Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2008 with funding from 
 
 IVIicrosoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/discussionoflatiOOelmericJ^^* 
 
^ — -«-^^y^'-£/ 
 
 A DISCUSSION 
 
 OF 
 
 THE LATIN PROHIBITIVE, 
 
 BASED UPON A COMPLETE COLLECTION OF THE INSTANCES 
 
 FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE END OF 
 
 THE AUGUSTAN PERIOD. 
 
 By H. C. ELMER 
 
 Assistant Professor of Latin in Cornell University. 
 
 Reprinted from the American Journal of Pliilology, Vol. XV, 2 and 3. 
 
 I T H A G A , N . Y . 
 1894. 
 
A DISCUSSION 
 
 OF 
 
 THE LATIN PROHIBITIVE, 
 
 BASED UPON A COMPLETE COLLECTION OF THE INSTANCES 
 
 FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE END OF 
 
 THE AUGUSTAN PERIOD. 
 
 By H. C. ELMER, 
 
 Assistant Professor of Latin in Cornell University. 
 
 Reprinted from the American Journal of Philology, Vol. XV, 2 and 3. 
 
 ITHACA, N. Y, 
 1894. 
 

 • • • • "• 
 
 ••• • •• 
 
 
 
 TUK FRIEDENWALD CO., PKINTERS, 
 BALTIMORE, MD. 
 
fA 
 EH 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 (expressions the prohibitory character of which is beyond 
 question.) 
 
 PAGS 
 
 Inaccuracies of Latin grammars in the treatment of certain uses of 
 
 the perfect subjunctive 1-2 
 
 Ne with the perfect subjunctive in prohibition almost unknown to 
 
 the best prose 2-3, 16-17 
 
 Common distinction between present and perfect tenses in prohibi- 
 tions misleading 3-6 
 
 The true distinction between these tenses 6-8 
 
 List of the instances of ne with the perfect subjunctive in Plautus 
 
 and Terence 8-10 
 
 List of the instances of cave with the perfect subjunctive in Plautus 
 
 and Terence 10 
 
 List of the instances of ne with the present subjunctive in Plautus 
 
 and Terence 10-14 
 
 List of the instances of cave with the present subjunctive in Plautus 
 
 and Terence 14 
 
 List of the instances of noli with the infinitive in Plautus and Terence 20 
 
 List of the instances of ne with the imperative in Plautus and Terence 1 5 
 
 Remarkable differences between the tenses in the character of the 
 verbs used (especially up to the end of the Augustan period), 14-16, 20-21 
 
 Forms of prohibition in the Ciceronian period and the distinctions 
 between them, based upon a complete collection of instances . . 16-21 
 
 Part II. 
 (expressions admitting of more than one interpretation.) 
 
 Collection of the instances of neque [nee) with the perfect subjunctive 
 
 ffom the earliest times to the end of the Augustan period .... 22-24 
 
 Proof that none of those in Ciceronian prose are volitive in character, 25-45 
 
 Many of the supposed instances of the volitive use of neque are 
 really result clauses 29-35 
 
 In others, the negative spends its force upon the idea of a single 
 
 word, while that of the verb itself is positive 35-36 
 
 6JI2541 
 
In the rest the subjunctive belongs to the so-called potential use of 
 the subjunctive ("nor would you," etc.) which sometimes ap- 
 proaches the idea of obligation or propriety (*' nor should you," 
 etc.). Probability that the subjunctive in all expressions of 
 obligation or propriety ("why should you ? ", " nor should you," 
 
 etc.) is not, as is commonly supposed, of volitive origin 36-45 
 
 Instances of i'z//%//(«/7) with the perfect subjunctive 45 
 
 Instances of nunquam, ne — qiiidem^ nullus with the perfect sub- 
 junctive . 46-47 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 How far the principles laid down in this paper will hold for Silver 
 Latin 47-51 
 
THE LATIN PROHIBITIVE. 
 
 Part I. 
 
 This paper owes its origin to a feeling the writer has long had 
 that certain uses of the Latin perfect subjunctive are very inade- 
 quately and, in some particulars, very inaccurately treated in 
 Latin grammars. It is customary, for instance, in dealing with 
 ne and the 2d person subjunctive in prohibitions, to dismiss the 
 subject with the statement that when the prohibition is addressed 
 to no definite person, the present tense is used; otherwise the 
 perfect. All attempts — like Gildersleeve's,^ for instance — to make 
 any further distinction between the tenses have been frowned 
 down. Scholars in general have been inclined to accept the 
 views of Madvig (Opusc. acad. altera, p. 105)^ and of Weissen- 
 born (on Livy 21, 44, 6) as final, viz. that the perfect is used, 
 when a definite person is addressed, only because the present 
 cannot be used. The reason for this remarkable state of things 
 they do not trouble themselves to seek. Even Schmalz, in the 
 second edition of his Lat. Synt., §31, would have it understood 
 that the perfect tense in this use has no special significance. 
 Such ignoring of all distinction between tenses is common also 
 in other constructions, e. g. in the so-called potential subjunctive. 
 
 ^ Latin Grammar, §266, Rem. 2, which is, as far as it goes, in perfect harmony 
 with the results reached in this paper. 
 
 ''• Madvig is inexcusably careless in some of his statements in this connec- 
 tion. On p. 105, e. g., he says that ne with the present is apud ipsos comicos 
 rarissimum et paene inusitatum. As a matter of fact, it is extremely common 
 apud comicos — far more so than any other form of prohibition. 
 
One of the latest grammars (Allen and Greenough, §311) says 
 that in aliquis dicat and aliquis dixerit the two tenses refer 
 without distinction to the immediate future. The same grammar, 
 in dealing with modest assertion, draws no distinction between 
 putaverim and putem. It is customary, again, to dismiss the 
 perfect subjunctive in prayers with the mere statement that it is 
 a reminiscence of archaic formulae, without a hint that the perfect 
 necessarily means anything. It has seemed to me that this loose- 
 ness of interpretation is entirely at variance with the facts of the 
 language, and I have accordingly undertaken an investigation of 
 the whole range of those independent constructions of the perfect 
 subjunctive in which that tense deals with future time. I have 
 included also in my investigation such uses of the future perfect 
 indicative as are frequently said to be ' equivalent to the simple 
 future.' For the purposes of the paper I have collected and 
 classified all the instances of the uses concerned that are to be 
 found in all the remains of the Latin language up to the end of 
 the Augustan period (except the later inscriptions), together with 
 important parts of Silver Latin. I ought perhaps to say that for 
 four volumes of the Teubner text I accepted a collection of 
 instances made by one of my students. He is, however, one in 
 whose care and accuracy I have great confidence, and I feel sure 
 that his collection is substantially complete. 
 
 That part of my investigation the results of which I have 
 chosen for the present paper deals chiefly with the 2d person, 
 present and perfect tenses, of the subjunctive in prohibitions. 
 For the purpose of simplifying the discussion I shall, for the 
 present, exclude the few cases (commonly called prohibitions 
 and classed under ne with the subjunctive) introduced by nee, 
 numquam, nihil (e. g. nee dixeris, nee putaveris). There are so 
 serious objections to explaining any one of those introduced by 
 nee {neque) in the best prose-writers, and some of those intro- 
 duced by nihily numquam, as instances of the same construction 
 as that found in ne feeeris, that I shall leave the discussion of 
 such cases for Part II of my paper. 
 
 The impression is very generally given that ne with the perfect 
 subjunctive is one of the most common methods of expressing 
 prohibition in the best classical prose. As a matter of fact, it is 
 almost entirely unknown to such prose. It will be understood, 
 of course, that the Letters of Cicero do not represent the usage 
 of what is understood by 'classical prose.' Tyrrell has clearly 
 
shown that the diction and constructions in the Letters are the 
 diction and constructions of the early comic drama, and not at all 
 those of what is commonly meant by Ciceronian Latin. Indeed, 
 Cicero himself calls especial attention to the wide difference in 
 this respect between them and his other productions in ad fam. 
 IX 21, I Quid enim simile habet epistola aut iudicio aut contioni? 
 . . . Epistolas vero cottidianis verbis texere solemus. We must 
 not consider these Letters in determining the usage of the best 
 classical prose, any more than we should the usage of early 
 comedy: they, as well as the comedy, reflect the language of 
 familiar every-day life. Throwing the Letters aside, we may 
 say that ne with the 2d person perfect subjunctive does not 
 occur in any production, whether prose or poetry, of the whole 
 Ciceronian period, except in seven dialogue passages of Cicero 
 where the tone distinctly sinks to that of ordinary conversa- 
 tion, or unceremonious ordering.^ If, in addition to these, we 
 except four instances in Horace, we may say that it does not 
 occur between Terence and Livy. It is not to the point to say 
 that a prohibition is in its very nature familiar, nor would such 
 a statement be true. The orations and the philosophical and 
 rhetorical productions of Cicero, as well as the productions of 
 other writers belonging to the same period, abound with pro- 
 hibitions. The orations of Cicero alone contain 81 prohibitions 
 (or probably twice this number if we count such expressions as 
 quae so ne facias^ obsecro ne, etc.), and still in his orations no 
 instance can be found of ne with the perfect subjunctive except 
 in pro Murena 31, where Cicero is quoting the supposed words 
 of a teacher to his pupil. 
 
 Again, the grammar-rule which says that the present tense is 
 used when the prohibition is general, i. e, addressed to no one in 
 particular, while the perfect is used when it is addressed to some 
 particular person, or persons, is entirely misleading in the form in 
 which it is given. The grain of truth which the rule contains is 
 rendered useless by the absence of any hint as to the principle 
 involved. Sometimes general prohibitions take the perfect tense, 
 e. g. Cato de agri cultura 4 ne siveris ; 37, i ne indideris ; 45, 2 
 ne feceris; 93 ne addideris; 113, 2 ne siveris; 158, 2 ne addi- 
 deris; 161, 2 ne sarueris; XII Tabulae, quoted in Serv. in Verg. 
 
 ^ There is no manuscript authority whatever for ne siris (Catullus 66, 91). 
 The manuscript reading non siris is the true one. This matter will be fully 
 discussed in Part II of my paper. 
 
Eel. 8, 99 Unde est in XII tabulis: "Neve alienam segetem 
 pellexeris"; Cic. pro Murena 31, 65 Etenim isti ipsi mihi videntur 
 vestri praeceptores et virtutis magistri, fines officiorum paulo 
 longius, quam natura vellet, protulisse . . . "Nihil ignoveris": 
 immo aliquid, non omnia. " Misericordia commotus ne sis": 
 etiam, in dissolvenda severitate: sed tamen est laus aliqiia 
 humanitatis (quoting general precepts of the ' vestri praeceptores ' 
 which had just been mentioned. Notice the singular verb side 
 by side with vestri (instead of tui'), which seems to show that the 
 prohibition is general) ; Hor. Sat. 2, 2, 16 Quae virtus et quanta, 
 boni, sit vivere parvo discite ... hie inpransi meeum disquirite. 
 Cur hoe ? Dicam, si potero . . . seu pila velox . . . seu te discus 
 agit . . . sperne cibum vilem ; nisi Hymettia mella Falerno ne 
 biberis diluta. On the other hand, it is probable that prohibitions 
 addressed to definite persons occasionally take the present tense 
 at all periods of the literature, and that this use is not, even in 
 classical times, confined to poetry, as is commonly supposed. At 
 any rate, there are passages in prose which it requires ingenuity 
 or violence to explain in any other way, and which, if found in 
 Plautus or Terence, no one would have thought of explaining 
 in any other way. This use is very common in early comedy, 
 and I have collected the following instances from Cicero and later 
 prose : Cic. in Verr. II 4, 23, 52 Scuta si quando conquiruntur a 
 privatis in bello ac tumultu, tamen homines inviti dant, etsi ad 
 salutem communem dari sentiunt. Ne quem putetis sine maximo 
 dolore argentum eaelatum domo quod alter eriperet protulisse ; 
 ib. de republica 6, 12, 12 "St! quaeso," inquit, '^ne me e somno 
 exciietis et parumper audite cetera" (where the imperative 
 ^ audite^ instead of a subordinate subjunctive makes it probable 
 that ne excitetis is also independent); id. ad fam. i, 9, 23 Quod 
 rogas, ut mea tibi scripta mittam, quae post discessum tuom 
 seripserim, sunt orationes quaedam, quas Menoerito dabo, neque 
 ita multae; ne pertimescas ; ib. 16, 9, 4 Reliquom est, ut te hoc 
 rogem et a te petam : ne temere naviges — solent nautae festinare 
 quaestus sui causa — cautus sis, mi Tiro — mare magnum et diffi- 
 cile tibi restat — si poteris, cum Mescinio (naviges) — caute is solet 
 navigare (where cautus sis and the form taken by the rest of the 
 sentence show that ne naviges also is probably independent) ; id. 
 ad Att. 9, 18,3 "Tu malum," inquies, "actum ne agas'^ (a proverb 
 applied here to a particular person); id. ad Quintum fratrem i, 
 4, I Amabo te, mi frater, ne , , . adsignes (Cicero never uses 
 
amare in this sense with a dependent clause, though its paren- 
 thetical use is common in his Letters with independent imperative 
 constructions, e. g. ad Att. 2, 2, i cura, amabo te, Ciceronem ; 
 ib. 16, 16^ Amabo te, da mihi et hoc; ib. 10, 10, 3; ad Quint. 2, 
 8, [10])^; Phil. II 5, 10 ne puietis (most naturally taken as inde- 
 pendent) ; Livy 44, 22 Vos quae scripsero senatui aut vobis habete 
 pro certis. Rumores credulitate vestra ne alaiis, quorum auctor 
 nemo exstabit (This, or some reading which involves the same 
 construction, seems inevitably correct, arid would undoubtedly 
 be accepted by everybody were it not for the supposed rule) ; 
 ib. 22, 39, 2 Armatus intentusque sis, neque occasion! tuae desis 
 neque suam occasionem hosti des (Livy and later writers freely 
 use 7ieque for neve); Tac. Dialogus 17 Ex quo colligi potest et 
 Corvinum ab illis et Asinium audiri potuisse (nam Corvinus in 
 medium usque Augusti principatum, Asinius paene ad extremum 
 duravit). Ne dividaiis saeculum, et antiquos ac veteres vocitetis 
 oratores quos eorundem hominum aures adgnoscere ac velut 
 coniungere et copulare potuerunt. It was formerly customary 
 among editors of the Dialogus to punctuate this sentence as 
 above. Recent editors use only a comma or a semicolon before 
 ne dividaiis y understand an ellipsis (i. e. Haec dico ne, etc.), and 
 thus make Tacitus use a very awkward sentence. Why make 
 this so difficult ? Why not let it be what it seems to be on the 
 face of it, namely, a prohibition ? 
 
 Here, then, are several instances in prose of the present subjunc- 
 tive with ne addressed to a definite person. The reason why it 
 is not more common will appear later on in this discussion. But 
 even if none of these examples existed (and there have been 
 ingenious attempts to explain away most of them in deference 
 to the supposed rule), there would still be no ground for such a 
 rule. In the whole field of classical prose from the beginning of 
 the Ciceronian period to the end of the Augustan period, and 
 even later, there is but a single example of ne with the indefinite 
 2d person present subjunctive in a prohibition. There are a few 
 examples from poetry, but these have no bearing upon the point 
 in question, as it is everywhere acknowledged that ne with the 
 present is common in poetry even in addressing a definite person. 
 The single example just referred to is of course the one cited 
 under this rule, with suspicious uniformity, by all Latin gram- 
 
 ^ Even in Plautus and Terence amabo in this sense is almost invariably 
 thrown in parenthetically. 
 
mars, viz. Cic Cato Maior lo, 33, though even here it might be 
 noticed that Cato is speaking to definite persons, addressing at 
 one time Scipio individually, again Laelius, and still again both 
 together. The truth is that a general prohibition in Latin is 
 nearly always expressed by the use of the 3d person, e. g. ne 
 quis putei, etc., or some circumlocution introduced by cavendum 
 est ne, or the like. It will, I think, be admitted that the above 
 considerations at least cast serious doubt upon the validity 
 of the grammar-rules regarding the use of ne in prohibitions. 
 The question as to the true distinction between the tenses in such 
 constructions seems to me to be still an open one, and this paper 
 is intended as a contribution to its solution. 
 
