Summa militum alacritate, jubentium quocunque vellet duceret, oratio excepta est, Curt., vi., 10 (4).

Itaque, quod plerumque in atroci negotio solet, senatus decrevit, darent operam consules, ne quid respublica detrimenti caperet, Sallust, Cat., 29.

[§ 625.] Note.-Oportet and necesse est may likewise be followed either by the accusative with the infinitive, or by the subjunctive alone; e. g., leges oportet breves sint; Seneca, philosophiae servias oportet, ut tibi contingat vera libertas; Cicero, virtus necesse est vitium aspernetur atque oderit. Opus est generally takes the infinitive; ut, however, occurs, though rarely, with opus est, as well as with necesse est, but never with oportet.

The subjunctive alone after the verbs of entreating is rare in Cicero, but it occurs ad Fam., v., 18, tamen te magno opere non hortor solum, sed etiam pro amore nostro rogo atque oro te colligas virumque praebeas.

[§ 626.] 16. The infinitive and the accusative with the infinitive, according to §§ 588 and 597, serve to express a proposition as a thought, so that it resembles an abstract noun. Quod, with a tense of the indicative or subjunctive, on the other hand, represents a proposition simply as a fact. This is obviously the case; e. g., when, in replying to a person, we take up and repeat a previous remark of his. It is frequently indifferent whether we express a proposition by the accusative with the infinitive, or by quod; as, for example, in those cases where the predicate "it is agreeable," or "disagreeable," "it is pleasant," or "unpleasant," follows the proposition. But the infinitive is always more properly made the subject when the predicate expresses an abstract idea; but when it implies a fact, the proposition is more properly introduced by quod, to which is frequently joined a demonstrative pronoun hoc, id, illud, in order to mark its character as a fact still more emphatically.

Quod autem me Agamemnonem aemulari putas, falleris. Namque ille vix decem annis unam cepit urbem: ego contra ea, una urbe nostra, dieque uno, totam Graeciam Lacedaemoniis fugatis liberavi, Nep., Epam., 5, where Epaminondas makes this answer to an opponent.

Inter causas malorum nostrorum est, quod vivimus ad exempla, Senec., Epist., 123.

Supra belli Latini metum id quoque accesserat, quod triginta jam conjurasse populos satis constabat, Liv., ii., 18. Ex tota laude Reguli illud est admiratione dignum, quod captivos (Poenorum) retinendos censuit, Cic., de Off., iii., 31.

Note 1.-It is unquestionably a great nicety of the Latin language to be able, by means of the accusative with the infinitive, to metamorphose, as

it were, a proposition into a single abstract thought, and, at the same time, to express it in its natural relation by means of the conjunction quod. In English these two constructions likewise exist, as, "I know him to be a good man," and "I know that he is a good man ;" but the former is not used as extensively as în Latin, and the distinction between them is not observed with the same accuracy as in Latin: in Greek, too, the distinction is not adhered to with the same. accuracy. Let us explain the practice of the Latin language by an example. Take the proposition victor pepercit victis; if we make it the subject or object of another proposition, we may say either quod victor pepercit victis, or victorem pepercisse victis. The first is used when the proposition is to be left in its natural rélation; e. g., quod victor victis pepercit, magnum est, sed majus etiam, quod eos in numerum suorum recepit; i. e., the fact that he spared them and, &c.; quod rex victis pepercit, ipsi causa multorum malorum fuit. The infinitive, on the other hand, changes the proposition into an abstract noun, victorem victis pepercisse; and this mode of speaking is generally adopted when the predicate also contains some abstract notion; e. g., regem victis pepercisse justum est, magnum est, or magnum videbatur; and especially when, by the use of the infinitive present, the sentence acquires the character of generality, and is no longer limited to a particular case; e. g., victorem victis parcere justum, magnum est, magnum videtur, &c. See § 599.

It is clear that in a great many cases, and with many predicates, the choice between the two constructions must be left to discretion. We find in Cic., ad Att., xv., 1, Sed ad haec omnia una consolatio est, quod ea condicione nati sumus, ut nihil, quod homini accidere possit, recusare debeamus, where, with the same justice, the accusat. with the infinit. might have been used, ea condicione nos esse natos. Cicero, ad Quint. Frat., ii., 13, says, Te hilari animo esse valde me juvat; and Pliny, Epist., i., 13, juvat me quod vigent studia; Liv., iii., 9, Invidiosum vobis est, desertam rem publicam invadi; Cic., in Cat., ii., 7, Timeo ne mihi sit invidiosum, quod illum emiserim potius, quam quod ejecerim. Compare the examples in the treatise of Fickenscher, Commentat. de conjunctione quod, Norimberg, 1826. But the great difference pointed out above must be observed, and we must add that quod generally refers to past time; for which reason it is preferable to say, e. g., gratissimum mihi est, quod ad me tua manu scripsisti, and gratissimum mihi est te bene valere. Wherever a Roman thought it necessary to express the individual fact more emphatically, he added to quod a demonstrative pronoun, which has no influence whatever upon the construction; and hence (to take up again the above sentence) we might say, illud ipsum, quod rex victis pepercit, causa ei multorum malorum fuit; magnum est hoc, quod victor victis pepercit, &c. Comp. Cic., de Off., ii., 20, Videndumque illud est, quod, si opulentum fortunatumque defenderis, in uno illo manet gratia; sin autem inopem, probum tamen et modestum, omnes non improbi humiles praesidium sibi paratum vident.

