« PreviousContinue »
Use of the Ablative, refertus, etc.
455. Although it is true that if men are the instruments, in general the verb is not often placed with the bare ablative, yet the use in particular cases is to be observed. Cf. Caes. de B. G. L8: Caesar ea legione, quam secum habebat, militibusque, qui ex provincia convenerant,-murum fossamque perducit; Cic. Tusc. L 1: non quia philosophia graecis et litteris et doctoribus, percipi non posset. Expressions, especially, which signify soldiers are usually placed thus in the ablative without the preposition; these are then regarded as mere instruments in the hand of the commander. Cic. pro Sext. XXXV. 75: Quum forum-armatis hominibus ac servis plerisque occupavissent; ibid. XLIV. 95: qui stipatus sicariis, septus armatis, munitus indicibus fuit; Id. pro Leg. Man. XI. 30, twice: magnis oppressa hostium copiis, and, legionibus nostris-iter-patefactum est: Id. in Vatin. XVII. 40: Milonem-gladiatoribus et bestiariis obsedisse rempublicam; Id. pro Sext. XXIV. 54: erat expulsus vi, servitio denique concitato.
$460. The verb constipare is to be stricken out, because it never occurs with an ablative.
§ 462. We have, in section 437 above, the construction of refertus. Here it is to be remarked, that Latin writers prefer to construe it with the genitive when used with reference to persons. Cf. Cic. de Orat. II. 37. 154: nam et referta quondam Italia Pythagoreorum fuit; pro lege Man. XI. 31: referto praedonum mari; pro Planc. XLI. 98: refertam esse Graeciam sceleratissimorum hominum; pro Fontei. I. 1, (according to the former division of the oration, not that employed since Niebuhr's discovery of some parts of this oration before lost,) referta Gallia negotiatorum erat; ad Attic. VIIL 1. 3: etsi propediem video bonorum, id est, lautorum et locupletium, urbem refertam fore; Ibid. IX. 1. 2: urbem refertam esse optimatium; sometimes also the ablative of persons is connected with it. Cic. pro Rege Dejotar. XII. 33: armatis hominibus refertum forum (compare remark 2. § 455); Phil. IL 27. 67: aleatoribus referta; pro Varr. II. 1. 52: domus erat-praetoria turba referta; Orat. XLI. 140: quibus referta sunt omnia.
§ 463. There is also another passage in which impleo is construed with the genitive, viz. Cic. in Verr. Act. II. 46. 119: Itaque L. Piso multas codices implevit earum rerum.
467. Rem. Dignus is often put without either the ablative or qui and the subjunctive, if that of which one is worthy has already been mentioned or may be understood from the connection. So Cic. pro Rosc. Amerino V. twice (indignissima and indigniora); pro Planc. IIL 8; pro Mil. VII. 19; Phil. XIII. 21. 48; in VOL. IV. No. 15. 37
Verr. II. 1. V. bb. 170; pro lege Man. XVII. 52. renburg pro Archia, page 57-59 (Latin edition).
§ 471. The following ablatives are remarkable: Cic. in Verr. II. 1. 3. 90. 210: qui tantis rebus gestis sunt; Phil. VI. 5. 12: quis tantis rebus gestis fuit; Famm. IV. 6. 6: qui- clarum virum et magnis rebus gestis amisit; pro Archia XII: hominem caussa hujusmodi; Tusc. I. 35. 85: Metellus honoratis quatuor filiis. There is a reading in this last passage which has honoratus, but it is of no authority.
§ 476. If duration is expressed before ante, the accusative is always used, not the ablative. Cf. Cic. pro lege Man. XVIII. 54: At Hercule aliquot annos continuos ante legem Gabiniamcaruit; Phil. V. 19. 52: triennium ante legitimum tempus.
§ 477. Cic. Brut. VII. 27: Post hanc aetatem aliquot annis.
§ 480. The example here quoted from Caesar de B. G. L. 48, and which is found in § 478 of the former edition, does not occur in de B. Gallico, but de B. Civili. L. 48.
