V Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/syntaxofdecivitaOOcolb V / SEP 3 0' V > O' THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA PATRISTIC STUDIES VOL, IV THE SYNTAX OF THE DE CIVITATE DEI OF ST. AUGUSTINE & ^Dissertation SUBMITTED TO THE CATHOLIC SISTERS COLLEGE OF THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA, IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY / L SISTER MARY COLUMKILLE COLBERT, M. A. OF THE Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio, Texas THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA WASHINGTON, D. C. 1923 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY. I. Texts and Translations. Blampin, Th.; Coustant, P.; etc., Opera Omnia S. Augustini, 11 Vols., Paris, 1679-1700. Dombart, B., De Civitate Dei, Leipzig, Vol. I, 1921; Vol. II, 1918. Hoffmann, E., De Civitate Dei in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Prague, 1899-1900, Vols. 40 1 40 2 . Dods, M., The City of God, Edinburg, 1871. Healey, J., The City of God, Edinburg, 1909. Schaff, P., Tbe City of God, New York, 1907. II. Histories of Literature. Bardenliewer, O., Patrologie, Freiburg i Breisgau, 1910. Bouchier, E. S., Life and Letters in Roman Africa, Oxford, 1913. Boissier, G., L’Afrique Romaine, Paris, 1895. De Labriolle, P., Histoire de la litterature latine chretienne, Paris, 1920. Ebert, G., Geschichte der Christlichen Literatur, Leipzig, 1874. Monceaux, M., Histoire litteraire de l’Afrique Chretienne, Paris, 1901. Schanz, M., Romische Litteraturgeschichte, Munich, 1920. Teuffel, W. S., Geschichte der Romischen Literatur, Leipzig, 1870. III. Biographical. Bindemann, C., Der hi. Augustinus, 3 Vols, Berlin, 1844-55-69. Collette, C. H., Saint Augustine (A. D. 3S7-430). A sketch of his life and writings as affecting the controversy with Rome, London, 1S83. Hatzfeld, A., Saint Augustin (Les Saints, II), 3rd Ed., Paris, 1897. Hertling, G. von, Augustin, Mainz, 1902. Kloth, Der hi. Kirchenvater Augustinus, 2 Vols., Achen, 1839. Tillemont, Lenain de, Memoires pour servir a l’histoire ecclesiastique, Vol. 13, Vie de S. Augustin, Paris, 1710. Weiskotten, H., Vita S. Augustini scripta a Possidio episcopo, Oxford, 1919. (This work by Augustine’s pupil with the Confessions form the main ancient sources for Augustine’s life.) IV. Latinity. (a) Bayard, L., Le Latin de ,S. Cyprien, Paris, 1902. Bonnet, M., Le Latin de Gregoire de Tours, Paris, 1890. Brenous, J., Etude sur les hellenismes dans la syntaxe Latine, Paris, 1895. Cooper, F. T., Word Formation in the Roman Sermo Plebeius, New York, 1895. Delachaux, A., La Latinity d’Ausone, Neuehatel, 1909. Devogel, L., Etude sur la latinite et le style de Paulin de Pella, Bruxelles, 1898. Gabarrou, F., Le latin d’Arnobe, Paris, 1921. Goelzer, H. (1), Etude lexicographique et grammaticale de la latinite de S. Jerome, Paris, 1884. Goelzer, H. (2), Le Latin de S. Avit, Paris, 1909. Groehl, F., De syntaxi Firmiciana, Vratislaviae, 191S. Guillemin, A., La preposition “ de ” dans la litterature latine et en par- ticulier dans la poesie latine de Lucrece & Ausone, Paris, N. D. Hassenstein, G., De syntaxi Ammiani Marcellini, Regimontanus, 1877. Hatfield, J. T., A Study of Juvencus, Bonn, 1890. Ill 1Y Hoppe, H., De Sermone Tertullianeo, Marburg, 1897. Jepson, Rev. J. J., The Latinity of the Vulgate Psalter, Washington, 1915. Juret, Etude graanmaticale sur le latin de Filastrius, Erlangen, 1904. Kaulen, F., Sprachliches Handbuch zur biblischen Vulgata, Freiburg, 1904. Hoffmann, Geschicbte des Kirchenlateins, Breslau, 1881. Krebs-Schmalz, Antibarbarus der lateinischen Sprache, Basel, 1905. Koziol, H., Der Sti'l des Apuleius, Wien, 1872. Lease, E. B., A Syntatic, Stylistic and Metrical study of Prudentius, Bal¬ timore, 1895. Meader, Latin pronouns, New York, 1901. Mueller, M., De Apollinaris Sidonii latinitate observationes ad etymologiam, syntaxim, vocabulorum apparatum spectantes, Halle, 1888. Nestler, J. von, Die latinitat des Fulgentius, Leipa, 1905. Neue, F., and Wagener, €., Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache, Leipzig, 1902. Quillacq, J. A., Ouomodo Latina Lingua usus sit S. Hilarius, Tours, 1903. Konsch, Itala and vulgata, Marburg, 1869. (b) Draeger, A., Historische syntax der lateinischen Sprache, Leipzig, 1881. Kiihiier, R., Ausfiirliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, Hanover, 1878-1879. Lane, G. M., A Latin Grammar, New York, 1903. Riemann and Goelzer, Grammaire comparee du Grec et du Latin (Syntax), Paris, 1897. Solonius, A. H., Vitae Patrum, Lund, 1920. Stolz^Schmalz, Lateinische Grammatik, Munich, 1910. N. B. These works will be cited throughout by the author’s name alone. PREFACE. The purpose of this dissertation is to present a complete survey of the syntactical phenomena occurring in St. Augustine’s De Civitate Dei which stamp it as a product of ecclesiastical Latin. Accordingly, note will be taken not only of clearly defined diver¬ gencies from classical Latin, but also of such constructions as actually appear even in the Golden Age but which are used to a greater extent or with a slightly different connotation. We are well aware of that philological truth, that the language of one period is in itself no better than the language of another; that the changes which occur in the syntax of any language are largely a matter of psychology, due in the main to the new surroundings in which a writer is living and to the new ideas which he finds himself called upon to express. Accordingly we have no such aim as to show the poor or the good qualities of the syntax of the De Civitate Dei. We are merely taking account of certain character¬ istics appearing in it, with a view to contributing something to a much larger work on the Latinity of St. Augustine’s writings as a whole. In order to avoid all inexact and unbalanced impressions, sta¬ tistics will be given wherever possible showing the exact extent of any peculiarity. Comparisons will also be made, according as available information permits, to the syntactical usage of other representative authors of ecclesiastical Latin. The general order of treatment is that followed by the Latein- ische Grammatik of iStolz-Schmalz. The text of the De Civitate Dei which has been used is that of B. Dombart in the Teubner series. To Dr. Roy Joseph Deferrari, Head of the Departments of Greek and Latin at the Catholic University of America, at whose sug¬ gestion the study was undertaken and under whose direction this monograph has been written, the author wishes to acknowledge her indebtedness and to express her grateful appreciation of the assist¬ ance and encouragement given throughout the work. Acknowl¬ edgment is also made to Dr. Romanus Butin, S. M., and Rev. J. P. Christopher, both of the Catholic University of America, for having read the manuscript and having offered many valuable suggestions. Sister Mary Columkille. Feast of the Annunciation, March 25, 1923. v TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY. iii PREFACE . v TABLE OF CONTENTS. vii INTRODUCTION . 1 CHAPTER I.—SUBSTANTIVES. 5 i. Substantives used Adjectively. 5 ii. Gender. 6 in. Number . 6 1. Concrete terms . 7 2. Abstract terms . 9 iv. Cases . 10 1. Accusative . 11 2. Genitive . 12 3. Dative . 15 4. Ablative . 16 CHAPTER II.—ADJECTIVES. 19 I. Adjectives used as Substantives. 19 ii. Adjectives for Genitives of Possession. 22 m. Degrees of Comparison. 23 iv. Exceptional Uses. 23 CHAPTER III.—PRONOUNS. 26 i. Personal. 26 ii. Relative . 27 iii. Reflexive . 27 iv. Demonstrative . 28 1. Is, hie, iste, ille . 28 v. Indefinite. 31 1. Quisquam, aliquis, ullus . 31 2. Quispiam . 32 3. Quicumque . 32 4. Quisquis, quisque . 33 5. Uterque . 33 vi. Pronominal Adjectives. 34 1. Tantus, quantus, tot, quot . 34 2. Alter, alius . 35 CHAPTER IV.—ADVERBS. 36 i. Adverbs of Place. 36 vii Vlll ii. Adverbs of Time. , . 37 hi. Adverbs of Manner. 37 iv. Adverbs of Quantity. 38 v. Adverbs of Modality. 39 1. Interrogative . 39 2. Negative . 40 CHAPTER V.—THE VERB. VOICE AND TENSE. 42 i. Voice . 42 1. TJse of the passive voice . 42 2. Transitive verbs taken absolutely . 43 3. Deponent verbs used in a passive sense . 43 ii. Tense . 44 1. Tenses in independent clauses . 44 (a) Future perfect for simple future. 45 (b) Perfect infinitive for present. 45 (e) Pluperfect for perfect or imperfect. 46 2. TensC in dependent clauses . 47 CHAPTER VI.—THE VERB. MOODS. 48 i. Imperative .'. 49 li. Indicative . 49 1. In indirect questions . 49 2. In relative clauses of characteristic . 49 3. In subordinate clauses in indirect statements . 