 Let us start with certain general principles. All will agree 
 that the perfect subjunctive, when dealing with a future act, 
 differs, at least in some uses, from the present in representing 
 the act as one finished in the future. For instance, in the expres- 
 sion si venerit, videat the act of coming is conceived of as a 
 finished act in the future, about to be completed prior to the 
 beginning of the act of seeing. In si vejiiat, on the other hand, 
 the act is conceived of as in progress in the future. Such a 
 distinction between the tenses of ne feceris and ne facias would 
 not be entirely satisfactory at all points of the parallel. Ne 
 feceris cannot mean literally ' Do not prior to a certain point in 
 the future, have done it.' In one respect, however, the distinc- 
 tion, it seems to me, still holds. In ne feceris there is at least no 
 thought of the progress of the act. The expression deals with 
 an act in its entirety. The beginning, the progress and the end 
 of the act are brought together and focussed in a single concep- 
 tion. The idea of the act is not dwelt upon, but merely touched, 
 for an instant, and then dismissed. The speaker, as it were, 
 makes short work of the thought. There is a certain impetus 
 about the tense. When a man says ne facias he is taking a 
 comparatively calm, dispassionate view of an act conceived of 
 as one that will possibly be taking place in the future ; ne feceris, 
 on the other hand, implies that the speaker cannot abide the 
 thought ; he refers to it only for the purpose of insisting that it 
 be dismissed absolutely as one not to be harbored. As far as 
 the comparative vigor of the two expressions is concerned, the 
 difference in feehng between them is similar to that between 
 'Go!' and 'Be gone!' *Go' dwells upon the progress of the 
 act. A man never says 'Be gone!' except when aroused by 
 
strong emotion, which does not allow him to think of the 
 progress of the act, but only the prompt accomplishment of it. 
 In a similar way yiefeceris betrays stronger feeling than ne facias 
 — it disposes of the thought with the least possible ado. The 
 same distinction should be made between cave feceris and cave 
 facias. This feature of the tense, if my characterization of it is 
 correct, would lead us to expect it to be used only, or chiefly, in 
 animated, emotional, or unusually earnest discourse, and to such 
 passages, as we shall presently see, is it almost exclusively con- 
 fined. I wish to insist upon this as the only real distinction 
 between the two tenses with ne. We shall now, of course, expect 
 that in the majority of cases where a prohibition is a general, 
 indefinite one, the present tense will be found. When a man is 
 soberly philosophizing and writing precepts for the world at 
 large, he is not often aroused by emotions so strong as he is 
 when, actually face to face with a person and perhaps under the 
 influence of anger, alarm or some other intense feeling, he orders 
 that person not to do a certain thing. But even in this sort of 
 writing, when he feels that his precept is of prime importance, he 
 may occasionally fall into the more vigorous form of expression. 
 For the satisfactory study of such expressions we look for some 
 production abounding in general precepts, and still not written in 
 the form of dialogue and not addressed to any one in particular. 
 Naturally we turn to Cato's de agri cultura. In the seven 
 different passages of this work cited above, Cato uses ne with 
 the perfect in a general prohibition. In each case the context 
 makes it probable, or, in the light of facts which I shall present 
 later, practically certain, that he considers of especial importance 
 the particular thing prohibited, e. g. ch. 4, where he is trying to 
 show how a farmer may live happy and prosperous : ruri si recte 
 habitaveris, libentius venies: fundus melior, minus peccabitur, 
 fructi plus capies. Frons occipitio prior est : vicinis bonus esto : 
 familiam ne siveris peccare. Si te libenter vicinitas videbit, facilius 
 tua vendes, operas facilius locabis etc., i. e. ' above all things^ do not 
 allow the members of your household to offend them. If you keep 
 on good terms with your neighbors, you will find it easier to sell 
 your produce,' etc.; again, 37, i : ' If you are dealing with land that 
 is cariosa, peas are a bad crop to put in ; so are barley, hay, etc.; 
 above all things, do not put in nuts (nucleos ne indideris).' Every- 
 where else in his treatise he uses the less vigorous forms of prohi- 
 bition, sometimes nolito with the infinitive, sometimes ne with the 
 
8 
 
 2d imperative, sometimes caveto with the present tense of the sub- 
 junctive. He never uses the perfect tense with caveto, though this 
 tense with cave is far more common in Plautus than the present. 
 The present tense, on the other hand, occurs in Cato 17 times. 
 
 By far the best place to study the difference in meaning between 
 the two tenses is in Plautus and Terence, because in them (and 
 only in them) both tenses are very freely used with ne and cave 
 in prohibitions. It is there, too, that the tone of the prohibition 
 can best be determined, because the dramatic action makes clear 
 the feeling of the speaker. I give below classified lists of all the 
 passages in Plautus and Terence containing prohibitions of this 
 sort.^ In studying these lists, there are certain considerations 
 which should be kept constantly in mind. In all but a compara- 
 tively few cases, the distinction I have drawn between the perfect 
 and the present tenses will be very clear. But of course some 
 instances, both of the perfect and of the present, will be found 
 near the border-line. In some cases where the speaker is moved 
 by only slight emotion, one tense would be as appropriate and 
 natural as the other. Again, a speaker may be somewhat aroused 
 while still under perfect self-control and realizing the advisability 
 of calm language. On the other hand, a speaker may be really 
 very calm, while wishing, for certain purposes, to seem very 
 indignant. We should also bear in mind a natural tendency to 
 unceremoniousness and a vigorous off-hand style in every-day 
 conversation between friends and in the language of superiors to 
 inferiors. If we keep in mind these considerations, a comparison 
 of the following lists will, I think, inevitably lead to the conclusion 
 that the distinction I have drawn is the true one. 
 
 There are in Plautus and Terence 31 instances of ne with the 
 perfect subjunctive. In nearly all of these the feeling of strong 
 emotion of some sort — e. g. great alarm, fear of disaster if the 
 prohibition is not complied with, or the like — is very prominent. 
 Many of them are accompanied by other expressions which 
 betray the speaker's earnestness, e. g. per deos atque homines, 
 opsecro, hercle, etc. And there is not one of them in the least 
 inconsistent with my explanation of the meaning of the tense. 
 Plautus has this construction in the following passages^: Am. 924 
 
 ^ I was surprised to find no instance of this use in the tragedies of Seneca, 
 who, I believe, uses only ne with the imperative (or vide ne with the subjunc- 
 tive) in prohibitions. 
 
 2 1 have not thought it necessary for my present purpose to make a separate 
 class of such aorists as dixis, parsis, etc. 
 
Per dexteram tuam te, Alcumena, oro, opsecro te, da mi banc 
 veniam, irata ne sies (evidently here the perfect of irascor. The 
 fact that this verb is inchoative in form does not miUtate against 
 the principle I have laid down, as it is seldom inchoative [never 
 so, if we may trust Harpers' Diet] in meaning. It commonly 
 means to feel angry. When the beginning of the act is referred 
 to incipio, or a verb of similar meaning is used with it, e. g. ad Att. 
 4, I, 8 incipiuni irasci. Inchoative verbs are not found in this 
 construction) ; Miles 283 Sc. Nescis tu fortasse, apud nos facinus 
 quod natumst novom. Pal. Quod id est facinus ? Sc. Impudicum. 
 Pal. (not wanting to hear such news) Tute sci soli tibi : Mihi ne 
 dixis. Notice the many indications of earnest feeling : Tute {tu 
 alone even would have been emphatic) soli tibi, and all sharply 
 contrasted with mihi] ib. 862 Peril: excruciabit me erus . . . Fu- 
 giam hercle . . . ne dixeritis, opsecro, huic vostram fidem ! ib. 
 1333: Here Philocomasium has just fainted and fallen into the arms 
 of her lover, at the thought of leaving him. All is excitement. 
 One says : Run for some water. The lover exclaims : ne inter- 
 veneris, quaeso, dum resipiscit; Rudens 1155 Peril in primo 
 praelio: mane! ne osienderisi Here his possession of the 
 treasure that has been found depends, as he thinks, upon its 
 not being shown; Trin. 521 Per deos atque homines dico, ne 
 tu illunc agrum tuom siris umquam fieri ; ib. 704 (Lysiteles in a 
 quarrel with Lesbonicus, indignant at the suggestion of anything 
 which might reflect upon his character) Id me commissurum ut 
 patiar fieri ne animum induxeris ; ib. 1012 Ne desiiteris currere 
 (addressed to himself in fear of a flogging. All his words at this 
 point indicate hurry and alarm) ; Asin. 839 Son (in a tone of 
 earnest deprecation, in answer to his father's taunt) : Ne dixis 
 istuc. Father: Ne s\c fueris: ilico ego non dixero; Cure. 599 
 Planesium (to Phaedromus, in great fear lest the parasite escape 
 with the stolen ring) . . . propera! . . . Parasitum ne amiseris! 
 Pseud. 79 Id quidem hercle ne parsisf Most. 1083 Theopro- 
 PIDES (angry, and resolved to punish Tranio, trying to get him 
 away from the altar, where he had taken refuge) : Surge . . . ne 
 occupassis, opsecro, aram . . . surgedum hinc . . . surge : ne 
 nugare. Aspicedum ; Men. 415 Ne feceris ! periisti, si intrassis 
 intra limen ; ib. 617 Pe. (during an angry dispute) At tu ne clam 
 me commessis prandium. Me. Non taces? Pe. Non hercle 
 vero taceo; Epid. 150 (in answer to Stratippocles' intimation 
 that he would commit suicide) ne feceris! ib. 593 Per. Si hercle 
 
lO 
 
 te umquam audivero me patrem vocare, vitam tuam ego interi- 
 mam. Fid. Nonvoco . . . nefueris pater; Poen. 552 (the lawyers, 
 speaking with professional decisiveness and importance) Nos tu 
 ne curassis! scimus rem omnem. The tone assumed here by 
 the speakers may be inferred from the fact that they have just 
 been accused of speaking with too much anger (cf. vs. 540 nimis 
 iracundi estis) ; ib. 990 ne parseris; Aul. 100 (Euclio having a 
 large amount of gold concealed in his house, is constantly alarmed 
 lest it be stolen. He bids his servant again and again not, under 
 any circumstances, to let any one enter the house) Si bona 
 Fortuna veniat, ne intromiseris I ib. 577 Euc. (still in fear of 
 losing his treasure) Ne in me mutassis nomen ! ib. 737 Lyc. 
 (upon Euclio's threatening him with death) Ne istuc dixis ! ib. 
 790 Ne me uno digito adtigeris, ne te ad terram, scelus, adfligam ! 
 Cas. 2, 6, 52 St. Praecide os tu illi ! Age ! Cle. (trying to 
 prevent a fight) Ne obiexis manum ! Cist, i, i, iii Silenium 
 (speaking of her lover, with great depth of feeling that moves 
 her hearers to tears [vs. 113]) sed, amabo, tranquille; ne quid, 
 quod illi doleat, dixeris! The following seems near the border- 
 line, one tense being as appropriate as the other : Merc. 396 ne 
 duas neu te advexisse dixeris. 
 
 Terence has only two instances of ne with the perfect: Phorm. 
 514 Unam praeterea horam ne oppertus sies. The speaker is 
 fairly beside himself throughout this scene, which sufficiently 
 accounts for the more emotional form of expression. Ib. 742 
 (alarmed by fear lest his treachery be discovered) Ne me istoc 
 posthac nomine appellassis. 
 
 The same feeling that prompts the use of the perfect tense in 
 the passages just cited, explains the use of the same tense in 
 prohibitions introduced by cave. Plautus and Terence present 
 33 instances of cave with the perfect : Plant. Am. 608 ; Miles 
 1125; 1245; 1368; 1372; Trin. 513; 555; Asin. 256; 467; 625; 
 Bacch. 402; 910; 1 188; Stich. 284; Most. 388 ; 508; 795; Men. 
 996; Epid. 400; 434; Merc. 112; 476; Poen. 1020; Aul. 90; 
 600; 610; Persa 388; 933; Cas. II 5, 24; Ter. And. 753; 760; 
 Haut. 187 ; Adelph. 458. 
 
 If now we turn to ne and cave with the present subjunctive we 
 find a very different state of things. There are in Plautus and 
 Terence more than 100 instances of ne, and 18 (19?) instances of 
 cave, in this form of prohibition, as will be seen by consulting the 
 following list : Am. 87 (Prologue addressing the audience) Mirari 
 
II 
 
 nolim vos, quapropter Juppiter nunc histriones curet. Ne mire- 
 mini^: ipse banc acturust Juppiter comoediam ; ib. ii6 (still 
 addressing tbe audience) Ne liunc ornatum meum admiremini; 
 Capt. 14 Ego me tua causa, ne erres, non rupturus sum (probably 
 ne here means 'lest'); ib. 58 (Prologue) Ne vereamini, quia 
 bellum Aetolis esse dixi cum Aleis; ib. 186: The parasite 
 (replying to Hegio, who has good-humoredly warned him not 
 to expect too much at his table) : Numquam istoc vinces me, 
 Hegio: ne postules cum calceatis dentibus veniam ; ib. 331 Filius 
 mens aput vos servit captus : eum si reddis mihi, praeterea unum 
 nummum ne duis; ib. 349 Nee quemquam potes mittere ad eum 
 quoi tuom concredat filium audacius. Ne vereare: meo periculo 
 ego huius experiar fidem ; ib. 393 Istuc ne praecipias, facile 
 memoria memini ; ib. 854 Nee nihil hodie nee multo plus tu hie 
 edes, nefrustra sis; ib. 947 At ob earn rem mihi libellam pro eo 
 argenti ne duis: gratiis a me ducito ; ib. 957 Fui . . . bonus vir 
 numquam neque frugi bonae neque ero umquam : ne spem ponas 
 me bonae frugi fore; Miles 12 15 Py. Libertatem tibi ego et divi- 
 tias dabo, si impetras. Pa. Reddam impetratam ... At modice 
 decet. Ne sis cupidus; ib. 1274 Viri quoque armati idem istuc 
 faciunt: ne tu mirere mulierem; ib. 1360 Pa. Muliebres mores 
 discendi. Py. Fac sis frugi. Pa. lam non possum : amisi 
 omnem lubidinem. Py. I, sequere illos: ne morere ; ib. 1378 Ne 
 me 7noneatis: memini ego officium meum; ib. 1422 Aliter hinc 
 non ibis: ne sisfrustra; Rud.941 Nil habeo, adulescens, piscium : 
 ne tu mihi qssq postules ; ib. 968 Gr. Hunc homo nemo a me feret : 
 ne in tQ speres. Tr. Non ferat, si dominus veniat? Gr. Domi- 
 nus huic, ne (probably = 'iQsV^frustra sis, nisi ego nemo natust, 
 hunc qui cepi in venatu meo ; ib. 992 Quod in mari non natumst 
 neque habet squamas ne /eras; ib. 1012 Hinc tu nisi malum 
 frunisci nil potes, ne postules ; ib. 1368 Ut scias gaudere me, mihi 
 triobulum ob earn ne duis; ib. 1385 Quod servo meo promisisti, 
 meum esse oportet. Ne tu, \QnOy postules; ib. 1390 Dae. Opera 
 mea haec tibi sunt servata: (Gr. Immo hercle mea, ne tu tua 
 dicas); ib. 1414 nihil hercle hie tibi, 7ie tu speres; Trin. 16 
 (Prologue, to audience) de argumento ne expectetis fabulae ; ib. 
 267 Apage sis amor. Amor, amicus mihi ne fuas umquam ; ib. 
 370 Ph. . . . quid dare illi nunc vis? Lu. Nil quicquam, pater: 
 Tu modo ne me prohibeas accipere, siquid det mihi ; Bacch. 747 
 
 ^Some of these might be explained as final clauses ('that you may not be 
 surprised,' I make the following statement, etc.). 
 
12 
 
 . . . quod promisisti mihi te quaeso ut memineris, «<? ilium verberes 
 (probably a dependent clause) ; ib. 758 . . . ubi erit adcubitum 
 semel, ne quoquam exurgaiis, donee a me erit signum datum ; 
 Cure. 183 Pa. Quin tu is dormitum? Ph. Dormio: ne occla- 
 mites; ib. 213 Si amas, erne: ne rogites ; ib. 539 Ne mihi te 
 facias ferocem aut supplicare ceiiseas; ib. 565 Nil aput me 
 quidem. Ne facias testis : neque equidem dehibeo quicquam ; 
 ib. 568 Vapulare ego te vehementer iubeo : ne me ierrites ; ib. 
 713 Non ego te flocci facio ; ne me ierrites (the feeling in such 
 cases is not that the failure to comply with '■ne ierrites' will be 
 disastrous to me, but that it will do you no good to try to frighten 
 me); Ps. 275 . . . scimus nos te qualis sis: ne praedices ; ib. 1234 
 Sequere tu. Nunc ne expectetis^ dum domum redeam ; Stich. 
 320 Tua quod nil refert, ne cures ; ib. 446 ... id ne vos mire- 
 mini^ homines servolos potare etc.; Most. 598 Pater advenit . . . : 
 is tibi et faenus et sortem dabit. Ne inconciliare nos porro 
 postules; ib. 611 Tra. Huic debet Philolaches paulum. Theop. 
 Quantillum ? Tra. Quadraginta minas. Theop. Paulum id 
 quidemst? Tra. Ne sane id multum censeas; ib. 799 Ergo 
 inridere ne videare et gestire admodum ; ib. 994 Ad cenam ne 
 me te vocare censeas; ib. loio Theop. Minas tibi octoginta 
 argenti debeo. Si. Non mihi quidem hercle : verum si debes, 
 cedo. . . . Ne ire initias postules; Men. 327 ne quo abeas longius 
 ab aedibus; ib. 790 Quid ille faciat, ne id observes; Epid. 147 
 Ep. a quo trapezita peto ? Strat. Unde lubet. Nam ni . . . 
 (prompseris), meam domum ne inbitas; ib. 305 Ne abitas, prius- 
 quam ego ad te venero ; ib. 339 [hoc quidem iam periit, ne quid 
 tibi hinc in spem refer as (perhaps dependent)] ; Merc. 164 
 Char. Quid istuc est maH? Acan. Ne rogites; ib. 318 Dem. 
 Ne me obiurga. Lys. . . . non obiurgo. Dem. At ne deteriorem 
 hoc facto ducas (there seems to be slight emotion here; either 
 tense would seem appropriate) ; ib. 396 Ne duas neu te advexisse 
 dixeris (this, like the passage just cited (vs. 318), seems on the 
 border-line. The speaker is really very earnest, but is, as shown 
 by the general situation, anxious not to appear too much so, lest 
 his real motive be guessed. The sudden change of tense, then, 
 is not surprising); ib. 457 Ad portum ne bitas, dico iam tibi 
 (perhaps dependent) ; ib. 520 Nunc, mulier, ne tu frustra sis, 
 mea non es; ne arbitrere ; Poen. 520 Ne tuo nos amori servos 
 esse addictos censeas; ib. 526 Ne\.\x opinere (perhaps dependent); 
 ib. 536 Est domi, quod edimus, 7te nos tam contemptim coiiteras 
 