§ 482. There is indeed a very great number of passages in which totus is joined with in; Cic. pro Ligar. III. 7: in toto imperio; Lael. II. 6: in tota Graecia; Verr. IV. 32. 72: tota in Sicilia; in the same section in Sicilia tota, and in sec. 2, in tota provincia; ad Famm. III. 8. 38: in tota nostra amicitia; de Orat. III. 25. 96: in toto corpore; Phil. II. 8: tota in oratione. All examples of this character must be classified, because they differ from each other in nature. But we omit that here, and reserve it for another occasion.
$483. Here it should be stated that after malo and praestat, it is better, the thing compared must be introduced by quam. Cf. Cic. ad Att. VII. 15: Cato jam servire, quam pugnare mavult; pro Sext. LXIX. 146: praestat recidere, quam importare. This is very frequent, as is well known.
There is with Cicero a no inconsiderable number of examples in which the ablative is put instead of quam with the accusative. It occurs, as is known, very often everywhere. Here we may set down a single case, Cato Maj. XII. 14: nihil mente praestabilius dedisset.
§ 490. Among the verbs which are followed by in with the ablative, imprimere should have been mentioned. Although this verb occurs in § 416, yet the example given in that section appears rather strange and out of place there, because it is put down without any explanation of its peculiar use. Cf. Cic. de legg. L 10. 30: in animis imprimuntur, and in the same place immedi
Corrections of Zumpt's Syntax.
ately after in omnibus imprimuntur; Nat. Deor. I. 16. 42: quod in omnium animis eorum nationum impressisset ipsa natura; de Fato XIX. 43: imprimet et quasi signabit in animo; but this passage is not clear on account of signabit which follows imprimet; Acad. post. I. 11. 41: in animis imprimerentur; Phil. XIIL 15. 30: vestigium ubi imprimas, and in many other places which the lexicons indicate.
§ 493-516. The exposition of the tenses and of their consecution which is given in this part of the grammar is not so clear and satisfactory as one might expect. But we are unable here, for want of space, to attempt another exposition; we shall rather continue to furnish corrections and additions for the single paragraphs.
§ 512. A very large number of passages, which are apparently but not really irregular, might be added to the remark under this section. We would call special attention to the thirty-eighth chapter of Cicero's oration pro Sext. because a multitude of such examples are concentrated in this chapter.
In section eighty-second of this chapter is found: At vero illi ipsi parricidae, quorum effrenatus furor alitur impunitate diuturna, adeo vim facinoris sui perhorruerant, ut, si paullo longior opinio mortis Sextii fuisset, Gracchum illum suum, transferrendi in nos criminis caussa, occidere cogitarint. From this example as well as from those quoted by the author, viz. Cic. Brut. LXXXVIII. and Cor. Nepos Arist. I. and from many other examples, it becomes manifest, that ut, denoting a result, can be followed by any tense which the nature of the thought either makes necessary or permits. Tantus fuit, ut omnes eum admirentur means, he was so great that all are still admiring him (though he may have died long since). Tantus fuit, ut omnes eum admirarentur, means, that all admired him then (i. e. when he was living). Tantus fuit, ut omnes eum admirati sint, means, that all have once admired him. Tantus fuit, ut omnes eum admiraturi sint, means, that all will at some time admire him. Thus perhorruerant in the above example agrees very well with ut-occidere cogitarint. In the same chapter, § 83, is found: Ac, si tunc P. Sextius, judices, in templo Castoris animam, quam vix retinuit, edidisset, non dubito, quin, si modo esset in republica senatus, si majestas populi Romani revixisset, aliquando statua huic ob rempublicam interfecto in foro statueretur; further, in the same oration, chapter XXIX. 62: Quod ille si repudiasset, dubitatis, quin ei vis esset allata, quum omnia acta illius anni per illum unum labefactari vide
rentur ?-ad Fam. XIII. 1. 5: dubitat quin ego-consequi possem, etiamsi aedificaturus essem. These examples, which might be multiplied, show that, especially after non dubito, a conditional clause is placed without any regard to this phrase.
