Mors aut plane negligenda est, si omnino extinguit animum, aut etiam optanda, si aliquo eum deducit, ubi sit futurus aeternus, Cic., Cat. Maj., 19.

Si feceris id, quod ostendis, magnam habebo gratiam, si non feceris, ignoscam, Cic., ad Fam., v., 19.

Adhuc certe, nisi ego insanio, stulte omnia et incaute fiunt, Cic., ad Att., vii., 10.

Ista veritas, etiamsi jucunda non est, mihi tamen grata est, Cic., ad Att., iii., 24, in fin.

Note.-The conjunctions si and nisi express nothing else but a relation of one sentence to another; that is, the relation of condition or exception: one thing is on condition that another is; and one thing is, except in the case of another being, &c. Sentences which stand in this relation to each other are expressed by the indicative; i. e., objectively or in the form of reality. All expression of our own opinion is avoided, for this would be expressed by the subjunctive. In using the indicative, I do not express any opinion as to the possibility or impossibility of a thing; but, without any comment, I suppose a thing as actual, or (with nisi) I make an exception, which may be or may not be, but which I take as actual for the sake of the inference.

[§ 518.] 2. The following peculiarities deserve to be noticed as differing from the English:

The verbs oportet, necesse est, debeo, convenit, possum, licet and par, fas, aequum, justum, consentaneum est, or aequius, melius, utilius, optabilius est, are put in the indicative of a preterite (imperf., pluperf., and the historical perfect), where we should have expected the imperfect or pluperfect subjunctive. The imperfect indicative in this case expresses things which are not, but the time for which is not yet passed; and the perfect and pluperfect indicative things which have not been, but the time for which is passed; e.g., Cic., in Cat., i., 1, Ad mortem te duci jam pridem oportebat, i. e., thy execution was necessary and is still so; hence it ought to take place. In going back to the beginning, however, the speaker might have used the pluperfect with this meaning: "thy execution ought to have taken place long ago." Cic., de Fin., iii., 10, perturbationes animorum poteram ego morbos appellare, sed non conveniret ad omnia, I might have called them, and might do so still; Cic., ad Att., ii., 1, si mihi omnes, ut erat aequum, faverent, it was fair, and is still fair, but it does not happen to be the case. The perfect and pluperfect, on the other hand, clearly express that all is over; e. g., Cic., ad Fam., iv., 16, Volumnia debuit in te officiosior esse, et id ipsum, quod fecit, potuit facere diligentius; p. Muren., 25, Catilina erupit e senatu triumphans gaudio, quem omnino vivum illinc exire

non oportuerat; Curt., iii., 9, longe utilius fuit angustias aditus occupare, it would have been much better to occupy the pass. In the paraphrased conjugation with the participle future active and passive, too, the preterites of the indicative very frequently have the meaning of a subjunctive; e. g., Ovid, Her., xvi., 152, tam bona constanter praeda tenenda fuit, ought to have been kept. This is the case

more especially in hypothetical sentences. (§ 519.) The subjunctive in independent sentences is much less frequent than the indicative; e. g., Nep., Epam., 4, Plurima quidem proferre possemus, sed modus adhibendus est.

Chaldaei oculorum fallacissimo sensu judicant ea, quae ratione atque animo videre debebant, Cic., de Divin., ii., 43. Aut non suscipi bellum oportuit, aut geri pro dignitate populi Romani, Liv., v., 4.

Is (Tib. Gracchus) fugiens decurrensque clivo Capitolino, fragmine subsellii ictus, vitam, quam gloriosissime degere potuerat, immatura morte finivit, Vell. Pat., ii., 3.

[ 519. a.] Note 1.-This indicative supplying the place of the subjunctive is frequently retained even when an hypothetical sentence with the imperfect or pluperfect subjunctive is added; and it is here in particular that the indicative of the preterites of the paraphrased conjugation is employed; e. g., Cic., Philip., ii., 38, Omnibus eum contumeliis onerasti, quem patris loco, si ulla in te pietas esset, colere debebas ; Sallust, Jug., 85, quae si dubia aut procul essent, tamen omnes bonos rei publicae consulere decebat; Liv., xlii., 34, Quodsi mihi nec omnia stipendia emerita essent, necdum aetas vacatio nem daret, tamen aequum erat me dimitti; Cic., p. Leg. Man., 17, Quodsi Cn Pompeius privatus esset hoc tempore, tamen erat mittendus. With the perfect, Liv., xxxii., 12, deleri totus exercitus potuit, si fugientes persecuti victores essent; Cic., de Re Publ., i., 6, Consul esse qui potui, nisi eum vitae cursum ten uissem; in Vatin., 1, Etenim debuisti, Vatini, etiamsi falso venisses in suspi cionem P. Sextio, tamen mihi ignoscere; in Verr., iii., 61, Quem hominem, sı qui pudor in te, atque adeo si qui metus fuisset, sine supplicio dimittere non de buisti, hunc abs te sine praemio discedere noluisti; p. Milon., 11, quodsi ita putasset, certe optabilius Miloni fuit dare jugulum; ibid., 22, quos nisi manumisisset, tormentis etiam dedendi fuerunt; Petron., 94, Si te non invenissem, periturus per praecipitia fui. See, also, 498 and 499. But the subjunctive is also admissible, as in Cic., in Cat., iii., 7, in fin., dedendi fuissent; and p. Lig., 7, in fin., periturus fuissem (according to the common reading); de Divin., ii., 8, § 21.

