LATIN DISCOURSE PARTICLES.pdf

7/22/2019 LATIN DISCOURSE PARTICLES.pdf

1/25

LATIN DISCOURSE PARTICLES, MEDICALLATIN AND CLASSICAL LATIN1)

by

D.R. LANGSLOW

1. A recent discourse-pragmatic account of six Latin particles

In her recent book on Latin particles,2) Caroline Kroon denes

particles as (1995: 35) those invariable words which have in com-

mon that they t their host unit into a wider perspective, which

may be the surrounding verbal context and its implications, or the

communicative situation in which the text is integrated. Her inter-

est, then, is in the discourse function of particles, and she makes

extensive and illuminating use of modern discourse analysis in deal-

ing with her Latin corpus. Her 1989 conference-paper3) deals in a

preliminary way with nam and enim, and igitur and ergo; her book

(1995) greatly expands the account of nam and enim and adds autem,uero and at, together with a fully-elaborated theoretical framework.

The table below (after Kroon 1995: 373) represents some broad

categories of analysis of Latin particles, and is to be read as follows.

presentational interactional interactionalconnective situating connective

causal/consecutive nam; igitur enim ergoadversative autem uero at

1) I am very grateful to Caroline Kroon for her comments on an early versionof part of this paper, which started life as a talk in the Comparative PhilologyGraduate Seminar in the University of Oxford in November 1996, and was pre-sented in successive versions in May 1997 in Cambridge, at the Vulgar LatinColloquium in honour of Jzsef Herman, and in September 1997 in Heidelberg,at the 5th International Congress on Vulgar and Late Latin, the proceedings of

which contain a shorter version of it (H. Petersmann, R. Kettemann [ed.], Latinvulgairelatin tardif V[Heidelberg 1999], 169-82). I am grateful also to the partic-ipants in the discussion on all three occasions. The present version contains trans-


2/25

and ergo, in: M. Lavency, D. Longre (ed.), Actes du V e Colloque de Linguistique latine,

The labels to the left correspond to the traditional semantic/logical

classication; the labels above give Kroons own discourse-pragmatic

classication, in which particles are said to be either connective or

situating and, simultaneously, to operate either on the presenta-tional or on the interactional level of discourse. Connective par-

ticles t their host unit into the surrounding verbal context and its

implications, situating particles place it rather in the communicative

situation in which the text is integrated (cf. the denition in the

last paragraph). The distinction between presentational and inter-

actional has to do with how the author chooses to present his

text: as a one-sided distribution of information or as an interactional

process where the commitment of the hearer is required (Kroon

1989: 241). Each particle is subjected to a step-wise semantic analysis,

in the course of which it is assigned a basic meaning and a num-

ber of side-eVects. Side-eVects are, more or less, what diction-

aries tell you particles are used for; the basic meaningperhaps

more controversialis the individual, clearly demarcated basic func-

tion of the particle (Kroon 1989: 233) or the unifying concept

for a motley collection of uses (Kroon 1995: 202) associated with

the particle. Here are the basic meanings and side-eVects that Kroon

(1995: 168, 202, 270, 327) ascribes to four of her particles, together

with her earlier (1989: 236, 238) characterizations of igiturand ergo:

nambasic meaning: subsidiarity; side-eVects: causality; adver-sativity; a rmation.

enimbasic meaning: consensus; side-eVects: causality; rein-forcement; focalization; weak adversativity; result.

autembasic meaning: distinctiveness;4) side-eVects: rein-forcement of the illocutionary intention of the speaker; adver-sativity; causality.

uerobasic meaning: actuality, reality;5) side-eVects: adversa-tive connection; indication of the organization of the text;

emphatic focus.

538 D.R. LANGSLOW


3/25

ing particle with a discourse function on both the representational and the inter-actional level of discourse. In its representational function vero designates the actu-ality or reality of a state of aVairs. In its interactional function vero indicates (i) ahigh degree of personal commitment on the part of the speaker/author to thetruth or appropriateness of the message being communicated; or (ii) the sincerity

of the speakers illocutionary intention or the actuality of the perlocutionary eVect.6) One aspect of this distinction between nam and enim is interestingly fore-

shadowed already in a footnote (quoted by Kroon 1995: 142) in Harm Pinksters

igiturmarks important new steps within the sequential structure ofideas, after the fullment in the preceding context of a necessary pre-condition for that step.

ergomarks text units which, on account of their virtually knowncontent, have a monitoring function in the discourse.

I add a word more on her account of nam and enim, partly by way

of example but also because in what follows I shall have most to

say about these two particles. Nam, then, is characterized (Kroon

1995: 144) as primarily a connective particle which functions on

the presentational level of discourse. More specically, nam marks

discourse units that provide subsidiary information with regard toanother, more central discourse unit. Enim, on the other hand, is

said to be (Kroon 1995: 171) a situating consensus particle which

indicates an appeal to the involvement and cooperation of the

addressee in the speech-event, and can thus be said to play a role on

the interactionallevel of discourse. With these basic meanings Kroon

establishes a clearer distinction between the alleged near-synonyms

nam and enim,6

) and at the heart of this distinction are their diVerentrespective discourse functions, for, as Kroon concludes in her ear-

lier article (1989: 241), it seems to be a question of how the author

chooses to present his text: as a one-sided distribution of informa-

tion or as an interactional process where the commitment of the

hearer is required. To put it shortly: namand enim, and igiturand ergo,

often seem to be interchangeable from a syntactic and semantic point

of view. Pragmatically, however, they are always clearly distinct.In part of what follows, I shall raise questions about the claim

LATIN DISCOURSE PARTICLES 539


4/25

underlined above. I draw attention briey now to other features in

the above account, which will be relevant in the discussion below.

The rst is the absence of a time-dimension: it is impliedor at

least nowhere expressly doubtedthat the above descriptions applywithout change to the corpus of classical Latin studied, which

covers the period from Plautus to about A.D. 200 (Kroon 1995: 3).

