volent, caveant intemperantiam, meminerint verecundiae, Cic., De Off., i., 34.

De Carthagine vereri non ante desinam, quam illam excisam esse cognovero, Cic., Cat. Maj., 6.

Malevolentiae hominum in me, si poteris, occurres, si non potueris, hoc consolabere, quod me de statu meo nullis contumeliis deterrere possunt, Cic., ad Fam., xi., 11.

[$ 510.] Note.-When the leading sentence contains the present imperative, si is often joined with the present; as, defende si potes (Cic., Philip., 11., 44); perfice si potes (Cic., Tusc., i., 8); expone nisi molestum est (ibid., i., 12); and hardly ever with the future. (See Chap. LXXIX.) The present with si, instead of the future, is sometimes found also in other connexions; e. g., Cic., in Verr., i., 2, Si reus condemnatur, desinent homines dicere, his judiciis pecuniam plurimum posse, sin absolvitur, desinemus nos de judiciis transferendis recusare; and very frequently in the comic poets. The rule, however, is that the future should be used. Attention was above directed to the practice of using the future of the verbs posse and velle with the conJunction si, and with the same accuracy these verbs are used in the future perfect, when the possibility or the intention of doing a thing must be proved before the action relating to it can take place. Hence we say, si voluero, si potuero, si licuerit, si placuerit, si otium habuero, instead of which we should use either the present or future; e. g., Cic., Tusc., i., 43, Veruntamen, Crito, si me assequi potueris, sepelito; de Re Publ., i., 43, Tum fit illud, quod apud Platonem est luculente dictum, si modo id exprimere Latine potuero; de Leg., ii., 18, Plato, si modo interpretari potuero, his fere verbis utitur, for he must have made the attempt to translate Plato before he can make him speak. See Heinrich on Cic., de Re Publ., p. 48, foll.

[ 511.] We add the following remarks on the farther use of the future perfect. As this tense expresses a future action as completed, it acquires the meaning of the simple future, implying, however, the rapidity with which the action will be completed. This occurs, in the first place, when another future perfect, or any other tense supplying its place, is contained in the leading sentence, so that the two actions are contemporaneous; e. g., Cic., ad Fam., x., 13, Qui M. Antonium oppresserit, is bellum confecerit ; in Verr., ii., 62, Da mihi hoc (i. e., si hoc mihi dederis), jam tibi maximam partem defensionis praecideris; Liv., xxii., 54, non aggrediar narrare, quae edissertando (i. e., si edissertavero) minora vero fecero; Cic., ad Att., v., 1, Tu invita mulieres, ego accivero pueros. But the future perfect has the meaning of a quickly completed future action, also, without any such express relation to another action; e. g., Cic., p. Planc., 33, sed medius fidius, multo citius meam salutem pro te abjecero, quam Cn. Plancii salutem tradidero; ad Att., iii., 19, Nusquam facilius hanc miserrimam vitam vel sustentabo, vel, quod est melius, abjecero; ix., 7, De triumpho tibi assentior: quem quidem totum facile et libenter abjecero; de Re Publ., i., 13, Nihil est adhuc disputatum, et quoniam est integrum, libenter tibi, Laeli, ut de eo disseras, equidem concessero. This is particularly frequent with the future perfect videro, because the act of seeing is most easily accomplished; e. g., Liv., viii., 33, Videro cessurusne provocationi sis, cui rex Romanus Tullus Hostilius cessit, which is not irreconcilable with the expressions mox, post, alias, alio loco videro, for a rapid completion can only be spoken of at the moment when the action is beginning; c. g., Cic., de Fin., i., 10, 35, quae fuerit causa, mox videro; de Re Publ., ii., 9, habuit plebem in clientelas principum descriptam, quod quantae fuerit utilitati, post videro; Acad., ii., 44, recte secusne, alias viderimus. Hence this mode of speaking generally implies, that for the moment a thing is to be dismissed from our thoughts, and can scarcely be taken into serious consideration. In the comic writers the future perfect is still more frequently used instead of the simple future.

