Page images
PDF
EPUB

with four moods, namely, the indicative, subjunctive, imperative, and infinitive; and according to this arrangement, the present subjunctive Latin answers to the Greek conjunctive, while the imperfect subjunctive Latin finds its equivalent in the optative of the Greek verb: for instance, scribo, ut discas corresponds to γράφω, ἵνα μανθάνῃς, and scripsi, ut disceres to ἔγραψα, ἵνα μανθάνοις. Maveávois. If, however, we extend the syntactical comparison a little farther, we shall perhaps be induced to conclude that there is not always the same modal distinction between the Latin indicative and subjunctive which we find in the opposition of the Greek indicative to the conjunctive + optative. Thus, to take one or two instances, among many which might be adduced, one of the first lessons which the Greek student has to learn is, to distinguish accurately between the four cases of protasis and apodosis, and, among these, more especially between the third, in which two optatives are used, and the fourth, in which two past tenses of the indicative are employed'. Now the Latin syntax makes no such distinction between the third and fourth cases, only taking care in the fourth case to use past tenses, and in the third case, where the hypothesis is possible, to employ present tenses of the subjunctive mood. Thus, e.g., in the third

1 This is, indeed, a very simple and obvious matter: but it may be convenient to some readers, if I subjoin a tabular comparison of the Greek and Latin usages in this respect. The classification is borrowed from Buttmann's Mittlere Grammatik, § 139 (p. 394, Lachmann's edition, 1833).

1. Possibility without the expression of uncertainty:

εἴ τι ἔχει, δίδωσι (δός) = si quid habet, dat (da).

2. Uncertainty with the prospect of decision:

ἐάν τι ἔχωμεν, δώσομεν = si quid habeamus, dabimus.

3. Uncertainty without any such subordinate idea:
εἴ τι ἔχοις, διδοίης ἄν = si quid habeas, des.

4. Impossibility, or when we wish to indicate that the thing is not so:
(α) εἴ τι εἶχεν, ἐδίδου ἄν = si quid haberet, daret.

(6) εἴ τι ἔσχεν, ἔδωκεν ἄν = si quid habuisset, dedisset.

The distinction between cases (3) and (4) is also observed in the expression of a wish: thus, utinam salvus sis! pronounces no opinion respecting the health of the party addressed; but utinam salvus esses! implies that he is no longer in good health.

case: si hoc nunc vociferari velim, me dies, vox, latera deficiant; where we should have in Greek: ei TOUTO ÉV TO παραυτίκα γεγωνεῖν ἐθέλοιμι, ἡμέρας ἄν μοι καὶ φωνῆς καὶ σDévous évdenσelev. In the fourth case: (a) si scirem, dicerem σθένους ἐνδεήσειεν. = εἰ ἠπιστάμην, ἔλεγον ἄν. (b) si voluissem plura, non negasses = εἰ πλεόνων ἐπεθύμησα, οὐκ ἂν ἠρνήσω. And this confusion becomes greater still, when, by a rhetorical figure, the impossible is supposed possible; as in Ter. Andr. II. 1, 10: tu si hic sis, aliter sentias. For in this instance the only difference between the two cases, which is one of tense, is overlooked. In the apodosis of case 4, b, the Romans sometimes used the plusquam-perfectum of the indicative, as in Seneca, de Ira, I. 11: perierat imperium, si Fabius tantum ausus esset, quantum ira suadebat; and Horace, II. Carm. 17, 27: me truncus illapsus cerebro sustulerat, nisi Faunus ictum dextra levasset. Sometimes the perfect was used in this apodosis, as in Juvenal, X. 123: Antoni gladios potuit contemnere, si sic omnia dixisset; or even the imperfect, as in Tacitus, Annal. XII. 39: nec ideo fugam sistebat, ni legiones pugnam excepissent. Again, particles of time, like donec, require the subjunctive when future time is spoken of; as in Hor. I. Epist. 20, 10: carus eris Romæ, donec te deserat atas. But this becomes a past tense of the indicative when past time is referred to; as in Hor. I. Epist. 10, 36: cervus equum-pellebat-donec [equus] imploravit opes hominis frænumque recepit. The confusion between the Latin indicative and subjunctive is also shown by the use of the subjunctive present as a future indicative (a phenomenon equally remarkable in Greek, New Crat. § 393), and conversely by the employment of the periphrastic future (which is, after all, the same kind of form as the ordinary composite form of the future indicative) as an equivalent for a tense of the subjunctive mood. Thus Cicero uses dicam and dicere instituo in the same construction; Phil. I. 1: "antequam de republica dicam ea, quæ dicenda hoc tempore arbitror, exponam breviter consilium profectionis meæ." Pro Murena, 1: "antequam pro L. Murena dicere instituo, pro me ipso pauca dicam." And we have always the indicative in apodosis to the subjunctive when the future in -rus is used: e. g. Liv. XXXVIII. 47: "si tribuni prohiberent, testes citaturus fui" (for "citarem"); and Cic. Verr. III. 52: “illi ipsi aratores, qui remanserant, relicturi omnes agros erant"

(for "reliquissent"), "nisi ad eos Metellus Roma literas misisset." The Romans also used the perfect subjunctive exactly as the Greeks used their perfect indicative with xal dń in suppositions.

On the whole, it must be confessed that the Latin subjunctive, meaning by that term the set of tenses which are formed by the insertion of -i-, differs modally from the indicative only in this, that it is uniformly employed in dependent clauses where the idiom of the language repudiates the indicative; and it is not a little remarkable, that in almost all these cases-in all, except when final particles are used, or when an indirect question follows a past tense-the indicative is expressly required in Greek syntax. The title subjunctive, therefore, does but partially characterise the Latin tenses in -i-; and their right to a separate modal classification is scarcely less doubtful than that of the Greek optative as distinguished from the conjunctive.