The second is the expectation raisedin my mind, at leastby the

above claim and the above distinctions between near-synonymous

particles that there are sets of minimal pairs in which the discourse-

pragmatic oppositions stand out clearly and against which these

oppositions can be tested: this expectation is, I think, not fullled

by our Latin record and this perhaps requires some explanation.

I begin, however, with a brief report of a more positive nature.

Taking enim by way of example, I tested against some technical

prose texts of the earlier and later Empire some of Kroons state-

ments and predictions about the sort of contexts which favour the

choice of enim rather than nam. For the most part the ndings agree

well with her hypotheses about the distribution of enim. Here are

four examples, with brief illustration from Scribonius Largus (mid

1st century A.D.) and Pelagonius (late 4th century), the former well

within the period of the corpus studied by Kroon, the latter from

a much later time.

In virtue of its discourse-pragmatic function, enim is said to be

favoured rather than nam: (a) in letters, or in prose having the form

of a letter; (b) with 1st- and 2nd-person verb forms and pronouns;

(c) in rhetorical questions; (d) in other sorts of parenthesis (see Kroon

1989: 242, n. 10, 1995: 207). All four predictions are found to be

true of the use of enim by Scribonius and Pelagonius. (a) is illus-

trated by the predominance of enim in the preface of Scribonius

Largus, which takes the form of a dedicatory epistle to C. Iulius

Callistus: in these few pages, 4% of the text, we nd 17% of the

occurrences of enim. (b), (c) and (d) also turn out to hold good for

these technical texts, and may be illustrated with examples (1), (2)and (3) respectively:

540 D.R. LANGSLOW


5/25

7) Briey on these terms: under discourse type Kroon (1995: 109 V.) distin-guishes dialogal (e.g. a play) and monologal (e.g. a history), each of whichmay be monological (e.g. a long speech in a play) or dialogical (e.g. a reported

conversation in a history). Even monological monologal discourse (e.g. a speech ofCicero or a medical text) may exhibit diaphony, namely when (p. 112) theprevalent reportive (ideational, demonstrative) layer of a text is temporarily deserted

(2) Scribonius p. 45.19 quis enim aduersus ueritatem hiscere potest? (Whoenim can open his mouth in the face of the truth?)

(3) Pelagonius 141.2 interdum et nimio otio (descendens enim acrior umor uri-nam prohibet), interdum nimio frigore ([dysury is caused] sometimes eventhrough excessive inactivityenim a rather sharp humour comes downand prevents urinationsometimes through excessive cold)

Kroon nds further strong evidence for a discourse function of enim

(also ergo, uero and at) on the interactional level of discourse in its

relative frequency compared with nam (and igiturand autem) in cer-

tain large bodies of text which may be held to represent a certain

discourse type. She observes, for example, that while in Ciceroscorrespondence as a whole enim is about two-and-a-half times more

frequent than nam, in his letters to Atticus it is as much as ve

times commoner than nam; or, again, in his philosophical works enim

prevails over nam by a ratio of 4:1 but in the De amicitia and De

senectute this proportion is as great as 18:1. The high frequency of

enim inAtt., Amic. and Sen. Kroon attributes on the one hand to the

closeness of Ciceros relationship with Atticus (1995: 124) and, on

the other, to the presence of an amicable character! (1989: 242,

n. 8) in each of the two dialogues.

Further indications of a similar nature are adduced by Kroon in

her ndings that nam, igiturand autem, are associated with mono-

phonic discourse, while enim, ergo, uero and atare likely to be frequent

in even monological monologal discourse if it has a diaphonic

character.7) This observation made me curious to compare the dis-

tribution of these particles in certain technical prose works of the

late Republic and early Empire: see the gures below.



6/25

Vitruvius Scribonius Plin.Nat. Sen.Nat.

nam : enim 27 : 210 12 : 114 288 : 575 67 : 280igitur : ergo 34 : 79 1 : 17 36 : 180 1 : 153

Columella Varro, Rust. Celsus Cassius Felix

nam : enim 670 : 236 48 : 215 170 : 178 25 : 30igitur : ergo 78 : 35 16 : 2 64 : 83 1 : 3

On Kroons hypothesis, one might informally surmise that Vitruvius,

Scribonius, Seneca in the Naturales quaestiones and the Elder Pliny

impart a diaphonic character to their monological discourse, while

Columella, with his preference for nam and igitur, dispenses his teach-ing in a more consistently monophonic type of discourse. Varro,

on the other hand, somewhat unexpectedly, especially given the

dialogal nature of the text, prefers igiturabove ergo (although nei-

ther particle is common in his work).8)

In two of the medical writers in my sample, Celsus and Cassius

Felix, there is no clear preference for nam or enim. Interesting ques-

tions arise for both writers, but I determined to investigate rst theuse of the particles in Cassius Felix, partly because his work is of

a more manageable size than that of Celsus, partly because his style

appears plain, simple and unrhetorical (certainly in comparison with

Celsus) and also because he is writing well after the end of the

period considered by Kroon and so in principle holds out the

prospect of suggesting lines of diachronic development after A.D.

200. My ndings, which I summarize in the next section, took mecompletely by surprise.

2. Particles in Cassius Felix, De medicina (A.D. 447) and the structure

of medical recipes

Igiturand ergo are ignored because they are so infrequent. In what

follows I give a pretty well exhaustive account of Cassius use of

542 D.R. LANGSLOW


7/25

uero (219 examples), autem (116 exx.), nam (25 exx.) and enim (30

exx.) (references are topage.lineof Valentin Roses Teubner edition

of 1879).

Vero (219 exx.) on the other hand highlights the second mem-ber of a pairwise contrast9) (like Greek d answering mn); the con-

trasted units may be relatively small (clauses or single words) or

very large (chapter-halves). The latter case arises when uero intro-

duces the section on treatment (total 40 exx.), in three formulaic

expressions: in curationibus uero . . . (22 vs 8 autem), curationis uero tem-

pore . . . (10 vs 5 autem) and ob diligentiam uero curationis . . . (8). This

use of uero is, I think, to be explained by the fact that the rst men-

tion of treatment (curatio) introduces the second half of the chapter;

uero signals as usual that we are moving to the second part of a

pairwise contrast, in this case between very large units (definition

and diagnosisvs treatment). Alternatively, the curatio-section can be

seen as just another one of the series of ordered paragraphs mak-

ing up the chapter and accordingly introduced with autem (see below).