Soldan, ad Sic. pro Ligar. XII. 34: An potest quisquam dubitares quin, si Ligarius in Italia esse potuisset, in eadem sententia fuerit (all. fuisset) futurus, makes a distinction between the periphrastic conjugation and the regular tenses of the verb, and claims for the former alone the usual consecution of tenses. But this is as unsatisfactory as what Bennecke says, in a comment on that passage, that hypothetical sentences have no dependence on the leading verb. An example of the periphrastic conjugation besides the one quoted, is also to be found in Cic. pro Planc. XXIX. 71: si voluisses, non dubito, quin-si conversura fuerit. A discriminating examination of the particular phrases to be found in the language relating to this subject is much needed. Here we only remark further, that tenses which do not correspond to each other are also found in imperfect conditional sentences, especially in interrogations and exclamations; Cic. pro Cluent. VIII. 25: quis est, qui illum absolvi arbitraretur?-de Legg. III. VI. 14: qui vero utraque re excelleret, ut et doctrinae studiis et regenda civitate princeps esset, quis facile praeter hunc invenire potest?
§ 518–519. The explanation of the use of the indicative in a conditional sentence has been very much improved in the new edition. We add here only two examples, the first of which makes the difference between the indicative and subjunctive very clear. Cic. pro Rosc. Am. XXXII. 91: Erucius, haec si haberet in caussa, quae commemoravi, posset ea quamvis diu dicere, et ego possum; the other has the protasis expressed by the ablative absolute and the apodosis by the indicative. Cic. pro Mil. XII. 32: Atque Milone interfecto-Clodius hoc assequebatur, ut―, which means, if Milo had been killed, Clodius would have effected that, etc.
§ 519. In the middle of the section our author has construed incorrectly the example taken from Cicero in Vatin. I. 2: Eterim debuisti, Vatini, etiamsi falso venisses in suspicionem P. Sextio, tamen mihi ignoscere, because he has not quoted the passage in full; for after ignoscere follows: si in tanto hominis de me optime meriti periculo et tempori ejus et voluntati parere voluissem. This makes it clear, that the clause, etiamsi-venisses, has no relation whatever to debuisti. Si-voluissem forms rather the hypothetical protasis to it. The same mistake is found in the preceding editions.
Three kinds of Conditional Sentences.
522. The example, sive tacebis, sive loquere, mihi perinde est, should have been stricken out from the former editions, bebecause it is not correct Latin. Perinde est, in the sense given to it by modern writers, it is all the same to me, is entirely unclassical. Cf. Stürenburg ad Cic. de Off. p. 133-4 (first edition, Lips. 1834), and Hand in Turselin. IV. 461.
The principle, so simple in itself, which regulates hypothetical sentences, often appears, in the various school-books obscure only for this reason, because the authors have failed to form a perfectly clear idea, how many kinds of conditions, and consequently, of conditional sentences there may be. In endeavoring briefly to set forth our views, we must, on account of our limited space, con. tent ourselves with a mere outline, but we hope in the meantime to contribute some little to the simplification of our school grammars and of the mode of oral teaching in this respect. Hereby shall we be enabled the more easily to apprehend the nature of the imperfect tense which is the subject of this paragraph, and which is by no means to be considered as similar to the Greek imperfect.
There are three kinds of conditions, and consequently, of conditional sentences.
1. The first is where there is an absolute uncertainty as to what is said. E. g. Si habeo pecuniam, tibi dabo, that is, “I will give you money, if I have it," but I do not know whether I have it or not. The probability on either side is equal. The antithesis must always be sed nescio; and the mode, the indicative.
2. The second is where there is a mere possibility, but not a probability as to what is said. E. g. Si habeam pecuniam, etc. "If I should have money," but I doubt whether I shall have it; it is more probable that I shall not have it. The antithesis is, sed dubito, and the mode subjunctive in any tense except the imperfect and the pluperfect.
3. The third is where a complete denial of what is represented is implied. E. g. Si haberem pecuniam, tibi darem, "If I had money, I would give it you." The antithesis with the imperfect subjunctive, must be in the present indicative of the verb used in the first clause, preceded by sed non, e. g. sed non habeo, (therefore I cannot give it you); with the pluperfect subjunctive, the antithesis must be in the perfect indicative with sed non. The mode is the subjunctive, the imperfect for present, and the pluperfect for past time. If the sentence ran thus, si habuissem pecu