SOME USES OF NEQUE (NEC) IN LATIN.

BY J. B. GREENOUGH.

HERE are several uses of neque or nec in Latin in which the force of the connective seems entirely to vanish, leaving only the negative force of the ne. This phenomenon has been felt to be so surprising that Müller (Sup. ad Fest. p. 387) endeavored to distinguish two different words in this form, one of which was compounded with another particle than que. But it is an old maxim, causae non praeter necessitatem multiplicandae. So that if any reasonable theory can account for the usage, the supposition of two words confused in one form is to be excluded.

A striking and suggestive example is found in Livy, I, 25, 10, qui nec procul erat. While examining this passage, I was struck with the similarity of this use of nec to that of the English neither in some very common forms of expression.

A familiar jibe on the multitude of volunteer officers in our late war ran: 'I met thirteen brigadiers in passing one block, and it wasn't much of a day for brigadiers either.' The word either is one of the comparative words like other, whether, etc., which must go in pairs either in form or at least in thought, and can evidently only be used when the two correlative or corresponding branches are of the same nature. An either. nor or a neither . . . or is logically impossible. It is clear therefore that in all cases where not

. . either or neither is used in the second branch, a negative must exist, or at least have once existed, concealed somewhere in the first one. This negative, however, is often quite difficult to formu

But its existence is made quite plain by a logical examination of the street boys' altercation, 'You're making faces at me '—'I aint neither ''You be too.' Here the use of too in the last reply shows clearly that the neither implies another negative predicate preceding. This is then made affirmative and reasserted as such along with the expressed one by denying the negative of both. The ne in neither is of course only an illogical doubling. Another case, the easiest one

in which to discover the hidden negative implied by a neither, is where one person makes an affirmative statement, which is paralleled by a second with a negative statement of precisely the same significance, as: 'I am somewhat feeble to-day.'-'I don't feel very strong either.' Here, although the first speaker makes an affirmative predication, yet it is turned in the mind of the second into an equivalent negative, and continued as such, so that the result is a pair of negatives; ' (then neither are you very strong) nor am I very strong.' A slightly more difficult case is presented in, 'I reached to the top of the car, and I am not a tall man either.' But here it is plain that though the first statement is affirmative in form, it is really negative in purport, so that it represents something like, 'Neither am I a tall man, nor was the car any higher than I.' The case of the brigadiers is somewhat more difficult to seize, for in this case it is not a negative which is to be expressed, but an affirmative; i.e. that there were a great many brigadiers in general. But this is really not said at all, but left to inference. This is best seen by changing the whole to the affirmative form, 'I saw plenty of brigadiers, and it was a poor day for them too' (hence there must be a great many about). The negative of all this would be, Neither was there any lack of them, nor was it a good day for them' (hence they must be many). And it is evident that the double statement begins in the first (affirmative) form, but is changed in the mind of the speaker himself to the second (negative), just as in the example 'I am somewhat feeble,' etc., the same change is made by the second speaker. In the case of the street-boys' altercation the statement negatived is more vague, but may be considered as affecting the truthfulness of the first speaker, as, 'What you say is not true, nor was I making faces.'-'Both what I say is true, and you were making faces.' Of course it is not maintained that all this is present to the mind of the speaker in these cases, but only that such is the origin of the expressions, and such their logical nature when examined.

Now this same principle of the concealed negative naturally suggests itself as an explanation of these peculiar uses of nec in Latin. The Latin word is not so clearly a co-ordinating particle as the English, because it lacks the original comparative meaning which the formative element in the particles either, neither, (repos) must have had.

But the uses are parallel and will be found to fit in some

cases exactly. In many of the cases the proposition to which the nec is appended is obviously negative. The whole of the Livy passage is as follows: Prius itaque quam alter qui nec procul aberat consequi posset et alterum Curiatium conficit (I, 25, 10). Here a negative is plainly implied in prius quam posset. The logical idea is, 'The other could neither arrive in time, nor was he (as perhaps one might infer from that fact) far off.' The conclusion, not expressed, is that Horatius was very quick about despatching his antagonist. It is to be noticed that in many of the parallel cases in English the neither clause is in like manner used to contradict a supposed natural inference from the first statement. As, for instance, in the case of the brigadiers one might infer that the day in question was a particularly favorable day, and in the case of the car, that the speaker was a tall man. It is the negativing of such inferences that gives its special force to the form of expression. A case very nearly like this is found in Plaut. Cist. IV, 2, 22:

Quae neque illa illi quidquam usuist; mihi esse potest.

The man is delighted who has it (the casket), a thing which isn't of any use to him either, and may be to me.