13 
 
 (perhaps dependent upon 'I say this,' understood); ib. 1152 
 Audin tu, patrue? Dico, ne dictum neges (perhaps dependent)"; 
 ib. 1370 Ne mirere, mulieres, quod eum sequontur; Aul. 166 
 Verba 7ie facias, soror; ib. 231 EucL. At nihil est dotis quod 
 dem. Meg. Ne duas, dum modo morata recte veniat, dotatast 
 satis. EuCL. Eo dico, ne me thensauros repperisse censeas, 
 Meg. Novi; ne doceas; ib. 350 Sunt igitur ligna, ne quaeras 
 foris; Persa 141 Numquam hercle hodie hie prius edis, ne 
 frustra sis; True. 477 Ne exspectetis, spectatores, meas pugnas 
 dum praedicem ; ib. 658 Ne me morari censeas ; ib. 744 Res ita 
 est, ne frustra sis ; Cas, Prol. 64 (to audience) Ne exspedetis 
 etc.; ib. II 6, 42 Ne a me memores malitiose de hac re factum, 
 aut suspices; Cist. II 3, 16 Nam illaec tibi nutrix est: ne matrem 
 censeas; ib. V (to audience) Ne expectetis, spectatores etc. In 
 Capt. 548 Hegio, hie homo rabiosus habitus est in Ah'de : ne tu 
 quod istic fabuletur auris inmiitas tuas, and in Miles 1363 (1351) 
 Pa. Si forte hber fieri occeperim mittam nuntium ad te : ne me 
 deseras, there seems to be a certain amount of emotion, but it 
 will be noticed that in each case the speaker is addressing a 
 superior. In the former case, too, the speaker is anxious to 
 appear calm and undisturbed. Furthermore, ne might well be 
 taken here in the sense of 'lest.' In the other passage, the slave 
 who is speaking does not even mean what he says. He is really 
 glad that he is going, and never wants to see again the master 
 whom he is addressing. In the light of this fact, ne deseras 
 seems cool irony. The stereotyped formula ne molestus sis 
 occurs in Plant. Asin. 469; Ps. 118; 889; Most. 74; 572; 757; 
 863; 871; Men. 251; Aul. 450; but in nearly all of these 
 instances it might be taken as dependent upon some other verb 
 expressed or understood. In any case, one must not look for 
 strong emotion in so commonplace a phrase. Ne with the 
 present subjunctive occurs in Terence in the following passages : 
 And. 704 Huic, non tibi, habeo, ne erres (perhaps dependent) ; 
 ib. 706 Dies hie mihi ut satis sit vereor ad agendum : ne vacuom 
 esse me nunc ad narrandum credas; ib. 980 (to audience) Ne 
 exspecteiis dum exeant hue; Eun. 76 Quid agas? nisi ut te 
 redimas captum quam queas minimo : . . . et ne te adfiictes ; 
 ib. 212 Ego quoque una pereo, quod mihi est carius: ne istuc 
 tarn iniquo patiare animo; ib. 273 Gn. Quia tristis es. Pa. 
 Nihil quidem. Gn. Ne sis; ib. 388 Si certumst facere, faciam : 
 verum ne post conferas culpam in me; ib. 786 Sane quod tibi 
 
14 
 
 nunc vir videatur esse hie, nebulo magnus est: ne meiuas ; 
 ib. 988 Ere, ne me species: me inpulsore haec non facit; Haut. 
 745 Sy. Ancillas . . . traduce hue propere. Dr. Quam ob rem ? 
 Sy. Ne quaeras; Phorm. 419 "Actum" aiunt ''ne agas"" ; Hec. 
 342 Non visas ? Ne mittas quidem visendi causa quemquam ; 
 Adelph. 22 Ne exspectetis argumentum fabulae. In Phorm. 508 
 Heia, ne parum leno sies, the w^-clause is rightly explained by 
 editors as dependent * Look out there, lest,' etc. Besides these, 
 there are five instances of ne attigas which will call for comment 
 later. 
 
 Cave with the present tense of the subjunctive occurs as follows : 
 Plant. Capt. 431; 439; Most. 797; 1012; Epid. 432; Persa 52; 
 812; Cas. Ill I, 16; Poen. 117; Ter. Eun. 751; Haut. 302; 
 826 (?) ; Phorm. 993; Adelph. 170. 
 
 There are certain remarkable differences between the prohi- 
 bitions in this latter list (expressed by the present tense) and 
 those in the former list (expressed by the perfect) which a casual 
 observer might not notice. If my distinction between the two 
 tenses is correct, we should expect that a prohibition dealing with 
 mere mental action, e. g. *Do not suppose,' 'Do not be surprised,' 
 * Do not be afraid,' would commonly take the present tense, 
 because such prohibitions would not commonly be accompanied 
 by strong emotion, and, as far as the interests of the speaker are 
 concerned, it matters little whether the prohibition be complied 
 with or not. Such a condition of things is exactly what we find. 
 Among the instances of ne with the perfect tense, not a single 
 example of a verb of this class will be found ; but among those 
 of ne with the present there are no less than 3 1 instances of such 
 verbs, or nearly a third of the entire number. Again, such 
 prohibitions as *Do not ask me,' 'Do not remind me' (i.e. 
 I know already), would not ordinarily imply any emotion, and 
 no such verbs will be found among the instances of 7ie with the 
 perfect.^ But there are 13 such verbs among the instances of the 
 present. Substantially the same holds true for the ^«z/^-construc- 
 tions. Among the 33 instances of cave with the perfect there is 
 no instance of a verb belonging to any of these classes. There 
 is no avoidance of such verbs with cave used with the present 
 
 ^ The nearest approach to an exception is iratus ne sies (Plaut. Am. 924), 
 which seems here to be the perfect tense of irascor. Here there is an addi- 
 tional idea of venting one's anger, which removes it, strictly speaking, from 
 the class referred to. 
 
15 
 
 tense (in spite of the fact that there are only about half so 
 many instances of the present as of the perfect), e. g. Ter. 
 Phorm. 993; Haut. 826 {admiraius here probably used adjec- 
 tively, as in ad Att. 9, 12, 2 and Off. 2, 10, 35); Plaut. Asin. 
 372 ; Capt. 431 (?) ; or with noli (though noli is comparatively 
 rare in Plautus and Terence), e. g. Plaut. Persa 619; Capt. 
 845 ; Ter. Phorm. 556 ; or with 7ie followed by the imperative, a 
 construction which occurs 33 times in Plautus and Terence with 
 such verbs (out of a total of 84 instances) : Plaut. Am. 674 ; 
 1064; mo; Capt. 554; Miles 893; 895; ion; 1345; Rud.688; 
 1049; Trin. 1181; Asin. 462; 638; 826; Cure. 520; Ps. 103; 
 734; 922; Men. 140; Merc. 172; 873; 879; 993; Cas. 4, 4, 14; 
 Most. 629; True. 496; Aul. 427; Persa 674; Ter. And. 543; 
 Adelph. 279; 942; Haut. 85 {bis)} Outside of Plautus and 
 Terence such verbs occur, in the ante-Ciceronian period, as 
 follows: Cato de agr. cult, i, 4 caveto contemnas; ib. 64, i nolito 
 credere (* do not believe') ; Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, 1 1445 
 credere noli ; ib. 1453 spernere nolei. But nowhere in this whole 
 period is such a verb to be found in the perfect tense in a prohi- 
 bition. Why this mysterious absence of all such verbs from this 
 one sort of prohibition? Recurring to the instances of the 
 present tense in Plautus and Terence, we notice that in 11 of 
 the passages the prologue, or some one else, is calmly addressing 
 the audience with ' Do not expect me to disclose the plot of the 
 play,' or some prohibition equally calm. But there is not one 
 instance in the prologues either of Plautus or Terence of the 
 
 ^ It will be noticed that in Plautus and Terence more than one-third of the 
 verbs in prohibitions expressed by ne and the imperative are verbs of fearing 
 (22 of the 33), thinking, asking or advising. Of the remaining verbs, a large 
 proportion are verbs of saying and weeping. A similar state of things prevails 
 in Vergil, who uses this construction 27 times. In 12 of these the verbs 
 belong to the classes just mentioned. All this is interesting in connection 
 with the much-mooted question regarding the relative harshness in Greek of 
 fir} with the present imperative and fii} with the aorist subjunctive. See Dr. 
 Miller's paper on the Imperative in the Attic Orators, A. J. P. XTII 424. In 
 Latin, ne with the perfect subjunctive is harsher than ne with the imperative, 
 the latter corresponding rather closely in this respect with ne and the present 
 subjunctive. Both of these last-mentioned constructions, however {ne with 
 imperat. and ne with pres. subj.), smacked somewhat of the same familiar 
 feeling as their sister construction. Noli was far more deferential, and 
 Cicero, when he wished to soften the tone of his address, accordingly 
 preferred that form of prohibition. 
 
i6 
 
 perfect tense in prohibition. And this again is exactly what we 
 should expect. (It matters little for our present purpose whether 
 Plautus wrote the prologues to his plays or not.) In general the 
 fact may be emphasized that ne with the present is chiefly 
 confined to prohibitions of the most commonplace sort. Where 
 this is not apparent from the nature of the verb itself, a study of 
 the context will show that the speaker is not under the influence 
 of any strong emotion. There are in all only 5 instances (a small 
 number out of so many) which can fairly be said to be accom- 
 panied by decided emotion, and in each case, strangely enough, 
 the verb is attigas, viz. Plaut. Bacch. 445 ; Most. 453 ; Epid. 721 ; 
 True. 273; Ten And. 789. I cannot account for this strange 
 exception, unless one accepts Curtius' suggestion that attigas is 
 an aoristic form (Stud. V 433). The few additional passages 
 that might apparently be construed as exceptions have been 
 commented upon under the citation. 
 
 Whatever differences of opinion may be held regarding indi- 
 vidual instances in the two lists above given, I feel sure that no 
 one who studies them carefully can resist the general conclusion 
 to which I have come. If, now, the distinction I have drawn 
 between the two tenses holds so clearly for the only two authors 
 who make frequent use of ne with the subjunctive in prohibitions, 
 a strong presumption is established in favor of a similar distinc- 
 tion in the few instances to be found in later writers, where there 
 are not always so many indications at hand, as in dramatic pro- 
 ductions, to make clear the feeling of the writer. And a study 
 of these instances confirms the presumption. There are in 
 classical prose, from the beginning of the Ciceronian period up 
 to near the end of the Augustan period, only seven instances of 
 ne with the perfect in prohibition, and these are all in Cicero. 
 As pointed out above, each of these occurs in dialogue where 
 the tone sinks to that of ordinary conversation, in which some 
 one is delivering himself of an earnest, energetic command. One 
 is naturally more unceremonious in addressing a familiar friend 
 than in addressing a mere acquaintance: he falls more readily 
 into energetic forms of expression. Often he assumes an off- 
 hand, imperious tone in such cases merely as a bit of pleasantry. 
 This would be especially natural when one was urging his friend 
 not to do what he feared that friend might do — namely, in pro- 
 hibitions. One can hardly fail to notice this tone at any talkative 
 gathering of intimate friends. Let us examine now more care- 
 
fully the seven instances referred to: de div. 2, 6i, 127 (a sup*- 
 posed command of a god to a man) hoc ne feceris ! de rep. i, 19, 
 32 Si me audietis, adulescentes, solem alterum ne metuerUis! de 
 leg. 2, 15, 36 (Atticus, replying sharply to Marcus) Tu vero istam 
 Romae legem rogato : nobis nostras ne ademeris/ Ac. 2, 40, 125 
 (in conversation with LucuUus at a familiar gathering of friends) 
 Tu vero ista ne asciveris neve fueris commenticiis rebus adsensus ! 
 Tusc. disp. I, 47, 112 (replying in a deprecatory tone to a sug- 
 gestion that has just been made) Tu vero istam ne reliqueris! 
 pro Mur. 31, 65 (quotation from the supposed command of a 
 teacher to his pupil) misericordia commotus ne sis! (though sis 
 alone might be looked upon as the verb here, in which case the 
 construction would belong to the other class); Par. Sto. 5, 3, 41 
 (in a vigorous protest) tu posse te dicito, debere ne dixeris. An 
 unusually earnest and energetic tone is to be found in each one 
 of these. Notice, for instance, the strongly contrasted pronouns 
 and the other indications of strong feeling. The reason why this 
 construction is so rare in classical productions is that they are, for 
 the most part, of a very dignified character. The prohibitions 
 they contain are therefore commonly expressed by noli with the 
 infinitive (a construction that occurs 123 times in Cicero, twice in 
 Nepos, three times in Sallust, three times in Caesar), or by cave 
 with the present subjunctive (30 times in Cicero, once in Nepos, 
 once in Sallust), or by vide ne with the subjunctive (18 times in 
 Cicero, once in Nepos). Next to noli, the most common form of 
 prohibition in Cicero is, I should say, some circumlocution like 
 peto, rogo, oro, etc., followed by ne and the subjunctive, but I 
 have made no attempt to collect the instances. Even ne with 
 the present subjunctive is less deferential than the constructions 
 just named ; it smacks somewhat of its sister construction, and so 
 is comparatively rare. Where, next to the early comedy, do we 
 find the most familiar tone prevailing ? One may answer, without 
 hesitation, in the Letters of Cicero. And it is in these Letters 
 that most of the instances oine with the perfect in classical times 
 are found. It is also a significant fact, and one, I think, not 
 hitherto noticed, that all but 2 of the 14 instances here found 
 are addressed to his bosom-friends or relatives : 8 of them to 
 Atticus, 2 to his brother Quintus, and 2 to his intimate legal 
 friend Trebatius, upon whom he was always sharpening his wits 
 and whom he never lost an opportunity to abuse, good-naturedly, 
 to his face. One of the two exceptions is in a very impassioned 
 
i8 
 
 passage of a letter written by Brutus to Cicero, ad Brut, i, i6, 6; 
 the other is in ad fam. 7, 25, 2, where Cicero is enjoining upon 
 Fadius Gallus, in the most urgent terms possible, not under any 
 circumstances to reveal a certain secret. To his other corres- 
 pondents he uses only noli or, in two instances, cave with the 
 present subjunctive, e. g. to Servius Sulpicius (ad fam. 4, 4, 3), to 
 Lucius Mescinius (ad fam, 5, 21, i), to Cornificius (ad fam. 12, 30, 
 I ; 12, 30, 3). to Gallus (ad fam. 7, 25, i ; 7, 25, 2), to Brut, i, 6 
 twice; i, 7; i, 13; i, 15, i twice, etc. Excepting the passionate 
 remonstrance referred to in a letter written by Brutus, the corres- 
 pondents of Cicero use only noli when addressing him, e. g. ad 
 fam. 4, 5, 5 ; 7, 29; 12, 16, i. In the treatise ad Herennium, I 
 might add, ne never occurs in prohibition, though other forms of 
 prohibition are common, e. g. noli in 4, 30, 41 ; 4, 41, 53 twice; 
 4, 52, 65 ; 4, 54, 67 ; cavCy or vide, ne with the present subjunctive 
 in 4, 3, 5 ; 4, 4, 6. Following is a complete list of the instances 
 of ^<? with the perfect in Cicero's Letters, nearly all of which show 
 great earnestness, either real or assumed: ad Att. 2, 5, i Etiam 
 hercule est in non accipiendo non nulla gloria: qua re si quid 
 e€o<l)dvris tecum forte contulerit ne omnino repudiaris ; ib. 5, 11, 
 7 nam illam vo[iavhp\.a (?) me excusationem ne acceperis; ib. 9, 9, 
 I Quod vereri videris ne mihi tua consiiia displiceant, me vero 
 nihil delectat aliud nisi consilium et litterae tuae; qua re fac, ut 
 ostendis : ne destiteris ad me quicquid tibi in mentem venerit 
 scribere : mihi nihil potest esse gratius (Notice the emphatic 
 position of words, indicative of strong feehng) ; ib. 10, 13, i 
 Epistola tua gratissima fuit meae Tulliae, et mehercule mihi: 
 semper secum aliquam (?) adferunt tuae litterae. Scribes igitur 
 ac, si quid ad spem poteris, ne demiseris, Tu Antoni leones 
 pertimescas cave; ad Brut, i, 16, 6 Me vero posthac ne commen- 
 daveris Caesari tuo, ne te quidem ipsum, si me audies. Valde 
 care aestimas tot annos, quot ista aetas recipit, si propter eam 
 causam puero isti supplicaturus es ; ad fam. 7, 17, 2 Hunc tu 
 virum nactus, si me aut sapere aliquid aut velle tua causa putas, 
 ne dimiseris; ib. 7, 25, 2 Sed heus tu . . . secreto hoc audi, tecum 
 habeto, ne Apellae quidem, liberto tuo, dixeris ; ad Quint, i, 4, 5 
 Sin te quoque inimici vexare coeperint, ne cessaris ; non enim 
 gladiis tecum, sed litibus agetur ; ad Att. i, 9 «^ dubitaris mittere 
 ('Do not for a moment hesitate,' etc.); ib. 4, 15, 6 Veni in spec- 
 taculum, primum magno et aequabili plausu — sed hoc 7ie curaris ; 
 ego ineptus, qui scripserim ; ib. 7, 3, 2 Quin nunc ipsum non 
 
19 
 
 dubitabo rem tantam abicere, si id erit rectius; utrumque vero 
 simul agi non potest, et de triumpho ambitiose et de re publica 
 libere. Sed ne dubitaris quin, quod honestius, id mihi futurum 
 sit antiquius ; ad Quintum fratrem 2, 10, 5 locum autem illius de 
 sua egestate ne sis aspernatus (Cicero is here speaking of Caesar, 
 which sufficiently accounts for his vigorous tone). In ad Att. 16, 
 2, 5 Planco et Oppio scripsi equidem, quoniam rogaras, sed, si 
 tibi videbitur, 7ie necesse habueris reddere, we should have 
 expected the present. Here, however, it might be noticed that 
 the first hand of the Medicean manuscript (M), the highest 
 possible manuscript authority and in fact the only authority of 
 much importance, omits the ne. In ad fam. 7, 18, 3 Tu, si inter- 
 vallum longius erit mearum litterarum, ne sis admiratus, sis is 
 probably the verb, admiratus being here used adjectively, as in 
 ad Att. 9, 12, 2 sum admiratus (*I am surprised'), and in Off. 2, 
 10, 35 ne quis sit admiratus etc. 
 
