Page images

Tantus is sometimes also by Cicero omitted before quantus. Cf. Cic. pro Flacco. XVI. 38: Vociferarer et, quantum maxime possem, contenderem.

§ 690. Magis quam with the positive is the more frequent use with Cicero. So it is found, e. g. Tusc. I. 17. 41; de Orat. I. 42. 100; Brut. LXVIII. 241; ad Attic. X. 1. 4: pro Plan. XV. 37.

§ 691. Charles Beier, in his remark on the passage, Cic. de Amicit. 1, here quoted, doubts whether unus, if not connected with a substantive, can be used for strengthening a superlative. Although Klotz (cf. page 85 and 86 of his edition) quotes Cic. pro Sext. LXVII. 141: qui unus omnium justissimus esse traditur; yet this usage must be characterized as very rare.

Here is the place where it might have been said, that the superlative is often followed by a comparative denoting a still higher degree. Cf. Cic. ad Famm. XIV. 3. 1: Ego autem hoc miserior sum, quam tu, quae es miserrima; de Off. III. 34, extr. : tibique persuade te quidem mihi carissimum, sed multo fore cariorem.

692. In Cic. pro Sext. XXVII. 59, is sexcenti used of very few in opposition to the whole Roman people, so that it corresponds with our, a handful. Cf. Garatoni on this passage.

$693. Somewhere in the following remarks on the pronouns, the attention should have been called to the fact that the demonstrative pronouns, and usually also the relative qui, with Cicero, stand in the same case with the substantive numerus, and not in the genitive plural according to our usage. Stürenburg, whose remark on Cic. pro Arch. XII. 31. (page 185, 288) contains a rich collection of examples, knows only two exceptions of the demonstrative pronouns in Cicero, namely: de Orat. IL 13. 56: Atqui ne nunc quidem, quamquam est in re publica versatus, ex numero accepimus eorum,-and in Vatin. XVII. 41: in illorum enim numero mavult T. Annius esse — Here belongs also Cic. pro Sext. III. 7: illo-aspectu instead of illius.

§ 696. At the end of this paragraph our author indicates what is very true, that Cicero is inclined to put ipse in the same case with the subject, although he otherwise approves the rule given by Ernesti concerning this word. We may consider it an exception when ipse is put in the same case with the object. In the first passage quoted by our author from Cic. pro Lege Man. XIII. 13: Non potest exercitum is continere imperator, qui te ipsum non continet, the Codex Erfurtensis reads ipse, which reading, doubtless, deserves the preference. Graevius was al


Use of ipse, is, ille, quisquam and ullus.


ready of this opinion. See Wunder in Varr. lectt. Cod. Erfurt. p. LXIX. He there tries to elicit the sense: non potest is exerci tum continere imperator, qui alios quidem continet, se vero non continet, which of course would be absurd. Therefore he prefers ipse.

If ipse precedes the personal pronoun, then it must always stand in the nominative. Cf. Cic. de Finn. V. 10 28: si quis ipse sibi inimicus est, and immediately after inimicus ipse sibi putandus


§ 699. If a name or a word is to be repeated with an addition to it which limits or modifies the thought, there is not only in Latin et quidem, but more frequently merely et, and more rarely atque. Cf. Cic. pro Sext. XL. 86: Laudas Milonem et jure laudas; ibid. XXIV. 54: gener et Piso gener. This is so very frequent.

Our author should have mentioned here the peculiarity according to which is after an inserted relative sentence continues that sentence; which however only takes place with a copulative particle and then when is stands in another case than that in which the relative stands. Cf. Cic. Orat. II. 9: quam intuens, in eaque defixus, ad illius similitudinem artem et manum dirigebat, -and thus not unfrequently.

§ 701. Ille denotes contempt. Cic. pro Sext. XI. 26: nam alter ille horridus et severus (Piso) —; ibid. VIII. 20: habeo quem opponam labi illi atque coeno.

§ 709 and 709 b. Every careful reader will be struck with the inconsistency and contradiction, which are found in this as in nearly all other grammars, in respect to the words quisquam and ullus as distinguished from aliquis and quidam. The reason of it is that the distinction made is merely external, and not according to etymology and usage, philosophically ascertained.

