opposed to eo, which denotes the passive result of the action: thus we have per-do, or pessum-do, opposed to per-eo, inter-do to inter-eo, ven-do to ven-eo, &c. As we have a in the corresponding Greek forms Tép-0w, &c., we may be led to conclude that the Latin do furnishes the link of connexion between didwu, Sanscrit dadâmi and Tíonu, Sanscrit dadhâmi; which are therefore only different forms of the same root. The idea

66

of "giving" is partly represented by that of "putting," or placing," for acceptance. In regard to the offering of prizes, or the placing of meat on the table, the ideas of placing and giving run into one another, and it is well known that pono and rionu are regularly used in this sense (see my note on Pindar, O. XI. 63, and the commentators on Horace, I. Serm. 2, 106; II. 3, 23). But we may also represent the act of giving with reference to the donor as a liberal pouring forth of that which he has, and this is the primary sense of gef-an, gib-an, "give," xéF-w, &c., as Grimm has shown in a recent paper on the subject (Abh. Ak. Berl. 1848: "über schenken und geben "). The other verb, which appears to belong to the -a conjugation, but has a reduplicated perfect, is sto, which makes A. III. stěti. This verb does.not give the same indications as do of a mere articulation-vowel; for even the compounds retain the long ā, which appears in stabat, &c. But we have a by-form, si-sto, to which steti may be referred, just as our transitive "stay," intransitive "stand," are represented by the German present stehe, perf. stand, both of which are intransitive. And I am inclined to explain the long a in sto, as resulting from a contraction of staho = steyo, Germ. stehen, which is still found in the Umbrian stahito stato (above, p. 82). So that sto cannot be considered as a verb, of which the characteristic or formative adjunct is -a, but, like do, owes its contraction to the contact of the root-syllable with the termination. With these two exceptions, all a verbs form their perfect in -ui or -vi. Although the Greek vowel-verbs particularly affect the aorist in -σa, and indeed have no other, we find that no vowel-verb in Latin has the aorist perfect in -si, unless it has dropt in this tense its characteristic vowel in other words, we have no Latin perfect in -a-si, -e-si, or -i-si. We shall see that there are verbs in -eo and -io, which drop their characteristic, and have perfects in -si immediately attached to the root; but though the characteristic is sometimes dropt in -a

=

verbs, as in domo, A. III. dom-ui, E. III. dom-itus, and though, when the root ends in v, the u of the perfect is absorbed and represented only by a lengthening of the verb-syllable, as in jūv-o, A. III. jūv-i, E. III. jū-tus, we never find an -a verb which exhibits the aorist-perfect in -si. Why this tense has vanished in the first Latin conjugation it is difficult to say, unless we must conclude that it was not euphonious or convenient in the eleven short words, which elide the characteristic -a, and in which alone it was possible. These are crěpo, cubo, domo, frico, mico, něco, plico, sěco, sono, tono, věto. If we compare these words with the Greek verbs in -aw, which have a short ă before the -σ of the future, we may be led to conclude that in these instances also the a was originally followed by some consonant which has been absorbed, and the short vowel in the penultima favours the supposition that we have here the remnants of longer forms. Thus cubui belongs to cumbo, which is strengthened by anusvára, as well as to cuba-o, which, like KÚTT∞, may have had some consonantal formative: crěpa-o, crěpui, may be compared with strěpo, strepui, which has altogether lost the pronominal adjunct of its present tense: doma-o stands by the side of dáμνη-μι as well as δαμά-ζω. Sauá-w. Whether veto is to be derived from vetus (cf. for the form vetulus, and for the sense antiquo), or should be compared with vitium, it obviously involves some semi-consonantal strengthening of the present tense. Of the regular verbs of the first conjugation, the most troublesome in its etymology is ploro, which Döderlein once (Lat. Syn. u. Et. III. 155) considered as an intensive form of plico, and which he now (ibid. VI. p. 273) connects with pluo, fluo and fleo. I cannot accept either of these etymologies. As far as the signification is concerned there is no reason to suppose that ploro ever meant "to shed tears," and such a meaning would be quite inconsistent with the ordinary use of the compound exploro. Festus tells us (p. 230, Müller, quoted above, p. 200), that the original meaning of ploro was inclamo or invoco; and with regard to ploro he says (p. 79): "explorare antiquos pro exclamare usos, sed postea prospicere et certum cognoscere cœpit significare. Itaque speculator ab exploratore hoc distat, quod speculator hostilia silentio perspicit, explorator pacata clamore cognoscit;" and the Glossar. Labb. explains endoplorato by éжIкáλeσov, which is more accurate than the account given by Festus (s. v. p. 77). In a frag

