[§ 490.] Note. The compounds of pono sometimes have in with the ablative and sometimes with the accusative, but more frequently the former e. g. aliquem in numero deorum, spem in felicitate reponere. Imponere takes in with the accusat. (unless it is joined with the dative, according to § 415.); e. g. milites in naves, corpus in plaustrum; sometimes, however, it has, like pono, in with the ablat., e. g. Cic. de Nat. Deor. i. 20.: imposuistis in cervicibus nostris sempiternum dominum. In like manner, defigere, insculpere, inscribere, and inserere (unless they are joined with the dative) are usually construed with in with the ablative; e. g. natura insculpsit in mentibus nostris; nomen suum inscribunt in basi; legati in vultu regis defixerunt oculos. This and similar things arise from a mixture of two ideas, that of the action implied in the verb, and that of the result, and hence in with the ablative is preferable after the preterites of doubtful verbs. In with the accusative after esse and habere occurs only in obsolete formulae, as esse (habere) in potestatem, and others. See § 316. In custodiam haberi, and in carcerem asservari in Livy, viii. 20. and xxii. 25., are irregularities.

[§ 491.]" To do anything with a person," is expressed in Latin by facere with de, and more frequently with the simple ablative or dative: quid facias hoc homine, or huic homini? and in the passive voice quid de me fiet? what will become of me? quid pecuniae fiet? what will become of the money? Cicero: quid illo myoparone factum sit. It is never expressed by cum, for facere cum aliquo signifies "to be of a person's party."

CHAP. LXXV.

VOCATIVE CASE.

[§ 492.] THE Vocative is not in immediate connection with either nouns or verbs, but is inserted to express the object to which our words are addressed.

Note. It only remains to observe, that the vocative is usually placed after one or two words of a sentence; at least, it is not placed at the beginning without some special reason, and the interjection O is used only when we are speaking with great animation or emotion. The poets not uncommonly adopt the Attic practice of using the nominative instead of the vocative; e. g. Terence: o vir fortis atque amicus! Horat. de Art. Poet. 292.: Vos o Pompilius sanguis! In some instances the same practice occurs in prose, as Liv. i. 24. audi tu, populus Romanus! viii. 9. agedum pontifex publicus populi Romani, praei verba, quibus me pro legionibus devoveam. The nominat. in apposition to the vocat. occurs in Juvenal, iv. 24.: tu, succinctus patria quondam, Crispine, papyro; other poets, on the contrary, by a mixture of two constructions, use the vocative of words which, belonging to the verb, ought to be in the nominative; e. g. Virg. Aen. ii. 283.: quibus, Hector, ab oris expectate venis? ix. 485.: heu! canibus date-jaces; Pers. i. 123.: Quicunque afflate Cratino — aspice. Comp. iii. 28. The passage of Pliny (Hist. Nat. vii. 31.), in which Cicero is addressed: salve primus omnium parens patriae appellate, primus in toga triumphum linguaeque lauream merite! is of a different kind, primus signifying "being the first."

III. USE OF THE TENSES.

CHAP. LXXVI.

[§ 498.] 1. THE tenses of the Latin verb are used on the whole in the same way as those of the English verb, with the exception of one great peculiarity, which is explained in § 498. (Comp. § 150.) The only general rule that can be laid down is this: we must first determine whether the action or condition to be expressed falls in the present, the past, or the future, and in what relation it stands to other actions or conditions with which it is connected. For example, I was writing, and I had written, are both actions belonging to the past, but in regard to their relation they differ, for in the sentence, "I was writing. when the shot was heard," the act of writing was not completed when the shot was heard; whereas in the sentence "I had written, when my friend arrived," the act of writing was completed when the other (the arrival of my friend) occurred. The same difference exists between, I shall write to-morrow, and I shall have written to-morrow; between I am writing to-day, i. e. I am engaged in an act not yet terminated, and I have written to-day, which expresses an act already terminated. This last is the proper signification of the Latin perfect, as advenit pater, the father has arrived, that is, he is here now. Horace, at the close of a work says: exegi monumentum aere perennius; and Ovid: jamque opus exegi. An orator, at the conclusion of his speech, says: dixi, that is, “I have done," and Virgil (Aen. ii. 325.), with great emphasis: fuimus Troes, fuit Ilium, i. e. we are no longer Trojans, Ilium is no more.

