« PreviousContinue »
Extension of the Japhetan Race.
Proud England and proud Russia know the names of Affghanis tan and Circassia! The Grecian Alexander of the Thracian family of Japhet overran Asia, and the empire of Japhetan Rome was enlarged till it became universal. The unconquered seakings of Scandinavia carried Sanscrit forms along the coasts of the frozen North, and the Gothic tribes filled Central Europe with another form of the same speech. The Vandal, the Frank and the Celt bear witness of their race in their language. And last, not least, the Anglo-Saxons are the very essence of the race, the most essentially Japhetan of all Japhet's family. And the English language, which (harmony and copiousness apart) for pure strength, may be called the noblest mode of human speech, is stretching its conquering wing from India to California.
May we not look into the vista of the dim future with two ideas struggling within us? In pursuing the study of language we may carry the torch lighted by Teutonic genius into one twilight cavern after another, and so classify tongues by some high analysis, as to teach not so much, laboriously one, or two languages, as the principles of all. And, again, may we not, as is obscurely hinted by one of the Germans, by this inductive process look to the bringing of mankind so near together in the understanding of their respective modes of speech, and in the investigation of what in language lies nearest to nature, as that a nearer approximation may be made to an universal language? The arts are bringing mankind into near physical connection, the prevalence of a pure Christianity will bring them into moral union; might we hope to bring together the elements of speech into the light of philosophy, so that this great jargon of conflicting tongues may give way to finer combinations, and we speak not with the tongues of men but of angels?
ZUMPT'S LATIN GRAMMAR.
A Grammar of the Latin Language, by C. G. Zumpt, Ph. D., Professor in the University, and Member of the Royal Academy of Berlin. From the ninth edition of the original, adapted to the use of English students by Leonhard Schmitz, Ph. D., late of the University of Bonn. London, 1845.
By Charles Siedhof, Ph. D., late Rector of the Gymnasium at Aurich, in the Kingdom of Hanover, now teacher of a private Classical School, Newton Centre, Ms.-[Concluded from p. 435.]
§ 622. It is here said that contingit mihi is frequently used with the infinitive. This is true in general, but not in regard to Cicero, who had but once used this construction, viz. in the passage quoted from pro Arch. III. Stürenburg, therefore, endeavored to correct the reading. Cf. his Latin edition, p. 45—50, and his first edition of de Officiis, preface, p. 9, 10. Yet he has returned in the German edition of the oration to the authority of the manu scripts. Also Lambinus thought the construction not classical. Although it is common with poets and later writers yet it is not used by any good prose writer.
§ 623. Our author has in § 600 explained the regular construction of necesse est; thus necesse should here either be stricken out, or at least it should be said, that it, as being very rare, is not to be imitated.
In the passages with verisimile est, ut, it is to be observed, that in all of them non is added. Further are two of a hypothetical nature, as the imperfect tenses, by which it is followed, show.
625. The subjunctive after necesse est (and oportet) is not to be put in the same category with the accusative and infinitive, unless with some restrictions; for although the present follows those phrases, yet the imperfect is entirely against the use of Cicero. Necesse est me facere and necesse est faciam are both equally good, but necesse erat facerem is not good Latin; we must always say in this me facere.
But the expression mihi necesse est with the infinitive, so frequent with Cicero, ought to have been quoted. Cf. ad Famm. II. 16. 2: mihi necesse est esse; de Fat. IX: homini necesse est mori.
Remarks on Zumpt's Syntax.
§ 626. The difference between quod and the accusative before the infinitive is particularly clear in Cic. pro Sext. XXXVIII. 80: An haec ipsa vis est non posse emori? an illa, quod Tribunus plebis templum cruentavit? an, quod, quum esset ablatus, primumque resipisset, non se referri jussit? The first sentence expresses a general thought, both the following refer to a certain person and event.
§ 629. There are still other different constructions which often occur, of which we only mention si and cur after miror and mirum est (as the Greek davμálo εi). Cf. Cic. pro Sext. I. 1: miretur potius, si quem-viderit (in the beginning of the chapter there is : si quis mirabatur, quid esset, quod-); de Senect. XI. 35: quid mirum igitur in senibus, si infirmi sunt. Further, de Orat. II. 13; pro Rosc. Amer. XLV. 131; ibid. VIII. 22; Cic. ad Famm. VII. 27. 1: miror, cur me accuses. Si is especially frequent with Cicero.
§632. It is a very true remark of Klotz in Jahn's NN. GG. für Phil. und Pädag. 14. Jahrg. 4 Band. 3 Heft. p. 243, 258 (Review of Krebs's Antibarbarus), that according to the use of Cicero the perfect participles of the deponents, when used passively, have regularly the perfect participle of an active verb with them. This remark would be in place in a school grammar.
§ 635. Rem. In the phrase, domum reversus, litteras tuas inveni, reversus should be stricken out as in the highest degree rare in writers of authority. It is only found in Caesar de B. G. VI. 42, and with Cic. Phil. VI. 4. 10: ut retractus, non reversus videretur. By this is our author's remark § 209 at the end, that although reversus is often used as a participle it rarely occurs with esse, corrected; for reversus is here not a mere participle, because esse is omitted. Very instructive is Cic. ad Famm. VI. 6. 11: ut in eam civitatem boni viri et boni cives, nulla ignominia notati, non revertantur, in quam tot nefariorum scelerum condemnati reverterunt.
§ 639. The use of the future participle active without esse is very properly ascribed to the Silver age, yet the participle of esse, futurus, should have been excepted; it is so frequent with Cicero that there is no need of reference to passages.