[ 627.] Note 2.-The use of quod in repeating a previous expression or proposition of a person for the purpose of answering it occurs most frequently in letters; and quod, in this case, may be rendered in English by "with regard to," or "as regards ;" e. g., Cic., ad Fam., i., 7, Quod mihi de nostro statu gratularis, minime miramur te tuo opere laetari. Quod scribis te velle scire, qui sit rei publicae status: summa dissensio est. Quod mihi de filia et de Crassipede (to whom she was betrothed) gratularis: agnosco humanitatem tuam. Farther, Cicero writes to Terentia, Quod scribis, te, si velim, ad me venturam: ego vero te istic esse volo, Quod ad me, mea Terentia, scribis, te vicum vendituram: quid, obsecro te, quid futurum est? Such sentences, therefore, are not in any grammatical connexion with the verb that follows after them.

Nisi quod and praeterquam quod, except the fact that, or except that, are of a different kind (see.§ 735); e. g., Cic., ad Fam., xiii., 1, Cum Patrone Epicureo mihi omnia communia sunt: nisi quod in philosophia vehementer ab eo dissentio; but this, too, is simply an external addition of a proposition stating a fact.

[§ 628.] 17. A purely objective proposition is expressed by quod only when it depends upon the very general transitive verbs addere (mostly in the imperative adde or adjice, adde huc quod) and facere, joined with an adverb; as, bene facis quod me mones. Otherwise the infinitive is employed exclusively in propositions of this kind, for a proposition, when represented as the object of a verb, is already converted into a single thought.

Fecit humaniter Licinius, quod ad me, misso senatu, vesperi venit, Cic., ad Quint. Frat., ii., 1.

Hippocrates, clarus arte medicinae, videtur honestissime fecisse, quod quosdam errores suos, ne posteri errarent, confessus est, Quintil., iii., 6, 64. (He might also have said ut-confiteretur, according to § 619.)

[§ 629.] But it must be observed that after the verbs denoting a feeling of pain or joy, and the outward expression of those feelings, viz., gaudeo, delector, angor, doleo, graviter fero, succenseo, poenitet, miror, admiror, glorior, gratulor, gratias ago, queror, indignor, and others of a similar meaning, we may either use quod in the sense of "because," or "of," or "at the fact that," or the accusative with the infinitive, in the same way that we say either illa re gaudeo or illud gaudeo. Whether quod is to be joined with the indicative or subjunctive must be determined by the general rules concerning these moods: the indicative expresses a fact, and the subjunctive a concep

tion.

Gaudeo, quod te interpellavi, Cic., de Leg., iii., 1.

Meum factum probari abs te triumpho gaudio, Caesar, in Cic., ad Att., ix., 16.

Quod spiratis, quod vocem mittitis, quod formas hominum habetis, indignantur, Liv., iv., 3.

Vetus illud Catonis admodum scitum est, qui mirari se aiebat, quod non rideret haruspex, haruspicem cum vidisset, Cic., de Divin., ii., 24.

Scipio saepe querebatur, quod omnibus in rebus homines diligentiores essent, ut, capras et oves quot quisque haberet, dicere posset, amicos quot haberet, non posset dicere, et in illis quidem parandis adhibere curam, in amicis eligendis negligentes esse, Cic., Lael., 17.

Note. We should carefully mark the distinction between real objective propositions of the accus. with the infinit. (§ 602), and those in which the accus. with the infinit. may be used along with the construction of quod.

The use of quod to express a purely objective proposition would be contrary to the pure Latin idiom (the instances adduced from Cicero belong to 626, and those from Livy, iii., 52, 2, and xlv., 41, have been corrected), and is found only in the earliest Latin (see Forcellini, Lexic., s. v. quod), and in the unclassical author of the work de Bell. Hispan., 36, legati renuntiarunt quod Pompeium in potestate haberent. In the silver age, beginning with Celsus, again, some few instances occur; e. g., Celsus, i., 3., p. 25, or p. 30, ed. Bip., illud quoque nosse (scire) oportet, quod, &c.; Martial, xi., 65, hoc scio quod scribit nulla puella tibi, where the pronoun forms the transition; Sueton., Tit., 8, recordatus quondam super coenam, quod nihil cuiquam toto die praestitisset. This use of quod afterward increased, and, through the Vulgate, it became with Christian writers the ordinary mode of speaking. See Madvig, Opusc. Acad., ii., p. 232, foll. But after the verbs enumerated above, both constructions are, on the whole, equally in use, because they may be looked at from two points of view: the dependent clause may be regarded either as a kind of object (such as we frequently find with intransitive verbs), or as an explanatory sentence answering to the ablative of a noun. We may, indeed, notice this farther difference, that the verbs expressing a feeling (gaudeo, doleo, miror) are more commonly followed by the accusative with the infinitive, and those denoting the outward expression of feeling (laudo, reprehendo, accuso, consolor, misereor, gratias ago, gratulor, &c.) are more commonly construed with quod. Put there are passages in which this distinction is reversed; e. g., gratias agere is joined by Cicero with quod, and by Tacitus with the accusat. with the infinitive; Hist., iv., 64, Redisse vos in corpus nomenque Germaniae communibus deis et praecipuo deorum Marti grates agimus, vobisque gratulamur quod tandem liberi inter liberos eritis. Gratulor, when joined to a noun, takes the preposition de or the ablative alone; as, Cic., ad Fam., viii., 13, gratulor tibi affinitate viri optimi; sometimes, also, the accusative; as, Cic., ad Att., v., 20, mihi gratulatus es illius diei celebritatem, qua nihil me unquam delectavit magis, or with the addition of a participle; Cic., Philip., ii., 21, Brutus Ciceroni recuperatam victoriam est gratulatus; Liv., i., 28, Mettus Tullo devictos hostes. gratulatur; but when a proposition is dependent upon gratulor, it most commonly takes the conjunction- quod (answering to the preposition de), but the accus. with the infinit. is also used.

[§ 630.] 18. Quod is used exclusively in explanatory or periphrastic propositions, which refer to a preceding demonstrative pronoun (hoc, id, illud, istud), unless this pronoun be added in the nominative or accusative, as a pleonasm to verbs governing the accusative with the infinitive. Hence this rule finds its certain application only when the demonstrative pronoun is in some other case, or dependent upon a preposition.

Mihi quidem videntur homines hac re maxime belluís praestare, quod loqui possunt, Cic., de Invent., i., 4.

Socrates apud Platonem hoc Periclem ceteris praestitisse oratoribus dicit, quod is Anaxagorae fuerit auditor, Cic., Orat., 5.

Tribunos (militum) omnes patricios creavit populus, contentus eo, quod ratio plebeiorum habita esset, Livy. Quam te velim cautum esse in scribendo, ex hoc (or hinc) conjicito, quod ego ad te ne haec quidem scribo, quae pa

lam in re publica turbantur, ne cujusquam animum meae litterae interceptae offendant, Cic., ad Quint. Frat., iii., 9. Note. The pleonastic use of the accusative of demonstrative pronouns with the verba sentiendi et declarandi, and with the verbs of effecting, asking, and others, which require ut for the purpose of directing attention to what follows, must be carefully distinguished from this necessary use of those pronouns. The pleonastic use of this pronoun, of which we shall speak in 748, has no influence whatever upon the construction. We remarked above that the nominat. of the demonstrative pronoun is likewise used pleonastically, and serves, in conjunction with quod following, to express more distinctly that the proposition contains a real fact; but we are here speaking of the oblique cases, especially the ablative, both with and without a preposition.

[§ 631.] 1. THE participle expresses the action or condition of the verb in the form of an adjective, governing the case of the verb, and at the same time marking the complete or incomplete state of the action or condition. In Latin, as in English, this form of the verb is very defective, for it has in the active one participle to express an action still going on; as, scribens, writing; and in the passive, one to express the completed state of suffering; as, scriptus, written; consequently there is no participle of a completed action (for which we say having written), nor of a state of suffering still going on. The Greek lan

The Latin de

guage has participles for all these cases. ponent is the only kind of verb which has the participles complete, its passive form having an active meaning: imitans, imitating, and imitatus, one who has imitated.

To these, however, we must add two participles, one in the active and the other in the passive, which express the action or suffering as not yet begun, that is, as something which is to take place in future, whence they are called participles of the future. The participle future active properly expresses the intention or obligation to perform an action; as, scripturus, one who intends or has to write, but has also the signification of simple futurity, 66 one who is about to write.' The participle future passive expresses in the nominative the necessity that something should be done or suffered; as, epistola scribenda, a letter which must be written, and not one that will be written. In the other cases it serves to supply the very