of the past participle; thus: hoc faciundum curabo means "I will provide for the doing of this:" hoc factum volo means "I wish it were already done." The second point to be noticed is that deponent verbs, which have no passive voice, employ the gerundivum in the attributive use, which, we are told, cannot easily be wrested to an active signification; as: prælia conjugibus loquenda, "battles for wives to speak of." The third case is this; that the supines, which are only different cases of one and the same verbal, appear as active infinitives when the accusative is used (-tum), and as passive when the ablative is employed (-tu). Now, this seemingly passive use of the supine in -tu arises from the fact, that it appears only by the side of adjectives, in which case the active and passive forms of the infinitive are often used indifferently, and some adjectives take the supine in -tu when they expressly require an active infinitive, as in: "difficile est dictu (= dicere), quanto opere conciliet homines comitas affabilitasque sermonis" (Cic. Off. II. 14). Now this supine, which is thus identical with the infinitive active, frequently alternates with the gerund; compare, for instance: quid est tam jucundum auditu (Cic. de Or. I. 8), with: verba ad audiendum jucunda (id. ibid. I. 49). The active sense of the verbal in -tus--sus is equally apparent in the dative case: thus we find such phrases as (Sallust, Jugurth. 24): "quoniam eo natus sum ut Jugurthæ scelerum ostentui essem," i. e. " since I have been born to serve as an exhibition of (=to exhibit) the wickedness of Jugurtha." -tus. = But the form in -ndus is not only active in voice, but also, as has been mentioned, present in tense. Thus, if we take a deponent verb, we often find a form in -ndus acting as a collateral to the common form in -n[t]s, and opposed with it to the form in For instance, secundus and sequen[t]s both signify "following," but secutus "having followed." The same is the distinction between morien[t]s, moriundus; orien[t]s, oriundus; irascen[t]s, ira[s]cundus ; &c., on the one hand, and mortuus, ortus, iratus, &c., on the other. This cannot be remarked in active verbs, because the Latin language has no active past participle. If, however, we turn to the gerundial use of the form in -ndus, we may observe a distinction of tense between it and the participle in -tus even in the case of active verbs. Thus volvendus is really a present tense in Virgil, Eneid. IX. 7: volvenda dies, en, attulit ultro; comp. Ennius (apud Varro. L. L、 VII. § 104, p. 160, Müller), and Lucretius, V. 1275; because, in its inflected form, it is equivalent in meaning to volvendo; and the following passages show that the gerund is equivalent to the present participle: Virgil, Georg. II. 225: "multa virum volvens durando sæcula vincit;" Lucret. I. 203: "multaque vivendo vitalia vincere sæcla;" and id. III. 961: "omnia si pergas vivendo vincere sæcla." And the words of Livy (præf. ad Hist.): quæ ante conditam condendamve urbem traduntur," can only mean "traditions derived from a period when the city was neither built nor building." 66 § 14. The Participle in -túrus. The participle (y) in -rus or -ūrus, which always bears a future signification, is supported by an analogy in the Latin language which has no parallel either in Greek or Sanscrit. The Greek desiderative is formed from the ordinary future by the insertion of the element i-: thus Spá-w, fut. Spá-ow, desiderative Spa-oeiw. This desiderative is the common future in Sanscrit ; though the Vêdas have a future, like the Greek, formed by the elements only, without the addition of i-1. Now the regular future of scribo would be scrip-so, indicated by the aorist scripsi; but the desiderative is scripturio. We may infer, then, that in the loss of the regular future of the Latin verb, the desiderative and future participle have been formed by the addition of the future rs and the desiderative risi, not to the crude form of the verb, but to the verbal in -tus, so that the desiderative is deduced immediately from the future participle in -tur-us or from the noun of agency in -tor (above, p. 360). = We have seen above (§ 4) that the form fuerim fuesim is really a subjunctive tense of the usual kind derived from the perfect indicative fui fuesa. As, however, the first person is occasionally written fuero, just as sim = esim or erim is shortened into ero, it has been common among grammarians to imagine two tenses as distinct as ero and sim. But this view is represented under two different forms: for while the older gram 1 See Rosen, on the Rig-Véda Sanhita, p. iv. 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 TeОvýčoμaι or Te0vw, "I shall have died," i. e. "I shall be found in the state of death;" from ypápw, "I am writing," we have yeypapa, "I have written," yeypauuai, “I have been γέγραφα, written," i.e. "I stand or remain written," yeypapouai, "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 TETÚчoμaι,—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. a. ἐάν τι ἔχῃς, δώσεις = si quid Jhabeas dabis. δ. ἐάν τι σχῇς, δώσεις = si quid habueris, dabis. C. 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, yevoíunv av) a destruction to all my friends." b. si pergis, abiero, "if you go on, I shall have departed (i. e. I shall go at once, áréλOoi av)." c. tu invita mulieres; ego accivero pueros, "do you invite the ladies; after that, when you have done so, I shall be found to have sent for the boys (σὺ μὲν τὰς γυναῖκας κάλει ἐγὼ δὲ τοὺς παῖδας ἂν μεταπεμψαίμην).” = 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, 52977). 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 fœdarim 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 |