preterite should be followed by a present, viz. when the result of a past action extends to the present time; e. g. Cic. Brut. 88.: Ardebat autem Hortensius cupiditate dicendi sic, ut in nullo unquam flagrantius studium viderim, that is, that up to this time I have never seen; Nep. Aristid. 1.: Quamquam adeo excellebat Aristides abstinentia, ut unus post hominum memoriam cognomine Justus sit appellatus: tamen a Themistocle collabefactus testula illa exilio decem annorum multatus est. Here too the perfect subjunctive makes the dependent sentence proceed from the past, or the time to which the action of the leading verb belongs; and the result combined with the author's opinion is extended to the present time: "he was the only one in the whole range of history, down to the present time, that was surnamed the Just." Such variations must be admissible, although no special rule is given on their account, for they do not often occur. (Comp. my note on Cic. in Verr. v. 10. in fin., and Cic. de Fin. ii. 20. init.) A preterite, on the other hand, might follow a present, when the dependent sentence is to express a continuing action in the past, as in Cic. in Verr. v. 11.: Scitote oppidum esse in Sicilia nullum ex iis oppidis, in quibus consistere praetores et conventum agere soleant, quo in oppido non isti delecta mulier ad libidinem esset (esset here alludes to the whole period of the praetorship), but such sentences can only be considered as exceptions, and fuerit would be more regular. There are also passages in ancient writers, which cannot be explained, and must be considered as irregularities; see my note on Cic. in Verr. i. 30. 75., and thus we sometimes find, especially in Caesar, an irregular transition from the preterite of the leading verb to the present of the dependent one. We cannot here enter upon the detail of such matters, and we shall only add the remark that when the hypothetical imperfect subjunctive is followed by a present or perfect subjunctive, the above rule is not violated, because the imperfect of the subjunctive refers to the present time; e. g. Sallust, Cat. 7.: Memorare possem (differs from memorare possum only by the hypothetical form of the expression), quibus in locis maximas hostium copias populus Romanus parva manu fuderit, quas urbes, natura munitas, pugnando ceperit, ni ea res longius nos ab incepto traheret. (Fudisset would have continued the hypothetical expression, but actual facts are here meant.) But even in cases like this the imperfect is generally used in the dependent sentence for the sake of the succession of tenses, as Cic. de Fin. i. 8.: Quid enim me prohiberet Epicureum esse, si probarem quae ille diceret, quum praesertim illa perdiscere ludus esset, where we should have expected dicit and sit; ad Fam. xiii. 66. A. Caecinam non commendarem tibi, quum scirem, qua fide in tuos soleres esse, nisi me patris ejus memoria moveret, where we might say sciam and soleas. Similar expressions occur frequently; comp. Cic. Philip. v. 18. in fin.; de Off. ii. 14. in fin.; Tusc. i. 21. init.

[§ 513.] The simple rule respecting the succession of tenses becomes somewhat difficult through the double signification of the perfect indicative. In the above rule it was treated only as the present of a completed action (in which sense it is equivalent to the English perfect); but as it is at the same time an aorist of the past (see § 500.), it is also connected with the tenses of the past time, viz. with the imperfect and pluperfect. In this sense the Latin perfect is translated by the English imperfect.

The above rule therefore will be completed by the following addition :

The historical perfect is followed by the imperfect and pluperfect.

E. g. Audivi quid ageres and audivi quid egisses. The two meanings of the perfect and their influence upon the tense of the dependent verb may be seen in the following sentences:Verres Siciliam per triennium ita vexavit ac perdidit, ut ea restitui in antiquum statum nullo modo possit, says Cicero (in Verr. iv. init.) with reference to the actual state of Sicily. Conon quum patriam obsideri audisset, non quaesivit, ubi ipse tuto viveret, sed unde praesidio posset esse civibus suis, says Nepos (Con. 2.) in speaking of past events.