ment of Varro, quoted by Forcellini, who is unable to verify it, we have: "gemit, explorat, turbam omnem concitat," from which it appears that the original meaning of the word must have been "to cry aloud." Now we know that ad-oro, which does not signify, as is generally supposed, to put the hands to the mouth, and then stretch them forth in honour of a superior being (πρоσкvvéw), but rather "to speak to" and "address," is a compound of ad and oro, just as alloqui is a compound of ad and loqui; and we know (from Festus, pp. 19, 182), that orator was originally a name for an ambassador, and that adorare meant agere caussas. So that oro means to make an oratio or speech, and emphatically to use the os or mouth for the purpose of obtaining something. Hence, it passes into its meaning "to ask" or "pray for," and then becomes nearly synonymous with ploro and imploro. But if oro comes from os, why should not pl-oro have the same origin? There can be no difficulty about the first two letters, which contain the root of pl-us, plerique, πλ-éos, πολύς, TOA-ús, "full;" and the phrases pleno ore laudare (Cic. de Officiis, I. 18), and plena voce vocare (Virg. Georg. I. 388), are sufficient to show how pl-oro got its original and proper meaning "to cry aloud." Now "to call aloud" for anything is to desire it earnestly and to demand it with importunity; hence in Greek we have such phrases as: Boa λaiyov 'Epirus (Æsch. Choëph. 396), which is equivalent to Shakspere's: "they say it will have blood." And in general the idea of asking, which is involved in the etymological analysis of quæro (above, p. 352), passes into that of seeking, which is so often and so regularly conveyed by that verb and its compounds. As then exquiro has lost all trace of the original meaning of quæ-so = quæ-ro, "I cause to speak," so ex-ploro has quite taken leave of the sense of "calling aloud" originally borne by ploro, and means merely "to seek out," so that it is perfectly synonymous with exquiro. In a passage of Virgil (Georg. I. 175) we find exploro used of the searching nature of smoke, which penetrates the smallest apertures, and insinuates itself into the tissue of a substance: "et suspensa focis explorat robora fumus." The force of the preposition in ex-ploro is merely intensive, as in ex-quiro. It has not that sense of effecting and obtaining which we notice in exoro, as in Ter. Andr. III. 4, 13: "gnatam ut det oro, vixque id exoro:" and Hecyra, Prol. 2, v. 1: "orator ad vos venio ornatu prologi:

sinite exorator sim." In deploro we sometimes have the same use of the preposition which we notice in de-sidero, and de-spero, and de expresses a feeling of loss or absence. With regard to de-sidero it may be remarked in passing, that, as con-templor and con-sidero are augurial terms derived from the observation of the heavenly templum and its stars, so de-sidero indicates the interruption to the augurial process which was occasioned by a cloudy and starless night. As pl-oro, according to the etymology which is here suggested, must have been originally ple-oro, and as plures is a corruption of the old comparative ple-ores (above, Ch. VI. § 2), we see a perfect analogy between the old Norse fleiri, SuioGothic flere, compared with the latter, and the Etruscan phleres, which has been derived from the former (above, p. 173). And with respect to the meaning of phleres, the connexion of votum, which expresses its application, with voco, which is a synonym of ploro, may be seen in such phrases as Virgil's: “votis adsuesce vocari" (Georg. I. 42), and: "votis vocaveris imbrem" (ibid. I. 157). Another verb of the first conjugation which deserves some notice is futo found in its compounds con-futo and re-futo. According to Festus (p. 89), Cato used futo as a frequentative of fuo or fio. But this is not the origin of futo as found in these compounds and in the adjective futilis, &c. This verb is connected with futis (= vas aquarium, Varro, p. 47, Müller), and fundo; and con-futo, re-futo, which are frequentatives of fuo, whence fons and fundus (see below, Ch. XIII. § 9), are applied to the act of pouring in cold water with a ladle to prevent the kettle from boiling over; Titinn. ap. Non. c. 4. n. 47: "cocus magnum ahenum, quando fervit, paula confutat trua," (see Scaliger ad Fest. s. v. refuto; Ruhnken, Dict. in Ter. p. 174). Hence we have such phrases as: confutare dolores, "to repress or keep down sorrows" (Cic. Tusc. Disp. V. 31).

§ 3. The second or -e Conjugation.

The first point, which strikes the philological student, when he turns his attention to the second conjugation, is the general tendency to drop the characteristic e in the perfect (A. III.), and its participle (E. III.). This is necessarily the case in all verbs which take the proper perfect (a) by reduplication, as mordeo, momordi, morsus; or the aorist in -si, (ẞ), as jubeo, jussi, jussus; lugeo, luxi, luctus; and when l or r precedes a guttural in these

verbs, this guttural is omitted in the perfect, as in fulgeo, ful-si; torqueo, tor-si; and the same is the case with dentals, whether mute or liquid, as rideo, risi; hæreo, hæsi; though maneo retains its n in the perfect mansi. But even where the agglutinate perfect in -ui is used, we generally find that the characteristic e is dropt before it. Indeed there are only a few cases in which the perfect is formed after the analogy of ama-vi. These are deleo, delevi; fleo, flevi; neo, nevi; the compounds of oleo, as aboleo, abolevi; the compounds of pleo, as impleo, implevi; and the nearly obsolete vieo, vievi. The long e in these verbs is generally retained in E. III., as deletus, fletus, impletus; but adoleo has adultus, and aboleo makes abolitus. All other verbs of this conjugation, which take the agglutinate perfect, omit before it the characteristic E, and either drop it also in the participle E. III., or shorten it into i. Thus we have moneo, monui, monitus; misceo, miscui, mistus and mixtus. The deponent reor takes the stronger vowel a in its participle rătus, whence ratio, but the i is resumed in the compound irritus = non ratus. Verbs ending in v generally absorb the v of their agglutinate perfect like the corresponding a verbs juvo and lavo; thus we have caveo, cāvi, cautus; faveo, fāvi, fautus; foveo, fovi, fotus; moveo, mõvi, motus; paveo, pāvi; voveo, võvi, võtus. If we compare mordeo, momordi, morsus with prandeo, prandi, pransus; sedeo, sēdi, sessus; and video, vidi, visus; we shall probably conclude that the latter have merely lost their reduplication. The best explanation, which can be offered of the very general evanescence of the characteristic e in the perfects of this conjugation, is to assume that in the majority of instances it was merely one of those adjuncts, which are used for the purpose of strengthening the present and the tenses derived from it. Among these adjuncts not the least common is the second element under the form ya (see New Crat. §§ 426, 432), and as this is clearly contained in many Greek verbs in -ew which are also written -w (New Crat. § 432, y), so there are many special reasons for inferring the presence of this auxiliary in the Latin verbs in -eo. Perhaps the most important of these special reasons is suggested by the phenomenon that many active verbs in Latin, either (a) uncontracted, or (b) contracted in -a, have a neuter or passive verb from the same root distinguished by the formative characteristic e; thus we have (a)