The Classical Review http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR

Additional services for The Classical Review:

Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here

The Aorist Injunctive in Latin

H. C. Elmer

The Classical Review / Volume 12 / Issue 02 / March 1898, pp 100 - 104 DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00025555, Published online: 27 October 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X00025555

How to cite this article: H. C. Elmer (1898). The Aorist Injunctive in Latin. The Classical Review, 12, pp 100-104 doi:10.1017/S0009840X00025555

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 128.122.253.228 on 07 May 2015 ' M

100 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. change of the scale intervals. It would be be laid on any deductions from it. It is equivalent to changing from the first church divided by M. Gevaert into ten sections for mode (dominant A, final D) to the third convenience of reference. The melody of (dominant C, final E) or fifth (dominant C, the first section appears to revolve on D, final F), the distribution of tones and semi- the mese, and to end on A, the hypate. In tones differing in each. the second, third, fifth, and sixth sections Of the fragments of Greek music that E appears to play the part of a dominant, have come down to us, the most important and all these sections end on this note or is undoubtedly the Delphic Hymn to its octave below. Perhaps here we have Apollo, discovered in 1893. It is in the again a irepa fiearrjt Of the last section Phrygian notation, and according to M. Yan Jan says that it ends on mese, but Reinach and all other authorities, in the Gevaert contests this, and supposes that ' le Dorian mode or octave. This example offers docte professeur de Strasbourg aura, par no difficulty, for, as I have mentioned above, distraction, ecrit mlse voulant icrire mese by position and mese by power are hypate.' the same note in the Dorian mode. M. With regard to the well-known Graeco- Beinach points out {Bulletin de Corre- Roman hymns, M. Gevaert shows (La Mel. spondance Helttnique, 1893, p. 597) that the Ant., p. 40), that in the ' Hymn to Helios' note which is by far the most frequently hypate is the principal ' note de repos,' i.e. used is C, that is to say, the Dorian mese at the final of the various phrases, while 'La the Phrygian pitch : while the one place mese (A) remplit Men ici sa fonction me- where a full close has been preserved on the diatrice.' The 'Hymn to the Muse' ends stone shows a descent from C to G, i.e. on the Dorian hypate, but mese is not so from mese to hypate, or, according to my prominent as in the other examples. The suggestion, from the dominant to the final. hymn to Nemesis is, according to M. The Tralles hymn is in the Iastian notation, Gevaert, ' in the ' relaxed Iastian' mode, and M. Gevaert shows (La MSlopee Antique, equivalent to the Phrygian octave D to D, p. 386) that the mode is Iastian. Here D but with G as its final. If the hymn be represents thetic mese, and the melody transposed from its original pitch to the appears to revolve round this note, as round octave D to D, it will be found that G is the a Gregorian dominant. Hypate meson is note most frequently used ; and it seems to A, and the melody does not end on this play the part of a dominant here, in that note, but on E, the fourth below, that is, the melodic design ' circule autour de cette hypate hypaton, thus maintaining the prin- corde centrale.' It is, moreover, the thetic ciple of ending on the lowest note of a mese in the Phrygian octave, a point in tetrachord. Is it possible that we have favour of the view that the thetic, and not here a metabole of system producing the the dynamic mese is the one to which trepa peat] alluded to by Bacchius senior % composers had ' constant recourse.' The second Delphic hymn is attributed But whether thetic or dynamic, does not by M. Gevaert (La Mel. Ant., p. 451) to the affect the contention that a note used in Dorian mode, its notation being Lydian and the way described must have been analogous Hypolydian. This hymn is in a far more to a Gregorian dominant, rather than to a fragmentary condition than the last two harmonic keynote. examples, and therefore much stress cannot C. ABDY WILLIAMS.

THE AORIST INJUNCTIVE IN LATIN.

