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

Walker's Sequence of Tenses The Sequence of Tenses in Latin, a Study based on Caesar's Gallic War. By A. T. Walker, Professor of Latin in the University of Kansas. 8vo. pp. iv, and 52. Lawrence, Kansas, 1899.

R. S. Conway

The Classical Review / Volume 15 / Issue 01 / February 1901, pp 66 - 69 DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00029565, Published online: 27 October 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X00029565

How to cite this article: R. S. Conway (1901). The Classical Review, 15, pp 66-69 doi:10.1017/S0009840X00029565

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 61.129.42.15 on 07 May 2015 66 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.

AN OLD FRENCH TRANSLATION OF CICERO'S RHETORICA.

Notice sur la Bhetorique de Ciceron. Tra- ing, among other things, how ' sermocinat duit par Maitre JEAN D'ANTIOCHE, MS. science ' is divided into , logic and 590 du Musee Conde1, par M. Leopold rhetoric. ' Gramaire f ut amendee et perfaite Delish (Tir6 des Notices et Extraits des par Precien. Aristot fist logique. Et Manuscrits de la Bibliotheque Nationale Marc Tulles Cyceron fut especial auctour et autres Bibliotheques). Paris: Im- de rethorique . . . cette art de rethorique primerie Nationale. avoit este trouve"e par les Grifons,' &c, &c. In the epilogue the translator explains the THE well-known librarian of the Bibliotheque principles which had guided him: Quar Nationale has^unearthed in the Mus^e Conde" chascune lengue si a ses proprietez et sa at Chantilly a very interesting early French maniere de parler, et par ce nul translateur o translation of Cicero's ' Rhetorica,' of which interpreteur neporroit jamais bientranslater he has published an account, accompanied d'une lengue a autre, s'il ne s'enformait a la by two facsimile plates, and copious extracts. maniere et as proprietez de cele lengue en The translation was made at Acre for qui il translate; por laquel chose il covint Guillaume de Saint-Etienne, a knight of St. au translateur de ceste science de translator John of Jerusalem, by John of Antioch, aucune fois parole por parole, et aucune fois ' also called de Harens,' in the year 1282. et plus sovent sentence por sentence, et (It is curious that the date is on f ol. 1 given aucune fois por la grant oscurte de la sentence as MCCC.LXXxii, on fol. 12 asM.cc.LXxn, while li covint il sozjoindre et acreiste.' A second the true date MCC.LXXXII is only given on section is devoted to a sketch of logic, and fol. 13). The Chantilly MS. is probably an to showing how reasoning, and especially the original copy, and the translation has been ' entimeme' differs from rhetoric, in order carefully corrected, and other renderings that ' Brother Guillaume' may be more in some places substituted. The translator subtle in all questions. has thrown the two books de Inventions and This translation does not contribute much the four ad Herennium into one series, to the criticism of the text, but it is of some divided into 206 chapters. Two preliminary interest as a specimen of style and diction. sections are prefixed, dealing with the A. S. W. various divisions of knowledge, and explain-

WALKER'S SEQUENCE OF TENSES.

