afterwards distinguished as manifestum, and that the distinction arose with the necessity of recognizing another kind also. The development of the idea might be: 'This is a furtum, but then it isn't manifestum as a furtum naturally would be,' giving us a process of thought like that in some of the other cases. Compare the similar English law in cases of adultery. The form negritu given by Festus as equivalent to aegritudo, has no context from which we can get any analysis, but it is doubtless of the same kind as the others, coming nearest to nec recte. It is said by Festus to be an augural word, and this has a certain agreement with some of the other uses. A use in two old religious formulae given by Cato seems to defy analysis (examples below). It is, so far as I can see, impossible to frame any rendering in which an either or a nor should be natural in English. It is possible, however, to make a form with but not. If these sacrifices have been made (implied in illis), but anything therein has not been properly performed, then, etc.' This is not quite satisfactory, but we can hardly suppose when this example is compared with the others that neque was originally felt merely as non. The formula must be very old, and something may well have been lost, or the true nature of the whole expression may not be evident to us. Si minus in omnis litabit sic verba concipito: Mars pater siquid tibi in illis suovetaurilibus lactentibus neque satisfactum est te hisce suovitaurilibus piaculo. Si de uno duobusve dubitavit sic verba concipito; illoc porco neque satisfactum est te hoc porco piaculo. Mars pater quod tibi The slave Tranio There remains one passage in Most. III, 1, 31. seeing discovery of one of his tricks imminent, is much agitated, and moves off. His master says, Quo te agis? Tranio replies, Nec quoquam abeo. This seems at first sight a mere 'I am not going away anywhere.' But if the situation is carefully considered, it is seen to mean, 'Why! I'm not going off. You're mistaken. You misinterpret my action.' This is somewhat analogous to the streetboys' 'I aint neither,' which, as we have seen, implies a contradiction of an unexpressed statement. So that here also the nec is not a mere negative, but a connective as well. The use of nec in the form necne in double questions seems to belong under the same head. Thus : Quaesivit utrum viveret pater, necne; i.e. whether his father was alive, or whether that was not true, and he wasn't alive either (in fact). With this also may be compared the street-boys' altercation given above. There are several examples in Cicero de Legibus like those in the Twelve Tables, but as they are consciously imitated from old laws, we need not trouble ourselves with them. A use of nec is common from Cicero on, which is well established, and may throw some light on the other usages, inasmuch as it corresponds pretty closely to the same English neither. Examples are: Quo mortuo, nec ita multo post, in Galliam proficiscitur. Cic. pro Quinct. 4, 15. And not very long after either. Ad Att. 3, 17. De Quinto frater nuntii nobis tristes nec varii venerant. The extreme antiquity of these uses is shown by the fact that they are common also to Oscan and Umbrian. In both these languages, the forms nep neip are found in the sense of ne and non precisely as neque or nec is used in Latin. But they are also used in the other senses of neque (neither, nor, and not). In Umbrian they are the only negatives thus far found. In Oscan they share the field with nei, ne. These dialectic forms show that the stands for qu and not for ce, as has sometimes been supposed. They do not necessarily perhaps prove that nec may not stand for nequi, but they make it extremely unlikely, on account of the general preservation of long vowels in these languages as well as in Latin. It seems almost impossible, both from its form and its meaning, that nec should be anything else than a shortened neque, and neip anything but a shortened neipe (cf. quippe). The antiquity of the construction does not militate against the view herein expressed; it only moves the process set forth a few centuries farther back, and puts the formation of such expressions as nec manifestum and nec mancipi into a more primitive civilization, such as would be expected to produce them. The following are illustrations of the use of nep (neip) in Oscan: Eíseí terei nep Abellanos nep Novlanos pidum tríbarakattíns (in eo territorio neque Abellani neque Nolani quidquam aedificaverint.) Zvetaieff, No. 136, 45. Ibid. 231, 15. Svai neip dadid lamatir (si nec reddit veneat (?) ). Ibid. 129, 4. The antiquity of the merely negative usage of nec and its occurrence in religious and legal phraseology might naturally lead one to agree with Sinnius Capito (as quoted in Festus, M. 162): Cum si diligentius inspiciatur, ut facit Sinnius Capito, intellegi possit eam (nec) positum ab antiquis pro non, ut in XII est (with examples). The one example that gives no clue to its origin is of the very oldest. And the analysis of some of the other old ones is of course only conjectural. But, on the other hand, the uses appear in so many forms, and crop out at so many periods of the language, that it seems impossible that they should be merely a survival of an ancient use. Then again, many of the uses are capable of a natural analysis, and in very few of them is nec exactly equivalent to non. In almost all there is a suggestion of a something besides the mere negative, as has been illustrated in the treatment of the examples. The word neque, at any rate, could never in Latin have meant originally anything but and not, whatever it came to mean later; and the old case from Cato gives neque. Both forms, as we have seen, continued to contain a negative and a connective throughout the existence of the Latin language. If it had meant anything different from this to Livy or Virgil, how should it happen that they did not use it oftener? The most probable supposition is that in all the accidental cases, and in many of the stereotyped ones, it was used to express a shade of meaning something like the English neither, and that it was felt to express that shade. It is also probable that this shade of meaning (not merely the word) passed out of literary use, except in the stereotyped expressions, and that in these the meaning was hardly, and often not at all, felt, although originally present. But the meaning continued in popular use like the street-boys' neither,' and occasionally came to the surface in various authors and various forms of expression, as we have seen. THE PARTICIPIAL CONSTRUCTION WITH TUYɣável AND κυρείν. BY J. R. WHEELER. HE following combinations of the verbs τυγχάνειν and κυρεῖν, as found in the earlier Greek writers, may be thus clas THE sified : a' The present tense of the finite verb with the present participle. 1 This paper is a completion of the work to which allusion is made in the note at § 146 of the last edition of Goodwin's "Moods and Tenses." The views which Professor Goodwin there expresses in regard to the use of the verb rvyxávew with the participle will, I hope, be somewhat strengthened by the additional examples which can now be cited. I have tried to make the collection of examples as complete as possible, but the range of the literature from which they have been drawn is wide, and there is, of course, a chance that some few have escaped me. Professor F. D. Allen gave me many useful suggestions, and to Professor Gildersleeve I am indebted for calling my attention to the article by Weiske cited below. Dr. Morris H. Morgan kindly sent me the references to Andocides. |