 Most of the instances to be found, in the prose of classical 
 times, oine with the 2d person present subjunctive in prohibitions 
 have been cited earlier in this paper. The following should be 
 added to complete the list : Cic. Cato Maior 10, 33 ne requiras; 
 ib. ad Att. 2, 24, i ne sis {perturbatus perhaps here used adjec- 
 tively, like the following sollicitus and anxius). There are a 
 large number of other passages that might well be explained 
 as instances of the same use, e. g. ad Att. 14, i, 2 Tu, quaeso, 
 quicquid novi scribere ne pigrere (which Madvig, Opus. 2, 
 p. 107, and Kiihner, Lat. Gram. II, §47, 8, actually explain as 
 independent of quaeso) \ Phil. II 5, 10; pro Cluentio 2, 6 ne 
 repugnetis etc. That ne with the present subjunctive is not 
 more common in the best prose is due to an increasing fond- 
 ness for the ^(^//-construction. Ne with the present was a mild 
 prohibition as compared with ne with the perfect, but it was 
 less deferential and respectful than noli, and in dignified address 
 noli accordingly became the regular usage. In early comedy 
 there was comparatively little call for the more calm and dignified 
 forms of expression, and there accordingly we find that noli is 
 comparatively rare. It occurs in Plautus and Terence only in 
 addressing some one who must be gently handled. It is found 
 only where the tone is one of pleading — it never conveys an 
 order, in the strict sense of that word. It is almost never used 
 by a superior in addressing an inferior. In the two or three 
 exceptions to this rule, the superior has some motive for adopting 
 
30 
 
 the mild tone. Those who wish to test the truth of these remarks 
 are referred to the following complete list of the instances of noli 
 in Plautus and Terence: Plant. Am. 520; 540; Capt. 845; Miles 
 372; 1 1 29; Trin. 627; Asin. 417; Cure. 128; 197; 697; Most. 
 800; Merc. 922; Poen. 367 ; 871; 1319; Persa 619; 831; True. 
 664; Cas. II 2, 32; II 6, 35; Cist. I I, 59; I I, 109; Ten And. 
 385; 685; Phorm. 556; Hec. 109; 316; 467; 654; Adelph. 781. 
 As regards the different forms of prohibition in classical times, 
 nothing can show more strikingly the difference in feeling between 
 ne with the perfect subjunctive and noli with the infinitive than a 
 comparison of the classes of verbs found in the two constructions. 
 Of the 123 instances of noli'm Cicero, 76 of them are used with 
 verbs indicating some mental action, or some action which would 
 be as unlikely to be accompanied by emotion on the part of the 
 speaker, e. g. *Do not suppose,' *Do not be afraid,' etc.^ In the 
 Letters, 21 out of the 32 instances are verbs of this sort. Of the 
 30 instances oi cave with the subjunctive, 17 are of this sort.'^ In 
 the Letters the proportion is 11 out of 18. A glance at the 
 instances above cited of ne with the present subjunctive will show 
 that most of the verbs in this construction also belong to the 
 same class. We found the same state of things also in Plautus 
 and Terence. Now, side by side with these facts put the fact 
 that in the whole history of the Latin language, from the earliest 
 times down to and including Livy, there are to be found in pro- 
 hibitions expressed by ne with the perfect subjunctive only two, 
 or at most three, verbs denoting mere mental activity, viz. ne 
 dubitaris (Cic. ad Att. 7, 3, 2), ne metueritis (de rep. i, 19, 32), ne 
 
 1 Plane. 18, 44 ; 19, 46 ; 19, 47 ; 20, 50 ; 21, 51 ; 22, 52 ; 22, 53 ; Balb. 28, 64 ; 
 Pis. 20, 46 ; 27, 66 ; Marcel. 8, 25 ; Ligar. 11, 33; 12, 37 ; Phil. 2, 28, 69 ; 7, 8, 
 25 ; 12, 6, 14; de or. 2, 47, 194; 2, 61, 250; 2, 66, 268; Brut. 33, 125, 40, 148 ; 
 nat. deor. 2, 18, 47; Cato 22, 79 ; Rose. Am. 24, 67 ; in Caec. div. 12, 39; Verr. 
 2, I, 16, 42; 2, I, 49, 128 (twiee); 2, 2, 11, 29; 2, 2, 51, 125 ; 2, 3, 5, 11 ; 2, 3, 
 46, 109; 2,4, 5, 10; 2, 4, 51, 113 (twice); 2, 5, 5,10; 2, 5, 18,45; 2,5, 53.1391 
 de re pub. i, 41, 65 ; 2, 3, 7; Orat. prid. quam in exsil. iret i, i ; Tuse. disp. 
 5, 5, 14; imp. Pomp. 23, 68; agr. 2, 6, 16; 2, 28, 77; Mur. 19, 38; 37, 80; 
 Flacc. 20, 48; 42, 105; SuU. 16, 47 (twice); 27, 76; de dom. 57, 146; de 
 havusp. response 28, 62 ; ad Att. i, 4, 3 ; 2, i, 5 ; 5, 2, 3 ; 6, I, 3 ; 6, I, 8 ; 8, 12, 
 is; 9i 7. 5; 12, 9; 13. 29,2; 15,6,2; 16, 15; ad Brut, i, 13, 2; ad fam. 4,4, 
 3; 4, 5, 5; 5, 21, I ; 7, 25, i; 12, 16, i; 12, 33; ad Quint, i, 2, 4, 14; 3, 6, 7 
 (twice). 
 
 ''Ligar. 5, 14; 5,16 (twiee); de rep. i, 42, 65; de leg. 2, 3, 7 ; Tuse. disp. 
 5,7,19: ad Att. 5, 21, 5 ; 7, 20, i ; 8, 15, A 2 ; 9, 9, 4 ; 9, 19, i ; 10, 13, i ; ad 
 tirut. I, 15, I (twice); ad fam. 7, 6; 7, 25, 2; 9, 24,4. 
 
21 
 
 cur arts (ad Att. 4, 15, 6)/ The only other verbs (four or five in 
 number) dealing with mental action distinctly involve also other 
 sorts of action. These are ne sis aspernatus (ad Quint, fratrem 2, 
 10. 5)> w^ asciveris neve fueris adsensus (Ac. 2, 40, 125), commotus 
 ne sis (pro Mur. 31, 65), and ne repudiaris (ad Att. 2, 5, i). There 
 are not so many objections to regarding 7tec existimaveris in Livy 
 21, 43, II as a prohibition as there would be in Ciceronian Latin, 
 though it is extremely doubtful even here. In any case, nothing 
 of the sort should cause surprise in Livy, as he marks the begin- 
 ning of a general breaking up of the strict canons observed in the 
 best period. Livy (3, 2, 9) even goes so far as to say ne timeie^ 
 which, in prose, would have shocked the nerves of Cicero beyond 
 expression. The almost entire avoidance, until after the Augustan 
 period, of this whole class of verbs expressing mere mental 
 activity in prohibitions expressed by ne with the perfect subjunc- 
 tive, and its remarkable frequency in other forms of prohibitions, 
 can, it seems to me, be explained only in one way. Verbs of this 
 class are, from their very nature, such as would not often be 
 accompanied with passionate feeling, and so are confined to the 
 milder forms of expression. And this, it seems to me, goes far 
 to establish my contention that ne with the perfect subjunctive is 
 reserved for prohibitions that are prompted by uncontrollable 
 emotion, or else that are intended to be as vigorous as possible 
 in tone, either, as is generally the case, from some serious motive, 
 or merely as a bit of familiar pleasantry. This tone is commonly 
 one of commanding. Rarely it is one of earnest entreaty, though 
 in such cases the prohibition is commonly introduced by noli. 
 Noli with the infinitive is the expression best calculated to win 
 the good-will of the hearer, as it merely appeals to him to 
 exercise his own will (i. e. 'Be unwilling'), or to forbear using it ; 
 while ne with the perfect subjunctive disregards altogether the 
 will of the person addressed, and insists that the will of the 
 speaker be obeyed. 
 
 "^Ne necesse habueris reddere (ad Att. 16, 2, 5) is but poorly supported by 
 manuscript evidence. Even if the reading is correct, as seems highly prob- 
 able, the idea of reddere may be said to figure quite as prominently in the 
 prohibition as that of habtieris. Such expressions as ne vos quidem timueritis 
 (Cic. Tusc. Disp. I, 41, 98), numquatn putaveris (Sail. lug. no, 4) and nee 
 putaveris (Cic. Acad. 2, 46, 141) represent very different uses, as I shall show- 
 in Part II of my paper. 
 
Part II. 
 
 In Part I of this paper I confined myself exclusively to prohi- 
 bitions introduced by ne, cave and noli. That the clauses there 
 discussed were bona fide cases of prohibition admitted of no 
 doubt, with the exception of a few introduced by ne which might 
 possibly be explained as dependent. Unfortunately, grammars 
 are wont to classify under the same head, and with equal confi- 
 dence, certain other forms of expression, many of which can be 
 shown to belong to very different uses of the subjunctive mood. 
 Most prominent among these are the instances of 
 
 Neque {nee) with the Perfect {Aorisf) Subjunctive, 
 
 Before proceeding to discuss these clauses, let us get them all 
 before us. As my statistics for this particular construction have, 
 as far as the Augustan poets are concerned, been rather hurriedly 
 gathered, I do not feel sure that my list contains all of the 
 instances from those writers ; but the few omissions, if there are 
 any, could not affect the results reached. My statistics show that 
 the following are the only instances of the construction to be 
 found, from the earliest times down to the end of the Augustan 
 period, which any one would ever think of explaining as prohi- 
 bitions: Plant. Capt. 149 Ego alienus? alienus ille? Ah, Hegio, 
 numquam istuc dixis neque animum induxis tuom ; Trin. 627 Sta 
 ilico. Noli avorsari neque te occtdtassis mihi^; 
 
 Enn. Ann. 143 (Baehrens) nee mi aurum posco nee mi pretium 
 dederitis ; 
 
 Lucil. Sat. 30 (Baehrens 775) — wv^_ww_ ^^ neque barbam 
 inmiseris istam ! " 
 
 Ter. And. 392 Hie reddes omnia, quae nunc sunt certa ei con- 
 silia, incerta ut sient, sine omni periclo : nam hoc hand dubiumst, 
 
 ^ The videris in Plaut. Mil. 573 (Ne tu hercle, si te di ament, linguam com- 
 primes posthac : etiam illut quod scies nesciveris nee videris quod videris) is 
 probably in the future perfect indicative (cf. the preceding comprimes). This 
 use of the future perfect is very common in Plautus and Terence. 
 
23 
 
 quin Chremes tibi non det gnatam. Nee tu ea causa minueris 
 haec quae facis, ne is mutet suam sententiam; id. Haut. 976 
 Nemo accusat, Syre, te : nee tu aram tibi nee precatorem pararis ; 
 
 Cic. Acad. 2, 46, 141 Nihil igitur me putatis moveri? Tam 
 moveor quam tu, Luculle, nee me minus hominem quam te 
 putaveris; id. Fin. i, 7, 25 Quid tibi, Torquate, . . . quid tanta 
 tot versuum memoria voluptatis adfert? Nee mihi illud dixeris: 
 •' Haec enim ipsa mihi sunt voluptati et erant ilia Torquatis " ; id. 
 pro Sulla 8, 25 Aut igitur doceat Picentis solos non esse pere- 
 grinos aut gaudeat suo generi me meum non anteponere. Qua 
 re neque tu me peregrinum posthac dixeris, ne gravius refutere, 
 neque regem, ne derideare; id. Brutus 87, 298 nam de Crassi 
 oratione sic existimo, ipsum fortasse melius potuisse scribere, 
 alium, ut arbitror, neminem ; nee in hoc ironiam dixeris esse, 
 quod eam orationem mihi magistram fuisse dixerim ; id. Rep. 6, 
 23, 25 Igitur alte spectare si voles atque hanc sedem et aeternam 
 domum contueri, neque te sermonibus volgi dederis nee in prae- 
 miis humanis spem posueris rerum tuarum ; id. ad Att. 12, 23, 3 
 Si nihil conficietur de Transtiberinis, habet in Ostiensi Cotta 
 celeberrimo loco, sed pusillum loci, ad hanc rem tamen plus 
 etiam quam satis : id velim cogites. Nee tamen ista pretia hor- 
 torum periimueris. Nee mihi iam argento nee veste opus est nee 
 quibusdam amoenis locis; id. ib. 13, 22, 5 Alteris iam litteris nihil 
 ad me de Attica ; sed id quidem in optima spe pono : illud 
 accuso, non te, sed illam, ne salutem quidem. At tu et jlli et 
 Piliae plurimam, nee me tamen irasci indicaris ; id. ad Att. 15, 27, 
 3 Quod me de Bacchide, de statuarum coronis certiorem fecisti, 
 valde gratum, nee quicquam posthac non modo tantum, sed ne 
 tantulum quidem praeterieris ; id. ad fam. i, 9, 19 . . . recordare 
 enim, quibus laudationem ex ultimis terris miseris. Nee hoc 
 periimueris ; nam a me ipso laudantur et laudabuntur idem ; id. 
 ad Att. 10, 18, 2 Tu tamen perge quaeso scribere nee meas litteras 
 exspeciaris, nisi cum quo opto pervenerimus, aut si quid ex cursu ; 
 
 Hor. Od. I, II, 3 Tu ne quaesieris quem mihi, quem tibi finem 
 di dederint, Leuconoe, nee Babylonios tempiaris numeros; id. 
 Sat. I, 4, 41 Primum ego me illorum dederim quibus esse poetas 
 excerpam numero : neque enim concludere versum dixeris esse 
 satis ; neque si qui scribat, uti nos, sermoni propiora, putes hunc 
 esse poetam (cf. dederim^ vs. 39) ; 
 
 Verg. Eel. 8, 102 Fer cineres, Amarylli, foras rivoque fluenti 
 transque caput iace, nee respexeris ; 
 
24 
 
 Ovid, Am. 2, 2, 25 . . . ne te mora longa fatiget, inposita gremio 
 stertere fronte potes. Nee tu . . . quaesieris ; id. H. 8, 23 . . . 
 nupta foret Paridi mater, ut ante fuit. Nee tu pararis etc.; id. 
 Epist. 19, 151 Si nescis, dominum res habet ista suum. Nee mihi 
 eredideris; id. Ar. Am. i, 733 Arguat et macies animum. Nee 
 . . . puiaris etc.; id. ib. 2, 391 Gloria peccati nulla petenda sui est. 
 Nee dederis etc.; id. ib. 3, 685 Sed te . . . moderate iniuria turbet, 
 nee sis audita pelice mentis inops. Nee cito eredideris etc.; id. 
 Met 12, 455 Memini et venabula condi inguine Nesseis manibus 
 coniecta Cymeli. Nee tu eredideris etc.; id. Trist. 5, 14, 43 Non 
 ex difficili fama petenda tibi est. Nee te eredideris etc.; id. ex 
 Pont. I, 8, 29 Ut careo vobis, Scythicas detrusus in oras, quattuor 
 autumnos Pleias orta facit. Nee tu eredideris etc.; id. ib. 4, 10, 
 21 Hos ego, qui patriae faciant oblivia, sucos parte meae vitae, si 
 modo dentur, em am ! Nee tu eoniuleris urbem Laestrygonis 
 etc.; id. Fasti 6, 807 Par animo quoque forma suo respondet in 
 ilia, et genus et facies ingeniumque simul. Nee quod laudamus 
 formam tu tuvpe putaris ; 
 
 Tibull. 2, 2, 13 lam reor hoc ipsos edidicisse deos. Nee tibi 
 malueris etc.; id. 4, i, 7 Est nobis voluisse satis, nee munera 
 parva respueris; 
 
 Propert. 3, 13 (20), 33 (Miiller) . . . tumque ego Sisyphio saxa 
 labore geram. Nee tu supplicibus me sis venerata tabellis ; id. 
 3, 28, 33 . . . cur reus unus agor? Nee tu virginibus reverentia 
 moveris ora ; 
 
 Livy 5, 53, 3 ego contra — nee id mirati sitis, priusquam quale 
 sit audieritis — etiam si tum migrandum fuisset incolumi tola urbe, 
 nunc has ruinas relinquendas non censerem ; id. 21, 43, 11 . . . 
 ''hie dignam mercedem emeritis stipendiis dabit." Nee quam 
 magni nominis bellum est, tam difficilem existimariiis victoriam 
 fore ; id. 23, 3, 3 Clauses omnis in curiam accipite, solos, inermis. 
 Nee quicquam raptim aut forte temere egeritis ; 29, 18, 9 Quibus, 
 per vos fidem vestram, patres conscripti, priusquam eorum scelus 
 expietis, neque in Italia neque in Africa quicquam rei gesseritiSy 
 ne . . . luant. 
 
