mars make fuerim and fuero two tenses of the subjunctive mood, the former being perfect, and the latter future, the more modern writers on the subject increase the confusion by referring the latter, as a futurum exactum, to the indicative mood, while the former retains its place as perfect subjunctive. Those, who have had any thing to do with the business of teaching the Latin language, need not be told that a young and thoughtful student will not derive much edification from the doctrine that fuerit is both indicative and subjunctive, both past and future. And those who are conversant with the higher kind of philology, know that, while fuero and fuerim are merely euphonic distinctions, all the other persons, having only one set of meanings, are necessarily inflexions of the same form. With regard to the signification of this perfect subjunctive, it is clear that, as it is formed from the perfect indicative just as the present subjunctive is formed from the present indicative, it must exhibit the same modification of meaning. Now dicam dic-yam means "there is a probability of my speaking;" consequently dixero dic-se-rim must mean, "there is a probability of my having spoken;" and in proportion as the former approximates to the predication, "I shall speak," in the same proportion does the latter express, "I shall have spoken." In strictness that which is called a futurum exactum, or paulo-post-futurum, can only exist in forms derived from the perfects of intransitive verbs. These forms exist in Greek both with the active and with the middle inflexions; thus from Ovýokw, "I am dying," Térŋka, "I am dead," we have τεθνήξομαι οι τεθνήξω, “I shall have died,” i. e. “ I shall be found in the state of death;" from ypάpw, “I am writing," we have yeypapa, "I have written," yeypauuai, "I have been written," i.e. "I stand or remain written," yeypávouai, “I shall have been written," i. e. "I shall stand and remain written." Now it has been observed even by the old grammarians, that the Romans did not use these futures of the intransitive or passive perfect. Thus Priscian says (Let. VIII. c. 8. p. 388, Krehl): "quamvis Græci futurum quoque diviserunt in quibusdam verbis, in futurum infinitum, ut rú↓oμai, et paulo post futurum, ut TETÚYoμai, melius tamen Romani considerata futuri ratione, quæ omnino incerta est, simplici in eo voce utuntur, nec finiunt spatium futuri." But if the Romans had no futurum exactum of the passive form, still less would they have one with active inflexions. The question of moods, as we have seen above, is not one of forms, but one of syntactical usage. And if we wish to inquire whether there is any justification for those who place fuero in the indicative mood, we have only to ascertain whether there is really any difference in syntactical usage between this form and fuerim, and generally, whether the tense, which we call perfect subjunctive, is ever used as an indicative, that is, as a categorical predication, without any reference to a protasis, expressed or plainly implied. The confusion, into which some modern grammarians have fallen in regard to this tense, has arisen entirely from the use of the Latin subjunctive in the apodosis, without a qualifying particle of reference like the Greek av. Hence the imperfect grammarian is extremely liable to confuse between a categorical and a consequential assertion, where the protasis is omitted; and while the Greek optative, with av, is rendered by the future indicative, without any risk of a misunderstanding as to the logical intention of the phrase, the perfect subjunctive in Latin has been supposed to be merely a future indicative referring to completed action. The following comparison will show that there is no use of the tense now under consideration, which may not be referred to some parallel employment of the Greek conjunctive or optative aorist. α. ἐάν τι δ. C. ἐάν τι σχῇς, δώσεις = si quid habueris, dabis. ε. εἴ τι ἔχοις, διδοίης ἄν = si quid habeas, des. d. εἴ τι σχοίης, δοίης ἄν = si quid habueris, dederis. If in the second and fourth cases habueris and dederis are subjunctive or potential, the same explanation must apply to the following: a. si plane occidimus, ego omnibus meis exitio fuero, "if we have altogether fallen, I shall have been (i. e. I shall prove in the result, yevoiunv av) a destruction to all my friends." C. you b. si pergis, abiero, "if you go on, I shall have departed That the difference between the subjunctive present (C. I.) and this subjunctive perfect (C. III.) is one of tense only, might be shown by numberless examples; thus we have (Plaut. Trinum II. 4, 137 = 538): magis apage dicas, si omnia ex me audiveris, and (III. 1, 21 = 621): quoi tuam quom rem credideris, sine omni cura dormias, where we have an apodosis corresponding to the Greek present optative with av, preceded by a protasis containing an equivalent to the optative aorist. It is a mere assumption on the part of some grammarians that there is any difference of usage between the forms of the first person in -ro or -rim. The choice of one form or the other is a mere matter of euphony, and they are both equally subjunctive or potential in their nature. Thus we find in a hortative or deliberative sense: huc aliquantum abscessero (Trinum. III. 1, 25 = 625), “let me stand aside here a little;" and we find this form after quum in precisely the same manner as the imperfect and pluperfect subjunctive are used with that particle; thus: quum extemplo arcum et pharetram mi et sagittas sumpsero (Trinum. III. 2, 99 = 725); or after ubi: extemplo ubi oppidum expugnavero (Bacch. IV. 9, 52 = 977). So also Virg. Georg. I. 441, 2. We have sometimes both forms in the same passage; thus: omnia ego istæc quæ tu dixti scio, vel exsignavero (comp. the common use of confirmaverim): ut rem patriam et gloriam majorum fædarim meum (Trinum. III. 2, 29 = 655). And