Page images


Usage of hic and ille.


§ 767. This section has, indeed, been extended by a remark, in which hic and ille are considered; still it needs to be corrected and completed. The very beginning of the section in the German edition, viz. "When we use the article alone in German instead of repeating the foregoing substantive," etc. is incorrect; for what the author calls the article is not an article, but a demonstrative pronoun. In the sentence, "I read the (die) comedies of Plautus, but not those (die) of Terence, the second die has the emphasis, which is proof that it is not an article. The author probably was thinking of the Greek when he penned this remark. The English translator has very properly corrected this error.

With Cicero only the pronouns hic and ille are used in this way before the genitive.

If hic is used, the genitive is a mere apposition, which expresses the same thing in substance. So pro Archia XI. 28: Nullam enim virtus aliam mercedem laborum periculorumque desiderat praeter hanc (i. e.) laudis atque gloriae. So in the very same passage as found in Phil. V. 13. 35: Neque enim ullam mercedem tanta virtus praeter hanc (i. e.) laudis gloriaeque desiderat; Brut. LVIII. 211: et neptes Licinias, quas nos quidem ambas, hanc vero Scipionis etiam tu, Brute, credo, aliquando loquentem.

Here the case is not precisely the same as in the two preceding passages, although Scipionis is in apposition with hanc. In English, it would be expressed by the words, but this,-(I mean, or viz.) that of Scipio."

If ille is used, the genitive is also here a mere apposition, and ille is then either indicative of something which is observable by the senses, or of something else that is well known.

Of the first description is the passage, Phil. V. 5. 13: In foro L. Antonii statuam videmus, sicut illam (i. e.) Tremuli (to which I point with the finger.-It was in the forum).

Of the second description are the following passages; de Orat. III. 48. 184: Neque vero haec tam acrem curam diligentiamque desiderant, quam est illa poetarum; Divin. in Caecil. XI. 36: quum omnis arrogantia odiosa est, tum illa ingenii atque eloquentiae multo molestissima; Brut. XXI. 83: At oratio Laelii de collegiis non melior, quam de multis quam voles, Scipionis, non quo illa Laelii quicquam sit dulcius-; ad Famm. IX. 15. 2: Accedunt non Attici, sed salsiores quam illi Atticorum, sales.

Finally a pronoun is used when it is separated from the genitive by a relative clause. Comp. Cic. in Verr. Act. II. 4. 37. 81: Quae cognatio studiorum et artium propemodum non minus est con

juncta quam ista, qua vos delectamini, generis et nominis; de Orat. II. 24. 101: dum inertiae vituperationem-contemnunt, assequuntur etiam illam, quam magis ipsi fugiunt, tarditatis.

It were better that the author had stricken out the quotation from Curtius. IX. 26, or substituted another in its place, on account of the unclassical use of the word valet. We have already remarked upon that under § 612. In a work of such high merit, even the smallest errors are blemishes.

§ 771. Remark. At the end it should have been said that the words nihil aliud nisi are connected only with a following preposition, that is, with verbs which may either govern the accusative, or be construed with de, though in another sense, as dicere, cogitare, agere, loqui referre; for with these verbs, that double construction occurs with other words than nihil aliud nisi. Cf. Cic. pro Reg. Dejot. VIII. 22 De exercitu breviter dicam, ut caetera.

§ 779. Inasmuch as many imagine that in the construction, tantum abest ut―ut there is a special elegance, and inasmuch as this form of expression is so frequently introduced in books for writing Latin, the author should have observed that with Cicero its use is comparatively rare. It is found in Cic. pro leg. Man. XXIV. 71; de Orat. XIX. 104; Tuscull. V. 5; Brut. LXXX; Phil. XI. 3; ad Att. VL 2; ad Att. XIII. 21; de Off. L. 14; Tuscull. I. 31; de Nat. Deorr. II. 63; Tuscull. II. 2; Tuscull. V. 6; Orat. LXVIII; ad Famm. XII. 15; Lael. XIV. 51; ad Att. VII. 3. If the addition ab eo is found after tantum abest, the construction must always be, tantum abest ab eo, ut.

§ 781. The example, An Scythes Anacharsis potuit, etc. is not found in Cic. de Fin. V. 32, but in Tusc. V. 32. This error has been repeated through many editions of the grammar before us. The example, as it here stands, is not well chosen; because the construction non facere poterunt must appear strange to the pupil. Orelli has properly expunged the word facere, which Roth had previously included in brackets.

The contrast appears especially when, in the example here given and elsewhere to be found, the same verb is used twice, once with a negative, and once without it. In English when the Latin word is repeated with a negation, we omit the verb, and employ merely the words, "but not." Neque is found in Cic. pro. Reg. Dej. X. 29: Quodsi saltatorum avum habuisses neque eum virum, for et non.

§782. The words huc et illuc, ultro et citro, hic et illic, are always connected, as here, by et, and are never without the copu


Remarks on Cicero's Usages.


lative conjunction, as the modern Latin writers commonly have it, after the example of the poets and of the later Roman authors.

No sentence can be closed with the conjunction que, whether the last word be a verb, as Reisig§ 233 maintains, or not. See Cic. Orator. LXX. 233, cited by Nauck in Jahn's Neuen-Jahrbüchern, Supplement, No. 7. pp. 466-470. Still que is so used, though very rarely, especially in epistolary writing. Cic. ad Fam. XIV. 3. 1: nec meae miseriae magis excruciant quam tuae vestrae que.