 I have included the instances of this use from Early Latin in 
 the above list, for the sake of completeness and for the purpose of 
 facilitating comparison with what I have to say regarding the 
 construction in classical times ; for the following remarks will be 
 chiefly concerned with classical prose. It will be observed that 
 there are twelve instances of this use in Cicero — five of them 
 
25 
 
 outside of his Letters. It seems to have been taken for granted 
 that these are examples of the same construction as that in the 
 prohibitive nefeceris. Grammars cite them side by side with the 
 last-mentioned construction, often without so much as a comment. 
 See, e.g., Madvig, 459, obs.; Roby, 1602; Gildersleeve, 266, rem. 
 I ; Draeger, Hist. Synt., §149 B b (p. 313) ; Allen and Greenough, 
 266 3; Riemann, Syntaxe latine (Paris, 1890), p. 483; Schmalz- 
 Landgraf in Reisig's Lat. Vorlesungen, p. 482 ; Schmalz, Lat. 
 Synt., §31 ; Kuhner, Ausfiihrl. Gram. d. lat. Sprache, II, §§47, 9; 
 48, 3 ; 48, 4 ; etc., etc. And still they bear upon their face a 
 suspicious look. What is nee doing in such a very pronounced 
 and direct expression of the will in Cicero ? Apart from these 
 particular expressions, all grammarians agree that neque {nee), in 
 the sense of neve (jieu), is extremely rare in classical prose. I 
 shall presently try to show that it does not occur at all in any 
 voUtive expression outside of poetry until the beginning of the 
 period of decline, with the possible exception of one instance in 
 Nepos. And still the grammars, even the most recent of them, 
 would give us to understand that Cicero (of all writers I), in 
 adding a prohibition in the perfect subjunctive, invariably, except 
 in one passage, uses neque {nee). Neve {neu) with the perfect 
 subjunctive occurs only once in Cicero in a prohibition. And we 
 are asked to believe that neque {nee) occurs twelve times ! Let 
 us see whether such a state of things really exists. 
 
 Evidently our best starting-point in attempting to discover to 
 what extent neque (nee) was used in prohibitions will be found in 
 expressions whose prohibitive character is beyond all question, 
 viz. expressions in which the verb is in the imperative, or, if in 
 the subjunctive, is preceded by another verb which itself is intro- 
 duced by ne or neve. The use of ne or neve will show beyond all 
 possibility of doubt that the mood of the verb is volitive in char- 
 acter. Without the presence of such a ne or 7ieve, one may often 
 claim the right at least to doubt any one's interpretation of the 
 mood of a given verb as volitive in meaning. For instance, when 
 Cicero says (Ac. 2, 46, 141) . . . tam moveor quam tu, Luculle, 
 nee me minus hominem quam te putaveris, there is nothing to 
 show that 7iee . . , putaveris does not mean 'nor would you for a 
 moment suppose that I am less human than you,' But, if we had 
 such a sentence as ne . . . dixeris, nee putaveriSy we could hardly 
 escape the conclusion that nee putaveris must be in the same 
 construction as ne dixeris. 
 
26 
 
 What is to be said, then, of the use of neque {nee) with the 
 imperative prior to the period of Cicero, in whom the passages 
 under discussion are found ? Merely this, that it does not once 
 occur in any production, whether prose or poetry, of the whole 
 ante- Ciceronian period. In the same period neve {neu) with the 
 imperative occurs 121 times. These instances are nearly all in 
 the laws, i. e. in prose : Corpus Inscriptionum Lat. I 28 (three 
 times) ; 197 (eight times) ; 198 (twelve times) ; 199 (three times) ; 
 200 (thirty-four times) ; 204 (five times) ; 205 (three times) ; 206 
 (forty-five times) ; 207 (once) ; 576 (twice) ; 1409 (twice). Other 
 instances are XII Tabulae, X i ne . . . neve urito ; Plant. Stich. 
 20 ne lacruma neu face ; Cato, de agri cult. 144, i neve facito. 
 Sometimes the ne is repeated : Ter. Heaut. 84 and 85 ne retice, 
 ne verere. An examination of the Ciceronian period discloses 
 the same condition of things, except that there does seem to be 
 one clear instance of this use of nee in Catullus 8, 10.^ It still 
 remains very rare during the first half of the Augustan period. 
 Horace has it once, Od. 2, 7, 19. Possibly there are two other 
 instances in Horace, viz. Od. i, 9, 15 Quem fors dierum cumque 
 dabit, lucro adpone nee dulees amoves sperne, puer, neque tu 
 choreas, though here it might be said that the negatives connect 
 merely the substantives, and the negative idea for the verb is 
 allowed to take care of itself; and Od. 3, 7, 29 Prima nocte 
 domum claude neque in vias sub cantu querulae despice. In 
 this last passage it may be that it is not so much the idea of 
 despice that is negatived as that oiin vias. There is no objection 
 to the act of looking down, but it must not be in vias. This use 
 is also very rare in Vergil, though neve with the imperative is 
 very common in his writings. By the time, however, of Tibullus, 
 Propertius and Ovid, the old distinction between neque (nee) and 
 
 ^ The following instances must not be confused with this use: Cic. ad Att. 
 12, 22, 3 Habe tuom negotium, nee quid res mea familiaris postulet sed quid 
 velim existima; id. Leg. 3, 4, ii Qui agent auspicia servanto, auguri publico 
 parento, promulgata, proposita, in aerario cognita agunto, nee plus quant de 
 singulis rebus semul consulunto, rem populum docento etc. . . . Censores 
 fidem legum custodiunto ; privati ad eos acta referunto nee eo magis lege liberi 
 sunto. In the first of these passages the idea of the verb is not negatived at 
 all. The meaning is ' Think, not this, but that.' In the second passage, 
 similarly, the negative spends its force upon plus quam etc., and the meaning 
 is 'they are to consult not more than once.' In the third case, likewise, the 
 meaning is 'and not on this account (whatever other grounds there may be) 
 are they to be free,' etc. Only the first of these passages gives us the words 
 of Cicero, the others being quotations made by him from laws. 
 
27 
 
 neve (neu) had broken down, and the one was used about as freely 
 as the other with the imperative. But from first to last the use 
 remained a poetical license.^ 
 
 The above facts in themselves are enough to prejudice us very 
 decidedly against explaining any neque (nee) in Cicero as intro- 
 ducing a prohibition. But let us now turn to neque {nee) used in 
 prohibitions expressed by the subjunctive. As before pointed 
 out, we can be sure that the subjunctive in such cases is hortatory 
 in character only when ne or neve (neu) has preceded. How 
 often, then, does neque {nee) occur in such clearly prohibitive 
 uses of the subjunctive mood? Not once in prose from the 
 earliest times till after the Augustan period, and only once in 
 direct address in poetry,^ Horace being again the poet who first 
 ventures to make the innovation (Od. i, ii, 2).^ When a writer 
 wishes to add a second prohibition to one already introduced by 
 ne, or neve, he does so sometimes by neu: Plant. Merc. 396 ne 
 duas neu dixeris; id. Poen. 18 ff. ne sedeat, neu mutiiant, neu 
 obambulet, neu ducat; id. ib. 30 Ne sitiant neve obvagiant; id. 38 ne 
 detur neve extrudaniur ; Cato, de agri cult. 5, 4 ; ib. 38 ; ib. 83 ; 
 ib. 143; Cic. Ac. 2, 40, 125 ne asciveris neve fueris adsensus; 
 etc.; sometimes by aut: Plant. Cure. 539 Ne facias aut censeas ; 
 Ten Eun. 14 Ne frustretur aut cogitet; sometimes by the repe- 
 tition of ne: Ter. Haut. 85 ne retice, ne verere; Cato, de agri 
 cult. 5, 2. 
 
 Now, with all this evidence before him, one should hesitate long 
 before explaining any neque {nee) in Cicero as used with a volitive 
 subjunctive. All other possible interpretations should be tested 
 first. Now let us turn to the passages from Cicero which have 
 prompted these remarks. There are twelve instances in Cicero 
 of neque {nee) with the perfect subjunctive, which have been 
 
 ^ In Livy 22, 10, 5 Si id moritur, quod fieri oportebit, profanum esto, neque 
 scelus esto, the meaning may be ' and it shall be no scelus.'' 
 
 ^Capt. 437 Ne tu me ignores tuque te pro libero esse ducas, pignus deseras, 
 neque des operant pro me ut huius reducem facias filium must not be mistaken 
 as illustrating this use. If neque here introduced a prohibition, the meaning 
 would be ' and do not give,' which would be the direct opposite of the meaning 
 intended. The ne at the beginning forms the prohibition with des, as with 
 ignores, ducas and deseras, and the negative of neque merely reverses the 
 meaning of the word des. The meaning is 'and do not not give^ i. e. 'and do 
 not fail to give,' = et ne non des. 
 
 ^ With the third person it seems to occur at rare intervals as a poetic license, 
 e. g. Catullus 61, 126. 
 
28 
 
 looked upon as prohibitions. In not one of them has anything 
 preceded that even suggested a prohibition. Most of them are 
 preceded by simple assertions, or questions, in the indicative 
 mood. In those cases where a subjunctive has preceded, the nee 
 begins an entirely new sentence, so loosely connected with the 
 preceding that editors separate the two sentences with a period. 
 A striking proof that this use of the perfect subjunctive with nee 
 is a construction entirely distinct from that of ne with the same 
 mood and tense is found in the fact that certain writers who never 
 use the latter at all are wont to make frequent use of the former. 
 Ne with the perfect subjunctive is, for instance, entirely foreign to 
 Ovid, but that poet, as will be seen by consulting the citations 
 given above, uses nee with the same mood and tense, in sentences 
 exactly similar in every way to those in Cicero, at least eleven 
 times. The same condition of things exists in Vergil, TibuUus 
 and Propertius, none of these authors making any use whatever 
 oine with the perfect subjunctive, whereas they present repeated 
 instances of nee with that mood and tense. Again, this construc- 
 tion is found in the Orations of Cicero, where ne with the perfect 
 is never used except once in a quotation, pro Sulla 8, 25 ; of also 
 Verr. 2, i, 54, 141. But there is other evidence perhaps even 
 more striking than this. It will be remembered that we found, 
 prior to the beginning of the period of decline, only two or three 
 instances of verbs denoting merely mental activity used in pro- 
 hibitions expressed by ne and the perfect subjunctive; while in 
 all other sorts of prohibition such verbs were found in large 
 numbers. We found conclusive proof that this form of prohi- 
 bition was felt to be unsuited to expressing such mild prohibitions 
 as 'do not think,' 'do not believe,' etc. Refer now to the list 
 above given of nee with the perfect subjunctive. Out of the 38 
 instances there given of this use — a decidedly smaller number 
 than exist of ne with the perfect in the same period — 15 are of 
 just the sort of verbs that are so uniformly absent from prohibi- 
 tions expressed by ne with that tense. Surely all this looks as 
 though we are on altogether different ground. We shall find 
 later on that the fact that so many verbs denoting mental activity 
 are found with this use of nee forms as strong an argument in 
 favor of assigning the use to a certain other class of constructions 
 as it forms against classifying it in the usual way. 
 
 There now remains, so far as I can see, only one possible 
 argument which those can use who still prefer the common 
 
29 
 
 interpretation of these clauses. It is claimed by our Latin 
 grammars that neque {nee) is occasionally used in Cicero in other 
 sorts of volitive clauses where it is equivalent to neve (rieu). No 
 less an authority than Schmalz (Revision of Krebs' Antibarbarus, 
 II, p. 121 ; Revision of Reisig's Vorlesungen, p. 482) expresses 
 this view in very distinct terms. Now, some one may say, if 
 Cicero uses neque (jiec) at all in expressions of the will, as in 
 purpose clauses, there is no reason why he should not use it in 
 any volitive expression. Even if the premises were true, this 
 would hardly seem a fair conclusion to draw from them, but I 
 venture to dispute the premises and to claim that neque {nee) is 
 never used by Cicero to negative the subjunctive in purpose 
 clauses, or in any other volitive clauses. The proof of this is 
 given by Schmalz's own statistics, and it is surprising that he 
 did not see it. 
 
 Before taking up the passages that have been supposed to 
 contain examples of neque {nee) in volitive clauses, it will be well 
 to remind ourselves of certain facts which must be kept constantly 
 in mind. The most important of these facts is this : that every 
 purpose clause is, at the same time, a result clause as well. When 
 a man says : * I wish to train my children properly, that they may, 
 in after years, be honored citizens,' their being honored citizens 
 is, to be sure, the purpose of his training, but it may also be 
 conceived of merely as the future result of that training. The 
 use of the word 'that' instead of 'so that,' and 'may' instead of 
 ' will,' shows that in this particular instance the purpose idea is 
 probably uppermost in the mind of the speaker. Suppose now 
 he says : ' I wish to train my children properly, so that (i. e. to 
 train them in such a way that) they will, in after years, be 
 honored citizens.' The two sentences practically mean the 
 same thing, and one might at any time be substituted for the 
 other; but in the second the substitution of 'so that' and 'will* 
 shows that the feeling uppermost in the mind is that of result. 
 In cases of this sort the mind may be fixed upon what will be 
 the result of the action, and the idea of purpose that is implied 
 may be left to take care of itself. Now, the Latin language 
 is not fortunate enough, except in negative clauses, to have 
 separate mechanisms in such cases to make clear the predomi- 
 nant feeling. The Latin would express the two ideas 'in order 
 that they may' and 'so that (with the result that) they will' in 
 exactly the same way. It accordingly very frequently happens 
 
30 
 
 that it is impossible to determine whether a clause introduced by 
 ut is to be classed as a purpose clause or a result clause. Such, 
 for instance, are the following sentences : . . . omni contentione 
 pugnatum est, uti lis haec capitis aestimareiur (Cic. Cluent. 41, 
 116); Conscios interfecit ut suom scelus celaretur ('that his 
 crime might be concealed' or 'so that his crime was concealed') ; 
 . . . exarsit dolor. Urgere illi, ut loco nos mover ent; factus est 
 a nostris impetus ; etc. It is true that what precedes an e^/-clause 
 commonly shows whether the coming «/- clause is to be felt as a 
 purpose clause or a result clause ; but it is. also true that it very 
 frequently does not. More than that : it often happens (and this 
 is of especial importance in this connection) that what precedes 
 would lead one to expect that a result clause is to follow, when a 
 final clause, or some other kind of volitive clause, actually does 
 follow. Such a sentence is found, for instance, in Ter. JPhorm. 
 975 Hisce ego illam dictis ita tibi incensam dabo, utne restinguas, 
 lacrimis si extillaveris. The expression ita tibi incensam dabo 
 ('I will render her so enraged at you') might lead one to expect 
 the thought to be completed by a clause of result, viz. ut non 
 restinguas etc. = ' that you will not appease her anger, if you cry 
 your eyes out.' Instead of that, the thought is shifted, and the 
 sentence is completed, as the ne clearly shows, by an expression 
 of the will. The meaning of the passage then is: 'I will make 
 her so enraged at you, that you shall not. ('shall,' instead of 'will,' 
 denoting determination rather than mere futurity) appease her 
 anger,' etc.^ 
 
 Such expressions of determination, purpose and the like, where 
 a result clause might commonly be expected, are not at all infre- 
 quent. Such a shifting of feeling cannot, of course, be detected 
 when the subordinate clause is affirmative ; but where that clause 
 is negatived, the choice between the negatives ne and 7ion will 
 show, beyond all question, the predominant feeling of the clause. 
 I have made no attempt to collect passages illustrating this 
 particular point, but Brix has made a collection of such passages 
 
 ^ I should not deem it necessary to stop to interpret the ne in this and 
 similar passages, had not so distinguished a scholar as Brix, in my opinion, 
 wholly misunderstood it. Misled by preconceived notions as to what ought 
 to follow such expressions as ita tibi incensam dabo, he makes the statement 
 (ad Plant. Mil. 149) that tie and ut ne are sometimes used " nicht nur in Final-, 
 sondern auch in Consecutivsatzen." 
 