50 4. With quia and quod for the accusative and infinitive 50 5. Forsitan, fortasse and fortassi-s . 51 6. In causal relative clauses . 52 iii. Subjunctive . 52 1. In prohibitions . 52 2. With absit . 53 (a) As an intensive optative subjunctive. 53 (b) As an equivalent of tantum abest. 53 3. Concessive clauses with quamquam . 54 4. Concessive clauses with quamvis . 54 5. With quia, quod, and quoniam for the accusative and infinitive . 55 iv. Infinitive . 56 1. As subject . 56 2. Purpose . 56 3. With adjectives . 57 4. With verbs . 58 CHAPTER VII.—THE VERB. SUBSTANTIVE AND ADJEC¬ TIVAL FORM OF THE VERB. 61 i. Participles . 61 1. Present . 61 (a) Used substantively. 61 IX (b) As predicate with copula. 63 (c) For postquam clause. 63 (d) For ablative of the gerund. 64 2. Future . 64 (a) As attributive adjective and as substantive.... 64 (b) Purpose . 65 3. Perfect passive . 65 ii. Gerund . 66 1. Genitive . 66 2. Accusative . 67 3. Ablative . 67 in. Gerundive . 68 iv. Supine . 69 CHAPTER VIII.—PREPOSITIONS . 71 i. With the Accusative . 71 1. ad . 71 2. apud . 73 3. ante . 75 4. post . 75 5. iuxta . 76 6. ob .• • 76 7. propter . 77 8. circa . 77 9. secundum . 78 10. per . 78 ii. With the Ablative. 79 1. a or ab . 79 2. de . 80 3. e or ex . 83 4. cum . 84 5. absque . 85 nr. With the Accusative and Ablative. 85 1. With the accusative; in . 85 2. With the ablative; in . 87 CHAPTER IX.—CONJUNCTIONS. 88 i. Quod, quia, quoniam. 88 ii. Quamdiu . 90 hi. Quamvis, quamquam. 91 iv. Dum . 91 v. TJt. 92 vt. Licet . 94 vn. Quamlibet .• .. 94 viii. Si . 95 1. Past contrary to fact conditional sentences with im¬ perfect subjunctive in both protasis and apodosis 96 X 2. Past contrary to fact conditional sentences with protasis in imperfect for pluperfect subjunctive . . 96 3. Past contrary to fact conditional sentences with apodosis in imperfect for pluperfect subjunctive.. 97 4. Present contrary to fact conditional sentences ivith protasis in pluperfect for imperfect subjunctive .. 97 5. Future simple conditional sentences . 98 x. Nisi . 98 CHAPTER X.—SUMMARY . 99 \ INTRODUCTION. Ecclesiastical Latin. To arrive at a satisfactory understanding of ecclesiastical Latin we must consider its source in the original language of Latiurn known as the prisca Latinitas. From this was derived the sermo plebeius, which is neither the parent nor descendent of classic Latin but one of two concurrent streams which originated from the pristine language of the Romans. With the earliest development of a national literature a differ¬ entiation began between the cultured and the popular speech. In the third century B. C., Ennius with other writers, and later the members of the literary aristocracy of the Scipionic circle, under¬ took to enrich the language with Greek embellishments. The attempt was encouraged by the literary coteries of Rome, and, under the combined influence of the political and intellectual aristocracy, classical Latin which reached its zenith in Cicero was developed. At the same time, along divergent lines grew the other branch of the Latin language, the sermo plebeius, developing according to the natural laws of a living language. In as far as the classical Latin was more and more highly and artificially developed, in so far did the chasm between the two grow greater. Nevertheless, the exigencies of daily life brought the political and literary elements of Roman life into constant and continual touch with the uneducated masses, and from the reciprocal influence resulted a third idiom, a medley of the two, viz., the sermo urbanus, vdiich became in the time of Cicero synonymous with the highest type of excellence in Latin speech. After classical Latin had reached its culmination and had come to an early end, the sermo urbanus found its way into literature, where blended with the provincialisms from Spain, Gaul and Africa, it produced nothing worthy of the name of classic after the writings of Seneca. It w r as the sermo plebeius which was carried into the conquered provinces chiefly by the conquering soldiers as well as by others attracted to the colonies for one reason or another. Through the non-military element, this sermo plebeius received a classic or archaic touch, but it retained within itself the germ of life, chang¬ ing constantly and developing without restraint. Thus in this l c 1 2 process of development we see in the sermo pleheius two opposing features, a conservatism for the old and a receptivity for the new. These are of primary importance in accounting for the growth of the local variations in provincial Latin. With the spread of Christianity, Christian writers, of whom many were trained in the rhetorical schools flourishing in the provinces, had acquired a knowledge of the spoken language; and thus the basis of their writings was the sermo pleheius which had been carried by the Romans into all the conquered provinces. At first sight it may seem strange that Christian writing did not begin at Rome. This may be accounted for from the fact that Christianity was strongly persecuted in the capital. Furthermore the Christian community at Rome was Greek-speaking. After the civil wars, when the old Roman families died out, Greek had become the language of the educated classes, and the most famous Latin writers of this age are to be found not in Italy but in Spain and Africa. By this time Latin had ceased to be national. It had become the language of the Empire. St. Paul wrote to the Roman church in Greek; St. Clement, when addressing the Corinthians, wrote in Greek; and we find Greek in the earliest inscriptions of the Catacombs. Not until the end of the second century was Latin used in the Roman church. About this time ecclesiastical Latin came into existence. Its precise date is a matter of conjecture. Some maintain that Tertullian is the father of ecclesiastical Latin, but it is an accepted fact that the first Christian writing in Latin is a translation of the Bible which existed before the time of Tertullian. When, where and by whom this translation was made are questions which the writers of the period itself were unable to determine. Augustine himself admits the uncertainty of the translators and the times, “ Qui scripturas ex Hebraea lingua in Graecam verterunt numerari possunt, Latini autem interpretes nullo modo. Et enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex Graecus et ali- quantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguae habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari ” (De Doctrina Christiana II, 11). The following were the influencing factors in the formation and development of ecclesiastical Latin. I. The colloquial language. Colloquial Latin had for its basic content the sermo plebeius, which is not a resultant of classic Latin, but a descendent of the prisca Latinitas, a fact which ac¬ counts for the archaisms so prevalent in ecclesiastical Latin. The 3 degree of archaism present in the idioms of the separate Roman provinces can almost determine their date of conquest. II. The Scriptures. In the refutations of their opponents, the Latin Fathers sought arguments from that fundamental document, the Bible. Their intimate acquaintance with the Scriptures is clearly evident in their writings. Thus the Hebrew and Greek idioms in which the Latin Scriptures abound must have, in spite of conscious efforts in opposition, influenced their thought and writing. III. Classical Latin. The influence of classical Latin as taught in the schools of rhetoric which the Fathers attended, almost un¬ consciously adorns their style. To these influences we may add that of Tertullian, an original writer with an independent type of genius. In general there abounds in ecclesiastical Latin a simplicity of style, an absence of artificiality, a naivety of structure, a care¬ lessness of grammatical rules, but a positive effort toward directness and ready intelligibility. Augustine expressly says, “ Saepe enim et verba non Latina dico, ut vos intellegatis; melius est repre¬ hen dant nos grammatici quam non intellegant populi” (Ps. CXXXVIII, 20). The essential differences between the syntax of ecclesiastical and classical Latin as thus far determined by the research in the Latinity of the period are the following: a more frequent use of abstract terms; case usage applied with less precision; adjectives lavishly used instead of substantives; a confusion in the use of pronouns; change of meaning in adverbs; the neglect of classical precision in tense; the subjunctive used for the