Res publica poterat esse perpetua, si patriis viveretur institutis et moribus, Cic., de Re Publ., iii., 29.

Nisi felicitas in socordiam vertisset, exuere jugum potuerunt, Tacit., Agr., 31.

[§ 519. b.] Independent of this use of the indicative, instead of the subjunctive, to express that which might or should have taken place, the his. torians use the indicative of a preterite instead of the pluperfect subjunctive to express that which would actually have taken place, in sentences containing the inference from an hypothetical sentence, although the premises are not true. This figure (i. e., a mode of expression differing from the ordinary one), which is only intended to render a description more animated, is used in the first place when a part of the inference has al

ready come to pass, and would have been completely realized if some thing else had occurred, or, more frequently, if some obstacle had not been thrown in the way, whence the adverb jam is frequently added; e. g., Liv., iv., 52, jam fames quam pestilentia tristior erat, ni annonae foret subventum· Tacit., Hist., iii., 46, jamque castra legionum excindere parabant, ni Mucianus sextam legionem opposuisset; the same is also expressed by coepisse, in such passages as Tacit., Agr., 37, Britanni degredi paulatim et circumire terg vincentium coeperant: ni id ipsum veritus Agricola quattuor equitum alos venientibus opposuisset. Without the adverb jam; e. g., Tacit., Ann., i., 35, Germanicus ferrum a latere deripuit, clatumque deferebat in pectus (thus much he actually did do, and he would have accomplished his design), ni prox imi prensam dextram vi attinuissent; Tacit., Ann., iii., 14, effigies Pisonis traxerant in Gemonias ac divellebant (and would have entirely destroyed them), ni jussu principis protectae forent. The perfect and pluperfect are likewise used in this sense, and a thing which was never accomplished is thus, in a lively manner, described as completed: Sueton., Caes., 52, et eadem nave paene Aethiopia tenus Aegyptum penetravit, nisi exercitus sequi recusasset ; paene or prope is frequently added in such cases (even without an hypothetical sentence; as, prope oblitus sum, I had nearly forgotten); Flor., iv. 1, et peractum erat bellum sine sanguine, si Pompeium opprimere Brundisi (Caesar) potuisset; Plin., Paneg., 8, temere fecerat Nerva, si adoptasset alium (non Trajanum). In Cicero, however, this use of the indicative occurs only in a few passages; as in Verr., v., 49, si per Metellum licitum esset, matres illorum miserorum sororesque veniebant; de Leg., i., 19, labebar longius, nisi me retinuissem; ad Fam., xii., 10, Praeclare viceramus, nisi spoliatum, inermem, fugientem Lepidus recepisset Antonium. The imperfect indicative is sometimes, though rarely, used also for the imperfect subjunctive when the hypothetical part of the sentence does not contain a pluperfect, but an imperfect subjunctive; e. g., Cic., de Off., ii., 19, Admonebat me res, ut ho quoque loco intermissionem eloquentiae, ne dicam interitum, deplorarem, ni vererer, ne de me ipso aliquid viderer queri; Quintil., ii., 8, 8, nam et omninc supervacua erat doctrina, si natura sufficeret; iv., 1, 11, stultum erat monere nisi fieret.

Pons sublicius iter paene hostibus dedit, ni unus vir fuisset, Horatius Cocles qui, &c., Liv., ii., 10.

Actum erat de pulcherrimo imperio, nisi illa conjuratio (Catilinae) in Ciceronem consulem incidisset, Flor., iv., 1.

[ 520.] Note 2.-When we in English use the expressions "I ought" or "I should," without implying impossibility, the Latins express the same meaning by the present indicative; e. g., debes esse diligentior or dili gentiorem te esse oportet, you ought to be more diligent. The subjunctive in this case would be quite foreign to the Latin idiom. In the same man ner, the present indicative possum is frequently used for possem; e. g., Cic. in Verr., i., 47, Possum sexcenta decreta proferre; and it is the common cus tom to say difficile est, longum est, infinitum est; e. g., narrare, for which we should say "it would be difficult," "it would lead too far," "there would be no end," &c. See Ruhnken on Vell. Pat., ii., 42.