31 
 
 from Plautus and Terence in his note on Plaut. Mil. Gl. 149.^ In 
 any one of these passages, all of which are cited and discussed in 
 my note appended below, ut non, instead of ne or ut ne, would be 
 perfectly possible and would, in fact, have been expected, but the 
 use of ne, or ut ne, shows that the contents of the w^clause were 
 looked upon not primarily as a result of anything, but rather as 
 
 ^ Brix cites the passages as illustrations of the consecutive use of ne and ut 
 ne, but it will be noticed that in each case the ne, or the ut ne, may, without 
 violence, and in fact without the least difficulty, be interpreted as involving 
 in some form a distinct expression of the will; and, if this is the case, surely 
 there can be no possible excuse for explaining it differently. Here are the 
 passages, in the order in which Brix gives them: Mil. Gl. 149 . . . eum ita 
 faciemus ut, quod viderit, ne viderit, ' will manage him so that he shall not have 
 seen, i. e. shall not think that he has seen,' etc. ('shall not,' instead of 'will 
 not,' implying that the act is Willed by the subject of faciemus) ; id. Capt. 738 
 Atque hunc me velle dicite ita curarier, ne qui deterius huic sit quam quoi 
 pessumest ; id. Most. 377 Satin' habes, si ego advenientem ita patrem faciam 
 tuom, non modo ne intro eat, verum etiam ut fugiat longe ab aedibus? id. 
 Bacch. 224 Adveniat quando volt atque ita ne sit morae ; id. Capt. 267 ne id 
 quidem involucri inicere yolnit, vestem ut ne in^uinet/ id. Men. iioo Prome- 
 ruisti ut ne quid ores, quod velis quin impetres ; id. Trin. 105 Est atque non 
 est mihi in manu, Megaronides: quin dicant, non est: merito utne dicant, id 
 est ; id. Mil. Gl. 726 Ita me di deaeque ament, aequom fuit deos paravisse, 
 uno exemplo ne omnes vitam viverent ; Ter. Hec. 839 Ad pol me fecisse 
 arbitror, ne id merito mihi eveniret. It is true that in the instances, cited by 
 Brix, oi potin ut ne, the introduction of a volitive feeling is somewhat surpris- 
 ing, but such a turn of the thought is perfectly intelligible and offers not the 
 slightest excuse for supposing that ne is here used in the sense of ncn. (That 
 such a use did once exist admits of no doubt [cf.«<? . . , quidem, ne-scio etc.], but 
 reminiscences of this use are not found in cases like those under discussion.) 
 In Men. 606 Potin ut mihi molestus ne sis, there is a fusing together of two 
 expressions ; Potesne ? mihi molestus ne sis ! The feeling that prompts the 
 speaker's words here may be expressed by 'Cease your annoyance, can't you?' 
 We might put these same words into the form of a question pure and simple : 
 'Can't you cease your annoyance?' and if they were uttered with the proper 
 emphasis and tone, the hearer would understand them at once as a command, 
 and not at all as a question asking for information. In cases like the above, 
 then, the choice of ne instead of non is determined by the feeling of the 
 speaker, without regard to the grammatical form in which the sentence is cast. 
 A similar phenomenon is found in the use of quin. This word really means 
 'why not?' and should, strictly speaking, take the indicative, as in Ter. 
 Heaut. 832 Quin accipis? But 'why don't you take it?' under certain circum- 
 stances is felt as really meaning ' take it ! ', and in such cases quin is frequently 
 found with the imperative, as in Ter. And. 45 Quin tu die, regardless of the 
 fact that quin is, or was, an interrogative. Similar phenomena are found also 
 in Greek, where we find jui^ or fir^di used even with the future indicative in 
 
32 
 
 an expression of somebody's will. The idea of result is in most 
 cases present, but the mind is fixed primarily upon the idea of 
 will that accompanies it. Clauses similar to those cited from 
 Plautus and Terence are not uncommon in the best classical 
 prose and poetry, as will be seen by consulting Draeger's Hist. 
 Synt. II, §410. 
 
 Now, if volitive clauses are so common where result clauses 
 might be expected, we should not be greatly surprised if result 
 clauses are occasionally found where purpose clauses might be 
 expected, especially since the ideas of purpose and result are, 
 confessedly, so closely associated. And it is the failure to recog- 
 nize this fact that has led grammarians to assert that neque (nee) 
 is occasionally used in final clauses. As intimated above, the 
 latest champions of the view that this. use is found in Cicero are 
 Schmalz and Landgraf, who express it in their revision of Reisig's 
 Vorlesungen, p. 482. But they greatly damage their own side of 
 the question by certain concessions which they make. They even 
 lay stress upon the fact that neque (nee') is never used in a clause 
 introduced by ne, neve (neu) being the invariable word in such 
 cases. Again, in Schmalz's revision of Krebs' Antibarbarus he 
 says: "An dieser Regel, dass nee nie bei Cicero zur Fortsetzung 
 von ne dient, muss unbedingt festgehalten.' This is true, despite 
 the bare assertion of Draeger in his Hist. Synt., §543, 7. Schmalz 
 might have made his statement even more sweeping and said that 
 such a use of neque (7iec) does not occur anywhere in the best 
 classical prose. With the exception of one passage in Nepos 
 (Pausanias 4, 6), it remains a strictly poetical license, and ex- 
 tremely rare besides, until the time of Livy. Now, side by side 
 with this fact, let us put certain other facts to which reference has 
 
 questions which imply a prohibition, e. g. Soph. Tr. 1183 Oi Qaaaov olaeig //^d' 
 cnricT^aeig kfiol 'will you not extend your hand and not distrust me?' This 
 question implies a prohibition, ' extend your hand and do not distrust me^ and 
 the fact that the speaker felt it as such accounts for his using iir}&t instead of 
 ov6i, which the future indicative would otherwise call for (cf. Goodwin, Moods 
 and Tenses, §299). Such a shifting of the thought inside of a sentence would 
 of course be more common in colloquial language than in dignified styles. It 
 is seen again in Persa 286 Potin ut molestus ne sis? In Pseud. 636 Potest ut 
 alii ita arbitrentur et ego ut ne credam tibi, the feeling must be ' It is possible 
 that others think so (that you are honest) and that I nevertheless am not to 
 trust you,' implying that, from some source or other, he has received the 
 warning ne credas 'Do not trust him.' This warning would, from his own 
 point of view, become ne credam ' I am not to trust you,' in which, of course, 
 the volitive feeling would still remain. 
 
33 
 
 been made. We found that the clauses now under discussion 
 are really known to be primarily volitive in character only when 
 they are introduced, or accompanied, by ne or neve. But clauses 
 thus introduced, or accompanied, by 7ie or neve, in spite of the 
 fact that they occur everywhere very frequently, present not a 
 single instance, in the best prose, of a second verb added by 
 neque {nee), such verbs being invariably added by neve (neu). 
 Is not the inference clear? The few «/-clauses continued by 
 neque (nee) thdit. have been supposed to be purpose clauses are 
 to be interpreted as laying stress rather upon the result idea. 
 Let us apply the interpretation I have suggested to the clauses 
 in question, bearing constantly in mind the serious objection I 
 have pointed out to the common interpretation : 
 
 Cic. ad fam. 9, 2, 3 Ac mihi quidem iam pridem venit in 
 mentem bellum esse aliquo exire, ut ea quae agebantur hie 
 quaeque dicebantur, nee viderem nee audirem, i. e. * to escape to 
 some place where I should no longer see, or hear,' etc. ('the 
 result of which flight would be that I,' etc.) ; 
 
 in Caecil. 16, 52 qui si te recte monere volet, suadebit tibi ut 
 hinc discedas neque mihi verbum ullum respondeas, i. e. 'will 
 advise you in such a way as to result in your departing without 
 saying a word in reply'; 
 
 Verr. II 2, 17, 41 Illi eum commonefaciunt ut utatur instituto 
 suo 7iec cogat ante horam decimam de absente secundum prae- 
 sentem iudicare ; impetrant, i. e. 'they earnestly plead with him, 
 with the result that he follows his usual custom and does not 
 compel, etc.; they thus win their point'; 
 
 de off. 2, 21, 73 In primis autem videndum erit ei, qui rem 
 publicam administrabit, ut suom quisque teneat neque de bonis 
 privatorum publice deminutio Jiat, i. e. 'he will have to see to it 
 and bring about the result that,' etc.; 
 
 de ofl*. I, 29, 102 Efficiendum autem est ut adpetitus ratronil 
 oboediant eamque neque praecurrant nee propter pigritiam aut ; 
 ignaviam deserant, where efficiendum calls particular attention tO/ 
 the result ; 
 
 Lael. 12, 40 Nulla est igitur excusatio peccati, si amici causa- 
 peccaveris ; nam, cum conciliatrix amicitiae virtutis opinio fuerit, 
 difficile est amicitiam manere, si a virtute defeceris. . . . aeque 
 autem nefas sit tale aliquid et facere rogatum et rogare. . . . 
 Haec igitur lex in amicitia sanciatur, ut neque rogemus res turpis 
 7iec faciamus rogati. This 2^/-clause has been wrongly explained 
 
34 
 
 as volitive in character, because haec lex has been supposed to 
 look forward to the ^/-clause, and rogemus and faciamus have 
 been looked upon as representing the hortatory subjunctive of 
 the lex. But the whole burden of thought in the preceding 
 chapter has been that one should never do wrong even for a 
 friend. Haec lex looks backward to the principle there laid 
 down, and the meaning is ' Let this, of which we have spoken, be 
 an established principle in friendship, so that we shall not (i. e. 
 with the result that we shall not) ask a friend to do wrong, nor 
 do it ourselves when asked.' 
 
 The three following passages may be considered together : in 
 Verr. II 3, 48, 115 Nunc, ut hoc tempore ea . . . praetermittam 
 neque eos appellem, a quibus omne frumentum eripuit, . . . quid 
 lucri fiat cognoscite ; id. ib. II 4, 20, 45 Ut nofi conferam vitam 
 neque existimationem tuam cum illius, hoc ipsum conferam, quo 
 tu te superiorem fingis; id. de imp. Cn. Pomp. 15, 44 Itaque ut 
 plura non dicam neque aliorum exemplis confirmem quantum 
 auctoritas valeat in bello, ab eodem Cn. Pompeio omnium rerum 
 egregiarum exempla sumantur. These passages involve the 
 same idiom that we have in our 'so to speak.' It is customary 
 to explain the idiom as one developed from the idea of purpose. 
 It may well have started with some such idea, but it drifted so 
 far away from its starting-point that oftentimes there is certainly 
 no idea of purpose left. *So to speak' becomes merely an apolo- 
 getic phrase, meaning 'if I may say so,' 'so speaking.' In the 
 first of the passages just cited the meaning is merely 'Now, 
 passing by those, etc., for the present and without calling up 
 those from whom, etc., learn,' etc. As far as the real logical 
 relation of such clauses to the sentences in which they stand is 
 concerned, it is often impossible to conceive of them as purpose 
 clauses at all. When they are meant as such they take ne as 
 their negative. But in the clauses above there is no such mean- 
 ing. In the first clause neque was used for the same reason that 
 would have made it appropriate if the expression were praeter- 
 miiiens neque appellans (if I may be allowed to use the participle 
 in this way, to illustrate my point) ; and the choice of negative in 
 the other clauses may be similarly explained. The difference 
 between such clauses as these, and those introduced by ne with 
 which they have been classed, will become evident to any one 
 who will examine such a collection of instances as is found in 
 Roby, Lat. Gram. 1660: Cic. ad fam. 15, 19 ne longior sim, vale, 
 
35 
 
 ' in order that I may not become tedious, I will say good-bye'; id. 
 Deiot. I Crudelem Castorem, ne dicam sceleratum et impium, i. e. 
 'I call him crudelem, in order to avoid a harsher term'; etc., etc. 
 It will be found that the clauses in question cannot be treated in 
 this manner. 
 
 The use of 7ieque (nee) to connect two verbs in the volitive 
 subjunctive must be very carefully distinguished from that in 
 which the negative merely negatives the idea of a single word, or 
 phrase, in which case the negative is used without reference to 
 the mood of the verb. Such clauses are the following : 
 
 Cic. de orat. i, 5, 19 . . . hortemurque potius liberos nostros 
 ceterosque, quorum gloria nobis et dignitas cara est, ut animo rei 
 magnitudinem complectantur neque eis se aut praeceptis aut 
 magistris aut exercitationibus, quibus utuntur omnes, sed aliis 
 quibusdam, quod expetunt, consequi posse confidant. Here the 
 negative in neque does not negative the verb at all, but merely 
 contrasts the eis with the following sed aliis, the verb itself being, 
 like complectantur, used in a positive sense ; 
 
 Cic. Fin. 4, 4, 9 Quid, quod pluribus locis quasi denuntiant, ut 
 neque sensuum fidem sine ratione nee rationis sine sensibus exqui- 
 ramus, where the negatives spend their force entirely upon the 
 phrases sensuum fidem sine raiione and rationis sine sensibus, 
 without any regard to the mood of the verb ; 
 
 Caes. B. G. 7, 75 ne tanta multitudine confusa nee moderari nee 
 discernere suos nee frumentandi rationem habere possent, where 
 the negatives connect the infinitives, without any regard to the 
 subjunctive.^ 
 
 No objection to this interpretation can be found in the fact that 
 neve (neu) is frequently used in volitive clauses even to negative 
 single words and phrases, e. g. Cic. de legibus 2, 27, 67 . . . earn 
 ne quis nobis minuat neve vivos neve mortuos; id. ad fam. 1,9, 19 
 , . . peto a te, ut id a me neve in hoc neve in aliis requiras. 
 There is, in the first place, a wide difference between such clauses 
 as these last and the others. In these last the acts {earn . . . 
 
 1 The negatives in the following clauses from Early Latin may be similarly 
 explained, though they seem to be extreme cases : C. I. L. I 196, 10 Magister 
 ne</ue vir neque mulier quisquam eset ; Plaut. Asin. 854 Neque divini neque mi 
 humani posthac quicquam adcreduas, Artemona, si huius rei me mendacem 
 esse inveneris ; and perhaps Capt. 605 (though this may be explained differ- 
 ently, as will appear later) Neque pol me insanum, Hegio, esse creduis neque 
 fuisse umquam neque esse morbum, quem istic autumat, i. e. 'depend upon it, I 
 am not crazy, nor have I ever had the disease,' etc. 
 
36 
 
 minuat and id . . . requiras) are absolutely negatived — they are 
 not to occur under any conceivable circumstances. In the other 
 passages the act in each case is to take place, but with certain 
 exceptions and restrictions, and it is these exceptions and restric- 
 tions that are introduced by the negative in neque (nee). In each 
 case the negative has to do only with its own particular word, or 
 phrase, and is not affected by the character of the clause as a 
 whole. When, however, the feeling of negative volition extends 
 over the whole clause and everything in it, and all the negatives 
 partake of the volitive coloring, we have neve (neu). 
 
 There now remain, as supposed instances of 7ieque {nee) in 
 volitive clauses, only the following passages, all of which have, 
 in my opinion, been misinterpreted: Cic. de re pub. i, 2, 3 Et 
 quoniam maxime rapimur ad opes augendas generis humani 
 studemusque nostris consiliis et laboribus tutiorem et opulen- 
 tiorem vitam hominum reddere . . . teneamus eum cursum, qui 
 semper fuit optimi cuiusque, neque ea signa audiamus, quae 
 receptui canunt, ut eos etiam revocent, qui iam processerint ; 
 Sail. Jug. 85, 47 Quam ob rem vos, quibus militaris aetas est, 
 adnitimini mecum et capessite rem publicam : neque quemquam 
 ex calamitate aliorum aut imperatorum superbia metus ceperit; 
 Cic. de off. I, 26, 92 Quae primum bene parta sit nullo neque 
 turpi quaestu neque odioso, deinde augeatur ratione, diligentia, 
 parsimonia, tum quam plurimis, modo dignis, se utilem praebeat, 
 nee lubidini potius luxuriaeque quam liberalitati et beneficentiae 
 pareat, though perhaps here the negative in nee should be looked 
 upon as negativing merely the idea of lubidini and luxuriae, as 
 opposed to liber aliiati and beneficentiae. The misinterpretation, 
 as I conceive it, of these passages has been due primarily to the 
 failure to recognize the extent to which a certain class of subjunc- 
 tives is used in Latin, and this failure, in turn, may be due, in 
 part at least, to a wrong theory regarding the origin of this 
 particular usage. I refer to that use of the subjunctive which 
 deals with expressions of obligation and propriety. Such a use 
 of the subjunctive is hardly recognized at all by grammarians, 
 except in certain questions like, e. g., cur ego non laeier? and 
 in certain subordinate clauses like, e. g.. Nihil est cur tibi vera 
 non dicat. In such clauses the meaning of obligation, or pro- 
 priety, must of course be recognized by all ; and such clauses 
 have been regarded as traceable to a volitive origin. Such 
 questions as cur ego no7i laeter f are looked upon as intimately 
 
37 
 
 connected with the deliberative subjunctive, and are put into the 
 same category as quid agamf ('what shall I do?'). Any one 
 may see the results of such a treatment by examining Kiihner's 
 Ausfiihrl. Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, Bd. II, §47, 2 b 
 (p. 137). Here are gathered together numerous questions in the 
 present subjunctive, all professing to illustrate the deliberative 
 question as a subdivision of the volitive subjunctive; but the 
 surprising thing to my mind is that questions with ne and 
 questions with non are given side by side as illustrations of the 
 same construction, apparently without the least consciousness that 
 there is any difference in meaning between the two. I wish to 
 protest against the practice of associating together such questions 
 as quid agam, indices f (Cic. Verr. 5, i, 2), Ne doleam? (Cic. ad 
 Att. 12, 40, 2), on the one hand, and cur ego non laeter? (Cic. 
 Catil. 4,1,2) and hunc ego non diligam ? Non admirer ? (Cic. 
 Arch. 8, 18), on the other. It seems to me that all the evidence 
 points to their belonging to entirely distinct uses of the subjunc- 
 tive mood. The questions of the first class deal with the will. 
 When a man says quid agam 9 (' what shall I do?') he is asking 
 himself or some one else for directions. The answer will be an 
 expression of the will: 'Do so and so.' Similarly, the question 
 ne doleam f anticipates from some source or other a prohibition 
 •I am not to grieve? (are those your commands?).' But the 
 questions of the other set are very far removed from any such 
 meaning. Cur ego non laeter? means 'why should I not be 
 glad?' and the answer, so far as any is expected, will be 'you 
 should not (ought not to) be glad for the following reasons,' etc., 
 or ' you should (ought to) be glad,' or the like. Similarly, Kunc 
 ego non diligam 9 means ' should I not (ought I not to) love this 
 man ? ' ^ The will in this last case is not involved in the slightest 
 degree. There is, accordingly, no idea of deliberation in the 
 question. Cicero's mind had been made up long before, and 
 hunc ego non diligam 9 is merely a rhetorical way of saying 
 "surely I ought to love such a man as this." I can find no 
 instance in Latin literature of non introducing a question which 
 is truly deliberative in character. Where that negative is used 
 in questions which grammarians have been pleased to call delib- 
 
 ^ The only explanation of non that will prove satisfactory for all the instances 
 concerned is one that regards it as parallel in every way with the non in cur 
 non laeter? This interpretation may seem more acceptable later on in this 
 paper. 
 