[§ 512.] 13. The tenses of the indicative may be connected in any way which the intention of the speaker may require; e. g., I am writing now, but this time yesterday I took a walk; I know the person whom you will see to-morrow. But in dependent sentences, that is, in the subjunctive, similar tenses alone can be connected with one another, that is, the tenses of the present (present and perfect) and the tenses of the past (imperfect and pluperfect). In the rules respecting what is usually called the succession of tenses, but, more correctly, the dependence of sentences upon one another, everything depends upon the time, for the present time is suited only to the present, and the past to the past; the relation of an action depending only upon itself is never doubtful. Hence we have only to remember that the perfect naturally, and in the subjunctive always, expresses the present time, and that, consequently,

The Present and Perfect are followed by a Present and Perfect, and

The Imperfect and Pluperfect by an Imperfect and Pluperfect;

E. g., scio quid agas and scio quid egeris; audivi quid agas and audivi quid egeris; but sciebam quid ageres and sciebam quid egisses; audiveram quid ageres and audiveram quid egisses.

Note.-The Latin language, however, is not so constrained as not to be able, in cases where the sense requires it, to make presents dependent upon preterites, and preterites upon presents. It is sometimes necessary that a preterite should be followed by a present, viz., when the result of a past action extends to the present time; e. g., Cic., Brut., 88, Ardebat autem Hortensius cupiditate dicendi sic, ut in nullo unquam flagrantius studium viderim, that is, that up to this time I have never seen; Nep., Aristid., 1, Quamquam adeo excellebat Aristides abstinentia, ut unus post hominum memoriam cognomine Justus sit appellatus: tamen a Themistocle collabefactus testula illa exilio decem annorum multatus est. Here, too, the perfect subjunctive makes the dependent sentence proceed from the past, or the time to which the action of the leading verb belongs; and the result, combined with the author's opinion, is extended to the present time: "he was the only one in the whole range of history, down to the present time, that was surnamed the Just." Such variations must be admissible, although no special rule is given on their account, for they do not often occur. (Comp. my note on Cic., in Verr., v., 10, in fin., and Cic., de Fin., ii,, 20, init.) A preterite, on the other hand, might follow a present, when the dependent sentence is to express a continuing action in the past, as in Cic., in Verr., v., 11, Scitote oppidum esse in Sicilia nullum ex iis oppidis, in quibus consistere praetores et conventum agere soleant, quo in oppido non isti delecta mulier ad libidinem esset (esset here alludes to the whole period of the praetorship), but such sentences can only be considered as exceptions, and fuerit would be more regular. There are also passages in ancient writers which cannot be ex plained, and must be considered as irregularities: see my note on Cic., in

Verr., i., 30, 75; and thus we sometimes find, especially in Caesar, an ir regular transition from the preterite of the leading verb to the present of the dependent one. We cannot here enter upon the detail of such mat ters, and we shall only add the remark that, when the hypothetical imper. fect subjunctive is followed by a present or perfect subjunctive, the above rule is not violated, because the imperfect of the subjunctive refers to the present time; e. g., Sallust, Cat., 7, Memorare possem (differs from memo rare possum only by the hypothetical form of the expression), quibus in locis maximas hostium copias populus Romanus parva manu fuderit, quas urbes, natura munitas, pugnando ceperit, ni ea res longius nos ab incepto traheret. (Fudisset would have continued the hypothetical expression, but actual facts are here meant.) But even in cases like this the imperfect is generally used in the dependent sentence for the sake of the succession of tenses; as, Cic., de Fin., i., 8, Quid enim me prohiberet Epicureum esse, si probarem quae ille diceret, quum praesertim illa perdiscere ludus esset, where we should have expected dicit and sit; ad Fam., xiii., 66, A. Caecinam non commendarem tibi, quum scirem, qua fide in tuos soleres esse, nisi me patris ejus memoria moveret, where we might say sciam and soleas. Similar expressions occur frequently; comp. Cic., Philip., v., 18, in fin.; de Off., ii., 14, in fin.; Tusc., i., 21, init.

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

The historical perfect is followed by the imperfect and pluperfect.

E. g., Audivi quid ageres and audivi quid egisses. The two meanings of the perfect and their influence upon the tense of the dependent verb may be seen in the following

sentences:

Verres Siciliam per triennium ita vexavit ac perdidit, ut ea restitui in antiquum statum nullo modo possit, says Cicero (in Verr., iv., init.) with reference to the actual state of Sicily.