§ 799. In respect to non in connection with posse, the proper explanation should have been given here. The rule commonly given, and in general correct, is that non must stand immediately before posse. Still non is often found before the dependent infinitive, where the sense requires it. Thus, Loqui non possum, means, "it is not possible for me to speak;" possum non loqui, it is possible for me not to speak." Comp. Cic. Tuscull. III. 28. 66: Si enim deponi potest (dolor), etiam non suscipi potest. Voluntate igitur et judicio suscipi aegritudinem confitendum est; pro Cluent. XLI. 113: jam potuit aliquis ab initio non sedisse; pro Milone XXX. 81: quamquam qui poterat salus sua cuiquam non probari!—pro Fontej. VI. 11: Potest igitur judex testibus non credere. Cupidis et iratis et ab religione remotis non solum potest, sed etiam debet (non credere). It occurs so very frequently in Cicero. Strange is Cic. ad Famm. VII. 15. 2: Quod vero in C. Mattii, suavissimi doctissimique hominis, familiaritatem venisti, non dici potest, quam valde gaudeam.

That nego is regularly used for non dico, is correct; but not so, when non dico means, "I will not say." See § 724.

Perhaps it would have been well to add something more in this place respecting the position of words in certain phrases. So Klotz has often remarked in his various writings, that eam ob rem never occurs, though hanc ob rem frequently does, the ground of which may lie alone in the disagreeable sound, which would be occasioned by the elision of the syllable am, so constantly occurring in the conversation of the Romans. But eamque ob rem, which gives no harsh sound, is used.

The same critic has warned us against the use of medius before the preposition in, a favorite, but faulty form of expression with modern writers. It must always be written, in media urbe, etc. So likewise potest esse is so common with Cicero, that deviations (esse potest), as Tusc. I. 46. 100, are very rare. The same is true of necesse est esse.

There are very many such points, which a frequent perusal of Cicero's works for some definite purpose brings to view; but we must forego the presentation of them at present, lest we transcend the limits proper for a review.

808. Neque tamen is, indeed, the ordinary form of expression; but there are places where non tamen must stand, and where neque tamen would be impossible. So Cic. de Fin. V. 22. 62: Quis contra in illa aetate pudorem, constantiam, etiamsi sua nihil intersit, non tamen diligat. Non tamen, where this reason does not exist, is more natural in the following passage. Cic. Acad. II. 20.


We conclude with expressing the wish that the author will recognize in our remarks the high respect which we sincerely feel for him. He has effected, and still continues to effect, what few have the power to accomplish. The work contains a real treasure of the nicest observations; it well deserves the correcting hand of its distinguished author to bring it still nearer to perfection.

The translation of Schmitz is reprinted in New-York, corrected and enlarged by Professor Anthon.



By John Brown, D. D. Professor of Exegetical Theology to the United Secession Church, Edinburgh, Scotland.


Ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἔπαθε, δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, ἵνα ἡμᾶς προσαγάγῃ τῷ θεῷ, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ, ζωοποιηθεὶς δὲ τῷ πνεύματι· ἐν ᾧ καὶ τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασι πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξεν, ἀπειθήσασί ποτε, — 1

THE Bible has often been represented as a book full of obscurities and difficulties; by infidels who wish to disprove its divine

The Author has read with much interest a critical disquisition on this passage, in the American Biblical Repository for April, 1843, by the Rev. Thomas H.


Intelligibleness of the Scriptures.


origin; by Roman Catholics who need an argument to prove the necessity of tradition, on which their system rests, and an apology for their apparently impious and paradoxical conduct in withholding a confessedly divine revelation from the unrestrained perusal of the common people and endeavoring to keep it covered by the veil of a dead language; and by mere nominal Christians among Protestants who equally need an excuse, for their habitual neglect of a volume, which they admit to be of divine authority, and profess to regard as the ultimate rule of religious faith and moral duty. And if the Bible was really so full of obscurity and difficulty, if it was the ambiguous and unintelligible book it has been represented, neither the careless Protestant nor the cautious Catholic would be much to be blamed except for inconsistency, and even with this minor fault the infidel would not be greatly chargeable, for if he can make out his premises that the Bible is an unintelligible book, there can be little difficulty in admitting his conclusion that it is not a divine one;-a book full of darkness cannot come from Him who "is light and in whom there is no darkness at all," and it is certainly useless to read what it is impossible to understand.

But it is not true, that the Holy Scriptures are full of obscurities and difficulties. The Bible, generally speaking, is a very plain book. It would not be easy to find a book of its size, on its subjects, in which there is so much level to the apprehension of ordinary understandings. No person who sits down to its study, with an honest wish to apprehend its statements, will find any great difficulty in discovering what are the doctrines it unfolds, or what are the duties it enjoins. "The commandment of the Lord is pure," ,"1i. e. clear as the light of heaven, "and it enlightens the eyes." But though the Bible is not full of obscurities and difficulties, there are obscurities and difficulties in it. It is with the great light of the moral, as of the natural world, the whole of its disc is not equally lustrous. There are spots in the sun; but he must be very blind or very perverse who should, on that account maintain that the sun is not a luminous body at all; and insist that it gives no light and that if it rays forth anything, it rays forth darkness. On the other hand he who asserts that there are no spots in the sun, and he who asserts that there are no difficul

Skinner, D. D., and though led to considerably different results in his analysis, he thankfully acknowledges the advantage derived from the able and in one instance, so far as he knows, the original, suggestions of his predecessor.

1 Psalm. 19: 8. "Clarum dilucidum."-Rosenmüller.

« PreviousContinue »