no one will maintain that credidero and crediderim might not change places in the following passages; Plaut. Trin. III. 1, 6 = 606: at tute ædepol nullus creduas. Si hoc non credis, ego credidero. Virgil, Georg. II. 338: non alios prima crescentis origine mundi illuxisse dies, aliumve habuisse tenorem crediderim. And that the perfect subjunctive in -rim may come as near to a simply future signification as the corresponding form in -ro, is clear from Virgil, Georg. II. 101: non ego te, Dis et mensis accepta secundis, transierim, Rhodia, compared with Hor. IV. Carm. 9, 30: non ego te meis chartis inornatum silebo. There is the same indifference as to the employment of a form in -o or one in -im in the old aorists; thus we have faxo in Plaut. Pan. I. 1, 34, but faxim in the same play, V. 2, 131. If these forms in -ro or -rim were ever modifications of the future indicative, this would be observable in the case of verbs like memini, novi, odi, which are used as present perfects. But we never find the = = form in -ro or -rim used as a mere future to these virtually present verbs; on the contrary, while meminerim and recorder stand in the same subjunctive sentence (Cic. pro Plancio, c. 28 fin.), we have recordabor as the only future for the two verbs (id. in Pison. c. 6). And so of the others. It has been supposed that certain forms in -assere, which occur in Plautus, and seem to have the meaning of a future infinitive (e. g. expugnassere, Amphitr. I. 1, 55; reconciliassere, Capt. I. 2, 59; impetrassere, Aulul. IV. 7, 6), are infinitives corresponding to this tense in -ro or -rim, as though formed, e. g., from expugnasso = expugnavero'. Such a formation of an infinitive appears to me simply impossible; and as all these infinitives are referred to verbs of the -a conjugation, I have no difficulty in explaining these words in the same way as I have explained the agglutinate forms in -esso, -essere (above, § 7); and as capes-so capere-sino, so expugnas-so expugnare-sino. With regard to the apparently future signification of the infinitives in -assere, it is sufficient to remark that an auxiliary may give this meaning, as in the case of dicere instituo dicam, mentioned above (§ 9); and the future in the Romance languages is always formed by an agglutinate appendage of habeo, as in aur-ai aver-ai = habere habeo. As fuero fueso and fuerim fuesim oscillate between the forms ero eso and sim esim, so we find that the plural exhibits a similar freedom of choice; for fuerimus fuerimus or fue-sīmus represents either erimus, which is shortened in its penultima, or simus, which has lost its initial syllable. In the passive and deponent verbs the loss of the perfect subjunctive is supplied by a periphrastic tense made up of the future ero and the participle in -tus. It is a matter of indifference whether we refer this tense to a period when the future and present subjunctive of the substantive verb were still identical, or whether we suppose that it is an approximation to the Greek paulo post futurum, adopted to meet a syntactical exigency. = = = = § 16. The Past Tense of the Infinitive Active. The past tense of the infinitive active ends in -isse, when it corresponds to the Greek first aorist, as scripsisse; when 1 Madvig thinks that these forms result from a mistaken attempt to follow the Greek analogy of rúyew from rúyw (Bemerkungen über Lat. Sprl. p. 41). = it is the regular perfect, as tetigisse; and when it is a composite form, as ama-visse ama-fuisse. It is to be recollected that in all these cases the same tense inserts an s = r in the second person singular and second and third persons plural of the indicative mood. There can be little doubt that this doubling of the s in the infinitive (-s-se) is to be explained from the indicative mood. As we have fui-s-tis instead of fufusa-tis, so we have fui-sse instead of fufusa-se; and in both cases the additional s is analogous to that in fuissem fui-se-sim, from fuerim fuesim. This view is in accordance with all the similar phenomena. The other explanations, which have been given, are very unscientific and not even very plausible. It has been supposed that the additional s is designed to represent the lengthening of the penultimate syllabie; but why should the termination se = re be appended by means of a long syllable to fui any more than to es- in es-se or to dico in dice-re? Bopp is of course ready with his agglutination theory, and explains ama-vi-sse as a compound of amavi and esse (Vergl. Gramm. p. 1227). But, as he must see, this presumes a derivation of fuisse from fui and esse, and of fueram from fui and eram, so that amaveram ama-fui-eram and amavisse = ama-fui-esse. It is only by remembering the great services, which Bopp has rendered to comparative philology, that we can reconcile such suggestions with any claim to a character for critical tact and acumen. The whole theory of inflected language would fall to pieces, if we could not explain even the future and aorist s without falling back upon the existing forms of the substantive verb. There must be some formative machinery in the verb besides the person-endings; and if we cannot explain the inflexions of fui without calling in the aid of sum, how are we to inflect sum itself through its own moods and tenses? It seems to me fallacious to suppose, as Bopp does (p. 1228), that the forms scripse, consum-se, admis-se, divis-se, dic-se, produc-se, abstrac-se, advec-se, are aorists corresponding to the Greek and related to the forms scrip-so or scrip-sim as yрáπ-oal is to e-ураπ-σα. The Latin infinitive is always formed by adding se = re to the tense represented by the infinitive, which is merely denuded of its person-endings in order to qualify it for becoming the vehicle of this new appendage. From scrip-so we could only have scrip-sere = scrip-sese, as we have scrib-ere from scribo. As we = |