Conon quum patriam obsideri audisset, non quaesivit, ubi ipse tuto viveret, sed unde praesidio posset esse civibus suis, says Nepos (Con., 2), in speaking of past events. [§ 514.] Note 1.-We may in general be guided by the English language, as we translate the Latin historical perfect by our imperfect. It must, however, be observed that the Latins, owing to the very frequent use of the perfect as an aorist of the past or an historical tense, became so accustomed to its connexion with the imperfect, that in many cases they used this tense even where the Latin perfect is equivalent to the English

perfect; but this occurs only when there is a possibility of conceiving the action in its progress, and not merely its conclusion or result. Thus Cicero (in Verr., i., 1) says, adduxi enim hominem, in quo satisfacere exteris nationibus possetis, in whom you may satisfy, &c. In the same manner, Q. Cicero says at the close of an explanation (de Petit. Cons., 4), quoniam quae subsidia novitatis haberes, et habere posses, exposui, nunc de magnitudine petitionis dicam. In these sentences we should require adduxi hominem, in quo satisfacere possitis, and quoniam exposui, quae subsidia habeas et habere possis, which would not be wrong by any means, but it would be against the usage of the Latin language; for the Latins conceived the action in its duration, while we describe it, together with its result, by the perfect, and this is the case more especially when the acting person had an intention accompanying him from the beginning to the end of the action. We say, for example, "I have done this that you may see," and the Latin feci hoc, ut intelligas, would not be wrong; but as it was my intention from the beginning, it is preferable to say feci hoc, ut intelligeres, although I am not relating events, but speaking with reference to the present time. (Comp. Cic., Philip., ix., 2, 5, where restaret is quite correct.) Hence such sentences as, diu du. bitavi num melius sit, saepe mecum cogitavi quidnam causae sit, would sound strange to a Latin ear; and the more correct mode of speaking is, diu dubitavi num melius esset and saepe cogitavi quidnam causae esset, and the words diu and saepe indicate that the perfects dubitavi and cogitavi are conceived, as it were, as an aggregate of single doubts and thoughts, which themselves belong to the past time, while the conclusion extends to the present. But the rule is not upset by this remark, for when the sentence following does not refer to the separate parts of the action, but exclusively to the result, the perfect is followed by the present; e. g., Cic., ad Fam., v., 6, Ego meis rebus gestis hoc sum assecutus, ut bonum nomen existimer; Eutrop., viii., 2, Trajanus rempublicam ita administravit, ut omnibus principibus merito praeferatur. These are the results of completed actions, and not intentions continuing along with the actions. The present may be used in subordinate and dependent sentences, even after an historical perfect, if that which is to be expressed is universal, and not valid for that time only which is indicated by the leading verb; e. g., Justin, xxxi., 8, Antiocho pacem petenti ad priores condiciones nihil additum, Africano praedicante, neque Romanis, si vincantur, animos minui, neque, si vincant, secundis rebus insolescere. Here the presents express the fact of the Romans not losing their courage in misfortune, and of their not being insolent in prosperity, as peculiar characteristics of the Romans, and as true at all times; if the imperfect had been used, it would not, indeed, have been implied that at any other time the statement was not true, but the universality would not have been so clearly expressed.

[ 515.] Note 2.-The remaining question now is this: when the leading verb is a present, or (according to 516) a future, and the infinitive of a completed action is dependent on it, is it necessary to put the verbs dependent upon this infinitive in the present or the preterite, that is, the imperfect or pluperfect subjunctive? The answer to this question depends upon another, viz., as to whether, on changing the infinitive into the perfect indicative, this tense is the real perfect or the aorist? When this is ascertained, the decision is easy, according to the two preceding paragraphs, and we may say, e. g, satis mihi multas causas attulisse videor, quamobrem tibi in Italiam proficiscendum sit, I think I have mentioned to you sufficient reasons why you should go to Italy; and in this manner Cicero (p. Cluent., 24) says, nisi docet, ita se possedisse (that he has taken possession), ut nec vi nec clam nec precario possederit. But the usage of the Latin language is nevertheless different, the perfect infinitive being like the perfect indicative (§ 514), usually followed either by the imperf. or pluperf. subjunctive. Hence the above sentence should be quamobrem in Italiam tibi proficiscendum esset; compare Cic., p. Leg. Man., 10, satis mihi multa verba fecisse videor, quare esset hoc bellum genere ipso necessarium, magnitudine

periculosum, although reference is here made to the present time, and although we should say, "why this war is necessary;" in Verr., i., 12, hoc me profiteor suscepisse magnum fortasse onus et mihi periculosum, verumtamen dignum, in quo omnes nervos aetatis industriaeque meae contenderem. Both tenses are found combined in Cic., p. Caec., 13, Quid proficies, quum illi hoc respondebunt tibi, quod tu nunc mihi: armatos tibi obstitisse, ne in aedes accederes, dejici porro nullo modo potuisse, qui non accesserit.

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

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

IV. OF THE MOODS.

CHAPTER LXXVI.

INDICATIVE MOOD.

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

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