In contrasting smaller units, uero appears especially after si, sin,

ubi (total 73 exx.: see ex. (4)); after alius, alter, aliquis, aliquando, etc.

(total 23 exx.: see ex. (5)); and in various other contrasts, including

time expressions (12 exx.: see ex. (6)), successive stages of the course

of the disease (6 exx.), contrasting treatments according to the age

and/or sex of the patient (5 exx.), similar diseases, diVerent species

of the same disease, Greek and Latin terminology, types of food

and drink, etc. (total 49 exx.: see exx. (7)-(9)).

(4) 4.8-15 si ex encauseos fuerit dolor . . . . si uero ex frigore fuerit dolor, . . .(If the pain arises from (?)heatstroke, . . . . If uero the pain arises fromcold, . . .)

(5) 154.11-2 et aliquando cum hilaritate frenetizant, aliquando uero cum tris-titia (And sometimes they are delirious in a gleeful way, sometimesuero in a sorrowful way)

(6) 185.19-20 et appones ad uesperam et sines totam noctem, mane uero muta-bis (and you shall apply it in the evening and leave it on all night,uero change it in the morning)



8/25

(8) 159.10-160.3 est autem pleuritis causatio in una parte pulmonis. . . . peripleu-monia uero est causatio in toto pulmone(Pleuritis is an aiction in one partof the lung. . . . Peripleumonia uero is an aiction in the whole lung)

(9) 143.11-4 a porcinis carnibus abstinendum . . . . uino uero utendum tenui etalbo (He should abstain from eating pork. . . . Wine uero he shouldtake, (specically that which is) light and white)

Altogether the above uses leave a very small residue of, at most,

eleven examples of uero in other functions.10)

Autem (116 exx.) is used in the large majority of cases for mark-

ing the start of the next paragraph in the very well-dened struc-

ture of medical chapters of this kind.

11

) In particular, autem introduces:(a) the denition: est autem greek disease-term: definition (16 exx.)

(b) the diagnosis: sequitur autem list of symptoms (24 exx.)

(c) the means of treatment: curatio autem haec est (18 exx.)

(d) the ingredients for a given recipe: recipit autem ingredients (26

exx.)

(e) various other paragraph-openings (8 exx.), as in (10):

(10) 86.5-12 [The colour and consistency of blood spat up indicatesits source] si fuerit nigellus, . . . . si uero auus fuerit, . . . . si uero nigellus fueritet ueluti glebosus, . . . . si autem sine ullo dolore. . .fuerit emissus (If it isdark, . . . . If uero it is reddish-yellow, . . . . If uero it is dark and sort ofclotted, . . . . If autem it is brought up without any pain)

Then there are 11 examples in which autem means roughly and,

by the way, taking the reader back to a preceding unit and adding

some information about it, e.g.:

(11) 97.7-9 facit et ad X et ad Y et hepaticis et spleneticis. est autem et poda-gricis optimum. (It is eVective against X and Y and for those suVeringin the liver or the spleen. It is autemvery good also for those suVeringfrom gout.)

(12) 79.15-7 caninum mum album colliges et siccabis. t autem hoc si ossabubula sola ante diem uel biduum canes manducantes custodias (Take some

10) One or two of ante uero . . . (19.14, 13.5?) meaning but beforehand (beforeyou do what I have just said, do the following, i.e. overlap with sed ); four in which

544 D.R. LANGSLOW


9/2512) Two are, I think, doubtful (after aliquando: 49.4, 122.16), two are in quota-tions (64.16, 84.13), and two may be for reasons of euphony (41.6 hiberno autem,

white dog-manure and dry it. It goes white autem if you keep dogson a diet of ox-bones for a day or two beforehand)

Again the residue is small: we are left with at most 13 exx. of autem

in contexts where in Cassius Felix uero would be normal,12

) of whichonly seven are clear cases of autem for uero.13)

Nam (25 exx.)14) is used for introducing information of two types:

(a) for giving a Greek medical term: 15 examples with two sub-

types: nam Graeci X uocant(11 exx.) and et sunt distantiae duae: nam di-

citur X et Y (4 exx.), as in (13)-(14):

(13) 120.10-2 utendum etiam aquis calidis naturali calore plantatisnam Graeci

autofye idata uocant: sunt enim uirtutis metasyncriticae (You should also usehot waters made so by natural heatnam the Greeks call these aut-ofye idata: they have enim a metasyncritic power)

(14) 19.18 [According to the Greeks there are three types of uerru-cae]: nam dicuntur acrochordones quae sunt fundatae et inmobiles. . . (. . .: namthose which are rooted and immobile are called acrochordones . . .)

(b) for quoting a Greek medical authority, in a formula of the

type nam Hippocrates (. . .) sic ait (9 exx.), as in (15):

(15) 64.14-7 obseruandum praeterea ab omnibus frigidis. nam Hippocrates inaforismis sic ait, omne frigidum dentibus esse hostile siue inimicum, quod autemcalidum amicum et delectabile(He should moreover avoid all cold things.Nam Hippocrates says in his Aphorisms that everything cold is hos-tile or unfriendly to the teeth, whatever is hot autem is friendly andpleasing)

Enim, nally (30 exx.)15) is, perhaps surprisingly, used only once or

twice (115.8, 169.4?) to introduce an explanation of a statement. It

is used once (87.13) to introduce a quotation from a Greek med-

ical authority (overlap with nam, function (b) above). Its regular func-

tion (25 exx.) is to introduce a statement about the remedy (or

treatment or course of action) just prescribed. This is most often a



10/25

one-clause description of its relevant active property, so that enim

can be seen here as justicatory. Examples:

(16) 43.9-11 dialon medicamentum . . . appones: nouit enim scrofas soluere(apply

the medicament (called) dialon: it is able enim to dissolve scrofulousswellings)

(17) 73.11-2 faeni graeci sucum dari oportet: est enim lenicae uirtutis (thejuice of fenugreek should be given: it has enim a soothing power)

(18) 159.7-8 etiam et oxymel propinabis: nouit enim incidere omnem humoremcrassiorem (Make them drink also a mixture of honey and vinegar: itis able enim to cut through any thickened humour)

It may be helpful to summarize the last four paragraphs (and I

insert a summary of the uses of sed in Cassius Felix, since they

neatly complement those of uero and autem):

uero on the other hand: highlights the second member of a pair-wise contrast (like Greek d answering mn); the contrasted unitsmay be very small (hieme uero) or very large (the chapter-halfbeginning in curationibus uero);

autem (a) (no English equivalent) marks the start of the next para-graph (sequitur autem symptoms; curatio autem haec est, etc.); (b)by the way: with supplementary information to a precedingunit;

[sed (a) but: qualies or modies an earlier unit; (b) not X butY: in a substitution construction; (c) now: after a list, pick-ing up the rst item or all the items together;]

nam (a) introduces Greek medical terms; (b) justies the preced-

ing instruction with a quotation from a medical authority;enim justies the preceding recipe, instruction or application interms of its (usually) benecial eVect.

The small degree of overlap between uero and autem (and sed), on

the one hand, and between nam and enim, on the other, is very

striking. For Cassius Felix (or his source or sources), at least for the

purposes of writing a medical treatise of this sort, they were not

pairs of synonyms. This much would be quite consistent with thediscourse-pragmatic account of these particles sketched above; on

546 D.R. LANGSLOW


11/25

basic meaning of nam would imply? Might not the reader be

expected to know one or two Greek terms, or common Greek words,

and thus, on occasion at least, have his consensus appealed to (with

enim; cf. n. 23 below)? Why should the justication of an instruc-tion or recipe always be introduced with enim? Is the reader taken

to know all this information, or is he supposed to see or agree that

it is self-evident, easily understood information? Is it never subsidiary

information? And what of the opposition between autem and uero

(see Kroon 1995: 279-80, 329-31)? Kroons characterization of autem

as a marker of thematic discontinuity is entirely appropriate to its

major function in Cassius Felix;16) but I fail to see in its distribu-

tion vis--vis uero an opposition between interactive and presen-

tational discourse. Naturally, I accept that it is always a subjective

question for the author whether or not to appeal to his audiences

cooperation, but might we not then expect at least some variation?

Given the date of Cassius Felix (and our ignorance of the sources

of his Latinity), our rst hypothesis has to be that this is because

of developments in the language after A.D. 200, the lower limit of

Kroons study, and our next step must be to look for earlier exam-

ples of these particles in the above contexts. I present some instances

of uero, nam and enim.

3. Parallels with the use of particles in Cassius Felix

3.1. Vero as a parallel focus marker in earlier technical and

classical proseLooking for earlier instances of this, practically the sole, use of

uero in Cassius Felix, I read every context of uero in Columella books

1-4, Scribonius Largus and Varro, Res rusticae, as well as a large

number of examples in Celsus and Pliny Nat. It emerged that this

use of uero is well represented in Pliny, Columella,17) Scribonius18)

and Celsus, all of whom wrote in the middle decades of the rst

century; I oVer an example from each of these writers in (19)-(22):



12/25

(19) PlinyNat. 28.250 sebum inueteratum et in uellere adpositum duritias uulu-arum emollit. per se uero recens uel inueteratum ex aqua inlitum psilotri uimoptinet (the fat, aged and applied on a eece, softens hard patches ofthe uterus. By itself uero, fresh or aged, it acquires the power of a

depilatory)

(20) Columella 4.3.5 cum tamen aliquatenus se conrmauit et ueluti iuuenilerobur accepit, neglegentiam sustinet. nouella uero, dum adolescit, nisi omnia iustaperceperit, ad ultimam redigitur(And yet when it [a vine] has strengtheneditself, and has, as it were, taken on the vigour of youth, it enduresneglect. A newly-planted vine uero unless it receives every proper carewhile it is growing up, is reduced to extreme emaciation)

(21) Scribonius p. 54.4 sed his, id est ex manifesta causa uexatis, cum aceticyathis tribus quattuorue danda erit antidotos; eis uero qui ex occulta causa labo-rant, ex aqua mulsa proderit(but for these peopleI mean those aictedas a result of a manifest causethe antidote is to be given with threeor four cups of vinegar; to those uero who are suVering as a result ofa hidden cause it will be benecial given in honeyed water)

(22) Celsus 3.22.7 utilius his frequens balineum est, sed ieiunis, etiam usquesudorem. cibis uero opus est copiosis, uariis (a frequent bath is quite use-

ful for these cases, but on an empty stomach, prolonged till there issweating. Food uero must be abundant and varied)

These illustrate a use of uero that is closely comparable toif not

identical withthe role that it plays in Cassius Felix four centuries

later. In plain technical prose of the rst century, uero appears to

function regularly as an adversative connective,19) and to have

been weakened to the point where it can introduce a unit without

surprising or climactic content, and without moreover appearing tofunction on the interactional level of discourse. In short, it occurs

where, on Kroons view, we would expect autem. If this is true of

these technical writers, it is conceivably true of contemporary edu-

cated Latin generally, and it may be worthwhile to review the use

of uero in contemporary prose of other genres, and to ask whether

this weakened sense of uero may not yield an at least adequate, and

perhaps preferable, interpretation of passages, such as (23)-(25), whereKroon suggests (1995: 317-8) that the presence of uero is to be

548 D.R. LANGSLOW


13/25

20) Indeed, a century earlier, in Varros Res Rusticae, strong uses of uero aremore apparent, uses closer to its etymological origin in an adverb meaning in

truth. Of 17 examples of uero, 8 follow ego at the start of an intervention; 2 fol-low quasias if (in factwhat is not the case); and of the 7 instances which seemto highlight the second member of a pairwise contrast, one is clearly in a crescendo,

content of the vero-unit itself, which enhances the use of an inter-

actional, speaker-authority marker:

(23) SuetoniusAug. 26.4 ceteros (consulatus) aut nouem aut sex aut quattuor

aut tribus mensibus (gessit), secundum uero paucissimis horis (his other con-sulships he held for nine, six, four or three months, the second uerolasted only a few hours)

(24) Curtius 10.1.37 quem Orsines intuens audieram inquit in Asia olimregnasse feminas; hoc uero nouum est, regnare castratum! (Orsines looked athim and said, I had heard that women once reigned in Asia; thisuero is something new, for a eunuch to reign!)