indicative and vice versa; the substitution of quiaquod and quoniam with a finite mood for the accusative and infinitive in indirect statements; the extension of the quod construction to clauses where an ut sub¬ stantive clause would be used in classical Latin; the infinitive to express purpose; a more extensive use of the participle; the use of a periphrasis especially with forms of esse and habere, equiva¬ lent to a periphrastic conjugation; prepositions with nouns used instead of simple cases; changes in meaning and an extension in the use of prepositions; and changes in meaning and an extension in the use of conjunctions. The differences are by no means slight. In fact a thorough appreciation of the same is of fundamental importance for an 4 accurate understanding of the great literary legacy of the Fathers. Much has already been done in the study of ecclesiastical Latin, but much more remains to be completed before anything like a comprehensive grammar of ecclesiastical Latin can be written. It is hoped that the present study of the syntax of the greatest masterpiece of ecclesiastical Latin, the De Civitate Dei of St. Augustine, will contribute something towards this end. CHAPTER I—SU3STANTIVES. Various modifications of substantives, including the frequent use of certain rare classical forms, occur in ecclesiastical Latin. In the D. C. D. of Augustine we find the following modifications: i. Substantives Used Adjectively. 'Substantives denoting agency in tor and sor with the feminine endings in trix and strix are used with the function of adjectives by the writers of the Classical period. The authors of the Empire extended this usage and in their works we find such expressions as, sed advenas Italiae cultores, Livy, XXI, 30, 8; advenas reges, IV, 3, 13; exercitum alienigenam, XXVIII, 42, 10; hostis alieni - gena , XIX, 10, 5; indigenae Fauni, Verg. Aen. VIII, 314; pueri servi, Val. Max. VIII, 1, 12; puerum histrionem, I, 1, 16. Some have even used substantives for neuter adjectives. The following instances may be cited: indigena vino , PI, n. h. XIV, 6, 8, 72, minium, adulterum, 33, 7, 37. This usage, viz. substantives used adjectively, occurs with much freedom in the writers 1 of the Christian period, but only to a limited extent in Augustine. In the D. C. D. the following pas¬ sages occur, thus: Et haec non ab alienigenis hostibus, I, 5. . . . nisi raptae illae laceratis crinibus emicarent . . . non armis victricibus, sed supplici pietate sedarent, III, 13. Ita Roma extitit victrix ea clade etiam in certamine extremo, III, 14. unde rixa numinum et Venus victrix, et rapta Helena et Troia deleta, III, 25. in illius autem incarnatione natura humana erat, sed iusta, non peccatrix erat, X, 24. quae sapientia perpetrari vetat, ac per hoc opus habere moderatrice mente atque ratione, XIV, 19. quoniam rex Aegyptius Ptolomaeus eos ad hoc opus asciverat, ipsam veritatem gentibus alienigenis invidisse, XV, 13. 1 Bayard, 271; Goelzer (1), 379; Goelzer (2), 644; Regnier, 89; Gabar- rou, 145. 5 6 Neque enim sibi ipsi sunt veritas, sed creatricis participes Veri- tatis ad illam moventur, XVI, 6. Sive ergo per iuvencam significata sit plebs posita sub iugo legis, per capram eadem plebs peccatrix futura, XVI, 24. et multis cladibus afflicta est ab alienigenis regibus ipsisque Romanis, XVIII, 45. ex homine virgine, XVIII, 46. Verum tamen pertinebat ad consultores deos vitae bonae praecepta non occultare populis cultoribus suis, II, 4. intuentes alternante conspectu 'hinc meretriciam pompam, illinc virginem deam, II, 26. At illae sine duce liomine atque rectore ad Hebraeos viam pertina- citer gradientes, ... X, 17. ii. Gender. Augustine adheres strictly to the careful distinction observed by classical writers in the use of gender, and herein he differs greatly from Gregory 2 and Jerome. 3 He is careful even to observe the shades of meaning expressed by the different genders of locus recognized in classical times. In classical Latin locus is used in the masculine when referring to a particular place, but when a series of connected places is in question the neuter is used. In¬ stances of this fine distinction occur in the D. C. D. thus: Electus est videlicet locus tantae deae sacratus, I, 4. Cf. also VIII, 23; IV, 29; IX, 12, 13, 17; XI, 28; XIV, 2; passim. Locus is used to designate a series of connected places in the following: qui contra omnem consuetudinem gestorum ante bellorum ad loca sancta confugientes Christianae religionis, . . . V, 23. Cf. also I, 1, 2; II, 6; XV, 9; XVIII, 3, 20, 21; XX, 15, 22. hi. Xumber. The writers of the Classical period vary in the use of the singular and plural of certain collective, abstract and concrete nouns. For example, in classical Latin sordes regularly appears in the plural, capillus and crinis are used as collective nouns in the singular. 2 Bonnet, 503. 3 Goelzer (I), 293. 7 We find sordes used in the singular by Cicero/ Plautus 4 5 and Horace. 6 Capillus appears once in the plural in Cicero. 7 The writers of the Empire used capillus frequently in the plural. In Vergil we read, Sanguine turpantem comptos de morte capillos, Aen. X, 832; in Horace, Hunc et incomtis Curium capillis, Carm. I, 12, 41. We also find crinis in the plural in Vergil, thus: Crinibus Iliades possis peplumque ferebant, Aen. I, 480; as well as in Cicero 8 and Catullus. 9 The following irregularities, rare in classical Latin, occur in the D. C.D. 1. Concrete terms . (a) Singular for plural. In the classical and pre-classical periods altare is used only in the plural. Augustine uses altare ten times in the singular, thus: Sed cur et Fides dea credita est et accepit etiam ipsa templum et altare? IV, 20. Quod etiam sacramento altaris fidelibus noto frequentat ecclesia, X, 6. Deinde aedificato ibi altari et invocato Deo, . . . XVI, 19. ut serviret altari , XVII, 5. veniebant homines ad templum vel altare Dei, XVII, 6. A quibus tantum prima coepta fundamina et altare constructum est, XVIII, 26. Alioquin nec ad altare Dei fieret, . . . XX, 9. cuius corporis sacramentum fideles communicantes de altari sumere consuerunt, XXI, 25. deinde abscendens aliquid de altari florum, XXII, 8. eius est altare cor nostrum, X, 3. It occurs eight times in the plural, thus: ab Urbis altaribus tarn multos ac minutos deos tamquam muscas abegerunt, II, 22. verum etiam inter ipsa deorum altaria fundebatur, III, 31. 4 P. Plano. 3, 7; ad. Att. 1, 16, 11. 5 Poen. 1, 2, 102. 8 Ep. I, 2, 53. 7 Pis. 15. 8 Verr. 2, 3, 33. 9 64, 391. 8 quae tamen extra in aedibus propriis altaria, meruerunt, IV, 20. si forte aliorum aedibns vel altaribus iam fnisset locns occupatus, IV, 23. verum etiam sacra, sacerdotia, tabernaculum sive templum, altaria, sacrificia, VII, 32. qnibns templa altaria, sacrificia sacerdotes instituendo atque prae- bendo summnm verum Deum . . . offenderet, III, 12. templis altaribus, sacrificiis sacerdotibus . . . inserviant, XVIII, 18. nec ibi erigimus altaria, XXII, 10. In classical Latin sordes is used only in the plural. In the D. C. D. Augustine uses it once in the singular and three times in the plural, thus: Tunc enim puri atque integri ab omni sorde ac labe peccati . . . offerebant, XX, 26. cuius amor purgat a sordibus avaritiae, hoc est ab amore pecuniae! VII, 12. et mundanis sordibus expiatus mundus perveniat ad Deum, VII, 26. Nisi forte sic eos dicendum est emundari a sordibus et eliquari quo dam mo do, XX, 25. In the Latin historians, 10 the singular is used to designate any particular collective idea such as people, army etc., as the Populus Romanus of Caesar and Livy. This usage is very frequent in Christian writers. Numerous examples occur in the D. C. D. Cf. Multitudo, I, 15; XII, 28; XVI, 4, etc. Hostis, III, 19; XVII, 13; I, 10, etc. Populus Hebraeus, V, 21; VII, 32. Turba, III, 17; IV, 11; VI, 9, etc. Vulgus, I, 22; IV, 9; XIV, 2, etc. Augustine himself indirectly lays down the rule illustrating the use of a singular term for a plural. Nam nimia disponebatur altitudo, quae dicta est usque in caelum, sive unius turris eius, quam praecipuam moliebantur inter alias, sive omnium turrium, quae per numerum singularem ita significatae sunt, ut dicitur miles et intelleguntur milia militum, XVI, 4. 10 Schmalz, 606 (e). 9 (/?) Plural for singular. Contrary to classical usage, the writers of the Empire used capillus and crinis in the plural, and these words are so used also in the Christian period. 