[521.] 3. The Latins commonly use the indicative after many general and relative expressions, some fact being implied. This is the case after the pronouns and relative adverbs, which are either doubled or have the suffix cunque: quisquis, quotquot, quicunque, quantuscunque, quantuluscunque, utut, utcunque, and the others mentioned in § 130 and 288; e. g., Utcunque sese res habet, tua est culpa, 1:wever this may be, the fault is thine; quicunque is est, whoever he may be.

Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentes, Virg., Aen., ii., 49.

Quem sors dierum cunque dabit, lucro appone, Horat., Carm., i., 9, 14.

Note.-Other examples are, Cic., p. Lig., 7, sed quoquo modo sese illud habet; haec querela vestra, Tubero, quid valet? Parad., 2, quocunque adspexisti, ut furiae, sic tuae tibi occurrunt injuriae, and in the same manner we must read in p. Milon., init., tamen haec novi judicii nova forma terret oculos, qui, quocunque inciderunt, veterem consuetudinem fori requirunt, where Ernesti, mistaking the usage of the Latin language, edited inciderint. See Heusinger, Praef. ad Cic., de Off., p. lv. (xl.). In de Orat., iii., 50, also, we now read versus debilitatur, in quacunque est parte titubatum, where formerly sit was read. Later writers, however, join these general relatives, and sive-sive (of which we shall speak presently) with the subjunctive

[§ 522.] 4. In the same way, sentences connected by sive-sive commonly have the verb in the indicative (unless there is a special reason for using the subjunctive); e. g., sive tacebis, sive loquere, mihi perinde est; sive verum est, sive falsum, mihi quidem ita renuntiatum est. Nam illo loco libentissime uti soleo, sive quid mecum ipse cogito, sive quid aut scribo, aut lego, Cic., De Leg., ii., 1.

CHAPTER LXXVIII.

SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD.

[§ 523.] 1. THE subjunctive is used in general, when a proposition is stated, not as a fact, but as a conception of the mind.

66

Note. The subjunctive is only a form which is given to a proposition; its substance does not come into consideration. Hence "I believe,” “I suspect," are expressed by the indicative, although these words indicate only certain conceptions, but my belief and suspicion are stated as real facts. When, on the other hand, I say "I should believe,” “I should think," the acts of believing and thinking are represented as mere conceptions, which, perhaps, do not exist at all, or even cannot exist. Hence the Latins always use the subjunctive when a sentence is to express an intention either that something is to be effected or prevented, for the actions here exist only as conceptions; e. g., pecuniam homini do, ut me defendat, ne me accuset. The English language, which has no subjunctive, avails itself of a variety of other verbs to express the nature of the sub junctive; as, may, might, could, should, would.

[§ 524.] 2. We must here first notice the difference between the four tenses of the subjunctive in hypothetical or conditional sentences, both in that part of the sentence containing the condition (beginning with the conjunctions

*

[For some excellent remarks explanatory of the subjunctive mood, consult Crombie'e Gymnasium, vol. i., p. 27; vol. ii., p. 307, seqq.]—Am. Ed

si, nisi, etsi, etiamsi, támetsi), and in the one containing the inference or conclusion. The present and perfect subjunctive are used when a conception is to be expressed together with the suggestion that it does exist or may exist; but the imperfect and pluperfect subjunctive are used when a conception is expressed together with the suggestion that it did not or could not exist; and the imperfect in this case implies present time, as in English; e. g., si velit, "if he wishes," or "should wish," implying that he either actually wishes, or, at least, may wish: in the consequent member of the proposition (the apodosis), the present or perfect subjunctive or indicative may stand; but si vellet, "if he wished," implies that he does not or cannot wish, and here the consequent member of the proposition requires the imperfect or pluperfect subjunct ive. The subjunctive without si has the same meaning as facerem, "I should do," implying that I do not or cannot do; vellem, "I should wish," implying that I might have a wish, but that in fact I do not wish, seeing that it would be of no avail. Velim and cupiam thus do not much differ from volo and cupio.

The imperfect and pluperfect subjunctive, therefore, are necessary in hypothetical sentences; but the present and perfect subjunctive differ only slightly from the indicative, and their use cannot be fixed by grammatical rules. The indicative gives to a sentence the form of reality, whereas the subjunctive represents it as an arbitrary conception, which, however, may at the same time be a reality; e. g., etiamsi te non laudo or laudabo, tamen, &c., even if I do not or shall not praise thee the reality is admitted; etiamsi te non laudem or laudaverim, if (perhaps) I should not praise thee, or should not have praised thee— the possibility is conceived. The use of the present and perfect subjunctive in these cases arises, in some measure, from the circumstance that an indefinite person is addressed in Latin by the second person singular, but only in the subjunctive; hence the subjunctive is used in such cases even where the indicative would be used if a definite person were addressed. It must farther be observed that these two subjunctives supply the place of the subjunctive of the two futures. Comp. § 496.

The difference between the tenses of the subjunctive in hypotheral sentences is observed, also, in indirect speech