(25) Pliny Ep. 7.32.1 delector iucundum tibi fuisse Tironis mei aduentum; quoduero scribis. . .plurimos manumissos, unice laetor (I am charmed that theadvent of my friend Tiro was agreeable to you; as to your remarkthat you manumitted a large number of slaves, at that I especiallyrejoice; transl. Kroon 1995: 318)

I do not mean to doubt that this was once the case,20) merely to

suggest that the diachronic development whereby uero came to com-

pete with, and eventually in some registers to replace, autem as an

adversative connective marking semantic opposition (Kroon 1995:

212) and parallel focus (Kroon 1995: 229-38) may have occurred

signicantly earlier than Kroons account allows.21)

3.2. Nam introducing a name or a quotation

It appears that the use of nam (and not enim) to give a name or

to introduce a quotation, observed above in Cassius Felix,22) is reg-

ular already at the time of the early Empire and late Republic.Here are two examples: Petronius (ex. 26) puts it into the mouth

of Trimalchio, a character who otherwise prefers enim; Seneca (ex.

27) uses it to give the Greek term in explanation of his translation

of Aristotle:



14/25

(26) Petronius 70.3 (Trimalchio of his cook) et ideo ingenio meo imposi-tum est illi nomen bellissimum: nam Daedalus uocatur (That gave me theidea of putting a very pretty name on him: nam he is called Daedalus)

(27) Seneca Ep. 65.4 (quoting Aristotle) tertia (causa) est forma quaeunicuique operi imponitur tamquam statuae. nam hanc Aristoteles idos uocat(the third [sense of causa] is the form which is impressed upon everywork, as upon a statue. Nam this last is what Aristotle calls theidos)23)

Exx. (28) and (29), from Cicero, are noteworthy especially because

of the presence of sic; they are the sole instances of the collocation

nam sic in, respectively, Ciceros speeches and letters. As we shall

see below, nam sic is extremely rare generally in Latin, unless sic is

coordinate (sic. . . sic, sic. . . ut, etc.) or otherwise forward looking,

as it is in ex. (29), in which it introduces a quotation (the other

function of nam in Cassius Felix):

(28) Cic. Phil. 14.7 de improbis inquit et audacibus. nam sic eos appellatclarissimus uir (Of shameless and presumptuous men, he says; namso they are referred to by this glorious man).

(29) Cic. Att. 8.11.1 tenesne igitur moderatorem illum rei publicae quo referreuelimus omnia? nam sic quinto, ut opinor, in libro loquitur Scipio: ut enimgubernatori cursus secundus, . . ., sic huic moderatori rei publicae beata ciuiumuita proposita est, . . .(You remember then the standard by which ourideal governor is to weigh his acts? Nam here are Scipios words, inthe fth book, I think it is: As a safe voyage is the aim of thepilot, . . ., so the ideal statesman will aim at happiness for the citizensof the state, . . .).

Here, then, Cassius Felix appears to preserve a use of nam which is

established already in Classical Latin and which may or may not, but

does not obviously, entail the introduction of subsidiary information.

3.3. Enim after an instruction and end-of-recipe enim

To the use of enim reported above from Cassius Felix, parallels

are easily found in other late medical and veterinary works, even

those in which enim is otherwise rare:

550 D.R. LANGSLOW


15/25

(30) Marcellus 3.1 ex his componetur medicamentum. quod cum opus erit,admiscebitur ei rosae et aceti quod satis est: est enim hoc mirabile medicamen-tum (From these [ingredients] a medicament is made. When the needarises, it should be mixed with an appropriate amount of rose-oil and

vinegar: this enim is a wonderful medicament)

(31) Mulomedicina Chironis 197 habeto repositum in uaso stagneo uel uitreo:hoc enim per uetustatem plus ualet (keep it stored in a vessel of tin orglass: it enim becomes more eVective with age)

(32) [Gargilius Martialis] Cura boum p. 309.5 Lommatzsch per cornumboui infundito: intestinum enim mouit ut pedere non cesset (pour it [the rem-edy] into the cow through a horn: it enim stimulates the intestine caus-

ing ceaseless atulence)(33) Epistula Hippocratis ad Antiochum 3 utile autem est etiam ieiunum uomere:magis enim umor noxius, qui stomacho insiderit, egeritur (Another good treat-ment is to vomit while fasting: this is a more eVective way enim ofgetting rid of the harmful liquid which has settled in the stomach)

The instances given in exx. (30)-(31) are roughly contemporary with

Cassius Felix, (32) of unknown date and (33) possibly much later.

However, this usage is plainly there, four centuries earlier in theCompositiones of Scribonius Largus (from the time of the emperor

Claudius):24) indeed, of 114 instances of enim in his text, no fewer

than 48 belong to this type. Here are three typical examples:

(34) 30.25-31.2 interdum aspargenda ei galla erit uel chalcitis curiose trita uelutraque in unum aequis ponderibus mixta: melius enim facit(occasionally youshould add a sprinkling of gall-nuts or of copper ore carefully ground

up, or equal weights of both mixed together: it enim is more eVective)(35) 95.26-7 ad carbunculos et cancer imponendum est: purgat enim nec pati-tur latius serpere (it should be applied against carbuncles and cancer:it cleans them enim and prevents them from spreading)

(36) 104.6-7 oportet autem . . . nullum aliud medicamentum adhibere: sanae enimita unt(but do not apply any other medicament: this enim will suYceto make them well)

If this usage is prominent already in the 40s A.D., when is it rstattested? What of the technical writers before Scribonius? Enim is



16/25

instruction is not heeded and, perhaps more importantly, it alter-

nates with nam. Here are my gures for Books 4-5 of Celsus: of a

total of 36 exx. of enim, 16 follow an instruction (plus4 which intro-

duce warnings), while of 42 exx. of nam, only 4 follow an instruc-tion (but a further 8 introduce warnings).