The differences between the indicative, imperative, and infinitive equally exist between the two latter and the subjunctive. The indicative and subjunctive alone possess a complete apparatus of person-endings; the imperative being sometimes merely the crude form of the verb, and the infinitive being strictly impersonal.

§ 12.

Forms of the Infinitive and Participle-how connected in derivation and meaning.

He who would investigate accurately the forms of the Latin language must always regard the infinitive as standing in intimate connexion with the participles. There are, in fact, three distinct forms of the Latin infinitive: (a) the residuum of an abstractum verbale in -sis, which remains uninflected; (b) a similar verbal in -tus, of which two cases are employed; (c) the participial word in -ndus, which is used both as three cases of the infinitive governing the object of the verb, and also as an adjective in concord with the object. There are also three forms of the participle: (a) one in -ns--nts, sometimes lengthened into -ndus; (B) another in -tus; and a third (y) in -tūrus. The participle in -ns is always active; its by-form in -ndus is properly active, though it often seems to be passive. The participle in -tus is always passive, except when derived from a deponent verb,

passive in their use as gerundiva, are really only secondary forms of the participle in -n[t]s, appears not only from etymological considerations (New Crat. § 415), but also from their use both as active infinitives and active participles. When the gerundivum is apparently passive, it seems to attach to itself the sense of duty or obligation. Thus, we should translate delenda est Carthago, "Carthage is to be destroyed"="we ought to destroy Carthage ;" and no one has taken the trouble to inquire whether this oportet is really contained in the gerundivum. If it is, all attempts at explanation must be unavailing. But since it is not necessary to seek in the participial form this notion, which may be conveyed by the substantive verb (e. g. sapientis est seipsum nosse), it is surely better to connect the gerundivum with the gerundium, and to reconcile the use of the one with the ordinary force of the other. Supposing, therefore, that da-ndus is a secondary form of da-n[t]s, and synonymous with it, on the analogy of Acraga[nt]s, Agrige-ntum; orie-n[t]s, oriu-ndus; &c.; how do we get the phrase da-nda est occasio, “an opportunity is to be given," from d-a-ndus-dan[t]s, "giving?" Simply from the gerundial or infinitive use of the participle. Thus, (A) da-ndus-da-n[t]s signifies "giving;" (B) this, used as an infinitive, still retains its active signification, for ad dandum opes means "for giving riches"=" to give riches;" (c) when this is attracted into the case of the object, the sense is not altered, for ad opes dandas is precisely equivalent to ad dandum opes; (D) when, however, this attraction appears in the nominative case, the error at once takes root, and no one is willing to see that it is still merely an attraction from the infinitive or indeclinable use of the participle. Even here, however, the intransitive verb enables us to bring back the student to a consideration of the real principle. For one can hardly fail to see that vivendum est=vivere est i. q. oportet vivere; and that there may be no doubt as to the identity of the uninflected with the inflected gerund in this case, Horace has put them together in the same sentence: nunc est bibendum, nunc pede libero pulsanda tellus," where it is obvious that tellus pulsanda est is no less equivalent to "oportet pulsare tellurem," than "bibendum est" is to "oportet bibere." At all events, his Greek original expressed both notions by the infinitive with xp:

66

νῦν χρὴ μεθύσθην καί τινα πρὸς βίαν

πίνην, ἐπειδὴ κάτθανε Μύρσιλος.

(Alcæus, Fr. 20. p. 575, Bergk.)

The strongest proof, that the involved meaning of the gerundivum is strictly that of the active verb, is furnished by the well-known fact that the attracted form is regularly preferred to the gerund in -di, -do, -dum governing the case, when the verb of the gerund requires an accusative case; thus we have: ad tolerandos rather than ad tolerandum, labores; consuetudo hominum immolandorum rather than homines immolandi; triumviri reipublicæ constituendæ rather than constituendo rempublicam. Indeed this is rarely departed from, except when two gerunds of a different construction occur in the same sentence, as in Sall. Cat. 4: "neque vero agrum colendo aut venando, servilibus officiis, intentum ætatem agere," because venando has nothing to do with agrum. The student might be led to suppose at first sight that the phrase: lex de pecuniis repetundis, “a law about extortion," literally denoted "a law concerning money to be refunded," and that therefore the gerundivum was passive in signification. But this gerundivum is used only in the genitive and ablative plural, to agree with pecuniarum and pecuniis, and we happen to have a passage of Tacitus (Annal. XIII. 33) which proves that the verbal is transitive: for the words: a quo Lycii repetebant are immediately followed by: lege repetundarum damnatus est; and thus we see that lex de pecuniis repetundis does not mean "a law concerning money to be refunded," but, "a law which provides for the redemanding of money illegally exacted."

This view of the case appears to me to remove most of the difficulties and confusions by which the subject of the gerund has hitherto been encumbered. There are three supplementary considerations which deserve to be adduced. The first is, that in the particular case where the gerundivum appears to be most emphatically passive-namely, when it implies that a thing is given out or commissioned to be done it is found by the side of the active infinitive: thus, while we have such phrases as: " Antigonus Eumenem mortuum propinquis sepeliendum tradidit" (Corn. Nep. Eum. 13), we have by their side such as: "tristitiam et metus tradam protervis in mare Creticum portare ventis" (Hor. I. Carm. 26, 1). present, as well as active,

That the gerund in this case is really appears from its opposition to the use

« PreviousContinue »