Note. Other grammarians distinguish three relations of an action: 1. an action is lasting, that is, incomplete; 2. it is completed; and 3. not yet commenced. But the distinction between a completed and a not completed action excludes every thing else, for an action either is taking place or has taken place: a third is impossible, and an action not yet commenced does not exist as an action, except in the imagination. The tenses, for the sake of which other grammarians have recourse to a third relation (scripturus sum, eram, ero, fui, fueram, fuero), form in our opinion a distinct conjugation, in which the action is described as intended (I am, was, have been, &c. intending to write). Comp. § 169.

[§ 494.] 2. The Latin language therefore has two tenses for each of the three great divisions of time,-past, present, and future; one expressing a complete and the other an incomplete action. And the six tenses of the Latin verb are thus the result of a combination of time and relation.

scribo, I write, or am writing – present time, and action going on. scripsi, I have written, — present time, and action terminated. scribebam, I wrote, or was writing, · past time, and action going on. scripseram, I had written, — past time, and action terminated. ́scribam, I shall write, or be writing, -future time, and action not completed.

scripsero, I shall have written, - future time, and action completed.

Note. It is not difficult to see why in the conjugation of verbs we preferred that order of the tenses which is based upon the relation which they bear to one another. (Comp. § 150.) But in syntax, the above arrangement and division is necessary for the purpose of presenting a clear view of the kindred nature of the present and perfect (for both are presents, as far as time is concerned), and of the use of the two futures.

3. The passive has the same tenses with the same meaning; but with this difference, that they do not express an action, but a condition or suffering, as we may call it.

laudor, I am praised, present time, and condition still going on.

laudatus sum, I have been praised, — present time, and condition terminated.

laudabar, I was praised, -past time, and condition going on. laudatus eram, I had been praised, -past time, and condition terminated. laudabor, I shall be praised, future time, and condition not completed. laudatus ero, I shall have been praised, — future time, and condition completed.

[§ 495.] Note. The participle perfect passive, however, is also used in the sense of an adjective to express a lasting condition; e. g. scripta epistola, a written letter, and in this sense the participle may be joined with all the six tenses of esse; as, epistola scripta est, erat, erit, fuit, fuerat, fuerit. All this may be said in Latin; but the question here is only as to how the tenses of the passive voice are formed by the combination of the participle perfect passive with sum, eram, and ero. We here repeat (see § 168.), that laudatus fueram and laudatus fuero are sometimes used as passive tenses for laudatus eram and laudatus ero, which arose from a desire to express by the auxiliary verb esse the terminated condition already implied in the participle perfect passive. Thus Livy (xxiv. 30.) says: ceterum Leontinorum nemo- violatus fuerat, nobody had been injured; Pompey in Cic. ad Att. viii. 12. (C.): si copiae in unum locum fuerint coactae, when they shall have been collected. In like manner the subjunctive laudatus fuissem is equivalent to laudatus essem; e. g. Ovid, Metam. vi. 156.: si non sibi visa fuisset; Heroid. vii. 140.: si Punica non Teucris pressa fuisset humus, — and laudatus fuerim to laudatus sim. In the infinitive laudatum fuisse, the participle is generally to be considered as an adjective.

[§ 496.] 4. The tenses of the present and past time, that is, the present, perfect, imperfect and pluperfect, have also a subjunctive mood, as scribam, scripserim, scribebam, scripsissem, and in the passive, scribar, scriptus sim, scriberer, scriptus essem. For the relations in which the subjunctive is required, see Chap. LXXVIII. As tenses, these subjunctives do not differ from the signification of the indicative.