[§ 514.] Note 1. We may in general be guided by the English language, as we translate the Latin historical perfect by our imperfect. It must, however, be observed that the Latins, owing to the very frequent use of the perfect as an aorist of the past or an historical tense, became so accustomed to its connection with the imperfect, that in many cases they used this tense even where the Latin perfect is equivalent to the English perfect; but this occurs only when there is a possibility of conceiving the action in its progress, and not merely its conclusion or result. Thus Cicero (in Verr. i. 1.) says: adduxi enim hominem, in quo satisfacere exteris nationibus possetis, in whom you may satisfy, &c. In the same manner Q. Cicero says at the close of an explanation (de Petit. Cons. 4.): quoniam quae subsidia novitatis haberes, et habere posses, exposui, nunc de magnitudine petitionis dicam. In these sentences we should require adduxi hominem, in quo satisfacere possitis, and quoniam exposui, quae subsidia habeas et habere possis, which would not be wrong by any means, but it would be against the usage of the Latin language; for the Latins conceived the action in its duration, while we describe it together with its result by the perfect, and this is the case more especially when the acting person had an intention accompanying him from the beginning to the end of the action. We say, for example, "I have done this that you may see," and the Latin feci hoc, ut intelligas, would not be wrong, but as it was my intention from the beginning, it is preferable to say feci hoc, ut intelligeres, although I am not relating events, but speaking with reference to the present time. (Comp. Cic. Philip. ix. 2. § 5., where restaret is quite correct.) Hence such sentences as: diu dubitavi num melius sit, saepe mecum cogitavi quidnam causae sit, would sound strange to a Latin ear, and the more correct mode of speaking is: diu dubitavi num melius esset and saepe cogitavi quidnam causae esset, and the words diu and saepe indicate that the perfects dubitavi and cogitavi are conceived, as it were, as an aggregate of single doubts and thoughts, which themselves belong to the past time, while the conclusion extends to the present. But the rule is not upset by this remark, for when the sentence following does not refer to the separate parts of the action, but exclusively to the result, the perfect is followed by the present; e. g. Cic. ad Fam. v. 6.: Ego meis rebus gestis hoc sum assecutus, ut bonum nomen existimer; Eutrop. viii. 2.: Trajanus rempublicam ita administravit, ut omnibus principibus merito praeferatur. These are the results of completed

actions, and not intentions continuing along with the actions. The present may be used in subordinate and dependent sentences, even after an historical perfect, if that which is to be expressed is universal, and not valid for that time only which is indicated by the leading verb; e. g. Justin, xxxi. 8.: Antiocho pacem petenti ad priores condiciones nihil additum, Africano praedicante, neque Romanis, si vincantur, animos minui, neque, si vincant, secundis rebus insolescere. Here the presents express the fact of the Romans not losing their courage in misfortune and of their not being insolent in prosperity, as peculiar characteristics of the Romans, and as true at all times; if the imperfect had been used, it would not indeed have been implied that at any other time the statement was not true, but the universality would not have been so clearly expressed.

[§ 515.] Note 2. The remaining question now is this: when the leading verb is a present, or (according to § 516.) a future, and the infinitive of a completed action is dependent on it, is it necessary to put the verbs dependent upon this infinitive in the present or the preterite, that is, the imperf. or pluperf. subjunctive? The answer to this question depends upon another, viz. as to whether on changing the infinitive into the perfect indicative this tense is the real perfect or the aorist? When this is ascertained, the decision is easy according to the two preceding paragraphs, and we may say, e. g. satis mihi multas causas attulisse videor, quamobrem tibi in Italiam proficiscendum sit, I think I have mentioned to you sufficient reasons why you should go to Italy; and in this manner Cicero (p. Cluent. 24.) says: nisi docet, ita se possedisse (that he has taken possession), ut nec vi nec clam nec precario possederit. But the usage of the Latin language is nevertheless different, the perfect infinitive being like the perfect indicative (§ 514.), usually followed either by the imperfect or pluperfect subjunctive. Hence the above sentence should be quamobrem in Italiam tibi proficiscendum esset; comp. Cic. p. Leg. Man. 10.: satis mihi multa verba fecisse videor, quare esset hoc bellum genere ipso necessarium, magnitudine periculosum, although reference is here made to the present time, and although we should say: "why this war is necessary;" in Verr. i. 12.: hoc me profiteor suscepisse magnum fortasse omus et mihi periculosum, verumtamen dignum, in quo omnes nervos aetatis industriaeque meae contenderem. Both tenses are found combined in Cic. p. Caec. 13. Quid proficies, quum illi hoc respondebunt tibi, quod tu nunc mihi: armatos tibi obstitisse, ne in aedes accederes, dejici porro nullo modo potuisse, qui non accesserit.