The Sequence of Tenses in Latin, a Study enquiry itself with the industry, the based on Caesar's Gallic War. By A. T. thoroughness and the syntactical discrimina- WALKER, Professor of Latin in the Uni- tion which we expect from one of Professor versity of Kansas. 8vo. pp. iv, and 52. Hale's pupils. His conclusions are interest- Lawrence, Kansas, 1899. ing and attractive, a priori, since they seem to offer a rationalised version of the old rule THE most acute and elaborate research may of Sequence. But the author's object was to be entirely thrown away if its results are set establish them by direct evidence; and in down in a form which no one can under- this, so far as his readers are concerned, stand. To apply such a truism to a particular he must be said to have failed. A little case is a rather thankless task, and if Pro- more patience in recording the results of his fessor Walker's Dissertation contained no enquiry, a little sober criticism of obscure more serious matter than is commonly and faulty wording, and a day spent in found in other Degree-Theses, its weaknesses making an Index Locorum might have made might be ignored. But he has undertaken this dissertation a contribution to Grammar to deal with a question which is of first- of permanent value. But as it is now rate importance to all students of Latin; presented the body of the paper is a wilder- and it is clear that he has conducted the ness of bare references, separated into blocks THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 67 by lines of definition, always curt, often per- the study was to test the truth of a. dictum of plexing, and sometimes quite unintelligible.1 Professor Hale's which amounted to a denial A line of numbers is no better evidence of the existence of any law of Sequence, by than ' what the soldier said.' Seeing that a minute scrutiny of the meaning of every the whole argument turns on the precise dependent Tense-form, Indicative or Sub- significance of single forms, it is surely not junctive, in Caesar's Gallic War. The too much to ask, first, that the one word or author starts by analysing the meanings of the two words for which each passage is the Indicative Tenses into their elements, cited should be added to the figures; and' Time-sphere' and ' Stage of Action (com- secondly and chiefly, that at least two or pleted, in process, or imminent,)' noting that three cogent examples of every general aoristic Tenses denote only the Time-sphere statement should be printed at length—a without indicating the Stage of Action. dozen where the point is novel or difficult. Besides the aorisfcic uses of Present, In pp. 12-25, where comparatively simple and Future, he would recognise, and justly, cases are dealt with, the author does give an aoristic and Future Perfect;, one example of each rule before plunging which simply state that an event occurred into figures; but at this point he relaxes or will have occurred before some other past even his own standard, and in pp. 33-46, or future event, but in no way describe which contain all the hard cases, he prints it; since it precedes another, it must no examples at all, save for a few of be, of course, completed, but the speaker is the subdivisions on pp. 38-40. Nor is it not concerned with this aspect of it.3 In merely the reader who suffers. Such a ' he arrived after you had gone' the Plu- misprint or miswriting as ' conclusions' perfect is aoristic; whereas in ' after he had (p. 37 1. 2), for (I suppose) ' comparisons' made a fortune he cut all his old friends,' could hardly have passed uncorrected if the the speaker directs attention to the result author had written out the solitary example of a process; the Stage of the action is which he has to cite (alio tempore atque emphasised and the Tense may be fairly oportuerit) instead of blinding his own eyes called 'Descriptive.'* For the Subjunctive by giving only the reference. This kind of Tenses a double use is laid down, one cor- accident awakens uncomfortable doubts as responding to the same Tenses of the to the worth of the references generally. Indicative, the other containing a reference In short, the reader will be able to judge to some future time, measured from a whether the evidence supports or throws present or a past standpoint. Thus the doubt on the author's conclusions, when, Present Subjunctive serves both as Present and only when, he has spent at least as and Future; the , as Imperfect much time in completing the work as the 2 and Future to the Past, and so forth. (A author has spent in beginning it. more minute analysis is attempted in c.V, But enough has been said to show that the which appears in some respects doubtful, dissertation needs to be re-written; it is a and in any case irrelevant to questions of much pleasanter task to urge that it is ex- Sequence). tremely well worth re-writing. The object of The author next proceeds (p. 8) to give an admirable definition of Sequence, which 1 In some passages the author has stated (or whether it be original or not—and it seems pinted) precisely what he does not mean. For to be given as such—will, I feel sure, be instance on 'p. 40 we read as the title of a Class: ' The present of a general truth following a past in gratefully accepted by other students of indirect question.* But if the reader verifies the Grammar. The description of the Perf. reference he finds that it is not the Fast that is in Subj. in e.g., rogo quid fecerit as , is the Indirect Question, but the Present. A not seems new to me but, I think, quite convincing, to be omitted on p. 8, 1. 