Our author says:

1. Quisquam and ullus are found in negative sentences.

2. But this rule does not extend to the particles ne and neve, after which quis only is used. The exception, here made, is owing to the use of quis after conjunctions.

3. Quisquam and ullus are sometimes used after si, not in a negative sense, but only to increase the indefiniteness.

Nothing need be said of the inconsistency of this statement. We will only observe in respect to No. 2, that quisquam and ullus after ne and neve occur not unfrequently in Cicero; and that the author errs in supposing that only quis, and not quisquam follows ne and neve. The following examples will confirm what has now VOL. IV. No. 16.


been said; Comp. Cic. pro Sextio XLI. 89: Ne reus adsit, ne citetur, ne quaeratur, ne mentionem omnino cuiquam judicum aut judiciorum facere liceat; pro leg. Man. XXIV. 69: Deinde ne hortor, ut auctore populo Romano, maneas in sententia, neve cujusquam vim aut minas pertimescas; pro Balbo V. 11: ne forte, quod ille in tabulas publicas retulisset, dubitasse quisquam-videretur; Tuscull. III. 34. 84: ne ulla unquam possit exsistere; and so in many other cases.

Caesar also uses it, de Bel. Gal. VII. 40, at the end: Iter eorum moratur atque impedit interdicitque, ne quemquam interficiant. So the other classic writers. That this pronoun is sometimes used without a foregoing conjunction and after dum, the author himself has shown by examples.

As it respects the signification and use of the pronouns quis, aliquis, quispiam and quisquam, it is obvious that they are all of the same etymology; and that the shades of meaning depend wholly on the prefixes and suffixes. We will limit our remarks here to the word quisquam. Being compounded of quis and quam, it means literally any one as, i. e. any one although. Quarn cannot of itself stand for a clause in Latin; therefore we must conceive of it as reduplicated (quamquam), in order to form a concessive particle equivalent, in sense, to a concessive clause (although), which stands in contrast with quis (quam); e. g. Nego hoc fecisse quemquam, is said in opposition to a previous assertion of some other person; thus: Nego hoc fecisse quem, quam (quam) affirmatur. In English the force of the expression will be best given by emphasizing the word I, as the subject of the sentence, thus: I say, no one has done it, although it has been affirmed by another.

If quisquam comes after si, the same thing is true, except that the contrast cannot be expressed by affirmatur, because it is not of a negative character, but by negatur. The sentence contains an opposition to an implied preceding negation. Si quisquam, ille sapiens fuit, means (no one is wise, but) if any one is wise, he was so. Si quis doctus fuit (quam) [quam] hoc negatur, quem fuisse doctum), ille fuit.

Whenever the clause following ne refers to an implied preceding affirmation, quisquam, and not quis must be used, as appears in the preceding examples. As this does not often take place with ne, quis commonly follows ne. If one says, Ne quis scribat, this is simply a command, the right of the one, and the obligation of the other being presupposed. Ne quisquam scribat, means, I

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]


Usage of quisque, tum-tum, non-sed.

command that no one write (although another has commanded that one should write). See Stürenburg ad Cic. de Officiis. p. 213 and 214, 1st ed.


§ 710. In the German edition, corrected in the English translation, quisque does indeed stand distributively after ordinals; still the translation of quinto quoque anno, every five years (as it stands in the German edition) may be so misunderstood as to mean, once in every five years (no matter in which of the five). Comp. Scioppius de stylo historico, p. 226: Fugit Muretum ratio, quum pro singulis quinque annis dicendum putat quinto quoque Nec enim eadem utriusque dicti est sententia. Si quidem fiat, quod quinquennio seu singulis quinque annis semel, nihil necesse est, id quinto semper anno fieri, cum etiam primo, secundo aut quocunque quinquennii anno factum intelligitur.


$710 b. Quisque with the superlative in the connection here specified is used only with the neuter plural. The exceptions are very few, as Cic. de Amicit. X. medio-in optimis quibusque (masc.) honoris certamen et gloriae. Hase, in his 362nd note on Reisig, Vorlesungen, p. 351, appears not to be aware of any exceptions.