Here the negative idea, which is only implied, is that the man's joy is unreasonable. The examples from the laws of the Twelve Tables are equally plain :

Si intestato moritur cui suus heres nec escit adgnatus proximus familiam habeto, si adgnatus nec escit gentiles familiam habento (Wordsworth, p. 256). Here the negative force of intestato is obvious. If a man dies, not leaving a will, who hasn't any heir either (any more than a will), then, etc.' 'If there isn't any next of kin either, then, etc.' The second is :

Si furiosus escit (and so not capable of taking care of himself) adgnatum gentiliumque in eo pecuniaque eius potestas esto... ast ei custos nec escit (i.e. if he is without a guardian of his kin as well as incapable) (Wordsworth, 257).

In like manner might also be analyzed the phrase 'res nec mancipi. The object intended by this phrase is a res (and so not without value), but not of the kind conveyed by the public and formal act of mancipatio, neither worthless, that is, nor (on the other hand) of the

nature of realty. The compound negotium is probably not very different from nec procul, the case first referred to. One might say, aliquid feci quod nec facile erat with the same feeling as in nec procul. So quod nec otium (which wasn't an easy time either) might be used with hardly any difference in meaning. We may compare Theodore Woolsey's summary of Sir Henry Maine's view of the significance of the Roman division of property: "The most probable explanation is that these articles were especially honored which were first known to each community. Other articles were placed on a lower standing because the knowledge of their value did not exist until after the classification was made. The Romans in this spirit divided all property into res mancipi and res nec mancipi. . . Introd. to Maine's Ancient Law, p. lii. See also Maine's Ancient Law, Chap. VIII (p. 269, Am. ed.), where the subject is treated more in detail.

The phrases nec opinans, nec opinus, are of the same kind as the preceding, but their composition is a little more transparent. A passage in Bell. Alex. 63 (where we have neque), is as follows:

Auxilia regis in id castellum Marcelli, quod proximum erat regis castris neque opinantibus omnibus . . . impetum fecerunt.

And when all were unsuspecting too; or when nobody was expecting it either.

In Bell. Alex. 75, we have commotus neque opinans imparatusque, where the two connectives may be regarded as correlative. But in Bell. Afr. 66, equitibus praemissis neque opinantes insidiatores... concidit, the word cannot be supposed to be other than a mere negative, as it became in the other words of this class. For another example, I may cite ipsum accipiter necopinum rapit, Phaedr. I, 9. (The sparrow) himself (while censuring the hare captured by the eagle) was carried off by the hawk, and when not expecting it either. He fared no better than the hare, and it was entirely unexpected too. It is well perhaps to compare ad illum modum sublitum os esse mi hodie neque id perspicere quivi. 'And I didn't see through it either,' Plaut. Capt. 783 (IV, 2, 3).

In regard to neglego, the analysis is not so easy. It may well have been an augural word, or have referred, like re-ligio, to divine manifestations or religious matters. The expression deos neglegere is a common one, and seems more likely to have attached itself to the

original meaning of the word than to have been developed later. Hence we may imagine an expression like portento monitus est nec lexit. He was warned, and didn't regard it either. It is not necessary to suppose a preceding negative proposition, though I am inclined to think there was one, as in the other cases, like, 'He was neither without a warning, nor (as you would suppose from the fact that it was given) did he regard it.' Such an expression would naturally be shortened to 'portento monitus, neglexit,' and we have the word fully formed.

The phrase nec recte dicere (loqui) is one of the most difficult. In view of the meaning of the expression, equivalent to maledicere, we may consider it a euphemistic way of saying something not agreeable to think of. We may compare such an expression as: 'The man spoke out, and not very gently either;' 'He expressed his views, and pretty forcibly too.' Under this view, dis nec recte dicis would have originally meant, 'You do not refrain from expressing your feelings towards the gods, and not in the way you should either.' The passages in which nec recte occurs are

Asinaria, I, 3, 3:

Nec recte quae tu in nos dicis aurum atque argentum merumst.

Asinaria, II, 4, 65 :

Malo hercle iam magno tuo, nunc isti nec recte dicis :

Bacchides, I, 2, II:

Mali sunt homines qui bonis dicunt male.
Tu dis nec recte dicis; non aequom facis.

Mostellaria, I, 3, 83:

Nec recte si illi dixeris iam ecastor vapulabis.

Poenulus, III, 1, 13:

Si nec recte dicis nobis dives de summo loco,
Divitem audacter solemus mactare infortunio.

Pseudolus, IV, 6, 23:

Nam quanti refert ei nec recte dicere?

To these may be added Turpilius, 24 (Ribbeck, Sc. Po. Frag. II, p. 88):

Nec recte dici mihi quae iam dudum audio.