At rst glance, enim after an instruction appears to be frequent

in Varros work on agriculture. Closer inspection, however, reveals

that here enim is regular after a prohibition introducing a warning,

as in ex. (37) (cf. n. 31 below), and that there are no good posi-

tive instances to provide truly close parallels to those in Celsus,

Scribonius and later medical writers.25)

(37) Varro, Rust. 2.5.15-6 et prouidendum . . . ne frigidus locus sit: algor enimeas et famis macescere cogit. . . . Lactantes cum matribus ne cubent: obterunturenim (Care should also be taken that the place . . . shall not be chilly:chill enim and hunger make them grow thin. . . . Sucklings must notsleep with their dams: they are trampled enim)

If we look yet further back, to our earliest technical prose in Latin,

we nd that Cato has not a single instance of enim in his De agri-cultura. He has twelve examples of nam, of which ten occur after

instructions, generally negative or cautionary (cf. ex. (38), and com-

pare the use of enim in Varro, above, and n. 31 below), although

it should be noted that these do not occur in his medical chapters:

(38) Cato, Agr. 5.4 segetem ne defrudet: nam id infelix est (he must notstint the seed for sowing: nam that brings bad fortune)

Cato does, however, attest phrases which correspond closely to

the medical enim-units at the end of recipes, and these are joined

by asyndeton with the last instruction, as in the three instances in

ex. (39):

(39) Cato, Agr. 157.3 postea bis in die contritam (brassicam) imponito: eaomnem putorem adimet. . . . (4) . . . Et luxatum siquid est, bis die aqua calida

foueto, brassicam tritam opponito: cito sanum faciet; bis die id opponito: doloresauferet (then apply the crushed cabbage twice a day: it will removeall putridity (4) And if there is a dislocation then bathe it

552 D.R. LANGSLOW


17/25

This pattern was evidently well established by Catos day since it

was familiar enough to be parodied already by Plautus. In ex. (40)

the rst line parodies doctors Latin, the second parodies the parody:

(40) PlautusMerc. 139-40 resinam ex melle Aegyptiam uorato: saluom feceris:: at edepol tu calidam picem bibito: aegritudo apscesserit (Then let him takeEgyptian resin dipped in honey: you will make him well :: Then letyou *!*!* take a drink of hot pitch: well be rid of a pain in the neck)

And, indeed, asyndeton continues to be found in this position in

medical recipes at least until the end of antiquity. Note the exam-

ples in (41) from the early medievalAntidotarium Bruxellense; there are

numerous examples in theMulomedicina Chironis, Marcellus and otherlate medical texts.

(41) Antidotarium Bruxellense p. 367.27 Rose . . .: senties benecium (youwill notice the benecial eVect); 370.9 . . .: sanguinem restringit et uitiumemendat(it restricts the ow of blood and cures the disease); 392.4 . . .:sic sanus et (in this way he will be restored to health)

The alternative in this collection of recipes is to link the statement

of the eVect to the last instruction by means of et, as in (42); again

there are frequent parallels in Chiron and elsewhere.

(42) p. 364.10 . . .: et sic curabis eum (and this is the way you shalltreat him); 364.30 . . .: et numquam anhelitum uel dolorem stomachi patietur(and he shall never (again) suVer shortness of breath or ?stomach-pain); 378.6 = 378.11 . . .: et statuisti ( uxum sanguinis) (and you (will)have stopped [the haemorrhage])

This apparent synonymy (on one level at least) of enim with etand

with asyndeton, both pure coordinators without any explanatory or

justicatory overtones, brings to mind, on the one hand, the Sabellian

cognates of Latin enim which mean and (Oscan nm, inim, eineim;

Paelignian inom), and on the other hand, the earlier function of

Latin enim as an aYrmative particle, meaning roughly indeed. In

some of the medical examples of end-of-recipe enim, indeed seemsto be a much better translation than for (look again at ex. (30)



18/25

4. Formal factors aVecting choice of particle?

4.1. nam et . . . et . . . and other patterns of coordination (and emphasis)

The last section will have given the impression that after a med-

ical instruction or at the end of a medical recipe one nds alwaysenim and never nam. This is not in fact the case, even in Scribonius

Largus. How, then, can I speak so blithely of end-of-recipe enim,

and the like, when in this context, too, it alternates with nam? The

reason is simple: the choice of particle seems to depend on formal

factors, enim being the default, nam being triggered by certain fea-

tures of the context. These features appear on the surface to be

formal, whether phonological, lexical, syntactic or a combination,and this is how they are presented here. I cannot, of course, rule

out the possibility that the following formal patterns of distribution

of the particles are somehow determined by their respective mean-

ings and pragmatics, but I think it important to spell out the syn-

tactic correlations that seem to emerge.

Of twelve instances of nam in Scribonius, four appear, like enim

above, after an (implied) instruction. Of these four, three are beforeet. . . et, as in ex. (43),27) and the fourth is before emphatic et (see

below).

(43) Scribonius 54.14 item ad podagram bene facit: nam et in praesentiadetractione ipsa leuat et in futurum omni molestia liberat. dimidio enim celeriussanantur qui acceperunt medicamentum quam prius solebant (it is likewiseeVective against gout: nam it both aVords immediate relief and freesthem from all aiction in the future. A 50% enim reduction in recov-ery-time is observed in those who have taken the medicament com-pared with what used to be normal)

The pattern nam et. . . et is common in this kind of medical con-

text also in Celsus and Varro, as in (44) and (45), in the latter

immediately after a (for Varro) regular use of enim in a warning:

Umbrian enom (also enu, ennom; ene, enem, eine), normally translated tum, deinde,which is used to link instructions in the Iguvine Tables. Regularly each instruction

554 D.R. LANGSLOW


19/25

(44) Celsus 6.9.7 hominemque eum hiante ore uaporem excipere, ut supra dic-tum est, undique inclusum: nam et sudor plurimus sequitur, et per os continenspituita deuit, idque saepe longiorem, semper annuam ualetudinem bonam praes-tat (the patient inhales the steam with his mouth open, whilst, as

stated above, he is completely covered over: nam profuse sweating fol-lows, and also a steady stream of phlegm ows from the mouth, andthis ensures good health always for a year, and often for longer)

(45) Varro, Rust. 2.2.19 ne parum aut nimium saturentur: utrumque enim adcorpus alendum inimicum, ut maxime amicum cytisum et medica: nam et pinguesfacit facillime et genit lacte(to avoid both over- and under-feeding: eitherenim is harmful to their fattening, just as alfalfa and snail-clover arevery benecial: nam these both fatten them very easily and produce

milk)

The fourth exceptional use of nam after an instruction in Scribonius,

before emphatic et (22.13), may also be paralleled in other medical

texts: in Pelagonius, for example, the sole instance of nam with a

2nd-person verb form precedes emphatic et (Pelagon. 363 nam et

adseuerasti).

It is clear, however, that these are regular patterns in the use of

nam which are restricted neither to medical contexts nor to et. . . et

and emphatic et. Take the case of Petronius, for example. Petronius

uses only namnever enimnot only with et. . . et but also with

neque. . . et, neque. . . neque, aut. . . aut, modo . . . modo; and not only

before emphatic etbut also with ne. . . quidem andX quoque: it seems,

in short, that nam, and not enim, can introduce units which have a

coordinate structure,28) as well as some units which are evidently

emphatic.

Further indications that such structures can aVect the choice

between nam and enim are readily accumulated. In Celsus, for instance,

pronominal isand hicmuch prefer to collocate with enim than with

nam: id enim prevails over nam idby 14:3, and HIC enim over nam

HIC (i.e. any form of hic) by 23:1. It is striking that the single case

of nam hicand two of the three cases of nam idprecede quoque, while

the third case of nam idstands before et. . . et. This set of collocatesin Celsus also throws up an instance of what in my experience is



20/25

two instances of id enim et. . . et. . . (et. . .), one of which, (46),30) is

in a context very similar to that of the nam id et. . . et (47):

(46) Celsus 5.26.23C neutra. . . debet imponi. . . ne quid ibi concreti sangui-

nis relinquatur. id enim et in pus uertitur, et inammationem mouet, et glutinariuolnus prohibet (neither . . . should be inserted . . . lest some blood-clotbe left in it: this enim turns into pus and excites inammation andprevents agglutination of the wound)

(47) Celsus 5.26.28D balneum quoque. . . inter res infestissimas est: nam idet umidum et sordidum reddit(bathing, too, . . . is one of the worst thingsto do: nam this makes the wound both wet and dirty)

A priori, it is in oppositions such as these that any diVerence in thebasic meaning of nam and enim would have been most apparent to

the native speaker; on the other hand, of course, the very similar-

ity of the contexts obscures for us any diVerence between the par-

ticles. Given the formal distributions mentioned already, it is as if

the preferences of id for enim and of et. . . et for nam are in conict

and either outcome is possible.31) But even here a formal factor

the diVerence in the length of the et-clausesmay be relevant tothe use of the particles. Further research is needed on this point.

4.2. Subordination: nam si vs sic enim, nam cum/ubi vstum enim, etc.

The contexts of nam and enim in Petronius suggest further corre-

lations between clause-type and choice of particle: it emerges that

Petronius has only namnever enimwith the conjunctions cum, quod,

ubi, ut, si, nisiand quodas to, as far as. In short, it appears at rst

frigus, calorem, cruditatem, lassitudinem: facile enim reuertitur, nisi a sano quoque aliquamdiutimetur (it is well to avoid cold, heat, indigestion, fatigue: for fever readily recurs,unless it is feared for a while even by a convalescent patient); Cels. 4.20.4 uitareoportet balneum . . . ceterosque corporis motus: nam facile id malum redire consueuit, et. . . (thepatient should avoid the bath . . . and other bodily movements; for this disorder isvery liable to recur, and . . .)

30) The other is at Cels. 4.27.1D Toledo line 92 Capitani (in Maia 26 [1974],170-2).

31) Note that Scribonius and Columella admit the collocations sic enim et, hocenim et, VERB enim et, where the et is emphatic and would normally be precededby nam but is overruled by the stronger preference of the rst word for enim; oth-

556 D.R. LANGSLOW


21/25

sight as if nam favours, and enim avoids, collocation with subordi-

nating conjunctions. In this respect Petronius Latin agrees with that

of other prose writers of the rst century. Compare, for example,

the following gures for the proportion of nam si to si enim:Quintilian Inst. 58:0, Pliny Nat. 15:0, Seneca 64:0, Columella 47:0,Celsus 27:0, Livy 18:1.

If, however, we move back into the rst century B.C., we nd that

si enim is quite common in Cicero (rhetorical works nam si33:7 si

enim, but philosophical works 50:42 and overall about 200:100), and

even more frequent than nam siin Varro (by 5:3) and Vitruvius (by

9:3).32) In Plautus and Cato, on the other hand, sioccurs only with

nam, never with enim (Plautus 39:0, Cato 4:0). These gures are at

least strongly suggestive of a diachronic development from archaic

Latin, when nam and enim are not even near-synonyms, through the

last decades of the Republic, when they can evidently alternate in

collocation with si, etc., to the early Empire, by which time enim is

eVectively excluded from collocation with these subordinators.33)

There is an apparent corollary to the overwhelming predomi-nance of nam with subordinators: this is the similarly strong ten-

dency for enim, and not nam, to appear with the corresponding

demonstrative adverbs (sic enim, tum enim, etc.). Note these gures

for the proportion of sic enim:nam sic:

Quintilian Inst. 12:7, Pliny Nat. 4:0, Seneca 12:0, Columella 26:6,Celsus 11:2, Livy 3:0.