647. This use of the ablative absolute is to be found in a few passages as early as with Cicero. Cf. Acadd. II. 11. 33: Quo enim omnia judicantur, sublato, reliqua se negant tollere; de Finn. II. 27. 85: Perfecto et concluso, neque virtutibus neque amicitiis usquam locum esse —, nihil praeterea est magno opere dicendum; de Officc. IL 12. 41: Adjuncto vero, ut iidem etiam prudentes
haberentur, nihil erat, quod homines iis auctoribus non posse consequi se arbitrantur.
651. Our author professes to have quoted all the places where a with a future participle passive is found in Cicero, but in this he is mistaken. Cf. pro Sext. XVIII. 41: Sed tamen et Crassus a consulibus meam caussam suscipiendam esse dicebat, et —; ad Famm. XV. 4. 11: tamen admonendum potius te a me, quam orandum; ibid. III. 11. 3: de testibus-a suis civibus notandis ; pro Sulla VIII. 23: Sed tamen te a me pro magnis caussis nostrae necessitudinis monendum esse etiam atque etiam puto —; ad Famm. IX. 3: a me scribenda putabam.
§ 659. The construction of a substantive with est and the infinitive depends entirely on the double signification of est. Est is either an adjective verb (= exists) when it has the emphasis and the following verb must be put in the genitive of the gerund; or it is a substantive verb (= copula) and then it simply connects the subject to the predicate, it has no emphasis and the following verb stands in the infinitive. Without paying regard here to common connections, as officium est, we quote here (as rare) Cic. pro Caecina V. 15: nullam esse rationem amittere ejusmodi occasione. Acadd. II. 6. 17: nec esse ullam rationem disputare. Ibid. II. 23. 74: nulla fuit ratio persequi. So with adesse. Cic. in Verr. II. 17: capit consilium-non adesse. But compare what our author has said in the note to § 597.
The most important phrase of this kind is tempus est, partly, because it occurs so very frequently with the infinitive, partly, because the difference of its meaning as used in connection with the infinitive or in connection with the gerund, is so great and manifest. Tempus est, with the infinitive, is regularly accompanied by nunc or jam, and means, it is (just) now time. So it occurs most frequently. Cf. Cic. de Orat. II. XLII. 181: tempus est jam de ordine argumentorum et de collocatione aliquid discere. We abstain from quoting other passages, because it would be unnecessary. Tempus est, with the gerund, means, there is time (enough). The phrase is not often used in this way. tempus est corresponds with our, there is a time, the gerund also must be used. Cf. Cic. pro. Mil. IV. 9: Atque si tempus est ullum jure hominis necandi.
Here we may remark, that if the infinitive has its own subject, this must be put in the accusative; so that tempus est in this case governs the accusative before the infinitive. Cf. Cic. ad Atticum IV. 5, extr.: sed jam tempus est me ipsum a me amare.
Corrections and Additions.
The genitive of the gerund in the signification of the phrase first explained, is used by Cicero by way of exception. Acadd. II. 48. 147: Verum quoniam non modo nauta significat, sed etiam Favonius ipse insusurat navigandi nobis tempus esse.
§ 676. So imperium is put for consules. Cic. pro Sext. XI. 25: innocentia for innocentes; Cic. de Orat. I. 46. 202: splendor; Cic. pro Ligar. XI. 33.
§ 677. Nihil is used, especially with the comparative, rather frequently with reference to persons. Cf. Cic. ad Famm. IV. 4. 2: Victoris vitio, quo nihil erat moderatius; ad Famm. XIV. 3. extr. mihi te carius nihil esse.
§ 678. The substantives vir and homo stand very often for demonstrative pronouns. Cf. Cic. ad Famm. I. 6. 14: nosti hominis tarditatem; pro Sext. XLI. 88: tanta moderatio fuit hominis.
Our author has taught in § 92, that the plural animae is used in reference to the ferocia of one man; here he limits animae to several. Cic. pro Sext. XLI. 88: fractae erant animae hominis. Here animae has not the meaning of ferocia.
§ 681. Introitus Smyrnam by Cic. Phil. XI. 2. 5; Conventus ad Marcellos, ad Pompejum, Cic. in Ver. III. 18 45; in Capitolium adscensus, domum reditus, Cic. pro Sext. XLIII. 131.
§684. Ciceroniana Simplicitas has Pliny, Historia Naturae, Pref. 22. But the word is not found at all in Cicero in either of its significations. He uses circumlocutions for it, as simplex ratio, or the Greek, Lizórns, e. g. ad Famm. VII. 26. 2: lex sumptuaria, quae videtur róznza attulisse.
§ 685. Although it is true that the neuter of the adjectives here quoted used as substantives, is not to be imitated, yet it is found occasionally even with the best writers. Cf. Caes. de Bel. Gall. VI. 26 ab ejus summo, sicut palmae rami, late diffunduntur; with Cic. ad Famm. VII. 16, init. In equo Trojano scis esse in extremo, which is somewhat remarkable.
§ 686. Here the remarks would have been in place that we, for instance, must render, they were the first who did this, by illi primi hoc fecerunt, never with esse and qui.
§ 689. Here the attention should have been particularly directed to the fact, that with Cicero also, ut with the superlative and a tense of posse, very frequently occurs. Cf. de Finn. V. 4. 9: ut brevissime potuit; de Divin. II. 1. 1: ut maxime potuimus, and in very many other places.
Drakenborch has, indeed, collected in the passage here quoted many examples from Livy, but by no means all, as would appear from our author.