[§ 516.] The futures are similar to the tenses of the present, for only that which is past stands apart and by itself. Hence, a future is followed by a present or a perfect, e. g. mox intelligam, quantum me ames or amaveris, but not quantum me amares or amasses. The same is the case with the future perfect: si cognovero, quemadmodum te geras or te gesseris. But as the four subjunctives of the conjugatio periphrastica (formed by the future participle and esse) are regarded as subjunctives of the futures, we must add, that these paraphrased tenses may be dependent upon preterites (see the examples in § 497.), and that a mutual dependence exists between the presents and futures,

but only a partial one between the preterites and futures, since the futures only may depend upon preterites, but not vice versa; e. g. ignorabam quid dicturus esset, but not discam quid heri faceres for discam quid heri feceris.

The complete rule respecting the succession of tenses therefore is this: the tenses of the present and future, i. e. the present, perfect (in its proper sense), and the two futures are followed by the tenses of the present, i. e. by the present and the perfect subjunctive; and the tenses of the past, i. e. the imperfect, pluperfect, and the historical perfect, are followed by the tenses of the past, i. e. by the imperfect and pluperfect subjunctive.

IV. OF THE MOODS.

CHAP. LXXVII.

INDICATIVE MOOD.

[§ 517.] 1. THE indicative is used in every proposition the substance of which is expressed absolutely and as a fact, e. g. I go, thou wrotest, he believed.

Hence the indicative is used even in the expression of conditions and suppositions with the particles si, nisi, etsi and etiamsi, if without that expression an event is supposed actually to take place or (with nisi) not to take place.

Mors aut plane negligenda est, si omnino extinguit animum, aut etiam optanda, si aliquo eum deducit, ubi sit futurus aeternus, Cic. Cat. Maj. 19.

Si feceris id, quod ostendis, magnam habebo gratiam, si non feceris, ignoscam, Cic. ad Fam. v. 19.

Adhuc certe, nisi ego insanio, stulte omnia et incaute fiunt, Cic. ad Att. vii. 10.

Ista veritas, etiamsi jucunda non est, mihi tamen grata est, Cic. ad Att. iii. 24. in fin.

Note. The conjunctions si and nisi express nothing else but a relation of one sentence to another; that is, the relation of condition or exception: one

thing is on condition that another is; and one thing is, except in the case of another being, &c. Sentences which stand in this relation to each other are expressed by the indicative, i. e. objectively or in the form of reality. All expression of our own opinion is avoided, for this would be expressed by the subjunctive. In using the indicative, I donot express any opinion as to the possibility or impossibility of a thing; but, without any comment, I suppose a thing as actual, or (with nisi) I make an exception, which may be or may not be, but which I take as actual for the sake of the inference.

[§ 518.] 2. The following peculiarities deserve to be noticed as differing from the English.

The verbs oportet, necesse est, debeo, convenit, possum, licet, and par, fas, aequum, justum, consentaneum est, or aequius, melius, utilius, optabilius est, are put in the indicative of a preterite (imperf., pluperf., and the historical perfect), where we should have expected the imperfect or pluperfect subjunctive. The imperfect indicative in this case expresses things which are not, .but the time for which is not yet passed; and the perfect and pluperfect indicative things which have not been, but the time for which is passed; e. g. Cic. in Cat. i. 1.: Ad mortem te duci jam pridem oportebat, i. e. thy execution was necessary and is still so; hence it ought to take place. In going back to the beginning, however, the speaker might have used the pluperfect with this meaning: "thy execution ought to have taken place long ago." Cic. de Fin. iii. 10.: perturbationes animorum poteram ego morbos appellare, sed non conveniret ad omnia, I might have called them, and might do so still; Cic. ad Att. ii. 1.: si mihi omnes, ut erat aequum, faverent, it was fair, and is still fair, but it does not happen to be the case. The perfect and pluperfect, on the other hand, clearly express that all is over; e. g. Cic. ad Fam. iv. 16.: Volumnia debuit in te officiosior esse, et id ipsum, quod fecit, potuit facere diligentius; p. Muren. 25. Catilina erupit e senatu triumphans gaudio, quem omnino vivum illinc exire non oportuerat; Curt. iii. 9. longe utilius fuit angustias aditus occupare, it would have been much better to occupy the pass. In the paraphrased conjugation with the participle future active and passive, too, the preterites of the indicative very frequently have the meaning of a subjunctive; e. g. Ovid, Her. xvi. 152.: tam bona constanter praeda tenenda fuit, ought to have been kept. This is the case more especially in hypothetical sentences. (§ 519.) The subjunctive in independent sentences is much less frequent than the indica