Here Cicero agrees with these early Imperial writers (total 129:10);

furthermore, nam sic nearly always correlates with a syntactic or

32) It may be pertinent that, again unlike Celsus and Petronius and other earlyimperial writers (see above), Varro and Vitruvius also admit neque enim . . . neque(aut) . . . (e.g. Var. Rust. 1.18.3, 2.10.3; Vitr. 1.1.3, 2.7.3, 7.5.4, 7.8.4, 9.7.7). Varro

also admits the very rare collocation of causal quodwith enim at Rust. 1.13.4 (cf.n. 33 below and Kroon 1995: 172, n. 1).33) Similar patterns emerge in the above texts for the distribution of nam and



22/25

semantic feature.34) Given the regularity of the phrase sic enim, and

the rarity of nam sic, I wonder whether Kroon does not over-translate

the particle enim in ex. (48):

(48) Cicero Leg. 2.16 habes legis prooemium; sic enim haec appellat Plato(There you have the proem to the law; for that is, as you know, thename given to it by Plato.; transl. Kroon 1995: 207)

Equally, in ex. (49), it may be that both nam and enim are trig-

gered by formal factors, since, in the former case, although tum

(tunc) enim is regular and nam tum is not, namand not enimis reg-

ular with tum cum (as with tum . . . tum, tum . . . nunc, tum et. . . et, tum

quidem); in the latter case, non enim is regular, nam non very rare:35)

(49) Cicero Cat. 3.3 nam tum cum ex urbe Catilinam eiciebamnon enimiam uereor huius uerbi inuidiam (Inasmuch as at the very time I was try-ing to drive Catiline out of Romefor, mark you, I am not afraidnow of the odium attaching to this expression; transl. Barendt;36) cf.Kroon 1995: 113, 179-80)

Finally, as with tunc enim, so with nunc enim: this collocation is reg-

ular and nam nuncis very rare (never in Vitruvius, Seneca, the Elder

Pliny, Quintilian, all of whom do attest nunc enim); and of seven

examples of nam nunc in Cicero, ve precede quidem.37) In ex. (50),

then, given its collocation with nunc, I am inclined to regard enim

as less remarkable than Kroon does (1995: 137-9):

(50) Seneca Ep. 10.5 uerum est quod apud Athenodorum inueni: tunc scito

esse te omnibus cupiditatibus solutum, cum eo perueneris, ut nihil deum roges nisiquod rogare possis palam. nunc enim quanta dementia est hominum! (It is atrue saying which I have found in Athenodorus: Know that you arefreed from all desires when you have reached the point where youpray to god for nothing except what you can pray for openly. Asthings are enim how foolish men are!)

34) Of the ten exceptions in Cicero, apart from exx. (28) and (29) discussedabove, all but one involve forward-looking sic, which is either explicitly or implic-itly coordinate (Or. 83; Leg. 1.16, 3.12; Fam. 4.4.3, 6.17.2, 8.12.3; Att. 1.17.3); that

558 D.R. LANGSLOW


23/25

5. Some provisional conclusions and working hypotheses

Kroons discourse-pragmatic account of these Latin particles yields

some correct predictions concerning their distribution in the simple

discourse of technical prose of the early and later Empire. It is notevident, however, that the functions identied above in medical

prose of enim and nam, uero and autem, may be easily subsumed under

Kroons basic meanings as respectively addressee-oriented/inter-

actional and speaker- or text-oriented/presentational. It is not clear,

for example, that enim after an instruction at the end of a medical

recipe is intrinsically interactional. In this connection it is notewor-

thy that enim in this context alternates with presentational namaccordingapparentlyto formal, syntactic criteria.

Indeed, there is considerable prima facie evidence that in Latin

generally non-pragmatic grammatical38) features of the context cor-

relate with the choice between nam and enim. We saw above that

nam is favouredand enim avoidedby both subordinate and coor-

dinate clauses. Nams liking for subordinate clauses might conceiv-

ably be related to Kroons notion of subsidiarity as the basicmeaning of the particle, but subsidiarity seems much harder to rec-

oncile with the use of nam (to the exclusion of enim) in coordinate

structures (nam et. . . et. . ., nam ut. . . sic. . ., nam tum . . . tum . . ., etc.)

and other focused units (nam et X, nam X quidem, nam X quoque).

From the gures presented above, it seems clear that there were

important diachronic changes aVecting the use of enim and nam

between Plautus and Quintilian: even within classical Latin thediachronic dimension must be reckoned with very seriously. Given

this, I wonder how real a status a synchronic discourse-pragmatic

account of a particle can havecompared with either a diachronic

or a standard dictionary account. On the other hand, the medical

texts considered in this paper illustrate well how in quasi-formulaic

technical prose old uses of particles can be faithfully preserved for

centuries.



24/25

More generally, I have suggested that technical prose may be a

promising arena for research on particles in corpus-languages, given

its typically simple and unemotive discourse. The straightforward

reading of the meaning of a particle established in such colourlessprose may turn out to be at least adequate in highly literary con-

texts, and possibly more persuasive than a more rhetorically-nuanced

reading. On the other hand, I have dared to hope that study of

particles may return the favour by throwing up, in the case of

recipe-nal enim, a recurring and long-lived pattern, perhaps of con-

siderable antiquity, that we may wish to add to our slender but

(I believe) growing dossier of features other than technical vocabu-

lary which may be held to have characterized that elusive variety,

medical Latin.

University of Manchester, Department of Classics & Ancient History,

GBM13 9PL

560 D.R. LANGSLOW


25/25

Documents

LATIN DISCOURSE PARTICLES.pdf