11 In the D. C. D. capillus occurs seven times in the singular, always under Biblical influence, thus: quorum capillus capitis non peribit, I, 12. quantum capilli occupant, XIY, 24. capillus capitis non peribit, XXII, 12. qui dixit nec capillum capitis esse periturum, XXII, 14. cum ipse nec capillum periturum esse promiserit, XXII, 15. cum capillus hominis perire non possit, XXII, 20. sed capillus in eo capitis non peribit, XXII, 21. It occurs in the plural six times, thus: hanc vim in nostro corpore permanare dicit in ossa, ungues, capillos, VII, 23. qui usque in hesternum diem madidis capillis facie dealbata, VII, 26. Sunt quae Iunoni ac Minervae capillos disponant, . . . VI, 10. qui eis etiam de capillorum suorum integritate securitatem dedit, XIII, 20. Quid iam respondeam de capillis atque unguibus? XXII, 19. Quamvis et de ipsis capillis possit inquiri, XXII, 12. Crinis occurs in the plural once in the D. C. D. thus: nisi raptae illae laceratis crinibus emicarent, . . . Ill, 13. (y) Agreement of a single verb with several subjects. The following are representative examples of a series of subjects as used with a single verb in the D. C. D., none of which are con¬ trary to classical Latinity. sicuti sunt fornicationes, inmunditiae, luxuria, ebrietates, comi- sationes, XIV, 2. At vero gens ilia, ille populus, ilia civitas, ilia res publica, illi Israelitae, quibus credita sunt eloquia Dei . . . confuderunt, XVIII, 41. 2. Abstract terms. A marked preference for concrete expressions is characteristic of classical Latin. A gradually increasing use of abstract terms, how- 11 Goelzer (2), 261. 10 ever, is seen in the development of the language until in the writ¬ ings of the Christian authors we at once realize that one of the chief characteristics of that period is a fearless usage of abstract expressions. We note the following in the D. C. D. (a) Verbal nouns in tus and sus. The plural of verbal nouns in tus and sus 12 appears in the nominative and accusative cases in classical Latin and seldom occurs in other cases. Augustine, like the writers 13 of the Christian period, introduced the plural in all cases, thus: affectus IX, 4; effectuum V, 2; nisibus XXII, 13; affectos XII, 6; passibus XVIII, 18; lapsibus XII, 14; accessibus IV, 4; anfractibus XII, 14; decessibus V, 6; conceptibus XII, 24 ; eiulatibus XXII, 8. Cf. also II, 26; IV, 8; IX, 1; X, 14; XI, 7; XII, 6, 14, 24, 26; XIII, 10; XIV, 9, 12, 24; XV, 3; XVI, 29; XVIII, 54, 18; XXI, 6; XXII, 13, passim. (/3) Abstract nouns used for participles. 14 et tanta hinc et inde cognati cruoris effusione vicisse Roma gaude- bat. III, 14. Sarra quippe sterilis erat et desperatione prolis, . . . XV, 3. Quod ergo in confessione ac professions tenet omnis ecclesia, . . . XX, 1. Cf. also II, 14; X, 7; XVII, 7; XVIII, 32; XX, 5; XXI, 25; XXII, 30, passim. (y) Abstract nouns used for adverbs. 15 de dono Dei cum tremore exultasse, I, 28. Quaeso ab humano impetremus affectu, ut femina sponsum suum a fratre suo peremptum sine crimine fleverit, si viri hostes a se victos etiam cum laude fleverunt, III, 14. ubi et monstrosos partus cum horrore et inrisione commemorant, XXII, 12. ut mentem legentis exerceant, et pauca in eo sunt, ex quorum manifestatione indagentur cetera cum labore, XX, 17. Cf. also VIII, 23; XI, 31; XII, 9; XX, 9, 19; XXII, 8, 11, 12, passim. iv. Cases. Elsewhere we have treated in detail the various influences which tended to bring about the change evident in the Latin language “ Schmalz, 603. 14 Regnier, 91. 13 Bayard, 206. 15 Schmalz, 603. 11 from the Classical to the Christian periods. In no phase of this development does the change appear so strikingly as in the sub¬ stantive, and especially in its modifications of case usage. In the D. C. D. the nominative and the vocative present no irregularity. 1. Accusative. (a) With verbs. Through the accusative case, the case of the direct object, the substantive is brought into a certain relationship with the verb, which relation is determined by the character of the verb and the dependent substantive. In classical Latinity this relation was re¬ stricted within narrow limits; and as time went on, intransitive verbs tended more and more to become transitive. In the Silver Age and Ecclesiastical period we have such verbs taking the accusa¬ tive as cavere, consulere, inludere, interdicere, latere, persuadere, supplicare, mendicare, ridere, indulgere. These verbs were likewise used transitively in the pre-classical period. 16 In the D. C. D. we find the following: Oblivisci which takes the genitive of the person in classical Latin occurs here with the accusative of the person, thus: quia non eos obliviscente, sed potius miserante Domino et ipsi post hoc opprobrium credituri sunt, XVII, 12. Credere takes the dative with persons in classical Latin. It occurs with in and the accusative 17 in the D. C. D. Fungi takes the ablative in classical Latin. It occurs with the accusative in the D. C. D., thus: Samuel simul officium functus sacerdotis et iudicis, XVII, 4. Benedicere takes the dative in classical Latin in the sense of to praise. Four instances occur in the D. C. D. where benedicere, meaning to bless, takes the accusative. This is the common ecclesiastical usage. Ac per hoc cum in Aegypto moriturus Israel suos filios benediceret, XYI, 41. Quos cum benediceret Iacob, XYI, 42. 16 Goelzer (2), 59. 117 For credere with the accusative and the preposition in, cf. Chapter VIII on Prepositions. 12 quocl protulit Melchisedich, quando benedixit Abraham, XVII, 17. cum moriturus filios suos et nepotes ex Ioseph benedixisset Chris- tumque apertissime prophetasset, XVIII, 6. (/?) Appositional accusative. Augustine uses an appositional accusative with the preposition in. The construction seems to be akin to the accusative with the preposition in or ad with verbs of motion, thus: Cum autem Deus iubet seque iubere sine ullis ambagibus intimat, quis oboedientiam in crimen vocet? I, 26. 2. Genitive. As the accusative case is closely connected with the verb in most of its relations, so in a similar manner is the genitive connected with the substantive. In the D. C. D. a greater number of irregu¬ larities center around the genitive than around any of the other oblique cases. These irregularities are: (a) Genitive of quality. The substantive 18 on which the genitive depends is sometimes omitted by Christian writers. 19 Bayard calls this the elliptical genitive. Schmalz classifies it under the genitive of quality. Four passages with huius modi occur in the D. C. D. in which this omission appears, thus: si haec atque huius modi, quae habet historia, IV, 2. haec ergo atque huius modi nequaquam illis, X, 16. Haec atque huius modi Deo parva sunt, X, 18. Haec atque huius modi mihi cogitanti non videtur, XVIII, 52. A considerable amount of freedom is permitted even in classical Latin when there is a question of the genitive or ablative of quality. The genitive is usually used when the idea of quality is embodied in number, measure, time, space or class. Strictly speaking the ablative is used when treating of form and appearance, of char¬ acteristics of dress or person. In ecclesiastical Latin, however, the genitive tends to supplant the ablative in this construction, as may be seen from the following examples: Egregius Bomani nominis Marcus Marcellus, I, 6. 18 Schmalz, 363. 19 Bayard, 210; Gabarrou, 100. 13 Nam vir clarissimus Flaccianus . . . homo facillimae facundiae multaeque doctrinae, XVIII, 23. (/ 3 ) Partitive Genitive. The partitive genitive is employed four times depending on medius used substantively, where in classical Latin medius as an adjective would agree with the noun. This, however, is clearly due to the influence of neighboring quotations from Scripture. de medio ecclesiae, . . . XX, 19. de medio Babylonis . . . XVIII, 18. aut in medio duarum latronum, aut in medio Moysi et Heliae . . . XVIII, 32. in medio inimicorum suorum . . . XVII, 17. The partitive genitive instead of e or ex and the ablative is used with numerals in the following examples: unus illorum septem, VIII, 2. itemque alter filiorum Sem genuit . . . XVI, 3. Cf. also XVI, 41; XVIII, 9, 42; passim. (y) Objective and Subjective Genitive. In classical Latin the genitive of the personal pronoun (not the possessive) is used regularly as the objective genitive. To denote possession, however, the possessive pronoun and not the possessive genitive of a pronoun is almost universal until after Tacitus. 