IN his Vergleichende Syntax (Zweiter Theil, satisfied with the treatment he accords to pp. 376-383), Delbriick does me the honour certain features of my discussion, and feel of taking my articles on The Latin that at one point he has quite misinter- Prohibitive as the basis of his discussion preted my meaning. " It is with the hope of of 'Der alte Injunctiv Aoristi im making my own position clearer, that I Lateinischen.' While I am highly gratified venture to offer the following remarks upon to find that in his own words ' Unsere Delbriick's treatment. Ansichten gehen eine gute Strecke mit In the first place, it seems to me that einander,' I am nevertheless not quite the words he sometimes uses in describing the THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 101 force of the aorist are open to criticism. He thought of the progress of the act. The describes this force as invariably ' punk- expression deals with an act in its entirety. tuell'—a term by which he says (p. 14) he The beginning, the progress and the end of means ' dass die Handlung mit ihrem the act are brought together and focussed in Eintritt zugleich vollendet ist.' I cannot a single conception. The idea of the act is believe that Delbriick really means by these not dwelt upon, but merely touched, for an words what he seems to say. If taken instant, and then dismissed. The speaker literally, the words would make him express as it were, makes short work of the thought.' the belief that the aorist tense in helium I certainly meant by these words exactly gestum est, or in woWa yap h-X-qv, for what I understand Delbriick to have instance, means that the act itself was intended, when he describes the force of the finished as soon as begun. Anyone who aorist as ' punktuell.' Our views are then holds the view which the words quoted from still identical. If I understand Delbriick Delbriick literally express would have to aright, we start from exactly the same claim that the aorist could be used only of point of view. so-called instantaneous acts. I suspect We now come, however, to a point of real therefore that the particular wording of this difference of opinion. At the bottom of p. definition is due to a lack of care and 383 Delbriick has the following words : ' Es precision, of which Delbriick is very rarely lag gewiss nahe, das Perf. und Pras. guilty. I feel sure that Delbriick would at gelengentlich in der von Elmer beobachten once agree that the aorist tense implies Weise zu gebrauchen, denn es ist zuzugeben, absolutely nothing with reference to the dass das Prasens sich fur einen auf rapide length of duration of an act or a state. The Ausf iihrung berechneten Bef ehl nicht eignet, act or state may have lasted for years or aber das ist nur eine gelegentlich auftretende only for an instant. The length of duration Folgeerscheinung.' It is clear then that, as is something with which the aorist tense is far as the distinction between nefeceris and not in the least concerned. "What Delbriick ne facias is concerned, Delbriick regards the evidently means is that, when a person, in speaker's earnest or impassioned mood, referring to any act, uses the aorist tense, he which I claimed was a characteristic disregards for the moment the progress of accompaniment of the perfect tense, as the act and conceives of it as an entirety. something that always remains wholly The aorist makes quick work of the thought incidental, i.e. something that is not at all about the act; when used of a past act, it suggested by the tense itself. My claim, on does not necessarily imply anything what- the other hand, is that the fundamental mean- ever about the nature of the act itself, ing of the perfect (aorist) subjunctive is such though of course it is frequently and that it is not natural to use it of the future naturally used of so-called instantaneous except when one is (or is pretending to be) acts. If this is what Delbriick means, then thoroughly aroused, or wishes to speak with our views are identical as regards the unusual energy; that this feeling was fundamental meaning of the aorist tense. therefore, at least until comparatively late In one or two features of its application, we times, regularly associated with such uses of are apparently somewhat at variance, but the perfect tense; and that, in this sense, not so much at variance as Delbriick seems such a feeling on the part of the speaker to suppose. On page 381 he says : ' Elmer may be regarded as an essential characteristic ist offenbar der Meinung, in nefeceris miisse of the perfect tense and the one by which eigentlich der Sinn der Vergangenheit it came to be chiefly distinguished from the stecken, wahrend thatsachlich der Sinn der present tense in the minds of the Romans. Vergangenheit nicht darin liegt, sondern At this point I wish to call attention to nur gelegentlich als "Wirkung des Sinnes der what seems to me to be a serious error that is Periode hineinkommen kann.' I confess I wont to be made in discussing questions of do not quite see how my articles, as a whole, this character. Perhaps I cannot better could give the impression that I hold the serve my purpose than by quoting here the view here ascribed to me. Indeed I following extracts from my Studies in distinctly say on p. 6 (138) that nefeceris does Latin Moods and Tenses that is now in press not contain any notion of 'Vergangenheit.' for the Cornell Studies of Classical Philology: My words are : ' Ne feceris cannot mean literally " Do not, prior to a certain point in ' It seems to me that a serious mistake the future, have done it."' In one respect, has been made, on the part of grammarians, however, the distinction, it seems to me, in making no distinction between the perfect, still holds. In nefeceris there is at least no or aoristic, conception as applied to the future and the same conception as applied to the 102 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. past. Undoubtedly the original fundamental future acts. In the expression "you went," idea is the same in both cases, but I contend the speaker is merely stating that, as a that the 'perfect (aorist), when used of the matter of fact, the act of going took place in future, came to be associated and identified the past. The length of its duration is a with ideas that were wholly foreign to past matter about which the speaker is not con- uses of the same tense. cerned. He merely dismisses the act with a ' The perfect (aorist) indicative deals with single glance. It is clear that this quick an act that is finished. In presenting a past glance at the act of going is not determined, event, it merely touches the idea of the act or even influenced in the slightest degree, and then leaves it. It differs from the by the character, or manner, or duration of imperfect much as " glance at " differs from that act itself. But in the case of the " gaze at." But this " glance " at the act has future use of the aorist, illustrated in "be nothing to do with the real character of the gone ! ", a moment's thought will show that act itself. This act may have been performed the manner of looking at the act depends quickly or slowly, energetically or deliber- largely on the manner in which the speaker ately ; it may have lasted for years or only expects or wishes the act to be performed. for an instant. With all of these particulars " Be gone ! " represents, to be sure, a quick the perfect (aorist) indicative is not in the glance at a future act of going, but this least concerned. It merely presents the act form of expression is chosen only because as one that took place; such an act is now the speaker wants the act itself to be beyond the sphere of anybody's influence— promptly and quickly accomplished. So, in it is no longer a subject of suspense. But such uses of the perfect (aorist) subjunctive with the future use of the perfect subjunc- as in difaxint, etc., while the tense primarily tive, circumstances are quite different. The indicates the manner in which the act is act is now one which is in suspense. Instead looked at, it also indicates, with equal clear- of taking a calm view of past events, the ness, the character which the act itself is speaker is now referring to events whose thought of as assuming. Every such perfect character, in the case of expressions of the (aorist) tense hurries the thought and fixes will, he himself is endeavouring to shape the attention at once upon the accomplish- and determine, or, in the case of the con- ment and completion of the act. And just tingent future subjunctive, would under as the use of " be gone ! " instead of " go " certain conditions shape and determine. shows with absolute certainty that the speaker Under such circumstances, the manner of is thoroughly aroused, so do similar uses of looking at the act came, naturally enough, the perfect subjunctive in Latin betray a to be very closely associated with, and similar state of mind.' dependent upon, the manner in which the act was to be performed. My meaning will It only remains now to decide whether be made clearer by the use of English this theory that the perfect subjunctive in illustrations. Let us take the expression prohibitions indicates an aroused state of " you went", corresponding to the ordinary mind harmonizes with actual usage. I can- aorist of past events, and " be gone I ", repre- not feel that Delbriick does full justice to senting fairly well1 the use of the aorist of the state of things shown to exist by my collection of instances. Especially unfair, 1 I say only ' fairly well' for the reason that some it seems to me, is the manner in which, in might insist on regarding ' be gone !' as a perfect testing my theory, he passes by Plautus and instead of an aorist. But in either case the expression Terence, the only authors who freely use serves the purpose for which I have used it, as all both the present and the perfect tenses, and idea of progress is eliminated from the thought. As applied to the future, the perfect and the aorist who form therefore the only field where the resemble each other in that they both alike include phenomenon can be satisfactorily studied. the end of the act; they differ in that the perfect I cannot conceive how anyone, who compares represents it as one to be performed prior to a future all the instances of the perfect and present time, the aorist represents it as one to be performed in its entirety (the end of the act being therefore in- tenses from the earliest times down to the cluded) at a future time with no idea of priority. time of Livy (for which see my articles), can But as the idea of completion, or accomplishment, is hesitate to admit that, with rare exceptions common to the two tenses, the expression 'be (comparatively speaking), it is very clear gone,' however it is explained, is sufficiently apropos. That the perfect and the aorist conceptions approach that speakers who use the perfect tense are each other under certain circumstances, is shown by (or for evident reasons are pretending to be) the facts that a Greek aorist seems often best trans- thoroughly aroused, and that those who use lated by an English perfect and that both tenses are the present tense are perfectly calm and in in Latin represented by the same form. In si uenerit, uideat, the uenerit is a perfect subjunctive; in ne commonplace situations. I feel all the more ueneris, the ueneris is an aorist. justified in insisting upon this as a fact that THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 103 must be recognized, for the reason that this allow it' is one that admits of being uttered distinction between the tenses has, during in a very commonplace manner, or with the three years since the publication of my great energy. If there are, outside of the articles, been publicly recognized by no less expression itself, no certain means of finding than six authors of Latin grammars.1 In- out just how much or how little importance deed Delbriick himself does not explicitly Cato attached to this particular prohibition, deny that my distinction will hold for is it not, nevertheless, natural, under the Plautus and Terence. But he claims that it condition of things which we have found to breaks down when tested by certain passages exist elsewhere, to suppose that the tense of in Cato and Cicero's Letters, and cites, in ne siueris in itself indicates that Cato wishes support of this claim, especially Cato 4 to lay great stress upon it, and accordingly vicinis bonus esto :familiam ne siueris peccare. chooses the most energetic form of ex- Let us consider for a moment what pression? Indeed, the context itself in this attitude it is proper for us to assume instance shows that Cato did attach the towards such a sentence as this. After a utmost importance to this particular pro- careful and exhaustive study of all the hibition, for he goes on to say that a instances of the perfect tense from the farmer's success depends upon a compliance earliest period down to the time of Livy, we with it (si te libenter uicinitas uidebit,/acilius have discovered that, with rare exceptions, it tua uendes, operas fadlius locabis, etc.). is beyond all dispute that the perfect is When Delbriick says of this passage, ' Es associated with emotion and energy of heisst einfach so vielals "verhinderedass sie expression, the present with a calm mood das thun" ' he is indulging in mere assertion and commonplace situations. But there are and seems to me to be begging the whole a few instances of the perfect, namely, the question. He adds further 'man soil sich exceptions above referred to, where the tone nicht vorstellen, dass die Leute allerhand in which the writer wishes his utterance to Boses thun, und der Gutsbesitzer be- be understood is not made clear by the schaftigt ist, sie daran zu verhindern,' etc. context. If the writer himself could read Why then did Cato consider it necessary to the passage to us, his voice would, of course, give this prohibition at all i The fact that betray the tone. But with only the written Cato uses the prohibition and makes so page before us, we are left to our own much depend upon it, shows very clearly resources to detect that tone. Now when that such a caution was needed. The only we have found, in all those passages where question is then : In what tone did he intend the tone is beyond all dispute, that the it ? And the answer to this question must- perfect is used only when the speaker is be sought by making a study of all those aroused or unusually energetic, is it not passages in which this particular form of allowable to conclude, or, rather, are we not prohibition is used. I have tried to answer forced to conclude, that, in passages where it in the light of such a study. And the there is no other indication of the tone few passages like the one cited from Cato intended, the perfect tense still continues to must, it seems to me, be studied in a similar represent the same idea and to betray the manner and interpreted in the light of same feeling? Now Cato, in the passage similar evidence. above quoted, says ne siueris where he might have used any one of the several other forms One other passage, cited against me by of prohibition. I presume it will be admitted Delbriick, I cannot pass by unnoticed, viz. by everybody that the expression ' Do not Cic. ad Att. x. 13, 1 scribes igitur ac, si quid 'ad spent poteris, ne dimiseris. Tu Antoni 1 Bennett, Latin Grammar § 276, and Appendix leones pertimescas cane: nihil est illo homine § 358 d. ; Gildersleeve-Lodge, Latin Grammar § 272, iucundius. On this passage, Delbriick writes: 2, Remark, and Gildersleeve, in the American Journal ' ist darin etwa dimiseris mit grossem Ernst, of Philology, vol. xviii. 1, p. 123; Schmalz, in the pertimescas aber in anderer Stimmung Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift for June 20, 1896, column 794 ; Sonnenschein, in his review of geschrieben? Gewiss nicht, sondern ne Gildersleeve's grammar, Classical Review, vol. x., dimiseris heisst "lass nicht fahren"' und No. 1, p. 64 ; Ziemer, in the Wochenschrift fur ist punktuell, cave pertimescas aber' "sei nicht Klassische PhUologie for April 22, 1896, column 459 ; (bestandig) in Angst" und ist durativ.' If and apparently Golling in the Zeitschrift fur die oester. Gymnasien for 1895, column 1074. The correctness Delbriick, at this point in his discussion, had of my conclusions is further acknowledged hy Hey in had clearly in mind certain other parts of the Archivfiir Lot. Lexikographie u. Orammatik for my article, he would not have written these 1895, hy Giles in A Short Manual of Comparative words under the impression that the change Philology, p. 439, note, and hy Buck in The Osean- Umbrian Verb System (University of Chicago Studies of tense seen in this passage is opposed to in Classical Philology, vol. i. p. 140). the distinction that I make between the 104 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. tenses. So far is this change of tense from ness, this is merely incidental and this tone being opposed to my theory, that it is exactly is not conveyed or suggested by the tense what that theory would demand and is in itself. How then will Delbriick account for strong confirmation of it. Compare, for in- the fact, brought out in my Latin Prohibitive stance, my words on p. 14 (146): ' If my dis- that there is (at least prior to Livy) not a tinction between the two tenses is correct, we single instance in Latin literature (whether should expect that a prohibition dealing with in prose or poetry) of ne with the perfect mere mental action e.g. " Do not suppose," subjunctive used in a dignified, ceremonious, " Do not be surprised," " Do not be afraid " deferential style. Why does not Cicero, for would commonly take the present tense, be- instance, occasionally use it in addressing cause such prohibitions would not commonly the judges? He addresses prohibitions to be accompanied by strong emotion, and, as far them with great frequency. Why does he as the interests of the speaker are concerned, it always adopt some other form of prohibi- matters little whether the prohibition be com- tion? It cannot be because he has any plied with or not. Such a condition of things particular prejudice against ne with the is exactly what we find,' etc., etc. It will be perfect subjunctive, for he uses this form of clear from this quotation that caue per- prohibition very frequently in his colloquial timescas is in exact accord with my theory. styles. In his letters there are fourteen in- The act referred to in ne dimiseris is some- stances of this use and these, almost without thing that concerns the happiness and exception, are addressed to bosom friends welfare of Cicero and his friends. Cicero, with whom he was wont to throw off all as is shown by the letters written by him at ceremony, often indulging in good-natured this period, is in terrible anxiety and raillery and abuse and unrestrained passion- suspense—he does not know whether his ate outbursts. If, as I contend, the perfect cause is, or is not, past all hope. The failure tense came to be associated and identified to comply with the prohibition ne dimiseris with an unceremonious, energetic tone, the might mean utter despair, and, naturally absence of this mode of expression from enough, he throws his whole heart into the ceremonious styles is fully accounted for. prohibition. But there is nothing about But if the force of the aorist is purely and the idea of pertimescas caue to call for simply ' punktuell,' then I fail to see why emotional expression; the mention of the Cicero, for instance, did not occasionally use leones is a playful allusion to a mere myth it in addressing a judge as well as in writing that Antonius was wont to ride in a carriage to his legal friend Trebatius, whom he was drawn by lions, and how lightly these words so fond of hauling over the coals. are uttered is shown by the sentence that immediately follows them, viz. nihil est illo It will also be noticed that Delbriick homine iucundius. As regards the meaning himself admits (e.g. pp. 377, 380) that there of the present tense here and elsewhere, I are passages which his own theory fails to am in complete accord with Delbriick as will explain. • appear more clearly in my Studies, above While I have felt inclined to question the mentioned. justness of these few details of his treatment of the Latin perfect subjunctive, I cannot, Finally, I come to a state of things which in closing, refrain from expressing my pro- Delbruck's theory, as it seems to me, utterly found admiration of, and my gratitude for, fails to account for. He claims that, as far the monumental services which Delbriick has, as the character itself of the perfect tense is by his latest volume, as by his preceding concerned, it is merely' punktuell,' and that, volumes, rendered to all students of if the speaker who uses it is frequently language. aroused with emotion and is speaking with H. C. EMBER. unceremoniousness or with unusual earnest- Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.

DE VITA CONTEMPLATIfA, 483, 46 f.

Ov result differing from that reached by Mr. Conybeare, the most recent editor of the A STUDY of the form in which this passage treatise. Philo is describing the allegorical occurs in Eusebius, H.E. ii. 17, has led me exegesis of the Therapeutae, which, says he, in view of the variants in the MSS. to a rests upon the idea that the Jewish Law is