38 
 
 erative, the context shows that the question either is settled 
 already, and so is purely rhetorical in character and equivalent 
 to a negative assertion of obligation, or propriety, or possibility ; 
 or else asks for information, anticipating in reply an assertion of 
 obligation, or propriety, or possibility. It never asks for advice, 
 or direction — it never anticipates in reply an expression of the 
 will in any form. In other words, it is never deliberative. We 
 should therefore never expect to find ne as a negative in such 
 questions, nor in the answers to such questions, and we never do 
 find it. And here I wish to call attention to a strange error of 
 which Kiihner has been guilty. In §47, 2 (pp. 136-7) of his 
 Latin grammar, in speaking of questions of deliberation, he says: 
 "Die Negation ist ne'^ He then proceeds to give a list containing 
 ten negative questions, all of which he calls deliberative and eight 
 of which are negatived by non. The two which are negatived by 
 ne (both found in the same passage, Att. 12, 40, 2) are not inde- 
 pendent questions at all ; they depend upon the vetb of demand- 
 ing that has preceded. The truth is that the negative type of the 
 deliberative question, corresponding to the Greek deliberative 
 subjunctive with ^r], is not found in the Latin language. The 
 Latin confines its deliberative questions to positives ; the Greek 
 frequently gives them a negative form ; we in English sometimes 
 combine the two forms, e. g. 'Shall I go, or shall I not?' 
 
 While it is true that non never occurs in deliberative questions, 
 as a negative of the subjunctive, it is equally true that ne never 
 occurs in expressions of obligation, or propriety. The following 
 passages may be referred to as illustrations of negative questions 
 of obligation, or propriety: Plant. Most. 2, 2, 24; id. Trin. 133; 
 Ter. Hec. 342; And. 103; id. 384; Cic. Vat. 2, 4; Arch. 8, 19; 
 Catil. 4, I, 2; ad fam. 10, 23, 15; Plane. 7, 18. Many others will 
 be found by consulting Merguet's Lexikon zu Cicero. But, some 
 one will say, these questions are at least developments from the 
 deliberative question, and so go back ultimately to a volitive 
 origin. Of this there is not the slightest evidence. The only 
 thing that can be said, so far as I can see, in favor of such a 
 theory is that one can conceive how such a transition might 
 have taken place.^ 
 
 ^ It is barely possible that some one might cite the following passages in 
 support of such a view, inasmuch as they are commonly translated by the use 
 of 'should,' while having ne as a negative : Cic. ad Att. 2, i, 3 ... isdem ex 
 libris perspicies et quae gesserim et quae dixerim : aut ne poposcisses ; ego 
 
39 
 
 It seems to me that we must regard this use of the subjunctive 
 as connected with the subjunctive used to express the 'would' 
 idea (commonly designated in the grammars as the 'potential'). 
 The two expressions 'no one would think' and 'no one should 
 think' do not lie so far apart that one conception could not 
 readily pass into the other. In fact, it frequently happens that 
 one hesitates whether to use 'would' or 'should' in translating a 
 subjunctive. Such a case is found in Tac. Ann. 3, 50 Studia illi, 
 ut plena vaecordiae, ita inania et fluxa sunt; nee quicquam grave 
 ac serium ex eo metuas, qui suorum ipse flagitiorum proditor non 
 virorum animis sed muhercularum adrepit. In translating this 
 passage there is really no choice between 'nor would you appre- 
 hend anything' and 'nor should you,' etc. That the two ideas 
 are practically equivalent for certain purposes is shown by the 
 fact they are sometimes expressed by the same word in our own 
 language ; and it is shown by similar phenomena in at least one 
 other language besides Latin. Our word 'should' may, under 
 certain circumstances, express obligation or propriety, or may 
 represent the conclusion of a condition corresponding to a less 
 vivid future condition in Latin. The sentence 'I should attack 
 the enemy, if my commander should give the order,' may mean 
 'I ought to attack them' under those circumstances, or it may 
 mean merely that the act would occur under those circumstances. 
 Such a transition of thought may also be paralleled from the 
 
 enim tibi me non offerebam ; id. Verr. 2, 3, 84, 195 . . . sin, ut plerique faciunt, 
 in quo erat aliqui quaestus, sed is honestus atque concessus, frumentum, 
 quoniam villus erat, ne emisses, sumpsisses id nummorum, quod tibi senatus 
 celiac nomine concesserat. But these passages do not support any such 
 theory. In the first place, one must look upon ne poposcisses and ne emisses 
 with suspicion. No other instance of such a use can, I believe, be found — 
 at least before the period of Silver Latinity; and the manuscript evidence in 
 at least one of these passages is somewhat shaky. At any rate, no argument 
 as to the origin of a construction can be based upon one or two curiosities of 
 comparatively late times. If these two instances are to stand, they must be 
 looked upon as purely volitive in character. Ne poposcisses and ne emisses are 
 simply ne poposceris and ne emeris from a past point of view — they are prohi- 
 bitions conceived of in the past. Any one who would insist upon 'you should 
 not have bought' as an accurate translation of ne emisses would, to be con- 
 sistent, have to admit 'you should not (ought not to) buy' as an accurate 
 translation of ne emeris. When ne emisses is translated by 'you should not 
 have bought,' 'should not' must be understood as merely the past of 'you 
 shall not,' which, despite the original meaning of 'shall,' contains no idea of 
 obligation, but is merely the expression of the speaker's will. 
 
40 
 
 ^Greek in the use of the so-called potential optative. While 
 such expressions as ovk av . . . dyopevois start with the idea 'you 
 would not talk,' this has in Horn. II. 2, 250, and elsewhere, come 
 to mean 'you should not talk.' See Goodwin's Moods and 
 Tenses, §237. Another proof that the two ideas are readily 
 exchangeable is found in the fact that the place of a Greek 
 potential optative with av, in the conclusion of a condition, is 
 sometimes taken by xpv with the inf. and equivalent expressions 
 (Goodwin's Moods and Tenses, §§502, 555). This is a clear 
 recognition of the practical equivalence in such cases of the 
 potential idea ('would think') and the idea of obligation and 
 propriety. It seems at least as natural, then, to associate 
 together these two uses of the subjunctive as it does to associate 
 the use under discussion with a volitive idea. But I do not care 
 to press further this theory. Let the reader still cling, if he will, 
 to the theory of a volitive origin. In one point we must still 
 agree, and that is that the negative in clauses of obligation and 
 propriety is, from the earliest times to the latest, invariably non, 
 and not once ne. 
 
 This subjunctive of obligation or propriety is the use I referred 
 to above as not having received the recognition it deserves. 
 What good reason is there for limiting such a use of the subjunc- 
 tive to certain forms of questions and subordinate clauses, when it 
 would suit many other clauses far better than the common inter- 
 pretation ? Is it not, when one stops to think of it, a little strange 
 that grammarians and editors, without a moment's hesitation, 
 translate such questions as cur non audiamus f as meaning ' why 
 should we not hear ? ' and then apparently regard it as impossible 
 that non audiamus ^ without the cur, can mean 'we should not 
 hear'? In the question with cur the negative is, without excep- 
 tion, from the earliest times 7ion — never ne — and still, when 
 exactly the same thing is found in a declarative form, gram- 
 marians (e. g. Kiihner, II, p. 145) and commentators proceed to 
 work out some ingenious theory to show how non came to be 
 used where ne would have been expected. 
 
 If those who are interested in this question will only get rid of 
 the idea that the subjunctive in clauses of obligation or propriety 
 must in some way be associated with the volitive subjunctive, and 
 will then recognize this use as having somewhat freer scope than 
 they have been accustomed to suppose, they will find that many 
 difficulties will be at once disposed of. They will, in the first 
 
41 
 
 place, be relieved of the necessity of explaining why those few 
 clauses which they are willing to call clauses of obligation have 
 non instead oine. But this will be only a beginning of the satis- 
 faction that their new belief will bring them. The passages from 
 Cicero and Sallust which prompted these remarks will then be 
 perfectly clear and their negatives perfectly regular. The one 
 from the de re pub.: teneamus eum cursum, qui semper fuit 
 optimi cuiusque; neque ea signa audiamus quae etc., will then 
 mean 'we should keep to that course which has always been 
 that of all good men, and should not heed the signals which,' etc.^ 
 The neque quemquam meius ceperit in Sallust will mean 'nor 
 should any one fear.' Many other difficulties will cease to be 
 difficulties. In Cic. pro Cluent. 57, 155 Quoniam omnia com- 
 moda nostra, iura, libertatem, salutem denique legibus obtinemus, 
 a legibus non recedamus, the no7i recedamus will mean ' we should 
 not recede.' The negatives in the following passages may be 
 similarly explained : Cic. de re pub. 4, 6, 6 Nee vero mulieribus 
 ^YdiQiQcins praeponatur . . ., sed sit censor, qui viros doceat mode- 
 rari uxoribus; id. ad Att. 14, 13 A Patere, obsecro, te pro re 
 publica videri gessisse simultatem cum patre eius: non contem- 
 peris hanc familiam ; honestius enim et libentius deponimus 
 inimicitias rei publicae nomine susceptas quam contumaciae. 
 
 The choice of non instead of 7ie will now be clearly understood 
 in such passages as the following : Ter. And. 787 Hie est ille : 7ion 
 te credas Davom ludere; Plant. Trin. 133 Non ego illi argentum 
 redderem? Cic. Arch. 8, 18 Hunc ego non diligam? Non 
 admirer? Non omni ratione defendendum piitem? id. 19 Nos 
 . . . 7ion poetarum voce moveamur 9 ad fam. 14, 4, 5 Quid nunc 
 rogem te, ut venias, mulierem aegram et corpore et animo con- 
 fectam ? Non rogem ? Sine te igitur sim ? We noticed earlier 
 in this paper that neque (nee) is not found in Early Latin in 
 clauses that are stamped as volitive in character by the use of an 
 
 ^ The whole context is distinctly in favor of taking audiamus in this sense. 
 There is no instance of any such hortatory expression previous to this in the 
 production, nor on the pages following. On the other hand, there are, in the 
 ten lines next preceding, repeated expressions of obligation denoting what 
 ' we ought to do,' e. g. Ergo ille civis . . . ipsis est praeferendus doctoribus ; 
 quae est enim istorum oratio tarn equisita quae sit anteponenda bene consti- 
 tutae civitati publico iure et moribus? Equidem quem ad modum urbis 
 magnas viculis et castellis praeferendas puto, sic eos, qui his urbibus consilio 
 atque auctoritate praesunt, iis, qui omnis negoti publici expertes sunt, longe 
 duco sapientia ipsa esse anieponendos. 
 
42 
 
 imperative or by the use of an accompanying ne or neve. In the 
 face of such a condition of things, one must feel great hesitation 
 in supposing neque {nee) to be used in any voJitive clause during 
 that period. And still, what is to be done with the following? 
 Plant. Bacch. 476 Ipsus neque amat, nee tu credas ; id. Capt. 149 
 Ah, Hegio, numquam istuc dixis neque animum induxis tuom ; 
 id. Trin. 627 Noli avorsari neque te occultassis mihi (This is the 
 only passage in which a clear prohibition of any sort precedes. 
 It does not count for much against the mass of evidence bearing 
 in the other direction, and it is not necessary here to regard 
 neque occultassis as a prohibition) ; Enn. Ann. 143 (Baehrens) 
 Nee mi aurum posco nee mi pretium dederitis ; id. 509 Nemo me 
 dacrumis decoret nee funera fleta faxit; Lucil. Sat. 30 (Baehrens 
 775) neque barbam inmiseris ; Ter. And. 392 Nee tu ea causa 
 minueris haec quae facis. The explanation I have suggested 
 clears up all of these passages. The failure to recognize the 
 use of the subjunctive for which I am pleading has repeatedly 
 resulted in the corruption of manuscripts by scholars who could 
 not understand the negative they found there. No less distin- 
 guished scholars than Riese and Schmalz are among those to 
 whom I allude. In his admirable edition of Catullus, Riese 
 (followed by Schmalz, Lat. Synt., §31) changes non siris to ne 
 siris in Catul. 66, 91 Tu vero, regina, tuens cum sidera divam 
 Placabis festis luminibus Venerem, Unguinis expertem non siris 
 esse tuam me, sed potius largis adfice muneribus. I am con- 
 vinced that there is not the slightest evidence of any kind for 
 this reading. The manuscripts, without exception, read non. 
 Ne with the perfect subjunctive is a construction unknown to 
 Catullus. More than that, it is a construction not found in any 
 poet, except 4 times in Horace, from the time of Terence till after 
 the Augustan Age (and it is rare even then), while the construc- 
 tion involved in my interpretation of the passage is found in every 
 prominent poet of the Golden Age. I showed, too, in Part I of 
 this paper, that ne with the perfect is not used in dignified address 
 until Silver Latin. This is true even in Horace, the only poet 
 who uses the construction at all. But the passage in Catullus is 
 addressed to a queen {regina Bere7iice, daughter of Ptolemy 
 Philadelphus), and such a harsh and abrupt address would not 
 be in harmony with the mock-heroic style of the poem.^ Similar 
 
 ^My interpretation is in perfect harmony with the remark of Quintilian in 
 I. 5. 50. of which so much has been made by those who read ne siris. See my 
 Appendix. 
 
43 
 
 corruptions have taken place for similar reasons in Rutil. Lup. 
 II 9 non credideris; Sen. Nat. Qu. i, 3 non dubitaveris ; Nepos, 
 Ages. 4, I quare veniret non dubitaret. On the reading in these 
 passages cf. Reisig-Haase, Lat. Synt., neu bearbeitet von Schmalz 
 und Landgraf, p. 481. Manuscripts only too often need to be 
 delivered from their friends. 
 
 We are now ready to return to the passages in Cicero that have 
 prompted all of these remarks. My explanation of nee with the 
 perfect subjunctive in those passages has, I presume, already been 
 surmised. They seem to me instances of that particular phase of 
 the so-called (unfortunately^) potential subjunctive which is com- 
 monly translated by the use of the auxiliary 'would/ or, in the 
 first person, 'should.' In applying this test to the various 
 instances, one must keep in mind that this idea sometimes 
 approaches that of obligation or propriety, and that in such cases 
 one need not hesitate, in translating, to use the auxiliary 'should * 
 instead of 'would.' The subjunctive in Acad. 2, 46, 141 Tarn 
 moveor quam tu, Luculle, nee me minus hominem quam te 
 puiaveris, is then to be translated 'nor would you (should 
 you) for a moment think that I,' etc. Such a translation makes 
 equally good sense in all the other passages in question. It is 
 open, so far as I can see, to no objection of any kind. On the 
 other hand, it receives a striking confirmation at the hands of 
 Cicero himself. I refer to Cic. Tusc. Disp. i, 41, 98 Ne vos 
 quidem, iudices, mortem timueritis. Grammars (e. g. Roby, 
 1602; Draeger, Hist. Synt., §149 B; Kiihner, Ausf. Lat. Gram. 
 II, §47, 9, p. 143) are wont to classify this as a prohibition, 
 instead of taking ne and quidem together in the sense of 'not 
 even.' This would be in conflict with two principles I laid down 
 in Part I of my paper: (i) that the perfect subjunctive is not 
 used in prohibitions addressed to iudiees, or in other dignified 
 prohibitions, and (2) that it is not, except in two or three 
 passages, used with verbs denoting mere mental activity, before 
 the period of decline. On these grounds alone I should reject 
 the interpretation referred to above. But, fortunately, I am not 
 in the present instance obliged to trust to such deductions. The 
 whole passage in Cicero is a close translation of chapters 32 
 
 ^ The term 'potential' ought, it seems to me, to be limited to expressions of 
 ability and possibility — to the 'can' and the 'may' ideas. I see nothing in 
 the term 'potential' that makes it appropriate for designating any other 
 construction. 
 
44 
 
 and 33 of Plato's Apolog^ia Socratis. The part of which the 
 particular sentence concerned is a translation runs as follows: 
 'AXXa Kiti vfiag XPV^ ^ audpes diKaaTai, eveXnidas eii/ai npos rov Bdvarov. 
 The perfect subjunctive is, then, here equivalent to xph with the 
 infinitive. This, taken in connection with the use, above referred 
 to, of xpn ^^^ the infinitive for the potential optative in conclusions 
 of conditions, seems to me to prove beyond all possible doubt 
 that no7i timueriiis may, without the least hesitation, be translated 
 by 'you should not fear,' nee putaveris by ' nor should you think,' 
 etc., etc., wherever 'should' seems to make a better translation 
 than 'would.' 
 