20 For the regular objective genitive, cf. I, 10; X, 16; XIV, 13, 28; XV, 17; XVI, 29. A single example occurs of this irregular use of possessive geni¬ tive of the pronoun. quam totam implet praesentia sui, I, 12. ( 8 ) Genitive with nouns in tor. On almost every page of the D. C. D. we meet with verbal nouns in tor used with the genitive. This construction was already in use in the pre-classical period. In the Golden Age, we still find it used among the representative authors of that period, although there is a marked preference among them for a relative clause. 21 Thus Cicero, instead of saying fabricator , prefers to say pictores 20 Lane 1234, 1262; Goelzer (2), 95; Bayard, 209. 21 Schmalz, 607. 14 et ii, qui signa fabricantur. In the D. C. D. we find the following: vera autem institia non est nisi in ea re publica, cuius conditor rectorque Christus est, II, 21. profecto eo modo, quo sunt peccatores, etiam praevaricatores legis illius, XVI, 27. non arbitremur habere animam Deum, cum sit conditor animae, XVII, 5. Cf. also II, 18; IV, 33; V, 26; VI, 4; VIII, 23; X, 23, 28; XI, 25; XII, 27; XIII, 14; XV, 9; XVI, 43; XVII, 5; XVIII, 36; XIX, 13; XX, 28; XXI, 14; XXII, 24; passim. (e) Hebrew Genitive. Among the many forces functioning indirectly at this period, and eventually affecting the constructions of the language, the translation of the Bible from the Hebrew through Greek into Latin exerted no small influence. The Hebrew Genitive, so called by Bayard, 22 is composed of the genitive of a substantive (usually feminine) depending on another substantive 23 as terra sanctitatis. It passed into ecclesiastical Latin and appears abundantly in the works of the period. 24 The following are from the D. C. D.: qui Christianis feminis in captivitate compressis alieni ab omni cogitatione sanctitatis insultant, I, 19. studemus accendere sive ad virginalem integritatem sive ad con- tinentiam vidualem sive ad ipsam tori conjugalis fidem, I, 27. quae fictio non mentientis, nisi profundum mysterium veritatis? XVI, 37. Cf. also I, 9, 12, 21, 25, 27; II, 18, 29; III, 28; IV, 5; V, 6, 12; VIII, 10; X, 8, 19; XIV, 17; XVI, 37; XVII, 4, 5; XVIII, 18, 53; XX, 3, 6, 19; XXI, 18, 24; passim. (£) Genitive with adjectives. Felix occurs with the genitive for the first time in the poets of the Imperial Epoch. 25 Through the influence of the syntax of the poets it appears in the prose writers of the period. One instance occurs of felix and the genitive in the D. C. D. thus: 22 Bayard, 210. 23 Schmalz, 362, An. 2. 24 Goelzer (1), 323; Goelzer (2), 100; Regnier, 41. 25 Riemann and Goelzer, 167. 15 Metellus enim Romanorum laudatissimus, qui habuit quinque filios consulares, etiam rerum temporalium felix fuit, II, 23. 3. Dative. The function of the dative case in classical Latin is to indicate that to or for which anything is done. In later periods, its use was extended, especially with verbs to indicate many other kinds of relationship. In this respect the D. C. D. of Augustine, unlike the works of other Christian writers, does not differ in a very marked degree from classical Latinity. The irregularities found in the D. C. D. are the following: * (a) Dative after verbs. Without doubt it is by analogy with verbs like redire 26 etc. that other verbs such as reddere, restituere etc. take the dative, not of the person, but of the state to which a person or thing returns. Reddere with the dative of the state to which occurs in the three following passages from the D. C. D.: et suae potestati reddi potuerunt, X, 26. Redditi sunt animo eius, XXII, 8. quam ferebat, super earn proiecisset, reddita est vitae, XXII, 8. (/3) Dative with adjectives. In Plautus and Terence similis takes the genitive; but in general from Ennius on the dative as well as the genitive is used. In classical Latin similis is said to take the genitive for a general or comprehensive likeness and the dative for a conditional or partial likeness. 27 Augustine uses the dative with similis about five times as often as the genitive, and in these examples it is usually difficult to discover any real distinction of meaning. ne fiant similes earum muliercularum, quas commemorat apostolus, ... II, 1. non sane iusti, sed daemonum similes, ea, quae vana esse noverant, IV, 32. qui etiam ludis talibus delectentur, simile sit furoris, VI, 9. qui est in corpore humano, simillimus est inmortalis animi, VII, 5. 26 Bonnet, 539; Gabarrou, 104. 27 Riemann and Goelzer, 161; Kuhner, 448h, 449, A. S. 16 Hi et ceteri similes eorum id solum cogitare potuerunt, VIII, 5. ut ponerent in Deo spem suam, similes illius, . . . XV, 23. ut novissima Antichristi persecutio similis videatur undecimae plagae, XVIII, 52. quod eis etsi non certum, tamen veri simile videbatur, XIX, 1. vel etiam pervicacia simillima insaniae id, XX, 1. Similis with the dative. ei similis de qua scriptum est, II, 5. ut similiores eis sunt, Y, 1. ut mimicae scurrilitati videatur esse similiimum, YI, 1. Cf. also II, 1; III, 19; Y, 62; YI, 1, 8, 9, 10; VII, 5, 7, 23; YIII, 5, 17; IX, 17, 20; X, 8, 11; XI, 26; XII, 26; XIY, 2, 3, 4, 20, 22, 24; XY, 7, 10, 23; XYI, 8; XVII, 9; XVIII, 17, 52; XX, 3, 23; XXI, 5, 10; XXII, 8, 23, 28, 29. 4. Ablative. The ablative case is used especially with verbs and their par¬ ticiples, or with adjectives. It may be described as an adverbial case, because a noun in the ablative generally qualifies a verb, adjective or adverb in the same way as an adverb does. Among the many uses of the ablative in the D. C. D., irregu¬ larities occur which are only slightly known in classical Latin as compared with their frequent occurrence in ecclesiastical Latin. (a) Ablative with adjectives. Plenus with the genitive is the regular rule in Cicero and Caesar. 28 Plenus was used in classical Latin with the ablative, and appears frequently in the writers of the Empire and thence on through the Christian period. With no apparent preference, Augustine in the D. C. D. uses plenus with the genitive and the ablative at will. Twenty-one passages with plenus and the ablative occur, thus: ut ipsum perferat mundum per omnes horas temptationibus plenum, I, 27. Civitas regis magni, gratio plena, XVII, 4. Xempe una est terra, quam plenam quidem videmus animalibus suis, VII, 23. 2S Sclimalz, 383. 17 quanto minus credendum est illis litteris, quas plenas fabulosis velut antiquitatibus . . . XII, 11. si omnia quattuor elementa suis animalibus plena sunt, VIII, 17. Cf. also XI, 10; XV, 16; XVII, 4, 8; XIX, 5, 8, 20; XX, 1, 2; XXI, 7, 14; XXII, 1, 4, 8, 22, 30. Thirteen passages occur with plenus and the genitive, thus: sollicitudinis autem plena sunt coepta, VII, 7. quae falsissima est et plenissima erroris, IX, 18. indignitatis et turpitudinis plena, VI, 7. Xeque enim in hoc tarn praeclaro opere et tantae plenissimo digni¬ tatis audent . . . IV, 8. quas omnes partes quattuor animarum esse plenas, VII, 6. Cf. also VIII, 26; X, 11, 22; XI, 23; XII, 21; XVI, 31; XIX, 8, 23. Reus is used in pre-classical writers with the genitive. Later on, reus like plenus, appears with the ablative. Classical writers, however, prefer the genitive. 29 In the D. C. D. Augustine uses reus seven times. In five pas¬ sages it is construed with the genitive and in two with the ablative, thus: (a) With the genitive. verum etiam suae mortis reus finivit hanc vitam, I, 17. Porro si falsi testimonii non minus reus, est qui de se ipso falsum fatetur, I, 20. nulla civitatis suae lege reus est homicidii, immo, nisi fecerit, reus est imperii deserti atque contempti, I, 26. Xc itaque reus esset tanti sacramenti in Saule violati, XVII, 6. (/ 3 ) With the ablative. 30 ut capitali crimine reus fieret, si quis earn fuisse hominem diceret, XVIII, 3. (Xon-classical.) cum homicidii crimine reus fieret, XVIII, 10. (Classical.) (y) Ablative of time. Duration of time and extent of space are usually expressed in classical Latin with the accusative case. 29 Riemann and Goelzer, 166. 30 For the genitive of the charge may be substituted in classical Latin nomine or crimine with the genitive or with the ablative and de. 2 C IS Four passages embodying the idea of duration of time occur in the D. C. D., where Augustine uses the ablative for the accusative, thus: qui per ipsum . . . panels diebus vitae suae cursim raptimque transierunt, IV, 5. Quantum enim pertinet ad hanc vitam mortalium, quae panels diebus ducitur et finitur, V, 17. Utrum autem etiam 111Is ultimls tribus annis et menslbus sex, XX, 8. Haec persecutio novissima, . . . tribus annis et sex mensibus erit, XX, 13. « CHAPTER II—ADJECTIVES. The twofold process according to Schmalz, 1 of making nonns out of adjectives is; first, by unconsciously investing an adjective with the idea of a substantive which is not expressed, (this idea may be that of a person or thing or some other idea less general); second, through the conscious ellipsis of a substantive of a more limited meaning. In the first case the idea of the substantive is vague and the thought is embodied in the quality, usually a calling, profession and the like, expressed by the adjective, as consularis, amicus, bonus; while in the second, owing to the structure of the phrase and the restricted idea of the substantive which is generally of a concrete nature, ellipsis is consciously admitted and the adjec¬ tive functions as a noun, as fera where bestia could be easily understood. The use of adjectives as substantives in the Classical period was in general restricted. Writers confined themselves to the following usages: For persons: The singular of an adjective as iustus, fidelis, is seldom met with. The use in the plural as docti, sapientes, is frequent, espe¬ cially in the nominative. The other cases were rarely allowed to assume a substantival character. For things: In the nominative and accusative cases, the neuter singular of the second declension tends to express an idea rather in the ab¬ stract, as honestum, verum; while the plural in the same cases lends itself to a more concrete expression, as honesta, vera. Prepositional phrases: Prepositions in combination with the accusative and ablative singular of neuter adjectives of the second and third declensions occur, as ad extremum, de cetero, in proclivi. In Sallust there is a marked tendency toward the use of adjec¬ tives as substantives. The writers of the Empire and of the Chris- 1 Schmalz, 608. 19 20 tian period waive aside all limitations, and treat adjectives as substantives without restriction of any kind. Among the Christian writers Cyprian, 2 Arnobius, 3 Jerome 4 and Avitus 5 as well as Augustine manifest an absolute freedom in this usage. The following examples are from the D. C. D.: 1. For persons in the singular and plural, nominative and accusa¬ tive cases. Sic evaserunt multi, qui nunc Christianis temporibus detrahunt et mala, I, 1. Nam bonus temporalibus nec bonis extollitur nec malis frangitur; malus autem ideo huiusce modi infelicitate punitur, I, 8. nam hoc quoque in libris suis habent eorum docti atque sapientes, IY, 10. Quo modo ergo bona est, quae sine ullo iudicio venit et ad bonos et ad malos? IY, 18. scaenicus autem ludendo potius delectaret, YI, 11. constat inter historicos graves, XYIII, 8. Ecce hie dixit fideles suos in iudicium non venire, XX, 5. Sed quod dixi scriptum a Yarrone, licet eorum sit historicus idemque doctissimus, XXI, 8. Ac per hoc haeretici et schismatici ab huius unitate corporis sepa¬ rate possunt idem percipere sacramentum, XXI, 25. Cf. also I, 1; II, 2, 25; III, 6, 7; IY, 2, 11; Y, 12, 26; YI, 1; VIII, 26; IX, 8; X, 10; XY, 1, 23; XYIII, 51; XX, 19, passim. 2. For things in the singular and plural nominative and accusa¬ tive cases. quia et ipsi vidimus talia ac talibus numinibus exhiberi, IY, 1. Sed si virtus non nisi ad ingeniosum posset venire, IY, 21. Yerum tamen qui omnia mala animae ex corpore putant accidisse, XIY, 3. Yoluntas quippe, inquiunt, appetit bonum, . . . cautio devitat malum, XIY, 8. alternaverunt prosper a et adversa bellorum, XYI, 43. quae ille plura commemoravit et brevia, XYIII, 23. ubi erit Deus omnia in omnibus, XIX, 20. a Bayard, 271. 3 Gabarrou, 147. 4 Goelzer (1), 108. 6 Goelzer (2), 646. 21 3. In other cases. isto compendio possent in illo uno omnibus snpplicare . . . IV, 11. Jovem igitur de omnibus rogarent, IY, 17. De supervacuis non magna causa, IY, 27. Sed non te andinnt, daemones sunt, prava docent, turpibus gaudent, IY, 27. ab auribus omnium repellendi sunt, Y, 1. non deberent inspectis natalium constellationibus de valetudine aliqnid dicere, Y, 5. De talibus enim, qui propter hoc boni aliqnid facere videntur, Y, 15. sed earn potins quantum valuit ab haereticorum perniciosissima pravitate defendit, Y, 18. et quod minus ferre bonorum possit aspectus, Y, 20. sed ipsi soli et lunae aut cuicumque caelestium homo vitio cuilibet obnoxius minas eosque territat falso, X, 11. sed ipsis caelestibus et siderea luce fulgentibus, X, 11. atque in infidelibus claudus, XYI, 39. unus e septem sapientibus, XYIII, 14. quae nunc in sanctis fidelibus est diffusa per terras, XX, 21. Deus erit omnia in omnibus! XXII, 29. Cf. also I, 16; III, 12, 18, 26, 30; IY, 11, 17; Y, 26; YIII, 2, 10; IX, 4, 11; XY, 1, 23; XYII, 23; XXI, 5, 6, 25; passim. 4. Prepositional phrases. susurrans in occulto verba institiae ad decipiendos etiam paucos bonos, II, 26. quae suos agros non haberet, de publico viveret, Y, 17. Non opus est multa percurrere, cum res in aperto sit, VTI, 1. quam creavit ex nihilo, XIV, 11. quid est nisi aut in medio duorum testamentorum, aut in medio duorum latronum, aut in medio Moysi et Heliae cum illo in monte sermocinantium ? XYIII, 32. Cf. also VII, 1; IX, 13; XI, 4; XII, 5, 16; XIV, 11, 13; XYII, 4; XYIII, 52; XX, 19; passim. Augustine, conforming to a usage not uncommon in his time, but seldom found in classical Latin 6 uses the comparative and 6 iSchmalz, 609; Goelzer (2), 649. 22 superlative of adjectives in both numbers and all cases as sub¬ stantives. From the D. C. D. are the following: quae praetermissi essent, multo numerosioribus praeberetur, IV, 11. Sed quia peius esset, ut iniuriosi iustioribus dominarentur, IV, 15. Si enim a maioribus illi sunt appellat superstitiosi, IV, 30. Multo sunt autem tolerabiliores, qui vel siderea fata constituunt, V, 9. in forma Dei supra angelos mansit ; idem in inferioribus via vitae, qui in superioribus vita, IX, 15. Quaerit enim cur tamquam melioribus invocatis quasi peioribus imperetur, X, 11. quod septuaginta interpretes in plurimis, XV, 14. Sed ad manifestiora veniamus . . . XIX, 23. Non itaque pergo per plurima, XXI, 5. eorumque paucos discipulos suos faciunt plurimorumque doctores, XXI, 6. Cf. also II, 26; III, 12; IV, 5, 8, 11, 26, 34; VI, 10; X, 23; XII, 22; XIV, 8; XVIII, 8, 33, 37; passim. n. Adjectives for Genitives of Possession. Instances occur in classical Latin, even in Cicero, of adjectives taking the place of genitives either when they express the subject of the action in the noun on which they depend as Cic. ad Att. 6, 17, erratum fab rile; or as the equivalent of the genitive of pos¬ session, as Ter. Andr. 602, erilem filium. In the D. C. D. as in all ecclesiastical Latin such adjectives appear with far greater fre¬ quency, thus: quibus baptizatos adloquendo studemus accendere sivi ad vir- ginalem integritatem sive ad continentiam vidualem . . . I, 27. si earum quoque aliquas barbarica libido compressit, I, 28. Sciebatur virginali numini quid placeret, II, 26. in utero virginali domum sibi aedificasse corpus humanum et huic, XVII, 20. in novis evangelium et apostolicae litterae, XX, 4. Currus vero eius . . . angelica ministeria non inconvenienter ac- cipimus, XX, 21. Cf. also I, 25; II, 13; III, 30; V, 6, 11, 18; VII, 26; X, 3, 16; XIV, 3, 11; XV, 26; XVII, 18, 20; passim. <• 23 hi. Degrees oe Comparison. The value of the suffixes is not fully appreciated in the Christian period. This is due no doubt to the irregularities prevalent in the popular language of the day and unconsciously taken over into the writings of the period. However, Augustine, unlike many Chris¬ tian writers, 7 has shown a marked care in his use of the suffixes forming the degrees of comparison. Very few irregularities appear in the D. C. D. In one passage magis is used with a positive for a comparative, thus: Quis adversus eos contentiosior, animosior, et magis aemulus atque invidus invenitur? XIY, 3. In another place the comparative is used for either a positive or superlative, thus: cum patre suo qui translatus fuerat aliquantum fuisse atque ibi, donee diluvium praeteriret, vixisse arbitrantur, nolentes dero- gare fidem codicibus, quos in auctoritatem celebriorem suscepit ecclesia, XY, 11. In thirteen passages Augustine joins a positive and superlative, and in one, a positive and comparative, an irregularity which ac¬ cording to Schmalz 8 appears only in late Latin. ut videlicet poeta magnus omniumque praeclarissimus atque opti- mus teneris ebibitus animis non facile oblivione possit aboleri, I, 3. I ' qui nostro Deo conditori sanctae et gloriossissimae civitates deos suos praeferunt, X, 18. quod perversissimae atque impiae vanitatis est, XI, 34. Cf. also XII, 27; XIY, 13; XY, 1, 10; XVII, 3; XVIII, 24; XIX, 23; XX, 5, 9; XXII, 14. Octava generatio habet quidem nonnullam diversitatem, sed minorem ac dissimilem ceteris, XV, 10. iv. Miscellaneous Exceptional Uses of Adjectives. With the exception of a few stereotyped expressions such as plurimam salutem, ad multam noctem, plurima exercitatio, etc. 7 Goelzer (1), 399; Goelzer (2), 657; Gabarrou, 150. 'Schmalz, 616. 24 found in classical Latin, the singular of the adjectives multus, paucus, plurimus, omnis, singulus, is not used with substantives in a plural sense. Schmalz 9 cites Tertullian and Orosius as exponents of the use of this syntactical phenomenon. In the D. C. D. the following occur which are classical: Iste ergo multus error et incredulitas non animadvertentium ad cultum religionemque divinam invenit artem, VIII, 24. et tamen si causas art.is huius nos diceremus multum errorem hominum, VIII, 24. Qui cum ei protectionem mercedemque promitteret valde multam, XVI, 23. Ita perficit Christus multam multitudinem dulcedinis suae speran- tibus in eum, XXI, 24. Numerals. Classical Latin requires, in the case of compound numbers from twenty-one to ninety-seven inclusive, that the smaller number with et precede the larger, or that the larger number precede the smaller without et, as unus et viginte or viginti unus. With the exception of a few cases where there is a violation of the rule given above, Augustine in the D. C. D. is quite regular in his use of numerals. The following are the variations which occur: triginti et novem anni in tarn longa pace transacti sunt regnante Xuma, III, 9. Bellum Punicum primum per viginti et tres annos peractum td, V, 22. Quadraginta et unum libros scripsit antiquitatum, VI, 3. qui eum octoginta et unum vixisset, VIII, 11. Menses quippe illi triduani viginti et septem dies habere non poterant, XV, 14. Augustine makes frequent use of the correlatives unus—alter for alter — alter to denote either division of a group. This irregularity occurs in about fifty-five passages in the D. C. D., thus: An Veneres duae sunt, una virgo, altera mulier? IV, 10. a quibus solos duos deos coli, unum bonum, alterum malum, V, 21. 9 Schmalz, 612. 25 ubi dederunt Marte et Oreo, uni eftectori mortium alteri receptori, YII, 3. duo philosophorum genera traduntur: unum Italicum ex ea parte Italiae . . . alterum Ionicum in eis terris, VIII. 2. Cf. also I, 19, 24; IV, 3, 10; V, 4; VI, 3, 7, 9; VII, 3, 7, 11; VIII, 2, 3, 4; IX, 13; X, 5, 32; XI, 33; XII, 1, 6, 13; XIII, 21; XIV, 1, 4, 13, 28; XV, 1, 2, 8, 15, 20, 21, 26; XVI, 1, 17, 25, 40; XVII, 2, 3, 4, 20; XVIII, 1, 28, 44; XIX, 3; XXI, 1, 4, 26; XXII, 5, 8, 24, 30. CHAPTER III—PRONOUNS. Among the characteristics which differentiate ecclesiastical from classical Latin, the peculiarities pertaining to the use of the pro¬ nouns are perhaps the most pronounced. In some cases the writers of the Christian epoch, more especially those of Africa, have dis¬ regarded in part not only the fine shades of meaning always ob¬ served by classical writers, but at times have even confused the fundamental meaning of one pronoun with that of another. Thus the reflexive pronouns are now used interchangeably with demon¬ stratives, now with intensives, as in Arnobius: qui (Christus) iustissimis viris . . . ac diligentibus sese (=ipsum) . . . apparet. I, 46, and in Cyprian: Factus est autem Cornelius episcopus de sacerdotum antiquorum et bonorum virorum collegio (consensu) cum nemo ante se (= eum) factus esset, 629, 21. It is not chiefly among the reflexives, however, as in the examples above that the striking irregularities occur in the D. C. D. of Augustine. While some such appear, the variations from classical norms abound more in the demonstratives. Augustine seems to use the demonstratives, especially those of the first, second and third persons promiscuously. In making contrasts between two persons or things, one may find the classical usage hie . . . ille, but much more frequently hie . . . iste, or ille . . . ille or ills . . . iste. These irregularities are due no doubt to the inevitable change which took place in the language when influenced by the Greek and Semitic languages, directly or indirectly, through the trans¬ lations of the Bible. i. Personal Pronouns. Like all Latin writers, Augustine uses the personal pronouns only where it is necessary to emphasize the idea of the person. In speaking of himself he uses the first person plural; as . . . de qua loqui instituimus, I, 1 etc., a usage employed by wwiters of ail periods of the language. It is scarcely possible, owing to the dis¬ tinct and precise meaning assigned to each, that a confusion should arise in the use of the personal pronouns. 26 27 ii. Relative Pronouns. The relative pronouns like the personal offer little difficulty. Goelzer 1 when treating of the syntax of the pronouns in Avitus, classifies the indefinites with the pure relatives. As our classifica¬ tion conforms to that of Schmalz, we shall retain the treatment of the indefinites for a special section (v) of this chapter. hi. Reflexive Pronouns. The idea of reciprocity in classical Latin is expressed by the reflexive phrases inter nos, inter vos, inter se. Later on, however, in the Augustan age we find Livy joining the adverb invicem to inter se; thus: Invicem inter se gratantes, 9, 43, 17. Soon the reflexive phrase was omitted and the reciprocal relation was ex¬ pressed by invicem; as Ut invicem ardentius diligwmus , Plin. ep. 7, 20, 7. Schmalz 2 says that inter se was not lost to the language, but was used by the authors who followed classical traditions. Augustine uses both forms in the D. C. D. Inter se occurs in ninety-four passages in the D. C. D., thus: Etiam ipse de particulis inter se sdmilibus, VIII, 2. nos ergo has duas societates angelicas inter se dispares atque con- trarias, XI, 33. Pugnant ergo inter se mali et mali, XV, 5. Cf. also II, 25; III, 14; IV, 7, 27; V, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6; VI, 5, 6; VII, 4, 11; VIII, 2, 3, 14; IX, 1, 2, 7, 9, 14, 23; XI, 34; XII, 9, 14, 17, 19, 22, 23; XIII, 16; XIV, 4, 10, 12, 18, 26; XV, 13, 15, 16; XVI, 8, 20, 24, 36; XVII, 7, 11, 21, 23; XVIII, 1, 2, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 51; XIX, 3, 7, 14, 23, 28; XX, 5, 29; XXI, 6, 8; XXII, 24, 27, 28; passim. Invicem occurs in twenty passages, thus: Perplexae quippe sunt istae duae civitates in hoc saeculo invi- cemque permixtae, I, 35. quas in hoc saeculo perplexas diximus invicemque permixtas, X, 32. Nam si duo sibimet invicem fiant obviam neque praeterire, XIX, 7. Cf. also IV, 2; XI, 1; XII, 21; XIV, 8, 22, 28; XV, 4, 6; XVI, 6; XVIII, 7, 13, 17; XIX, 13, 17; XXII, 24, 27, 29. - Alterutrum expressing reciprocal relations is used for the first 3 1 Goelzer (2), 667. 3 Schmalz, 620. 3 Schmalz, 620. 28 time in Lucius Annaeus Floras, 183, 19 R, manu alter utrum tenentes. Among the writers of the Christian period we find it in Jerome, 4 Avitus. 5 6 In the D. C. D., alterutrum occurs as a reci¬ procal pronoun in the two following passages: lam vero Punicis bellis, cum inter utrumque imperium victoria diu anceps atque incerta penderet populique duo praevalidi impetus in alterutrum fortissimos et opulentissimos agerent, III, 18. ubi partium studia non contionum dissensionibus variisque vocibus in alterutrum. III, 23. iv. Demonstrative Pronouns. Classical Latinity defines precisely the use of is, hie, iste and ille. Hie 6 and is are distinguished one from the other in that hie always signifies an object present. It is the demonstrative of the first person. Is represents an object already mentioned or about to be mentioned. Iste is the pronoun of the second person. It points out something near, belonging or imputed to the person addressed. It is used in addressing opponents, and is thus fre¬ quent in contemptuous expressions. Ille points out what is more or less remote in place, time or thought. It is the demonstrative of the third person. These distinctions carefully observed by classical writers were uniformly disregarded by Christian writers. Irregularities in the syntax of the demonstrative pronouns found in the D. C. D. are as follows: In expressions of contrast iste — ille, ille—ille and ille—iste are used for hie—ille and ille—hie in the three following passages: Quis ergo est locus bonorum daemonum, qui supra homines, infra deos istis praebeant adiutorium, illis ministerium? IX, 13. et sceleratarum concatenation causarum a bello Mariano atque Sullano ad bella Sertorii et Catilinae (quorum a Sulla fuerat ille proscriptus, ille nutritus), III, 30. Pax cum bello de crudelitate certavit et vicit. Illud enim prostravit armatos, ista nudatos, III, 28. The following passages are worthy of note, where Augustine in referring three times to two of the gods by means of the demon- 4 Goelzer (1), 412. B Goelzer (2), 6.63. 