5. Neither the active nor the passive voice has a subjunctive of the future, and the deficiency is supplied by other means. When the idea of futurity is already implied in another part of the proposition, the other tenses of the subjunctive supply the place of the future, viz. the present and imperfect supply the place of the future subjunctive, and the perfect and pluperfect that of the future perfect. The choice of one or other of these four subjunctives is to be determined by the time expressed by the leading verb of the proposition, and by the relation of the action, being either completed or not completed, e. g. Affirmo tibi, si hoc beneficium mihi tribuas, me magnopere gavisurum, and affirmabam tibi, si illud beneficium mihi tribueres, magnopere me gavisurum. It is clear that tribuas and tribueres here supply the place of the future subjunctive, for in the indicative we say si mihi tribues—magnopere gaudebo. Again, Affirmo tibi, si hoc beneficium mihi tribueris, me quamcunque possim gratiam tibi relaturum, and affirmabat mihi, si illud beneficium ipsi tribuissem, se quamcunque posset gratiam mihi relaturum, where tribueris and tribuissem supply the place of the future perfect, for in the indicative we should say si hoc beneficium mihi tribueris (from tribuero), quamcunque potero gratiam tibi referam, when you shall have shown me this kindness. The same is the case in the passive voice: affirmo tibi, si hoc beneficium mihi tribuatur, me magnopere gavisurum; affirmabam tibi, si illud beneficium mihi tribueretur, magnopere me gavisurum; affirmo tibi, me, si hoc beneficium mihi tributum sit (or fuerit), quamcunque possim gratiam tibi relaturum; affirmabam tibi, si illud beneficium mihi tributum esset (or fuisset), quamcunque possem gratiam me tibi relaturum.

Note. This rule is not affected by the supposition (which was a subject of dispute even in ancient times; see Gellius, xviii. 2.; Perizon. on Sanct. Minerv. i. 13. note 6.), that tribuerim, which we called above a perfect sub

junctive, is in these cases the subjunctive of the future perfect. It is quite certain that this form is used wherever the subjunctive of the future perfect is wanted; e. g. Plaut. Pseud. i. 1. 89. : Quis mi igitur drachmam reddet, si dederim tibi? Cic. ad Fam. i. 7. 9.: Haec profecto vides, quanto expressiora, quantoque illustriora futura sint, quum aliquantum ex provincia atque ex imperio laudis accesserit; de Leg. Agr. ii. 20. : Putant, si quam spem exercitus habeat, hanc non habiturum, quum viderit. That it is a perfect may be inferred even from the manner in which the pluperfect of the subjunctive is used instead of the subjunctive of the future perfect, and in which the passive of this tense is expressed. As the question is beyond all doubt, we shall quote, in confirmation, only classical passages: Cic. p. Rosc. Am. 38. : ostendit, si sublata sit venditio bonorum, illum pecuniam grandem amissurum esse; Horat. Serm. i. 1. 32. Hac mente laborem sese ferre, senes ut in otia tuta recedant, ajunt, quum sibi sint congesta cibaria; Tacit. Hist. iv. 57.: quum spoliati fuerint quieturos. But Madvig (in the dissertation above referred to, p. 174.) has proved that the form tribuerim is at the same time the subjunctive of the future perfect, and other applications of this form thus receive their correct explanation. We retain the designation of perfect subjunctive merely for the sake of convenience.

[§ 497.] If no future has gone before, and the construction of the sentence requires the subjunctive, the participle future active is employed for this purpose, with the appropriate tense of the verb csse. This paraphrased conjugation (conjugatio periphrastica), as it is called, properly expresses an intended action (see § 498.); but the subjunctives with sim and essem are used also as regular subjunctives of the future, the idea of intention passing over into that of futurity; e. g. Non dubito quin rediturus sit, I do not doubt that he will return; non dubitabam quin rediturus esset, I did not doubt that he would return. The perfects rediturus fuerim and rediturus fuissem retain their original meaning, implying intention; e. g. non dubito quin rediturus fuerit, I do not doubt that he has had the intention to return. (It is only in hypothetical sentences that this meaning passes over into that of the pluperfect subjunctive, of which we shall speak hereafter.) If we want simply to express futurity, we must use the circumlocution with futurum sit and futurum esset; e. g. nescio num futurum sit, ut cras hoc ipso tempore jam redierit, and nesciebam num futurum esset, ut postridie eo ipso tempore jam redisset. This same circumlocution must be employed in the passive of which the participle future implies necessity, and cannot be used in the sense of a simple future; e. g. non dubito, quin futurum sit, ut laudetur, I do not doubt that he will be praised; multi non dubitabant, quin futurum esset,