 I have called attention above to the fact that the predominance, 
 in the construction of nee with the perfect subjunctive, of verbs 
 denoting mere mental activity proves that the construction cannot 
 be the same as that formed by ne with the perfect. But the 
 classes of verbs found in this construction form as strong an 
 argument in favor of my interpretation as they form against the 
 common interpretation. It will be noticed that of the lo verbs 
 in this construction in Cicero, 8 are verbs of mental action or of 
 saying. By referring to the sections on the potential subjunctive 
 and the subjunctive of modest assertion in any of our Latin 
 grammars, it will be found that in a similarly large majority of 
 the examples there given the verbs belong to one or the other 
 of these two classes. Roby calls attention to the striking pre- 
 dominance of such verbs in the potential mood (the term ' poten- 
 tial' being employed to include such uses as nemo putet 'no one 
 would think'), and especially when the perfect tense is used, in 
 his Latin Grammar, §1536 (cf. also Kuhner, II, §46, p. 133). In 
 §§1536-46 he gives a large number of instances of the perfect 
 subjunctive in the ist person and an equally large number in the 
 3d person, accompanied in both persons by negatives, and all 
 explained as instances of the so-called potential (to be translated 
 by 'would' or, in the ist person, by 'should'). But instances of 
 the 2d person, accompanied by a negative, exactly similar in 
 everything other than in the person and showing the same 
 striking predominance of verbs of the same sort, Roby, like all 
 the rest, classifies with the perfect subjunctive, under the sections 
 on prohibitions (v. §1602). The only exception I find is nee 
 laudaveris (Cic. Leg. 3, i), out of which, fortunately, no one 
 could possibly make a prohibition. Why such a dearth of these 
 perfects in the 2d person, when they are so very common in the 
 
45 
 
 ist and 3d persons? The truth seems to be that they are plen- 
 tiful enough, if we will only recognize them when we see them. 
 
 I hope it will be admitted that I have made good my claim that 
 neque (nee) is never found in Ciceronian prose with a volitive 
 subjunctive. If any one still clings to the belief that some of the 
 clauses I have just been considering are volitive, then I would 
 remind him again of the fact, an all-important one in this 
 connection that, among all the clauses introduced by ne or neve 
 and continued by the addition of a second verb (and there are, 
 literally, hundreds of such clauses), neque (nee) is, with but a 
 single exception in a second-rate writer, unknown to prose as a 
 connective, and extremely rare in poetry, before the time of Livy. 
 There are so many such clauses that this omission cannot be 
 accounted for as a matter of chance. Until some one can explain 
 the absence of neque {nee) from all the various clauses, dependent 
 and independent, which alone are known to be volitive in feeling, 
 we certainly have a right to insist that he shall exhaust all other 
 possible explanations before ever recognizing neque as used with 
 a volitive subjunctive in Ciceronian prose. 
 
 A word should now be said regarding the use of nihil (nil), 
 numquam, ne — quidem, and ?iullus with the perfect subjunctive. 
 They occur as follows : 
 
 Nihil (nil) : Plant. Mil. 1007 Hercle banc quidem nil tu 
 amassis; mihi desponsast; Rud. 11 35 tu mihi nihilum ostenderis; 
 Cure. 384 Nil tu me saturum mo7iueris. Memini et scio ; Ps. 232 
 Nil curassis: liquido's animo : ego pro me et pro te curabo; 
 Most. 511 Nil me curassis: ego mihi providero ; Cic. in Verr. 2, 
 I, 54, 141 nihil dh isto vafrum, «z^z7 veteratorium exspectaveritis ; 
 pro Mur. 31, 65 ''Nihil ignoverisy Immo aliquid, non omnia. 
 '' Nihil ovcixAno gratiae concesseris.'' Immo insistito, cum officium 
 et fides postulabit ; ad Att. 2, 9 7iihil me existimaris neque usu 
 neque a Theophrasto didicisse; ib. 4, 17 (18), 4 De me 7iihil 
 timueris, sed tamen promitto nihil ; ib. 5, 11 Tu velim Piliam 
 meis verbis consolere; indicabo enim tibi ; tu illi nihil dixeris ; 
 accepi fasciculum, in quo erat epistola Piliae; ib. 5, 21 A Quinto 
 fratre his mensibus nihil exspectaris ; nam Taurus propter nivis 
 ante mensem lunium transiri non potest ; ib. 7, 8, 2 animadver- 
 teram posse pro re nata te non incommode ad me in Albanum 
 venire III. Nonas lanuar.; sed, amabo te, nihil incommodo vale- 
 tudinisy'^^^m; quid enim est tantum in uno aut altero die? ib. 8, 
 
46 
 
 2 Nihil arbitror fore, quod reprehendas. Si qua erunt, doce me, 
 quo modo effugere possim. ''NihiV inquies ** omnino scripseris "/ 
 ad Quintum i, 1,4, 14 sed si quis est, in quo iam offenderis, de 
 quo aliquid senseris, huic nihil credideris, nullam partem existi- 
 mationis tuae commiseris ; 
 
 NuMQUAM : Plaut. Capt. 149 Ego alienus ? Alienus ille ? Ah, 
 Hegio, 7iumqua7n istuc dixis neque animum induxis tuom ; Sail. 
 Jug. no, 4 arma viros pecuniam, postremo quicquid animo lubet, 
 sume utere, et quoad vives, numqvani tibi redditam gratiam 
 putaveris ; 
 
 Ne . . . QUiDEM, NULLUS : Cic. Tusc. Disp. I, 41, 98 Ne vos 
 quidem, iudices ii, qui me absolvistis, mortem timueritis (cf. Tusc. 
 Disp. 2, 13, 32 Te vero ita adfectum ne virum quidem quisquam 
 dixerii) ; Plaut. Bacch. 90 Ille quidem banc abducet : nullus tu 
 adfueris, si non lubet ; Ter. Hec. 79 Si quaeret me, uti tum dicas : 
 si non quaeret, nullus dixeris. It is customary to treat these as 
 prohibitions, but it is practically certain that some of them are 
 not volitive in character. It will be noticed that in most of these 
 instances the verbs are such as indicate mere mental activity, 
 which in itself practically decides the case against interpreting 
 them as volitive subjunctives. Not only that, but whereas we 
 found that ne with the perfect was in classical times used only 
 in familiar, every-day address, and was carefully avoided on 
 dignified occasions, in the passages under discussion there are 
 repeated instances of the perfect subjunctive on such occasions. 
 Take, for example, nihil exspedaveritis in Verr. II i, 54, 144. 
 If this were taken as a prohibition belonging to the same class 
 as ne with the perfect, it would, as shown in Part I of this paper, 
 be abrupt and harsh in tone, and not at all calculated to make a 
 favorable impression upon the iudices to whom it is addressed. 
 But under the other interpretation it would be very deferential 
 and compHmentary in tone. The expression 'j^ou would (of 
 course) expect nothing' implies full confidence in the good 
 sense and judgment of the iudices^ and would in every way be 
 appropriate to the occasion. The passage from Cic. Tusc. Disp. 
 is shown, by the Greek passage of which it is a literal translation, 
 to be equivalent to X9n with the infinitive. In the only instance, 
 then, where positive proof of this nature is at hand, my objection 
 to regarding similar constructions as belonging to the volitive 
 subjunctive is shown to be well founded. There is, to be sure, 
 no serious objection to interpreting some of these as bojia fide 
 
47 
 
 prohibitions. It is possible even that some of them are in the 
 future perfect indicative. There does not seem to be evidence 
 enough at hand to settle absolutely each individual case. 
 
 « 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 I ought perhaps to say a word regarding the use of prohibitive 
 expressions in Silver Latin. It will be noticed that I have several 
 times referred to Livy as marking the time when new construc- 
 tions began to appear. Any one who has taken pains to examine 
 any work on Latin Style, treated historically (e. g. that of Schmalz 
 in Miiller's Handbuch), must have noticed that Livy is very dis- 
 tinctly an innovator. New constructions, new words, new phrases, 
 new ways of putting things fairly swarm into literary prose through 
 the pages of Livy. He may be said in some respects to mark 
 the beginning of the period of decline. This must be my excuse 
 for classing him here with the writers of Silver Latin. So far, 
 however, as the usages I have been considering are concerned, 
 he seems to depart from what we have found to be the standards 
 of classical prose only in one important particular, viz. he occa- 
 sionally uses neque {nee) instead of the classical neve (neu) in 
 clauses introduced by ne. This use of neque {nee) occurs as 
 follows : 2, 32, 10 . . . conspirasse inde ne manus ad os cibum 
 ferrent, nee os acciperet datum, nee dentes, quae conficerent; 
 3, 21, 6 dum ego ne imiter tribunos nee me contra senatus con- 
 sultum consulem renuntiari patiar ; 4, 4, 11 Cur non sancitis, ne 
 vicinus patricio sit plebeius nee eodem itinere eat^ ne idem con- 
 vivium ineat, ne in foro eodem consistat ? 26, 42, 2 . . . periculum 
 esse ratus, ne eo facto in unum omnes coniraheret, nee par esset 
 unus tot exercitibus. 
 
 This use of neque {nee) in Livy in volitive clauses will perhaps 
 cause greater uncertainty than would be felt in Ciceronian times 
 regarding the correct explanation of certain other uses of neque 
 {nee) with the subjunctive. It is, however, difficult, when one 
 compares the instances of neque {7iee) with the perfect subjunctive 
 presented by Livy with the similar cases in Cicero, to resist the 
 conclusion that they are to be interpreted in the same way. For 
 the convenience of those who wish to make a comparison with 
 earlier usage, I append a list of the prohibitive expressions found 
 in Livy, including these questionable instances oi neque (nee). 
 
48 
 
 Ne with Perfect Subjunctive, 
 
 7, 34, 5 ne dederis (addressed by a tribune to a consul at a time 
 of great emergency); 7, 40, \2 ne destiteris (addressed in bitter 
 irony by the consul to the leader of mutinous soldiers) ; 9, 34, 15 
 ne degeneraveris (uttered by a tribune in a tirade against Appius 
 Claudius for refusing to give up office at the expiration of his 
 term) ; 10, 8, 6 ne fastidieris (earnest plea for his rights which 
 had been denied); 21, 44, 6 ne trajisieris (Hannibal working on 
 the passions of his soldiers, by quoting the arrogant demands of 
 the enemy) ; 22, 49, 8 ne funestiam hanc pugnam morte consulis 
 feceris (appeal for the life of the consul) ; 30, 30, \^ ne tot 
 annorum felicitatem in unius horae dederis discrimen (Hannibal 
 to opposing general, Scipio) ; 31, 7 ne aequaveritis (not a pro- 
 hibition, but a concession) Hannibali Philippum, ne Carthagini- 
 ensibus Macedonas. Pyrrho certe aequabitis. Aequabitis dico ? 
 Quantum vel vir viro vel gens genti praestat ! 40, 14 ne misctieris 
 (Demetrius, who had been accused of trying to murder his 
 brother, in tears, addressing his father, who is acting as judge). 
 
 Neque (nee') with Perfect Subjunctive. 
 
 5, 53, 3 nee id mirati sitis (addressed to the Quirites) ; 21, 43, 
 II nee existimaveris (Hannibal to his soldiers); 23, 3, 3 nee 
 quicquam raptim aut forte temere egeritis ; 29, 18, 9 neque in 
 Italia neque in Africa quicquam gesseritis (addressed to the 
 patres conscripti). 
 
 Numquamy nusquam with Perfect Subjunctive. 
 
 Livy I, 32, 7 numquam siris (addressed to Jupiter); 21, 44, 6 
 nusquam te moveris. 
 
 Ne with Present Subjunctive. 
 44, 22 rumores credulitate vestra ne alatis (Weissenborn). 
 
 Neque {nee) with the Present Subjunctive. 
 
 22, 39, 21 armatus intentusque sis neque occasioni tuae desis 
 neque occasionem hosti des. 
 
 Neque with Imperative. 
 
 22, 10, 5 neque scelus esto (probably = * and it shall be no 
 crime,' the negative spending its force upon scelus). 
 
49 
 
 Ne with Imperative. 
 3, 2, 9 «<f timeie. 
 
 Noli with Ivfijiitive, 
 
 7, 24, 6 yiolite expedare; 7, 40, 16 nolite ad versus vos velle 
 experiri; 10, 8, 5 noli erubescere ; 32, 21 nolite fastidire (twice); 
 34, 4 nolite existimare ; 34, 31 nolite exigere ; 38, 17 «<?///^ exis- 
 timare ; 38, 46 w^/Z/i? existimare. 
 
 Cave with Present Subjunctive. 
 
 5, 16, 9 cave sinas; 8, 32, 8 r«z'^ mitt as ; 22, 49, 9 ^«z;^ absumas ; 
 30, 14, II ^<a^z^^ deformes et corrumpas. 
 
 My statistics for Silver Latin proper cover only Phaedrus, the 
 tragedies of Seneca, Tacitus and the Declamationes that com- 
 monly go under the name of Quintilian. They have, however, 
 been so hurriedly gathered that I will not vouch for their com- 
 pleteness, though the omissions cannot be many. My examin- 
 ation of these authors leads me to think it probable that the 
 principles I have laid down for classical times will, in the main, 
 hold also for Silver Latin, though, as we should expect, in view 
 of the general breaking up of classical standards, exceptions are 
 more common. Prohibitions (including, as usual, the instances 
 of neque [necj) occur, in the works mentioned, as follows : 
 
 JVe with the Perfect Subjunctive. 
 
 Phaedrus: App. 11 7ie istud dixeris (gymnast to a man who 
 had questioned his strength) ; 26, 5 ne timueris (countryman to a 
 hare). 
 
 Seneca : none. 
 
 Tacitus: Ann. 6, 8 ne patres conscripti cogitaveris; Hist, i, 16 
 ne territus fueris (Galba to his successor in office, familiarly 
 grasping his hand) ; 2, 77 ne Mucianum spreveris (Mucianus to 
 Vespasian). 
 
 Quintiliani (?) Declam.: none. 
 
 Neque (nee) with Perfect Subjunctive. ^..^ 
 
 Phaedrus : none. ff 
 
 Seneca : none. 
 
 Tac. Hist. 2,47 nee tempus computaveritis ; 2, 76 7iec expaveris. 
 Quintiliani (?) Declamationes 249 7ieque negaveris (three times) ; 
 257 neque spectaveris. 
 
50 
 
 Nihil with Perfect Subjunctive. 
 Tacitus: Ann. i6, 22 nihil vps^ scripseris. 
 
 Ne with Present Subjunctive, 
 
 Phaedrus and Seneca : none. 
 
 Tacitus : Dial. 17 w<? dividatis. 
 
 Quintiliani (?) Declamationes 306 ne quid improbe/^/«j. 
 
 Neque {nee') with Present Subjunctive. 
 
 Phaedrus, Seneca, Quint. (?) Declam.: none. 
 
 Tac. Ann. 3, 50, 5 nee metuas; id. ib. 6, 8 nee adseguare. 
 
 Ne with Imperative. 
 
 Seneca: Thyest. 917 7ie parce ; 984 ne mettie ; Phoen. Frgm. 
 495 ne verere; 556 ne erue neve everte ; 645 ne ntetue ; Phaed. 
 136 extingue neve praebe; 227 ne ciede ; 1002 ne metue ; 1249 
 ne metue; Medea 1024 ne proper a. 
 
 Noli with Injinitive, 
 
 Phaedrus: i, 25 nolivereri; 2, 3 noli facere ; 3, 18 noli adfec- 
 iare; 4, 7 noli esse. 
 
 Quintiliani (?) Declamationes 247 nolimirari; 315 nolite dare; 
 
 375 noli die ere. 
 
 As regards the use of non in Silver Latin, I believe that it still 
 continued to be carefully distinguished from ne. It will be found 
 that some of the supposed instances of non in the sense ofne may 
 be explained by understanding the non to spend its force upon 
 some particular word^; and that the others, without exception, 
 become perfectly clear if the subjunctive concerned is understood 
 as one denoting obligation, or propriety, of which non and negue 
 are the regular negatives. To this latter class belong, for instance. 
 Sen. Q. N. I, 3, 3 non dubitaveris ; Rutil. Lup. II 9 non credideris; 
 Sen. Ep. 99, 14 non imperemus ; Quint. 1,1,5 -^^ assuescat ergo 
 sermoni, qui dediscendus sit; id. 7, i, 56 non desperemus; etc. 
 Even the much-cited passage in Ovid : aut non teniaris aut perfice, 
 
 * This hypothesis will also explain the supposed occurrence of non with the 
 imperative in Ovid. No other author, I believe, has been suspected of such 
 barbarism ; of. Schmalz, Lat. Synt. 37 ; Ktihner, AusfUhrl. Gram. d. Lat. Spr. 
 II, §48. I. 
 
51 
 
 may be explained in the same way : ' you should either not try at 
 all, or else, if you do, effect your object.' An unjustified use has 
 been made in this connection of Quint, i, 5, 50 qui tamen dicat 
 pro illo ne feceris non feceris, in idem incidat vitium, quia alte- 
 rum negandi est alterum vetandi. This passage has been cited 
 to show that non feceris is not good Latin, whereas it distinctly 
 says that it is good Latin. Quintilian is merely trying to explain 
 the difference in use between ne and noUy as any one might do in 
 a similar treatise. He does not even imply that non ever was 
 used in literature in the sense of ne. All he says is that if a man 
 should so use it {dicat)^ he would make the same mistake^ etc. It 
 is then probable that aut non tentaris aut perfice does not repre- 
 sent an error of a class to which Quintilian has been supposed to 
 refer, but that it is a perfectly legitimate usage. Still, inasmuch 
 as neque {nee) is found with the imperative mood in poetry, and 
 inasmuch as there are undoubted instances in the prose of Silver 
 Latin of neque (nee) in clauses of negative purpose, it must be 
 admitted that there may be some doubt about my interpretation 
 of non in some of the clauses cited from this period. But it seems 
 to me that, to say the least, the probabilities are on my side. 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO 50 CENTS ON THE FOURTH > 
 DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 on '.i 1939 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 LD 21-20m-5,'39 (9269s) 
 
692541 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY