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