20, and p. 30, footnote. in view of the fact that a following Subjunc- 5 Compared to this radical defect mere faults of style, such as the absence of capital letters (so that, e.g., 'the present' denotes both a Tense and a time), 3 The haphazard examples which follow are not are venial enough. But the use of novel technical taken from Prof. Walker, but I think they represent terms without any explanation is particularly tire- his meaning. some. By looking up some of the references the * On pp. 21 and 24 the author makes special reader may find the meaning of ' clauses in congru- subdivisions of Descriptive and Aoristic Pluperfects, ence ' and ' clauses in coincidence' (p. 42) ; but I in which the action ' both began and ended at the have completely failed to discover what kind of same time as the action of the Principal Verb ' (on clauses are in 'pseudo-coincidence'—a term which which either depends). So far as I can see this is Prof. Walker finds room to condemn but not to not a correct statement of the force of the Tense in explain. He merely gives an example the difference the examples he quotes ; and it is certainly in direct of which from those cited under ' congruence' I have contradiction to the definition of the Pluperfect not graeped. meanings (p. 6). P 2 68 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. tive is regularly in a Secondary Tense (rogo of this use may have been, it would not have quid curauerit ne ires). All cases of Sequence1 persisted unless the combination had been fall under one or other of three categories felt more natural than that with the Per- of which the first two are meant to apply fect (Aorist) Subjunctive in spite of the to Dependent Verbs in the Indicative and greater fitness of the latter Tense to denote Subjunctive alike. a single result. And I do not see how this ' 1. All Tenses of Stage that belong to the same feeling of the naturalness of the Imperfect Time-sphere as the Principal Verb are said to be can be called anything but a feeling of "in Sequence"; e.g. all Descriptive ... Sequence, whether it was itself the original depending on a . But a Tense of Stage cause of the combination, or was partly the depending on a Verb of a different Time-sphere, as cause and partly the effect of it. an Imperfect depending on a Present, is not in But with dependent Tenses of the Indi- Sequence.* cative the feeling is by no means so clear. 2. The Aorist is in Sequence with a Present, and So far as I can understand Professor the aoristic Pluperfect with a Past. The Aorist is Walker's view it is that such a combination the Tense, the user of which, so to speak, stands in as ' I went because he compelled me,' is the present and looks back at the past... The reverse logically out of Sequence, but grammatically does not hold good ; a Present or Perfect depending permissible because of its convenience, i.e. on an Aoriat is out of Sequence; so too an Aorist de- its naturalness in expressing what the pending on an Aorist is out of Sequence. The rela- speaker is actually thinking, in a very large tions between a Past and an aoristic Pluperfect are number of cases ; and that no restrictions precisely the same as between a Present and an arising from a Sequence feeling grew up in Aorist the Indicative, though they did in the 3. A Subjunctive with future meaning is in Se- Subjunctive (p. 49 f.) because of the special quence if its "point of reference," past or present meanings it had in the uses in which it first [i.e. the point of time from which the action of the became subordinate.4 The logical point Subjunctire Verb is or was looked forward to] belongsseems to me doubtful, for the combination to the Time-sphere of the Principal Verb. That is, sounds quite regular when the subordinate a Future from the Past (Imperfect) is in Sequence Verb describes a State, e.g. in ' he came with a Past Verb.' because I wished it';—no one in England The only point in these canons about says 'because I was wishing it'; and in which, perhaps, some doubt may be felt is the any case it is better, surely, to admit frankly statement that an Aorist is out of Sequence that in Latin Sequence exists merely for with an Aorist. The combination is of the Subjunctive. This is, in fact, the author's course frequent, both when the dependent conclusion (see especially p. 50), but as his verb is in the Indicative and when it is enquiry was made to ascertain whether there in the Subjunctive (though with this latter was any feeling of Sequence in the use of Mood its use is comparatively restricted); the Subjunctive Tenses which did not apply the question is what the Romans them- equally to the Indicative, he was led to selves felt in using it. Did they feel employ the word in a neutral, and, as I think it a natural use of the Tenses, or a strained it appears, an incorrect sense. one? So far as the Subjunctive in The author then proceeds, with equal Latin is concerned there can, I think, be acuteness and zeal, to classify every depen- no doubt that Professor Walker's view dent Tense form in Caesar's Bellwm is correct, because of the preponderance of GaUieum according to its Tense and its the Imperfect over the Perfect in Result precise time- and stage-meaning, and those of Clauses such as (B.G., 1, 39, l)tantus timor its governing Verb. He finds only thirteen . . . exerdlum occupauit ut .. . omnium mentes 3 Subjunctives that are out of Sequence, animosque perturbaret. Whatever the origin against 1861 in Sequence. From the way 1 I cannot understand why the author ' excepts' in which the examples are recorded, or two classes of clauses (on p. 8); on p. 7 he has shown that one of them is not in Sequence at all. 4 For instance in oro facias and orabam faceres the 2 The original wording runs 'is an exception,' wish which the Subjunctive expresses is not com- which does not seem to express what the author pletely intelligible without some indication, or as- means. And in this extract and in those that follow sumption, (1) of the person who felt or feels it, and below, anyone who dislikes capital letters must please (2) of the time at which it is or was felt (as well as of blame the reviewer not the author. the time to which it refers which the Subjunctive 3 The list of references for the Impf. is given on Verb itself expresses). The first of these, it is clear, p. 31, for the Parf. on p. 40. Like the other lists, is implied by the subordination to the Principal they need verifying and perhaps sifting, but on such Verb, the second by the choice of a Tense which a point as this they may no doubt be taken as ap- corresponds to that of the Principal Verb, i.e. by proximately correct. Sequence. THE CLASSICAL EEVIEW. 69 rather, concealed, it is impossible to feel passages in which repraesentatio is mentioned confidence in these figures. But the con- (pp. 35, 36 and 41), and the reason deduced clusion of the whole matter is worth for excluding twenty-three of the thirty-six quoting (p. 52). exceptions to Sequence which Heynacher counted are completely obscure to me; ' I believe that in Caesar every Tense of the Sub- though I have studied them more than junctive and Indicative alike has its own meaning, once in the hope of getting light upon a and is never wrested from that meaning by a rule of 1 question which has occupied me for some Sequence. But I believe also that Caesar had a time past, namely, the strange variations of feeling of Sequence that led him to avoid irregular Sequence which appear in ' re-presented ' [i.e. non-sequent] uses of the Subjunctive and gave passages in the historians — e.g. 1, 8, 2 him [sic] a tendency to use an equivalent Indicative quo facilius si transire conarentur pro- construction if possible, or otherwise to recast the hibere possit — a collocation which Pro- sentence.' fessor Walker's somewhat drastic method The chief example of this tendency is enables him to regard without uneasiness. given on p. 47. This is not the place to advance the views which I have been led to form, but I hope When Caesar wishes to express a past reason for to deal at length with the whole matter or against a past act he uses with apparent indiffer- ere long, and (L shall be very greatly ence the Subjunctive with cum or Indicatives with helped by Professor Walker's definitions. quod, etc. . . . But Caesar is very fond of giving Here I will only say that on this question a still existing reason for a past act, and the Verb of repraesentatio we appear to start from which expresses the reason must, of course, be in opposite points of the horizon. To him the the Present. Kow in every case of this kind Caesar Secondary tenses are the true and original uses one of the Indicative constructions, avoiding forms, the Primary are mere rhetorical the Subjunctive (C. X. 3, 2). interlopers. To me the problem is to trace These statements are a priori so probable, the gradual process of infection by which i.e., they accord so well with the traditional what I may call the Secondary tone spread view, that I have no doubt they are sub- from the Subjunctives in immediate de- stantially correct, in spite of the hesitation pendence upon the Past introductory which must be felt as to the author's collec- Verb, and probably also from the Unreal tion of evidence. but half-independent Past Jussive, to One more reservation, however, must be all the Dependent Verbs in the heart made. All Primary Tenses which are retained of the actual speech, until we reach the in Or. Obliqua by what is called repraesen- uniformity which is commended by our tatio, are treated in a very summary manner. school-, but which in speeches of ' Presents and Perfects depending on a Past any length is comparatively rarely practised are given [i.e. counted] as if they were the by any one but Cicero. Sed nunc non Imperfects and Pluperfects for which they erat his locus. stand' (p. 11). This declaration is at least Let me conclude by expressing the admir- frank, and it has the merit of limiting the ation which I heartily feel for the courage enquiry by absolutely disregarding a thorny with which Professor Walker has carried question. But it appears to have involved through a most laborious study and the high the author in some confusion, at all events degree of precision to which he has pushed of expression. I can only confess that the his analysis of the Tense-meanings. If he 1 can find the leisure so to expand and • This of course is not the only effect of Sequence. elucidate his account of the enquiry as to ••• A Primary governing Verb demands a Perfect in the gj Subjunctive of Indirect Questions, whether the orig- make its form worthy of its substance, he j. inal question had the Perfect or Imperfect or Plu- will render a permanent service to Latin ' perfect. This ' flattening out' Prof. Walker denies Grammar. altogether for Caesar. It is surprising to learn that there are no parallels in Caesar to the examples R. S. CONWAY. quoted from Cicero by, e.g., Allen and Greenough, CARDIFF, S 387 6, 3. December, 1900.