§ 718. It might have been mentioned here that instead of the perfect passive, a participle of the same word which precedes that of a synonymous verb is not unfrequently used. Comp. Cic. pro Rosc. Amer. XI. 32: Patrem-jugulastis, occisum in proscriptorum numerum retulistis; Ibid. XII. 34: Caussam explicemus atque ante expositam consideremus.

§ 722. 2. In the passage Cic. de Amicit. II. 6, multa ejus vel provisa prudenter vel acta constanter vel responsa acute, this rule is well illustrated, because the participles not only have an adjective and a genitive, that is, are used as real substantives, but they also have adverbs or are used as real participles.

§ 723. The author still maintains that tum-tum are equivalent to partim-partim, notwithstanding Stürenburg ad pro Archia XII pp. 164-180 has demonstrated that tum-tum refer only to time. Even the two examples presented by Zumpt can very easily be explained in this way.

§ 724. Here non-sed might have been mentioned; e. g. Cic. pro Sextio XXVIII. 62: Non illi ornandum Catonem sed relegandum, nec illi committendum illud negotium, sed imponendum putaverunt

§ 724 b. Here, after the words sed ne-quidem, it might have been added in a parenthesis, that verum ne- quidem very rarely

[ocr errors]

occurs. It is found, for example, in Cic. pro Rosc. Amer. XIX. 54: quod planum facere non modo non possis, verum ne coneris quidem; Cic. de R. P. III. 30. 42.

§ 736. Add after contra, "and still more remarkable. Cic. de Finn. II. 21. 68: sed tamen et in corpore et extra esse quaedam bona."

737. Atque etiam, like atque adeo, is used, as is well known, to indicate a climax. Cic. pro Sext. XXIV. 53: Ipso die — die dico immo hora atque etiam puncto temporis. See Hand's Tursellinus I. 507. Atque standing alone, is used in the same way. Compare Cic. Orator XVI. 52: rem difficilem, dii immortales! atque omnium difficillimam.

§ 738. The use here pointed out of nec, quisquam, ullus, usquam, instead of ut nemo, etc. has its exceptions even in Cicero. Cf. pro Sext. II. 3: nihilque ab eo praetermissum; in Vat. XI. 28: nihil que maximus fecit, where Orelli, however, reads nihil without que.

§ 739 Frequently, after a parenthetic clause, which interrupts the sentence, the sentence is not carried forward by a conjunction, but is resumed by the repetition of one or more words. Comp. Cic. in Vat. VIII. 19: Quaero illud etiam ex te, conatusne sis, voluer. isne, denique cogitaris (est enim res ejusmodi, ut, si tibi modo in mentem venit, nemo sit, qui te ullo cruciatu indignum putet) cogitarisne —; pro Sext. XIX. 42: Haec ego quum viderem—haec quum viderem-; pro Archia VIII. 18: Quoties ego hunc Archiam vidi-quoties ego hunc vidi. Sometimes after such a parenthetic clause, the sentence proceeds without either a conjunction or a repetition, for example, Cic. pro Lege Man. II. 4 and 5: Equitibus Romanis, honestissimis viris, adferuntur ex Asia quotidie litterae,--quorum magnae res aguntur in vestris vectigalibus exercendis occupatae-; Bithyniae vicos exustos esse complures.

§ 743, 4. Sometimes, after qui, not the same substantive but a synonym of it is repeated. Comp. Cic. p. Rosc. Am. XIII. 37: Nefarium facinus atque ejusmodi, quo uno maleficio; pro Sext. XI. 26: Erat Senatus in aede Concordiae, quod ipsum templum —.

In some place when treating of pleonasm, it should have been remarked that, as is póvos in Greek, so sometimes unus solus in Latin is used. Comp. Cic. p. Sext. LXII. 130: Atque ita in his rebus unus est solus inventus Ibid. XIX. 43: qui hac una mediana sola, and elsewhere not unfrequently.

§ 750. On pleonasm in words expressing thought, reflection, etc. see Cic. pro Planc. XXVI. extr. hac spe decedebam, ut—putarem; pro Rosc. Amer. XXII. 6: ea spe venisse, quod putaret.

« PreviousContinue »