often asserted is true (IS the case)’. Note the correlation with a verb of asserting (posuisti). Again a pronominal subject immediately follows esse. (360) Cic. Lael. 8 sunt ista, Laeli ‘What you say, Laelius, is true, IS the case’ I quote some further examples of varying types.

72

J. N. ADAMS

(361) Cic. Verr. 4.117 urbem Syracusas maximam esse Graecarum, pulcherrimam omnium saepe audistis. est, iudices, ita ut dicitur ‘It really IS just as it is said to b e’ Note that ita, which so often precedes the ordinary copula (see e.g. (119), (120), (204)(206)), is placed after the veridical use. Here technically no subject is expressed, but ut dicitur plays the role of subject, with ita the predicate. The focus is obviously on est. (362) Cic. Att. 7.3.10 nostrum quidem si est peccatum, in eo est quod ... Tf I have made a mistake ... ’ (Shackleton Bailey) (363) Cic. De orat. 3.145 sed etiam si est aliquanto spissius aut si ego sum tardior, profecto nunquam conquiescam neque defatigabor ante quam ... ‘(I would like to think that what you say is right), but even if (the truth on the contrary is that) it IS considerably slower than that Here there is a typical contrast with a previous assertion. (364) Cic. De orat. 3.129 qui aut non est uictus umquam a Socrate neque sermo ille Platonis uerus est aut si est uictus, eloquentior uidelicet fuit et disertior Socrates ‘Either he was NOT ever defeated by Socrates and the celebrated dialogue of Plato is untrue, or, if he WAS defeated ... (= ‘if the truth is, despite or perhaps in accordance with what some may think, that he was defeated’) The auxiliary in conjunction with a participle may have a veridical nuance. Est is placed first, followed by what is in effect the predicate (uictus). See below (365), (368), (370). (365) Cic. Lael. 14 sensu enim amisso fit idem, quasi natus non esset omnino, quern tamen esse natum et nos gaudemus et haec ciuitas, dum erit, laetabitur ‘For if sensation is lost it is the same as if he had NOT been born at all; but that he WAS in fact born is a joy to us and Structurally very similar to (364), though here there is no obvious correlation with a verb of saying; merely an assertion of an undeniable fact. The subject precedes the copula here, but that is because it is a relative pronoun. The veridical use sometimes is found in accusative + infinitive constructions: e.g. (366) Cic. Cael. 10 at enim postea scimus et uidimus esse hunc in illius etiam amicis

A PATTERN SHOWING ESSE IN INITIAL POSITION

73

Here Cicero reports a claim of his opponents (note at enim): ‘later we knew that he WAS (despite your defence) among Catiline’s intimates.’ Cicero does not deny the change (quis negat?), but goes on to assert that, at the vulnerable early period of his life, Caelius was not a friend of Catiline’s. The form this assertion takes is of some interest: (367) Cic. Cael. 10 fuit assiduus mecum praetore me Here there is no expressed subject. The sense is ‘(despite all that is said against him), he

was in fact (the truth is that) always with me when I was praetor’. A distinctive feature of this utterance is that the past-tense verb is of root fu- rather than es- (erat). Past-tense veridical or ‘assertive’ utterances (on the ‘assertive’ use of the copula, see below) often have fuit rather than erat at the start, as will be further illustrated below. Sometimes the veridical use of esse is associated with a participle in the pattern est … factus (in contrast to the pattern est factus seen above in (364)), in which case the auxiliary may come in the focal position at the beginning of its clause (unlike those cases of ... e s t ... (factus) discussed in Chap. 6). Note

(368) Cic. Cael. 9 nam quoad aetas M. Caeli dare potuit isti suspicioni locum, fuit primum ipsius pudore, deinde etiam patris diligentia disciplinaque

munita O f note here is the fact that the passive perfective is converted from est… munita to the abnormal fuit munita because fuit was favoured in strong assertions (see above on (367)). The context is very similar to that in (367). ‘As long as the youth of Caelius could give rise to suspicions of that sort, it WAS in fact protected first by . . . ’ The reality is contrasted with mere suspicion. There is in both Greek and Latin a related assertive use of ‘be’ which is weaker than the strictly veridical, in that it does not assert the truth of a proposition in contrast (explicit or implicit) to or support of what has been said.75It merely makes an emphatic assertion of the content of the predicate, e.g. (369) Cic. De orat. 3.18 est enim is maxime et opacus et frigidus Here there is no insistence on the truth of the predicate against the belief of others. The force is ‘it IS, I can assure you’: the utterance is a strong assertion. The structure is typical of the examples quoted so far. Est is in the initial position. The enclitic enim is attached to it. The subject is a pronoun (is, with locus understood), and its referent is ‘given’ in the context (locus occurs a few words earlier). The new or salient information comes at the end, in the predicate. The distinction between the assertive and veridical uses adopted here is however difficult to grasp, and depends very much on interpretation of the context. In (367) and

74

J. N. ADAMS

(368), for example, Cicero is indeed arguing against opponents, but the assertions which he makes in the two sentences are not necessarily direct contradictions of statements made by them. The difficulty of distinguishing between the assertive and veridical uses underlines the fact that both are manifestations of a single phenomenon, namely focus on the operator, which was clearly capable of various language-specific and contextually determined nuances. It was noted above that the veridical use may be associated with a participle. A nice example of the assertive use of the auxiliary can be seen in the following example: (370) Cic. . De orat. 3.39 sunt enim illi ueteres, qui ornare nondum poterant ea quae dicebant, omnes prope praeclare locuti ‘For the ancients did speak clearly, even if they were incapable of embellishment, and anyone who reads them will be incapable of using incorrect Latin’ Here (in the qui-clause) the speaker makes a concession (the ancients, I concede, lacked embellishment), but then he asserts a quality which they did have. It is almost as if, while granting a concession to his fellow disputants, he extracts a concession from them in return ( ‘you must admit that, despite X, Y ’). I will be moving on in later sections (10.4, 10.5) to various types of concessive uses of the initial copula, and this example may be taken as an, albeit marginal, introduction of the type. Of interest here is the extreme length of the separation, and the fact that the verb is deponent not passive. Often the nuance of an initial esse, rendered into English, seems to be simply ‘is truly, is genuinely, is inevitably’: e.g. (371) Cic. Att. 6.3.6 fuit aperte mihi nescio qua re non amicus Note again fuit in initial position. (372) Cic. Q.fr. 3.4.1 est omnino tarn graui fama hoc iudicium ut uideatur reliquis iudiciis periturus For est omnino, see (402). Here the order of the constituents after est is the reverse of the norm: tam graui fama is the predicate, hoc iudicium the subject. Why the abnormal order? The reason is that hoc iudicium is contrastive with reliquis iudiciis in the next clause. Although the predicate ttam graui fama itself has a certain emphasis, preference is given to hoc iudicium for the emphatic final slot in the clause because it stands in an explicit antithesis. ‘It is assuredly the case that the unpopularity of this court is such that he seems likely to perish in the others.’ When both subject and predicate are expressed, a determinant of the order is that the focal element of the assertion tends to come in final position. Usually it is the predicate which is placed at the end, because the predicate by its very nature often contains the salient information.

A PATTERN SHOWING ESSE IN INITIAL POSITION

75

Here are some further ‘assertive’ examples:

(373) Cic. Sest. 17 sed fuit profecto quaedam ilia rei publicae fortuna fatalis, ut ...

(374) Cic. Att. 5.20.3 erat in Syria nostrum nomen in gratia (375) Cic. Att. 6.1.16 sunt omnes ita mihi familiares u t ... (376) C ic.f. Fam. 16.21.8 de mandatis quod tibi curae fuit, est mihi gratum. sed ... Possibly, however, concessive (cf. (404).

(377) Caes. Gall. 5.3.7 itaque esse ciuitatem in sua potestate (378) Livy 9.16.12 et fuit uir haud dubie dignus omni bellica laude Haud dubie reinforces the nuance implicit in the initial copula; cf. omnino in (372).

10.2 A particular type of emphatic predicate I single out here a fairly uniform group of examples displaying the assertive use discussed at the end of the previous section.

(379) Cic. De orat. 3.55 est enim eloquentia una quaedam de summis uirtutibus The topic under discussion is eloquentia, which is named in the previous section. The predicate una… uirtutibus comprises a new assertion made about eloquentia. A typical feature of this example is that the predicate contains an emphatic adjective (i.e. of size, quantity or judgment), viz. summus. An additional mark of the semantic/rhetorical weight of the predicate is its length. Note also the following:

(380) Cic. Leg. agr. 2.4 est illud amplissimum (381) Cic. Att. 3.6 quoniam id non contigit, erit hoc quoque in magno numero nostrorum malorum (382) Cic. Fam. 5.19.2 est enim res profecto maxima (383) Cic. De orat. 3.167 est hoc magnum ornamentum orationis (384) Caes. Gall. 2.15.1 quod erat ciuitas magna inter Belgas auctoritate (385) Caes. Gall. 2.15.5 esse homines feros magnaeque uirtutis (386) Caes. Gall. 4.3.3 Ubii, quorum fuit ciuitas ampla atque florens Note that res in (382) is the same sort of ‘w eak’ subject as id etc. In both (384) and (386) another possible determinant of the order is the tendency for esse to be attached to qui.

76

J. N. ADAMS

In such cases the pattern has become a fairly conventional means of asserting the genuineness of the content of a long or emphatic predicate. The potential banality of the pattern can be seen from the following formula in letters of recommendation:

(387) (388) (389) (390)

Cic. Fam. Cic. Fam. Cic. Fam. Cic. Fam.

12.21 erit id mihi gratissimum 13.39 erit mihi uuehementer gratum 13.75.2 erit id mihi per gratum 13.78.2 erit id mihi maiorem in modum gratum

In every instance there is a pronominal subject (expressing a ‘given’ idea) immediately after the verb, and there is always an intensifier in the predicate. In this case, however, the fact that the verb is future may be significant: perhaps the focus is on the tense ( ‘that WILL, I can assure you, be very pleasing to m e’) (see further below, 10.3).

(391) Cic. Fam. 12.13.1 est enim tua toga omnium armis felicior (392) Cic. De orat. 3.91 hanc habent uim, ut sit quam maxime iucunda Here a subject is not expressed after sit. It was noted earlier (see on (372)) that the usual order (est) S + pred. may be reversed if there is something special about the subject which might draw it to the most emphatic slot at the end of the clause. With the above examples (in all of which the predicate in final position contains an intensive of one kind or another) it is worth comparing the following, in which it is the subject which contains an intensive; that subject is placed in final position:

(393) Cic. De orat. 3.25 et reliquos sensus uoluptates oblectant dispares, ut sit difficile iudicium excellentis maxime suauitatis Note that here the predicate is a single word, whereas it is the subject which is long.

10.3 Focus on the tense/aspect of the copula It was suggested above that in (387)—(390) the focus might be on the tense of the copula. When the focus lies on the tense, mood (see above (295)) or aspect of the copula, a phenomenon discussed by Quirk et al. (1985, 1371) under ‘focus on the operator’,76 the copula tends to be placed at the head of the clause,77followed either by the subject and predicate, or by the predicate alone if no subject is expressed: e.g.

(394) Cic.Att. 14.9.2 hie turba magna est eritque, ut audio, maior There is a contrast of sorts between magna and maior, but Cicero has chosen to place the focus on the future tense of erit. The consequence is the order est pred. Of

A PATTERN SHOWING ESSE IN INITIAL POSITION

77

significance here is the insertion of ut audio between the copula and the predicate, which has the effect of isolating erit. (395) Caes. Gall. 5.49.7 atque haec, etsi erant (castra) exigua per se, ... tamen angustiis uiarum quam maxime potest contrahit ‘Although the camp was (already) small, ... he nevertheless compressed it by narrowing the streets as much as possible’ The aspectual notion conveyed by erant is that of a state already existing (in the past). The idea would have been more explicitly expressed if iam had been placed before erant, but here evidently the order est pred. is felt to be an adequate means of focusing the aspect of the verb. (396) is similar to (395). (396) Cic. Att. 5.16.1 etsi in ipso itinere et uia discedebant publicanorum tabellarii et eramus in cursu, tamen surripiendum aliquid putaui spati ‘A lthough.... we are (already) [epistolary imperfect] en route, I feel I must steal a moment (397) Cic. Balb. 63 fuit hie multorum illi laborum socius aliquando: est fortasse nunc non nullorum particeps commodorum Note here the explicit contrast of tenses. (398) Cic. Brut. 76 sit Ennius sane, ut est certe, perfectior The mood is focused. (399) Cic. Verr. 1.2 est idem Verres qui fuit semper Another contrast of tenses. (400) Caes. Civ. 3.24.1 erat eo tempore Antonius Brundisi (401) Cic. De orat. 3.64 illud, etiam si sit uerissimum, taciturn tamen tanquam mysterium teneant, quod negant uersari in re publica esse sapientis The mood is again focused.

10.4 Concessive use (concession made by speaker, writer, or agreement expressed) It was noted on (370) above that an initially placed copula might be interpreted as conferring a concessive nuance on the utterance. In fact it is possible to discern two types of ‘concessive’ uses of this pattern, that in which the concession is made by the

78

J. N. ADAMS

writer, and that in which a concession is extracted from the reader/listener. I illustrate the two types separately. (402) Cic. ad Brut. 9.1 (= 7.1) utinam tam facile eum florentem et honoribus et gratia regere ac tenere possimus quam facile adhuc tenuimus! est omnino illud difficilius, sed tamen non diffidimus The assertive character of est is marked explicitly here by the attachment of omnino ( ‘it IS, to be sure . . . ’: cf. (372)). The subject is again a pronoun, in the next slot, and the referent is ‘given’. Here the writer seems to make a concession ( ‘that is, to be sure / 1 admit . . . ’). (403) Cic. De orat. 3.8 fuit hoc luctuosum suis, acerbum patriae, graue bonis omnibus, sed ei ... His death WAS a great sorrow; but under the circumstances he was fortunate to die. (404) Cic. Att. 7.5.1 multas uno tempore accepi tuas, quae mihi, quamquam recentiora audiebam ex iis qui ad me ueniebant, tamen erant iucundae ‘Although I had more recent news from others, your letters WERE, I concede, pleasing’ (405) Caes. Gall. 5.34.2 erant et uirtute et †numero pugnandi f pares Here the subject is not expressed. This sentence follows a quoted speech by the leaders of the barbarians urging their men to set their sights on victory. This assertion is apparently a concession made by Caesar: ‘and they WERE, it is true, our equals in ... ’ (406) Cic. Att. 3.7.1 esset mihi ista solitudo ... non amara ‘And that solitude, WOULD, it is true, be not unpleasant to me ..., but (407) Cic. Att. 3.7.1 set consilium mihi quidem optatum si liceret ibi omne tempus consumere (408) Cic. De orat. 3.55 quamquam sunt omnes uirtutes aequales et pares, sed tamen ... ‘Although all virtues ARE, admittedly, . . . ’ (409) Cic. De orat. 3.64 quare istos sine ulla contumelia dimittamus, sunt enim et boni uiri et, quoniam sibi ita uidentur, bead ‘They ARE, admittedly An ironical concession. (410) C ic.f. Fam. 16.21.6 de Gorgia autem quod mihi scribis, erat quidem ille in cotidiana declamatione utilis; sed omnia postposui, dummodo

A PATTERN SHOWING ESSE IN INITIAL POSITION

79

praeceptis patris parerem ‘He WAS, I grant, useful in my daily declamation, but I nevertheless Note that here quidem underlines the assertive character of erat (cf. on omnino above). (411) Cic. De orat. 3.164 quamuis sit simile, tamen est in utroque deformis cogitatio similitudinis Here the speaker makes a reluctant concession. He does not like certain metaphors, ‘although there IS, I admit, a certain likeness . . . ’ (412) Cic. De orat. 3.18 sane, inquit Crassus, etenim est in eo loco sedes huic nostro non inopportuna sermoni ‘Yes, for there IS a suitable seat there’ Crassus expresses agreement with the previous speaker, adding an extra item in favour of his proposal. His remark is not so much a (reluctant) concession, as a statement of ready agreement: ‘there is (I agree with you) ...’ The order after est is pred. S rather than the usual reverse order, and that is because the given element lies in the predicate and the new element in the subject. This example is however complicated by the fact that est could be interpreted as existential. (413) Cic. Fam. 10.5.1 est omnino patriae caritas meo quidem iudicio maxima, sed amor uoluntatisque coniunctio plus certe habet suauitatis (414) Cic. De orat. 3.42 me autem tuus sonus et subtilitas ista delectat -omitto uerborum, quamquam est caput ‘Although it IS, I admit, the chief point’ (415) Cic. Att. 7.6.2 est illa quidem impudens postulatio ‘The demand is impudent no doubt, but . . . ’ (Shackleton Bailey) (416) Cic. Att. 5.20.9 Alexis quod mihi totiens salutem adscribit est gratum; sed cur non suis litteris idem facit quod ...? ‘It IS of course pleasant that Alexis ...; but why does he not ... ?’ Here the subject (quod … adscribit) precedes the copula, but since it is a noun-clause it could not have been positioned as (e.g.) a pronominal subject might have been (after the copula). There would presumably be a colon division after adscribit. (417) Cic. Cat. 2.10 essent illi quidem desperandi, sed tamen essent ferendi ‘They WOULD, I grant, be beyond hope, but (418) Cic. Cat. 2.27 quamquam sunt hostes, tamen, quia nati sunt ciues, monitos etiam atque etiam uolo (419) Cic. De orat. 3.145 non tu quidem earn (rerum scientiam) nobis

80

J. N. ADAMS

tradidisti, neque enim fuit tam exigui temporis ‘Nor, I grant [or ‘we must all grant’] was it really a task which could be managed in such a short tim e’ (420) Cic. Pis. 28 tuebatur auctoritatem summi uiri. erat ipse sceleratus, erat gladiator, cum scelerato tamen et cum pari gladiatore pugnabat ‘He WAS, it is true, himself a criminal ..., yet he (421) Cic. Pis. 38 est hoc nouum; multo illud magis ‘This IS, of course (I must admit) new; but the following is much more so’ (422) Cic. Cat. 4.1 est mihi iucunda in malis et grata in dolore uestra erga me uoluntas, sed earn per deos immortalis! deponite atque obliti salutis meae de uobis ac de uestris liberis cogitate

Finally, for a concessive use of a focused (initially placed) auxiliary, see: (423) Caes. Gall. 1 3 1 A esse non nullo se Caesaris beneficio adfectum78 ‘He HAD, it is true, received some benefit from Caesar, but Also of note here is the position of se, attached not to the first word of the colon but to the quantifier non nullo.

10.5 Concessive use (concession expected from reader, hearer) (424) Cic. De orat. 3.86 Valerius cotidie cantabat; erat enim scenicus ‘Valerius used to sing every day; he WAS, after all, an actor’ ( ‘naturally, for he was, you must admit . . . ’) It is not so much the speaker here who is making the concession; he is expecting his hearers to concede a point. Typically when an initial esse has this nuance it is followed by enim. Cf. (425) Cic. De orat. 3.87 Numerius Furius noster familiaris cum est commodum cantat; est enim paterfamilias, est eques Romanus ‘Numerius sings only when it suits him; naturally, for he IS, after all (you must admit) a paterfamilias, he IS a Roman knight (and therefore he has better things to do)’ (426) Cic. Att. 6.3.1 quaestorem nemo dignum putat; etenim est leuis, libidinosus, tagax ‘No-one thinks the quaestor worthy of the position. For he IS, after all, irresponsible...’

A PATTERN SHOWING ESSE IN INITIAL POSITION

81

Probably a concession is extracted from the addressee. Or is the sense ‘he IS truly ... ’? (427) Cic. Cael 23 de quo ipso tamen quid est quod exspectetis? quod is qui fecit aut non timet aut etiam fatetur; est enim rex ‘He IS, after all, a king’ (428) Cic. Cael 14 qua re ista condicio, iudices, respuatur, nec Catilinae familiaritatis crimen haereat. est enim commune cum multis et cum quibusdam bonis ‘It IS, after all, shared with m any’ (429) Cic. Cael 6 sunt enim ista maledicta peruolgata in omnis quorum in adulescentia forma et species fuit liberalis A clear case of a concessive use of the auxiliary in initial position. ‘The charges against Caelius’ morality do not worry him. Such abuse IS, after all, constantly levelled at youths who ... ’ Cf. (430) Cic. Sest. 21 alter multos plane in omnis partis fefellit; erat enim hominum opinioni nobilitate ipsa, blanda conciliatricula, commendatus (431) Cic. Fam. 12.30.5 De P. Lucceio nihil tibi concedo, quo studiosior tu sis quam ego sum. est enim nobis necessarius ‘As far as Lucceius is concerned, I do not concede that you are more devoted than I am. He IS, after all, an intimate of m ine’ (432) Cic. Cael 64 quos quidem tu quam ob rem temere prosiluisse dicas atque ante tempus non reperio. fuerant ad hoc rogati, fuerant ad hanc rem conlocati, ut uenenum, ut insidiae, facinus denique ipsum ut manifesto comprehenderetur. potueruntne magis tempore prosilire quam cum Licinius uenisset ‘Why you say that they jumped out rashly and before time I cannot discover. They HAD, after all, been placed there for the very purpose of catching out the deed. Could they have jumped out at a better tim e?’ Cicero seems to be forcing a concession from the hearers, and the use of fuerant for erant is analogous to that of fuit commented on earlier (367).79 (433) Cic. Cat. 2.18 horum hominum species est honestissima - sunt enim locupletes It is clear from the above examples that a concessive idea is often present in this use of esse, whether a subject is expressed after esse, or a predicate alone. The pattern est enim is particularly common when the speaker expects his hearers to allow a point. A variety of nuances of an initially placed copula, all of them classifiable as cases of focus on the operator, has been seen in this chapter, and it is possible that others could be identified from a more systematic survey of classical prose.

11

Theoordero(subject)opredicateoest

This order, as the statistics show (Chap. 4), is very much the norm in Classical Latin. Moreover the order pred. est, where no subject is expressed, is overwhelmingly preferred to the order est pred. Kahn (1973, 424-34) has given statistics to show that the same order is preferred in a variety of Greek texts from Homer onwards, and further evidence establishing the same point can be found in Dover (1968a, 139-40). It is likely that (S) pred. est was the inherited unmarked pattern, or at least the unmarked pattern of one stage of the Indo-European language. It is not uncommon for the predicate to be either explicitly or implicitly contrastive: e.g. (434) Cato, Agr. 2.7 patrem familias uendacem,o non emacemoesse oportet (435) Cic. Att. 3.17.3 ne aut diligentia tua mihi molesta,o aut ueritas acerbaosit (436) Cic. De orat. 3.4 cum sibi ilium consulemo esse negaret cui senatoro ipse non esset (437) Cic. De orat. 3.16 aut Antonium ieiunioremo aut Crassum pleniorem fuisse (438) Cic. De orat. 3.65 nemo ciuis,o nemo liberoesse uideatur (439) Caes. Gall. 1.41.3 neque de summa belli suumo iudicium, sed imperatoriso esse existimauisse (440) Caes. Gall. 1.44.5 amicitiam populi Romani sibi ornamentooet praesidio,o nonodetrimentooesse oportere (441) Caes. GallGall. 4.1.5 hi rursus in uicem anno post inoarmisosunt, illi domi remanent In M arouzeau’s brief discussion (1938, 9-10) of the order (S) pred. est, many of the examples show est attached to either the first or the second member of an explicit antithesis: e.g. (442) Plaut. Asin. 495 lupusoest.., non homo (443) Plaut. Most. 190 matronae,o non meretriciumo est unum inseruire amantem Other examples could be quoted in which est follows an implicitly contrastive predicate (i.e. the marked focus): e.g. (444) Cato Agr. 2.3 cum tempestates pluuiae fuerint (445) Caes. Gall. 2.3.4 reliquos omnis Belgas inoarmisoesse

THE ORDER (SUBJECT) PREDICATE EST

83

The Remi, the speakers, have stressed that they are ready to surrender. Often the predicate is not obviously contrastive, but it may convey important new information or consist of a forceful term, particularly of the type which expresses a subjective judgm ent (i.e. again it is the marked focus): e.g. (446) (447) (448) (449) (450) (451) (452) (453) (454)

Cic. S. Rose. 8 turn uel hoc indignissimum est Cic. S Rose. 22 quamuis ille felix sit Cic. Att. 3.7.1 uoluntas tua mihi ualde grata est Cic. Att. 3.8.2 sed et nauigatio perdifflcilis fuit Cic. Att. 3.13.2 quibus meam salutem carissimam esse arbitrabar Cic. Att. 3.19.1 celebritas mihi odio est Cic. De orat. 3.96 ut grauis, ut suauis, ut erudita sit Cic. De orat. 3.99 id quod ualde dulce est Caes. Gall. 3.10.2 quod facile fuisset, nisi ...

In earlier chapters it was shown that esse is often attached to emphatic hosts rather than exclusively to items of the category ‘predicate’ as such. Since all of the examples presented in this section show the order (S) pred. est in contexts in which the predicate is contrastive or emphatic in some way, in type they would seem to be entirely consistent with the view of the copula which has been put forward here. However, the statistical predominance of the order (S) pred. est both in Greek and Latin, and especially in certain texts without stylistic pretensions (notably Cato’s De agricultura), is so marked that it would be implausible to claim that the sole determinant of the order was a tendency for the copula to seek out the focused element of its clause. It seems necessary to assume that this order was originally (or at least in one stage of Indo- European) a mechanical one, reflecting in part the close relation between predicate and copula, and in part a tendency to verb-final placement. The copula may have been enclitic in these cases on the predicate. But in many, perhaps most, utterances of the structure S pred. est, the predicate by its very nature expresses the new or salient information, and is the focus of the remark. In the sorts of typical contexts illustrated in this section, the copula may have been subject to reinterpretation as leaning on the focal element of the utterance, rather than on the predicate as such (cf. p. 55). The way might then have been open for the copula (or auxiliary) to seek out focused terms to serve as its host even if these were not strictly the predicate. I return to this possibility in the conclusion.

12

Conclusion

The different nuances which the different orders considered here may convey can be summarised from an example such as nauigatio perdifficilis fuit (449), the sense of which would normally be ‘sailing was very difficult’, with the focus on the adjective. If the order were nauigatio fuit perdifficilis, the focus might be shifted to nauigatio, which could potentially enter into a contrast: e.g. ‘sailing was very difficult (but not travel by land)’. If fuit were put at the head of the clause (fuit nauigatio perdifficilis), the sense would be ‘sailing WAS, I grant you, very difficult’, or ‘sailing was truly very difficult’, or ‘sailing WAS, despite what you say, very difficult’. Finally, if the order were perdifficilis fuit nauigatio, the focus on perdifficilis would be further brought out by its initial position. 12.1 Some main contentions I summarise four main contentions of this monograph. (i) The basic order of a proposition containing the copula in Latin was (S) pred. est. The same order predominates in Greek, and may have been inherited from Indo-European. (ii) Esse acquired a focusing role, rather like that of quidem. In this function it was peripatetic, but since a common position for the focus of a clause was at its head, a focusing copula is often placed in second position. Esse differs from quidem in that quidem existed solely as a focusing particle, whereas esse was far more varied in its use, and could indeed itself be focused. When focused it typically preceded both the subject (if expressed) and the predicate, usually in that order. There are very close parallels between the behaviour of esse and of the personal pronouns in Latin. Just as esse may be focused and in initial position, so there is an emphatic use of the pronouns which normally entails placement at the head of a colon: e.g· (455) Plaut. Pseud. 626 X. tibi ego dem? Y. mihi hercle uero ‘Am to give it to you? ‘Yes, to me’ And just as there is a postpositive use of esse which may entail attachment to a marked focus, so postpositive pronouns are frequently attracted to the focus. It is usually

CONCLUSION

85

assumed (following W ackernagel) that the ‘unstressed’ personal pronouns were, par

excellence, second-position, ‘Wackernagel enclitics’, but in fact in Classical Latin pronouns often follow the focus even when that element is not in first position in the colon (see above, (6); also (423)). For cases in which the pronoun, in later than second position in the colon, is attached to an antithetical term (i.e. to the marked focus), see e.g· (456) Cic. Fam. 13.73.2 sed mihi ita persuadeo (potest fieri ut fallar) // earn rem laudi tibi II potius quam uituperationi fore (457) Cic. Red. sen. 22 cum L. Caecilius priuatim me suis omnibus copiis studuerit sustenare, publice promulgarit de mea salute ... And for the pronoun, again in later than second position, following an adjective of quantity or size, see e.g.

(458) Cic. Phil. 11.19 in quo maximum nobis onus imposuit (459) Cic. Brut. 16 et ad quos omnis nobis aditus ... obstructus est In the last two examples the pronoun splits a syntactic unit in order to attach to the focused host, just as esse often splits a constituent for the same reason. Pronounplacement deserves a discussion of its own, but enough has been said here to suggest that both the copula and the unstressed pronouns had a similar focusing role in Classical Latin. If, as is widely assumed, unstressed pronouns in Latin were clitics, it would seem to follow that non-initial esse was also clitic. The close correspondences between the uses (focusing and focused) of the copula and of the pronouns in Latin suggest a deep-seated feature of clitic behaviour. It was suggested earlier that the copula may have acquired its habit of attaching to the focus from those sentences in which the predicate (with the copula typically following it) was assigned the focal initial position, as e.g. in the pattern pred. est S. This possibility cannot be ruled out as a partial determinant of copula attachment to the focus, but was it the primary determinant? Attachment of clitics to the focus has been noted in other languages, both Indo- European80 and non-Indo-European,81and it is a desideratum that early Indo-European languages should be investigated in detail for this feature, which may be a widespread characteristic of clitics. Throughout this work it has been emphasised that esse acquired a ‘focusing role’. But perhaps it would be more accurate to describe the phenomenon from a different viewpoint. One might say that clitics were becoming increasingly dependent on ‘prominent constituents’,82 and that consequently esse might be drawn away from its usual host, the predicate, to a constituent which was more markedly the focus. But often, of course, the predicate and focus were one and the same thing. (iii) Forms of root es- (perhaps most notably est) in relative clauses display a tendency to attach themselves not to the predicate but to the relative pronoun qui,

86

J. N. ADAMS

though in those relative clauses which contain an alternative marked focus, the latter might be preferred as host. Attachment to the relative may be independent of, and earlier than, the habit which esse shows of hanging on the focus. Alternatively the phenomenon may have originated at the time when anticipatory (focused) relatives preceded the main clause. (iv) The difficulty of analysing placement of the copula in Latin arises from the vari­ ability of its functions. Not only does it tend to seek out the focus as its host, a tendency which causes its position to be dependent on that of the host; it may also itself be the focus, and accordingly take up the initial position in its colon. But that is only part of the story. The copula has a special relationship with the predicate, and statistically its most normal position is behind that predicate, whether in the order (S) pred. est, pred. est S, or even S pred. est. Often the predicate is itself the focus, and two determinants of ordering may therefore coincide: attachment to predicate, attachment to focus. But when focus and predicate did not coincide, a choice was open to a writer. Either he might hang the copula on the focus, or leave it to be hosted by the predicate. We have seen some evidence that Cicero followed different principles at different times in his career.

12.2 The enclitic characteristics of esse I have used the terms ‘clitic’ and ‘enclitic’ freely throughout, without directly facing the question whether, or on what criteria, esse can be considered an enclitic. A typical definition of clitics is that of Spencer (1991, 350): ‘Clitics are elements which share certain properties of fully fledged words, but which lack the independence usually associated with words. In particular, they can’t stand alone, but have to be attached phonologically to a host' If such a definition is accepted, it has to be admitted that it is impossible to uphold decisively the view that non-focused esse was enclitic in Latin, because we do not know enough about the manner of its stress. Nevertheless, various points can be made in favour of its clitic character. (i)

‘Prodelision’ in Latin verse, particularly early Latin (as evidenced by spellings in

manuscripts such as factust)83 implies a single accent for the combination (say)fáctus+ est. (ii)

As we have seen, there are numerous examples in Classical Latin in which est

takes precedence over enim or igitur. If one accepts that enim in Classical Latin was regularly second constituent in its sentence, then it seems to follow that nihil est in, say, (40), forms a unit, such that est, attached to nihil, is not genuinely independent. At Cic.

De orat. 3.122 nostra est enim … nostra est inquam ... (see (257)) it is not only enim which is pushed into third place, but also inquam, even though it is strictly

CONCLUSION

87

the repetition of nostra which inquam underlines. Nostra est functions as an indivisible unit. (iii) It was pointed out in this connection by Lindsay (1894, 167) that erat enters Italian as era, with an open e in the first syllable. Classical Latin short e in a stressed open syllable ought to have produced an ie diphthong in Italian (cf. pedem > piede). The form which the e does take seems to imply that erat was atonic, at least in the early medieval period. Here is evidence of a sort that a disyllabic form of root es- might be unstressed (see above, p. 47). (iv) It is worth noting the effect of the placement of mihi in (2) and fore in (1). In the compound pergrátum, the stress falls on the root, that is the second syllable. If mihi is inserted, and if it was an unstressed pronoun, as it must have been, the effect may have been to place an additional stress on the intensive prefix (pér-mihi grátum). The enclisis can be seen as a means of stressing accentually the semantically intensive per. Presumably the effect of the placement of fore in (1) was intended to be the same, in which case fore too must have been unstressed. (v) Just as est in early Latin was subject to prodelision (see (i) above), so est (when compared with other forms of the copula) takes precedence over enim with particular frequency. Similarly forms of root es- are linked directly to the relative pronoun more often than polysyllabic forms of root fu-. These facts suggest that est (or es- forms in general) had a special character, and would be readily comprehensible if such forms were unaccented when not focused. In the light of these factors, and given that the term ‘clitic’ is rather vague and has been used to describe a variety of phenomena, it seems reasonable to use the term of many of the uses of the copula illustrated here. But while esse may often have been unaccented, it would be implausible to suggest that even in its copula uses that was always the case. Trisyllabic forms (that is, those of root fu-) are likely to have had a stress accent. That may be why forms of root fu- are more often separated from the relative pronoun in relative clauses than forms of root es- (see above), and also why the favoured past tense form of the assertive use of the copula (occupying the initial position in the clause) seems to have been fuit rather than erat. But if fu- was accented, for the most part it mimicked esin the positions which it adopted: it too can be found attached to the same types of focal hosts. If a defining characteristic of a clitic is that it lacks an accent (and that is open to question), then one might assume that forms of root es- were the primary clitic forms, and that those of root fu- followed by imitation the same principles of placement. The question arises what sort of clitic esse might have been, and whether its behaviour can be related to W ackernagel’s law. First, its general type. There are languages in which clitics have rigidly fixed positions, as for example the pronominal clitics of the Romance languages. In other

88

J. N. ADAMS

languages, however, clitics have far more freedom, as the Serbo-Croat examples in (460) show: (460) Naš će Petar lijepo i dobro učiti Our will Peter nicely and well study Naš Petar će lijepo i dobro učiti Our Peter

will nicely and well study

Naš Petar lijepo će i dobro učiti Our Peter nicely will and well study Naš Petar lijepo i dobro će učiti Our Peter nicely and well will study ‘Our Peter will study nicely and w ell’ The clitic here (će) is the short form of the verb hoće ‘wants’, used as a future tense auxiliary. According to Gospodnetič (1987-8, 126), the clitic stresses the word before it, just as esse appears to do. Esse is mobile in a similar way. It selects its host, as it were, from a variety of possibilities. Perhaps we might say that there was a favoured order predicate-est or participle-auxiliary, in which patterns est may have been enclitic on the predicate or participle; note particularly prodelision in conjunction with participles. Departures from this order were largely due to a tendency for est to cliticise on to various types of strong hosts.

12.3 Esse and Wackernagel’s law What of esse and W ackernagel’s law? I have made it obvious throughout that I do not believe that, even when esse is placed second in a clause in Latin, it is manifesting the working of the ‘law ’ of second-position placement which is generally referred to as W ackernagel’s law. I would stress those numerous examples, such as (69), and particularly (107) and (108), where esse cannot possibly be described as occupying the second position in its clause or colon. A particularly important example is that at (70), where esse seems to have moved backwards, i.e. to the right, out of its colon, so that it can hang on omnes. The conventional view of W ackernagel’s law is that clitics, particularly pronouns, move forwards, i.e. to the left, in order to get into the second position. This assumption is implicit in a good deal of W ackernagel’s own discussion (e.g. 1892, 358). A typical example of leftward movement is in (461), where syntac­tically sibi belongs with uisos, but instead has been placed in second position:

(461) Livy 7.33.17 oculos sibi Romanorum ardere uisos aiebant uesanosque uoltus et furentia ora

CONCLUSION

89

There is also the evidence of Homer. ‘W ackernagel’s law ’ is predominantly based on Homer, from whom Wackernagel took much of his evidence. In Homer particles and unstressed pronouns compete for the second position, but the copula is rarely found there. Instead it constantly comes after the predicate, and tends to come late in the line. I quote just one example (462), where the different placement of το ι and ἐστίν is obvious: (462) Homer, 11. 1.541 αἰεὶ τοι φίλον εστίν Note also in Latin (463)-(464), where mihi and uobis are in second position, but esse comes later with a focalised host: (463) Cic. Red. sen. 34 quod si mihi aeternam esse aerumnam propositam arbitrarer (464) Cic. Imp. Pomp. 68 auctor uobis grauior esse nemo debeat What almost all of the examples quoted in Chapters 5 and 6 have in common is that esse is attached to an emphatic host of one kind or another. That host may be in different positions in the clause, but frequently is of such a type that it goes to the head of the clause, drawing esse into second position. If esse can be described as ‘enclitic’ in such cases, then it most resembles the ‘non-W ackernagel’ clitic quidem. But since it is so often placed second, it is little wonder that it has sometimes been interpreted as complying with W ackernagel’s law. The truth is, though, that it merely mimics the ‘W ackernagel’ clitics (if such can be assumed to have existed), for its own reasons: that is, because of the attracting power of an initially placed host. If, say, enim and est can be placed constantly in second position for completely different reasons, enim because it links sentences and must come early in the sentence, but esse because its favoured focused hosts are often placed first, then questions must be asked about the very validity of W ackernagel’s law as a single rule explaining clitic placement. Could it be that we have concealed beneath a single name a variety of different rules which lead to much the same result? The ancient languages need to be reconsidered,84 taking account of host terms as well as mere positions.

12.4 The focusing role of some other verbs I conclude by raising a general question, without offering any solutions. It has occa­ sionally been noted that verbs other than esse sometimes follow focused terms:85e.g. (465) Cic. Quinci. 57 uereor me hercule ne aut grauioribus utar uerbis quam natura fert, aut leuioribus quam causa postulat86 (466) Cic. Nat. 2.124 tantam ingenuit animantibus conseruandi sui natura custodiam

90

J. N. ADAMS

These examples are manifestations of the familiar phenomenon of disjunction or hyperbaton. The ‘hosts’ in these two cases are an antithetical term and an adjective of quantity. It is particularly common to find adjectives of quantity or size participating in such disjunctions.87 What is the precise relationship between examples such as those quoted, and the phenomena discussed in this work? There is certainly some evidence that the focusing of (e.g.) tantus might be achieved as much by its separation from the noun as by the attachment to it of a verb. At Cato, Agr 6.2, for example (quoted above (31)), (467) Cato, Agr. 6.2 alius bonus nullus erit, the unit nullus alius is split and erit placed in the enclitic position after the negative adjective nullus. But in the following case, where the same phrase nullus alius is split by a different verb (habeo), nullus is clearly focused not by the enclisis of that verb, but by its separation from alius and assignment to the final position: (468) Caes. Gall. 1.7.3 propter quod aliud iter haberent nullum Compare also the following two pairs of passages, (469)-(470) and (471)-(472):88 (469) (470) (471) (472)

Cic. Cic. Cic. Cic.

Phil. 6.2 magnum ceperam fructum Dorn. 99 fructum tuli maximum Phil. 6.18 multas magnasque habui consul condones Phil. 14.16 contionem habuit maximam

Clearly the focused term could come after the verb as well as before. Further investigation might attempt to discover whether focusing could be effected purely by ‘enclisis’ of verbs (other than esse), whether certain verbs (e.g. the colourless habeo) were particularly favoured in such a role, and how frequently the word imme­diately to the right of the focused term was an element other than a verb. I have suggested at points in this work (e.g. on (456)) that enclitic pronouns are often attached to the focus of a clause. It is a desideratum to determine by a more systematic collection of evidence than has hitherto been made whether there was a wider range of elements - apart from pronouns, the copula and a few particles - regularly placed to the right of focused terms with the purpose of sharpening the focus. A consideration of questions such as these might yield information about the possible existence in Latin (at least under certain conditions) of unaccented verbs (other than the copula).

NOTES 1. For a general discussion of enclitics in Latin, see Janson (1979, 90-119). 2. Note the definition of Spencer (1991, 350), quoted below, p. 86. 3. The point was made by Meillet (1906-8, 2). On accented postpositives see Wackernagel (1892, 377-8); also Krisch (1990, 75-6), on the problem of Greek ‘enclitics’ such as δέ, ἄρ, ἄν, μέν which were apparently accented. For a number of ‘tests’ which supposedly may be applied to establish the clitic character of a lexical item, see Zwicky (1985, 283-305). He maintains (287) that, while clitics are usually accentually dependent (i.e. form a phonological unit with an independent word), some languages do permit clitics to be accented in certain circumstances. Elsewhere (1977, 15) he asserts that in Latin uero, igitur and autem appear in clitic position, but were stressed, and he refers also to Sanskrit emphasising particles, some of which were tonic (áha), others atonic. For a discussion of such particles, see Renou (1952, 374-7). 4. Quoted also by Collinge (1985, 217). Wackernagel refers to his ‘law’ as a ‘RegeF (e.g. 335, 343, 351), ‘Stellungsregel’ (e.g. 337) or ‘Stellungsgesetz’ (e.g. 361, 364, 417). 5. Much of Wackernagel’s discussion was concerned with the personal pronouns (333-66, 406-12). See further Fraenkel (1966). On the nominatives ego and tu as occasional enclitics, see Wackernagel (1892, 413), Hofmann-Szantyr (1965, 400), Scherer (1975, 222). 6. Wackernagel (1892, 370-1, 375-7, 377-8, 416-18). Wackernagel had relatively little to say about sentence particles, which raise problems for anyone attempting to reduce the diverse material discussed by Wackernagel to a single ‘law’. Most of the Greek particles are accented (but cf. e.g. ῥα, θην, νυ, νυν), and the Latin particles are for the most part not restricted to the second position. See further below, pp. 2-3. 7. Wackernagel (1892,371-5). 8. Wackernagel was drawing on Seyffert-Miiller (1876, 441-2). 9. For other such examples, see Wackernagel (1892, 407). 10.

Wanner is, however, rightly cautious: see below, p. 6.

11. This is not the place to describe Fraenkel's criteria for establishing colon divisions, but it is worth drawing attention to Habinek’s recent work on the subject (1985). Habinek found evidence of punctuation marks in papyri and manuscripts indicating colon divisions of the type established by Fraenkel (see e.g. 85-6). For a partial anticipation of Fraenkel, see Wackernagel (1892, 370-1 on Horn. B 310). 12. I use a pair of obliques to indicate what I take to be colon divisions. For the type of short colon here, cf. Cic. Brut. 16 ego autem II uoluntatem tibi profecto emetiar. For a similar example in a colloquial text, see Claudius Terentianus, P. Mich. VIII. 467.6 t]u autem II dedisti illis aspros. See further Fraenkel (1965, 67). For a discussion of Fraenkel’s views on the ‘short colon’ (Kurzkolon, Auftakt), see Laughton (1970, 190-1). 13. For Hale’s view see further below, n. 84. Cf. Krisch (1990, 66). 14. Kaisse (1985, 77), writing of Tagalog. 15. On -ne as a sentence enclitic, see e.g. Allen (1973, 25). 16. See, e.g. Marouzeau (1949, 103 (enim), 113 (igitur)).

92

J. N. ADAMS

17. See the discussion of Janson (1979, esp. 99, 113). 18. See Janson (1979, 99-100). 19. Details can be found in Janson (1979, 97-101). 20. Kaisse ( 1985, 84) notes: ‘there are languages where nonsentential clitics appear attached to their phrase of origin ... Ancient Greek appears to have been able to leave nonsentential clitics in their home phrase, at least optionally’ (there follows the example of δή quoted below, n. 21 ). On ‘non-sentential’ enclitics in IndoEuropean, see in general Krisch (1990, 65). 21. In Greek δή may behave as an ‘internal’ clitic. Note, e.g., Xen. HG 5.4.6 εἰσήγαγε τὰς ἑταίρας δή, quoted by Denniston (1934, 235), and translated: ‘the “ courtesans” , i.e. men disguised as such’. In this function δή ‘often denotes that words are not to be taken at their face value, objectively, but express something merely believed, or ironically supposed, to be true’. Ruijgh (1990, 216) discusses the use of περ as a non-sentential enclitic, quoting e.g. Y 65 65 τά τε στυγέουσι θεοί περ. He observes: ‘La domaine de περ est le seul mot θεοί: “ ... qu’abhorrent même les dieux” .’ 22. Solodow (1978) provides a particularly clear classification of the uses of quidem. 23. Examples are conveniently collected by Solodow (1978, 36-7), with bibliography (see 37 n. 22); see also Allen (1973, 178), Wackernagel (1955, 1091-2). 24. See Allen (1973, 51, 131). 25. See especially Solodow (1978, 18, 37-9, 40, 42, 48, 68, 70, 88, 105). 26. On these passages, see Solodow (1978, 39). 27. A common pattern: see Solodow (1978, 105). 28. See Solodow (1978, 70). 29. See Marouzeau (1949, 68), and below, Chap. 11. 30. This is how Marouzeau (1949, 68) summarises his position: ‘... que la place de la copule est fonction du terme avec lequel elle est en relation syntaxique directe, à savoir l’attribut, et que, si elle occupe fréquemment la seconde place dans la phrase, c’est que l’attribut, auquel elle est normalement postposée, occupe assez naturellement la première’. 31. See further, for example, Kroll (1921,33), (1925, 94), Marouzeau ( 1938, 21), Hofmann-Szantyr (1965, 390-1,400). 32. On the relative position of esse and enim when they occur together at the start of a sentence, see in general Watt (1980, 120). Watt suggests that it is predominantly the form est which forces enim into third position in Cicero (some 350 times). Sunt is far less frequently placed before enim (19-20 times). Looked at another way, Watt’s statistics show that forms of root es- push enim into third place about 390 times, whereas those of form fu- do so only twice. I will return below (pp. 46-7) to the different behaviour of the esand fu- forms. It is likely that the monosyllabic form est (which was subject to prodelision in early Latin) was unaccented, and that as such it had a more marked clitic character than longer forms. Watt does not, unfortunately, provide information about the terms preceding enim and est,sunt etc., some of which were undoubtedly potential determinants of the order adopted.

NOTES

93

33. See Hofmann-Szantyr (1965, 448). 34. See Wackernagel (1928, 260-2). 35. For brief discussion of this phenomenon, see Marouzeau (1910, 95-8) (unsatisfactory), Kroll (1921, 37-8) (criticising Marouzeau at 37 n. 1). 36. Alternatively est might be interpreted as existential: quinam modus melior dicendi x est? ‘What better manner of speaking is there?’ 37. On the notion of the ‘short colon’, see above, n. 12. 38. For which see Quirk et al. (1985, 1371-2). 39. Note Allerton and Cruttenden (1979,53): ‘notions of ‘‘gi ven/new” or ‘‘topic/comment’ ’ do not provide a complete explanation [of accent placement] ... In general terms the placement of the main accent shows which item the speaker considers most important on the occasion of his saying the sentence ... Of course newness still has a part to play but sometimes other factors take precedence. Thus when we say The TAP’S leaking both the tap and its leaking are in some sense new, but the important thing in the speaker’s mind is to get the attention of the listener focused on the tap.’ 40. Klotz emended to te esse omnes, needlessly. 41. See Marouzeau (1922, 87) for some statistics concerning the placement of magnus in Caesar. 42. But when anteposition of magnus, omnis etc. became a banal order, there developed a tendency to postpone such adjectives for special emphasis: see Marouzeau (1922, 87). 43. For ‘relative’ adjectives, see e.g. Hamann (1991, 668). 44. See Fraenkel (1968, 75-7) for discussion of this and other such passages. 45. See Dover (1968«, 140-1) - though not explicitly classifying such examples as ‘split subjects/ predicates’. 46. See Bennett (1987, 276). 47. Cf. Cic. Att. 6.1.13 ualde se honeste gerunt, where it is an enclitic pronoun which separates ualde from its adverb. In (100) autem takes precedence over est (contrast (36)-(42)). 48. See Lyons (1977, 646). 49. See Vogel (1937, 23). 50. The average length of the first ten cola identified by Fraenkel (1968, 27) in Cic. Cat. 2.1 is about three words. 51. See for example Wanner (1987. 168-9). Marshall (1987) constantly uses the term ‘peninitial’, by which he seems to mean rather ‘almost second’ (see 7-8). Note too Wackernagel (1892, 374): ‘Es bleiben so 28 Beispiele: 21 bieten κα an zweiter oder so gut wie zweiter Stelle’ (my italics). 52. See Lyons (1977, 659).

94

J. N. ADAMS

53. See Dover (1968/?, 14-15). 54. See the examples quoted by Dover (1968a, 140). 55. It would be simple to illustrate at some length the choices which had to be faced by a writer. I give a few examples. At Cic. Cat. 1.6 (luce sunt clariora nobis tua consilia omnia) luce rather than omnia is obviously the focus; the immediate context stresses the public exposure to which Catiline’s plots were subject. At Cic. De orat. 3.20 (omnia haec, quae supra et subter, unum esse et una ui atque [una] consensione naturae constricta esse dixerunt) the repetition of iinus shows its focused character, and accordingly unum is chosen as host of esse rather than omnia. Cic. De orat. 3.149 is an example of a type which is probably not uncommon: nam est quidam ornatus orationis, qui ex singulis uerbis est; alius, qui ex continuatis [coniunctis] constat. Here there is a clear-cut contrast between singulis and continuatisi, but instead of writing ex singulis est uerbis, Cicero, for reasons which cannot be discerned, has selected the basic order S pred. est. One option always available to a writer was to use the order S pred. est, even when there was a focused term other than the predicate which might in theory have hosted est. 56. It is worth noting in passing that in the second sentence of the present example the predicate intus (three ti mes) is clearly focused, yet only in the third clause does it attract esse. The unusual order intus insidiae sunt, = pred. S est, is discussed below, Chap. 8. especially (275)—(283). The pattern here is not particularly surprising, however, because there is, as noted, a double contrast in the context: between external peace, and internal discord. If intus is focused, so too are iinsidiae, periculum and hostis. In the first two clauses Cicero has chosen to focus intus by anteposition, and insidiae/periculum by the attachment of the copula. 57. For ita/sic as hosts of clitic pronouns, see the material assembled by Wackernagel (1892, 410-11). 58. Nisbet (1961, 147) was not strictly correct to explain the placement of sum here by invoking the notion that the second position is ‘unemphatic’; on this view by implication sum has adopted its position in accordance with Wackernagel’s law. There is also obviously no force to Goold’s scruple (1992, 291) against the emended text of Prop. 1.13.13 haec non rumore malo, non augure doctus. He states: ‘A scruple against Rossberg’s correction is raised by the consideration that an inverted auxiliary tense is not normally separated by more than a single word when it is not conjoined.’ 59. Cf. Cic. De orat. 3.75 non modo non pro me, , sed contra me est potius. Here pro and contra are the con trasted opposites, but est is attached to the prepositional expression as a whole. 60. Note, e.g., Cic. Sest. 56 lege tribunicia Matris Magnae Pessinuntius ille sacerdos expulsus et spoliatus sacerdotio est, Livy 9.19.13 et forsitan, cum etfoederibus uetustis iuncta res Punica Romanae esset et timor par aduersus communem hostem duas potentissimas armis uirisque urbes armaret, [et] simul Punico Romanoque obrutus bello esset, Livy 9.22.10 sed extemplo ad pedes descensum ab Romanis est coactique idem Samnites face re. 61. This column includes examples both in main and subordinate clauses. 62. See Linde (1923, 154-6). 63. This can be seen in those numerous cases where a relative (adjective) is split by ego or tu from its adjective, or a genitive from its governing noun: e.g. Cic. Cat. 2.29 quibus ego ducibus in hanc spem sententiamque sum ingressus. Red. sen.. 20 cuius ego clientibus … ita sum sustentatus, Red. sen. 32 quibus ego rebus obiectis // … multa me cum ipse reputaui, Q. fr. 1.2.6 cuius tu in patrem quod fuisti asperior non reprehendo, Fam. 15.4.5 cuius ego studio officioque commotus egi ...' Demonstratives are also separated from their noun in the same way: e.g. Cic. Cat. 3.17 hunc ego hominem tam acrem … nisi… compulissem.Pis. 23 huius tu Clodiani canis insignibus consulatum declarari putas?

NOTES

95

64. It might be noted that quicumque is sometimes split and a pronoun attached to qui (see Wackernagel (1892, 407) for examples). 65. See Adams (1976, 86-7), Hettrich (1988, 504-5). 66. Just as the interrogative pronoun is focused in this example, so Apulia is contrasted with Eíruriam, agrum Picenum, and Gallicum. Sit moves up behind the interrogative, and the slot between it and the participle is given to the contrastive term Apulia. It is not unusual to find a focused term in this position, particularly if it is a subordinating conjunction, relative or interrogative, to which the auxiliary is attached: e.g. Cic. Lael. 8 ut est a Fannio dictum, 25. 67. At 1.7 it is clear enough that uinea is subject and prima predicate (note ssecundo loco in the next clause, taking up prima, and establishing that the latter is predicate), but it is not quite so clear at 157.1 that prima is subject rather than predicate. I take it as subject (= ‘the first is . ..’). 68. See Marouzeau (1938, 51-2). 69. See further Vogel (1937, 22, 39, 50). 70. Cf., e.g., Cic. Lael. 5 cuius tota disputatio est de amicitia, 15 id in quo omnis uis est amicitiae ..., 62 cuius omnis sermo erat de amicitia. Each of these clauses begins with a relative which might have hosted the copula. Instead the copula has moved to the quantified noun phrase (rather than to that part of the noun phrase - tota, omnis - which might have been expected to attract it). 71. See further Vogel (1937, 20, 38). 72. See further Vogel (1937, 20) for this pattern. 73. See Vogel (1937, 4, 66). 74. It cannot however be stated as an absolute that the veridical copula cannot be deleted: note Cic. Att. 14.6.2 uides reliquos magistratus, si isti magistratus (‘if these people are magistrates’: Shackleton Bailey). But here perhaps it is si which bears the focus. 75. See Kahn (1973,359); the usage is recognised for Latin by Marouzeau (1910,45-51), id. (1938, 11-17). 76. See Quirk et al. (1985, 1371-2): ‘focus on auxiliaries indicating past or future often draws contrastive attention to the tense or aspect.’ 77. But contrast Cic. Pis. 30 30 quisquam uos consules tunc fuisse aut nunc esse consularis putet. Here Cicero has focalised the contrastive temporal adverbs tunc/nunc by attaching the copula, instead of placing fuisse/esse at the head of their cola with temporal adverbs not expressed. 78. See Vogel (1937, 19). 79. Contrast Austin (1960, 127): ‘here Cicero means “ their original instructions, their original stationing had been for this one purpose’’, stressing the length of time for which the scheme had stood’. 80. On Greek see Horrocks (1990, 39). 81. In certain Ethiopian languages, Zayse (an Omotic language) and Arbore (a Cushitic language) subject pronouns cliticise on to focused elements. See Hayward (1990, 319^11). I am grateful to Professor Hayward for information on this point.

96

J. N. ADAMS

82. For this idea, illustrated from Greek, see Horrocks (1990, 39). 83. See Allen (1973, 148-9). 84. It is of note that Hale (1987, Chap. 3, 70-165) has recently argued from early Indo-Iranian evidence that the original position of unstressed pronouns may not have been second in their clause at all. Note (71): ‘I will present evidence which may indicate that in the Indo-European proto-language itself Wackernagel’s Law held only for sentential clitics, the extension to pronominal clitics being an innovation present in a number of daughter languages.’ See also Krisch (1990, 66). I will myself be considering pronoun placement in Latin in a forthcoming paper. 85. See Kuhner-Stegmann (1955, II, 602), Kroll (1925, 94). 86. See Adams (1971, 2). 87. Adams (1971, 2). 88. Cited by Adams (1971, 12).

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, J. N. (1971) ‘A type of hyperbaton in Latin prose’, PCPS 197: 1-16 (1976) ‘A typological approach to Latin word order’, IF 81: 70-99 Allen, W. S. (1973) AAccent and rhythm. Prosodic features of Latin and Greek: a study in theory and reconstruction Allerton, D. J. and Cruttenden, A. (1979) Three reasons for accenting a definite subject', Journal of Linguistics 15: 49–53 Austin, R. G. (1960) M. Tulli Ciceronis pro M. Caelio oratio 3rd ed. Bennett, D. C. (1987) ‘Word-order change in progress: the case of Slovene and Serbo-Croat and its relevance for Germanic’, Journal of Linguistics 23: 269-87 Collinge, N. E. (1985) The laws of Indo-European Denniston, J. D. (1934) TThe Greek particles Dover, K. J. (1968a) Lysias and the Corpus Lysiacum (1968b) Greek word order Eichner, H. and Rix, H. (eds.) (1990) Sprachwissenschaft und Philologie: Jacob Wackernagel und die Indogermanistik heute Fraenkel, E. (1928) Iktus und Akzent im lateinischen Sprechvers (1932) ‘Kolon und Satz: Beobachtungen zur Gliederung des antiken Satzes I’, Nachrichten der Göttinger Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse (1932), 197-213, = id. (1964) 73- 92 (1933) ‘Kolon und Satz: Beobachtungen zur Gliederung des antiken Satzes II’, Nachr. Gött.Ges. d. Wiss., Phil.-hist. Klasse ( 1933), 319-54, = id. (1964) 93-130 ‘Nachträge zu “Kolon und Satz, II’” , in id. (1964) 131-9 (1964) Kleine Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie I (1965) ‘Noch einmal Kolon und Satz’, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophischhistorische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, Heft 2 (1966) ‘Zur “ Wackernagelschen” Stellung von ἡμῖν, ὑμῖν , nobis, uobis’, Mus. Helv. 23: 65-8 (1968) ) Leseproben aus Reden Ciceros und Catos Giacalone Ramat, A. (1990) ‘Discourse functions and syntactic change’, in H . Andersen and K. Koerner (eds.), Historical linguistics 1987. Papers from the 8th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (Lille, 31 August – 4 September 1987), 175–90 Goold, G. P. (1992) ‘Paralipomena Propertiana', HSCP 94: 287-320 Gospodnetiö, J. (1987-8) ‘Mjesto enklitike: prilog razumijevanju redariječi’, Filologija 15: 115-26 (French abstract, 126) Habinek, T. N. (1985) The colometry of Latin prose (University of California Publications: Classical Studies vol. 25) H ale, M. R. (1987) ‘Studies in the comparative syntax of the oldest Indo-Iranian languages’ (Harvard University Ph.D. thesis) Hamann, Cornelia (1991) ‘Adjectives’, in von Stechow and Wunderlich (1991) 657-73 Hayward, R. J. (1990) ‘Notes on the Zayse language’, in R. J. Hayward (ed.), Omotic language studies, 210355 H ettrich, H . (1988) Untersuchungen zur Hypotaxe im Vedischen Hofmann, J. B. and Szantyr, A. (1965) Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik Horrocks, G. C. (1990) ‘Clitics in Greek - a diachronic review’, in M. Roussou and S. Panteli (eds.), Greek outside Greece II (Greek Language Research Group) 35-52 Janson, T. (1979) Mechanisms of language change in Latin Kahn, C. H . (1973) The verb ‘be’ in ancient Greek Kaisse, Ellen M. (1985) Connected speech: the interaction of syntax and phonology Krisch, T. (1990) ‘Das Wackernagelsche Gesetz aus heutiger Sicht’, in Eichner and Rix (1990) 64-81

98

J. N. ADAMS

Kroll, W. (1921) ‘Die Stellung von esse’, Satura Viadrina altera. Festschrift zum fünfzigjährigen Bestehenhen des Philologischen Vereins zu Breslau, 31-40 (1925) Die wissenschaftliche Syntax im lateinischen Unterricht 3rd ed. Kühner, R. and Stegmann, C. (1955) Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache 2 vols., 3rd ed. revised by A. Thierfelder Laughton, E. (1970) Review of E. Fraenkel, Leseproben aus Reden Ciceros und Catos, JRS 60: 188-94 Linde, P. (1923) ‘Die Stellung des Verbs in der lateinischen Prosa’, Glotta 12: 153-78 Lindsay, W. M. (1894) The Latin language Löfstedt, B. (1966-7) ‘Die Konstruktion c’est lui qui l’a fait im Lateinischen’, IF 71: 253-74 Lyons, J. (1977) Semantics II Marouzeau, J. (1908-9) ‘Sur l’enclise du verbe “ être” en latin’, MSL 15: 230-6 (1910) La phrase à verbe “être” en latin (1922) L’ordre des mots dans la phrase latine I (1938) L’ordre des mots dans la phrase latine II (1949) L’ordre des mots dans la phrase latine III (1953) L’ordre des mots en latin. Volume complémentaire Marshall, M. H. B. (1987) Verbs, nouns and postpositives in Attic prose Meillet, A. (1906-8) ‘La phrase nominale en indo-européen’, MSL 14: 1-26 Nisbet, R. G. M. (1961) M. Tulli Ciceronis in L. Calpurnium Pisonem oratio Pearce, T. E. V. (1966) ‘The enclosing word order in the Latin hexameter’, CQ n.s. 16: 140-71, 298-320 Pinkster, H. (1990) Latin syntax and semantics Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language Renou, L. (1952) Grammaire de la langue védique Ruijgh, C. J. (1990) ‘La place des enclitiques dans l’ordre des mots chez Homère d’après la loi de Wackernagel’, in Eichner and Rix ( 1990) 213-33 Scherer, A. (1975) Handbuch der lateinischen Syntax Seyffert, M. and Müller, C. F. W. (1876) M. Tullii Ciceronis Laelius de amicitia dialogus 2nd ed. Solodow, J. B. (1978) The Latin particle quidem Spencer, A. (1991) Morphological theory: an introduction to word structure in generative grammar Stechow, A. ( 1991 ) ‘Current issues in the theory of focus’, in von Stechow and Wunderlich (1991) 80425 von Stechow, A. and Wunderlich, D. (eds.) (1991) Semantik Vetter, E. (1953) Handbuch der italischen Dialekte I Vogel, W. S. (1937) Zur Stellung von esse bei Caesar und Sallust Wackernagel, J. (1892) ‘Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung’, IF 1: 333-436 (1928) Vorlesungen über Syntax II (1955) Kleine Schriften II Wanner, D. (1987) The development of Romance clitic pronouns from Latin to Old Romance Watkins, C. (1964) ‘Preliminaries to the reconstruction of Indo-European sentence structure’, Proceedings o f the Ninth International Congress (1962) of Linguistics, 1035-42 Watt, W. S. (1980) ‘Enim Tullianum’, CQ n.s. 30: 120-3 Woodcock, E. C. (1959) A new Latin syntax Zwicky, A. M. (1977) On clitics, Indiana University Linguistics Club (1985) ‘Clitics and particles’, Language 61: 283-305