Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T08:49:17.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Enim Tullianum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

W. S. Watt
W. S. Watt
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘Ist die zweite Stelle des Satzes bereits durch ein anderes Enklitikon besetzt, so tritt enim auch in klassischer Prosa oft an die 3. und 4. Stelle zurück’ (Hofmann-Szantyr). How often, and in what circumstances, does enim in Cicero occupy any place but the second? The answer to this question is sometimes relevant to the establishment of the text.

And the answer is: there are many instances which fall into categories A and B below; in all other categories, C-G below, there are comparatively few.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , May 1980 , pp. 120 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lat. Syntax u. Stilistik (1965), p. 508.Google Scholar See also Kühner-Stegmann, , Ausf. Gramm. ii. 133 ff.,Google Scholar and Friedrich's article in Thes. L. L. v. 2. 574–7Google Scholar (referred to below as Thes.).

2 In Caesar, according to Meusel 's Lexicon, there are only three instances, two after a prepositional phrase and one after unus quisque.

3 Kühner-Stegmann, loc. cit. 135, Anm. 4.Google Scholar

4 I have listed qua de re and quam ob rem under C below. At Att. 12.17, ‘miniante enim aedilitatem’, not even the most conservative editor would stomach the paradosis, and enim is always placed after mihi.

5 With the exception of Hand, F., Tursellinus (Leipzig, 1829-1845) ii. 401.Google Scholar

6 I ignore Att. 5.21.12 ‘et erat enim’, where this paradosis is universally corrected to ‘etenim erat’ because classical Latin does not allow a word to intervene between connective et (or nec/neque) and enim; see Thes. 575.35 ff.

7 Edition of Orator (Heidelberg, 1952).Google Scholar

8 One of these two is Hand's emendation of Att. 4. 5. 1 ‘ (iam) dudum enim circumrodo’, which has been adopted by the two most recent critical editions.

9 I ignore Att. 6. 1. 11 ‘nee ego enim’, which has as good authority as ‘nee enim ego’ but is not classical Latin; see n. 6 above.

10 Hofmann-Szantyr 353 f.

11 vi.148.

12 As it may well have at Att. 13. 33. 2 ‘puto te aliquid fecisse. †H† in Capitolio’; see Sjögren-Thörnell-Önnerfors ad loc.

13 Cf. Thes. 575. 26 ff.

14 Corresponsive, not connective; see n. 6 above.

15 See Plasberg (ed. maior, Leipzig, 1908) ad loc. I think that Halm's iam for enim may well be right.

16 Thes. 575. 71 suggests nil for nihil in order to obtain a monosyllable as first word.

17 Teubner, 1923.