6 Sclimalz, 621. 29 stratives, uses the combinations Me . . . ista, Me . . . haec and then the non-classical usage Me . . . ista again. Huic monstro nec Iani monstrositas comparatur. Ille in simula- cris habebat solam deformitatem, ista in sacris deformem crudelitatem; Me membra in lapidibus addita, haec in homini- bus perdita. Hoc dedecus tot Iovis ipsius et tanta stupra non vincunt. Ille inter femineas corruptelas uno Ganymede coelum infamavit; ista tot mollibus professis et publicis et inquinavit terram et caelo fecit iniuriam, YII, 26. \ In discussing theologia mythica, Augustine uses ilia . . . haec six consecutive times and completes the enumeration with ilia . . . ista, thus: Nec fabulosa igitur nec civili theologia sempiternam quisquam adipiscitur vitam. Ilia enim de diis turpia fingendo seminat, haec favendo metit; ilia mendacia spargit, haec colligit; ilia res divinas falsis criminibus insectatur, haec eorum criminum ludos in divinis rebus amplectitur; ilia de diis nefanda fig- menta hominum carminibus personal haec ea deorum ipsorum festivitatibus consecrat; facinora et flagitia numinum ilia cantat, haec amat; ilia prodit aut fingit, haec autem aut adtestatur veris aut oblectatur et falsis. Ambae turpes am- baeque damnabiles; sed ilia, quae theatrica est, publicam tur- pitudinem profitetur; ista, quae urbana est, illius turpitudine ornatur;, YI, 6. In the following passage the reverse takes place. Eeferring to two societies of angels Augustine uses illam . . . istam four con¬ secutive times and concludes the series with a passage which con¬ tains a double use of the principle according to classical Latin: t nos tamen has duas angelicas societates, . . . Mam in caelis cae- lorum habitantem, istam deiectam in hoc infimo aerio caelo tumultuantem; Mam luminosa pietate tranquillanp istam, tenebrosis cupiditatibus turbulentam; Mam Dei nutu cle- menter subvenientem, iuste ulciscentem, istam suo fastu sub¬ den di et nocendi libidine exaestuantem; Mam, ut quantum vult consulate Dei bonitati ministranq istam, ne quantum vult noceat 7 Dei potestate frenatam; Mam huic inludentem, ut nolens prosit persecutionibus suis, hanc Mi invidentem, cum peregrinos colligit suos, XI, 33. 30 Cf. also I, 28; II, 11, 14; VI, 1, 2; VII, 4; VIII, 1, 2, 13, 21, 26; IX, 2, 4, 15, 22; X, 15; XII, 1; XIII, 4, 8; XIV, 8, 13; XV, 2; XVIII, 28, 41, 43; XIX, 28; XX, 1; XXI, 11; XXII, 4, 6, 11, 24. In the following passage hie, is and iste are used with scarcely any difference in meaning: Hi motus, hi affectus de amore boni et de sancta caritate venientes si vitia vocanda sunt, sinamns, nt ea, qnae vere vitia sunt, virtutes vocentnr. Sed enm rectam rationem sequantur istae affectiones, quando nbi oportet adhibentnr, XIV, 9. Ille is used for is in the two following passages: et ideo potest a litteratis eius defensoribus dici non esse apud in¬ feros inter illos, I, 19. qui nec fuerunt umquam nec futuri sunt desertores, inter quos et illos, qui aeternam lucem deserentes tenebrae facti sunt, XI, 28. Iste, as has been said above, was used to refer to the second person. Hence it should be confined to cases of address, especially in colloquial expressions. Cicero always uses iste with this force. It is found only once in Caesar 7 and then in the passage of an oration embodied in his narrative. The earliest evidence of a weakening of this force appears in Apuleius. 8 In the Christian writers we find it equivalent almost to a definite article. Cf. Min. Felix, 18, 11, iste sermo; Cyprian. De Hab. Virg. 15p, isto in loco; Commodian, 1, 25, 19, isto libello; Ambrose, 1, 8, 32F, nobis excursus iste processit; Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 1, 2, 1, voluminis istius; Tertullian, De Idol, 19p, in isto capitulo. Similar meanings of iste occur in about thirty- two passages of the D. C. D., thus: Quapropter in decern istis libris, etsi minus quam nonnullorum de nobis expectabat intentio, X, 32. primumque dicam, quern ad modum exordia duarum istarum civi- tatum in angelorum diversitate praecesserint, XI, 1. Nam ubi tenebrae inculpabiles sunt, inter quas et lucem istam his oculis conspicuam luminaria caeli dividunt, XI, 20. 7 B. G. 7, 77. 8 Koziol, 78. 31 Cf. also 1, 8, 13; VI, 15; XI, 1, 33; XV, 1, 27; XYI, 4, 15, 21, 24, 26, 28, 35, 36, 38; XVII, 1, 4, 5, 7, 16; XVIII, 28; XIX, 5, 26; XX, 15. v. Indefinite Pronouns. 1. quisquam, aliquis, ullus. Quisquam meaning a “ single one,” “ any one at all,” and ullus meaning “ any ” are used chiefly in negative sentences in classical Latin. In ecclesiastical Latin quisquam occurs frequently in affrmative sentences. It also appears with si, nisi, ne and num instead of quis. These forms appear very frequently in Avitus ,J and likewise in Augustine. In the D. C. D. quisquam occurs fifty- eight times in negatives and forty-five in affirmative sentences. (a) si with quisquam instead of quis. Si duas quisquam nutrices adhiberet infanti, VI, 9. Quod si quisquam dicit, non ex omnium sed ex malorum daemonum numero esse, XI, 7. ac si quisquam velit videre tenebras vel audire silentium, XII, 7. Cf. also XI, 5; XII, 7, 16; XIV, 3; XVI, 27; XIX, 12; XXI, 5, 10; XXII, 20. The five following passages, two containing non quisquam for nemo; one, non quicquam for nihil; and two, non ullus for nullus occur in the D. C. D. Non tamen quisquam putare debet aut frustra haec esse conscripta, XV, 27. Non enim Domino quisquam quicquam rectum voveret, XVII, 4. non quo quicquam bonis quandoque morituris tale genus mortis faciat aliquid, XV, 24. non gustus faucium, non ullus corporeus tactus accedit, XI, 27. Cur enim esset ulla poena in quibus non essent ulla punienda? XIII, 3. (?) Si with aliquis instead of quis. Aliquis, the indefinite pronoun of an affirmative proposition, occurs in about four hundred and seventy passages in the D. C. D., fifty-one of which are used in negative sentences. 9 Goelzer (2), 668. 32 Verum si aliquis audeat, vincit nempe istos, XXI, 17. In classical Latin aliquis for ullus is not ordinarily used with the preposition sine. Eight instances of this irregularity appear in the D. C. D., thus: qnod fieri fortasse sine carnis aliqua voluptate non potuit, I, 16. velnt ipsius Romae filiam, sed sine aliquo daemonnm templo simu- lacroque concessit, Y, 25. quod tempus sine aliqua mobili mutabilitate non est, XI, 6. Cf. also XII, 21, 22; XYI, 2; XIX, 13; XXII, 24. Two passages containing aliquis . . . aliquis for alius . . . alius occur, thus: Hue accedebat, quod, ut sunt alterna bellorum, aliquae parentum ferro amiserunt viros, aliquae utrorumque ferro et parentes et viros. III, 13. quod aliqui alienant a Dei voluntate, aliqui ex ilia etiam hoc pen- dere confirmant, Y, 1. 2. Quispiam. Quispiam 10 in pre-classical Latin differed very little from aliquis but it w T as more extensively used. Cicero does not use it as fre¬ quently in negative sentences as quisquam. It is seldom used in the Imperial epoch. Sidonius Apollinaris, a contemporary of Augustine revived its use. It occurs in seven passages in the D. C. D., in three of which it replaces quis, thus: (a) nisi or si with quispiam for quis. Nisi forte quispiam sic defendat istos deos, III, 15. nisi forte quispiam ex ipsa numerositate annorum nobis ingerat quaestionem, XY, 9. Exempli gratia, velut si quispiam, quod hie scriptum est, XY, 26. 3. Quicumque. Quicumque, at different periods in the development of the lan¬ guage, weakens as an indefinite relative pronoun, and assumes a very strong adjectival force. Schmalz 11 cites Cicero as using it rarely. 10 Schmalz, 625. 11 Schmalz, 627. 33 Forty-four out of one hundred and four passages in which it is used in the D. C. D. have the adjectival use thus: quaecumque tales viri in suis litter is multorum deorum ludibria posuerunt, IV, 31. et quaecumque turpia geruntur in theatris, VIII, 5. quibus potius sit credendum, respondeant Platonici, respondeant quicumque philosophy X, 16. Cf. also IV, 23; X, 3; XVI, 8; XXI, 26; XXII, 8; passim. 4. Quisquis and quisque. Quisquis, with the very general meaning “ whoever/’ has no limitations in classical Latin; while quisque meaning “each,” “each by himself,” is applied to a group of more than two. Quisque is also used with pronouns (immediately following them), ordinals and units. In the Ecclesiastical period quisque and quisquis are often used synonymously. The following examples are especially to be noted: (a) Quisque for quisquam. Transeuntium quippe intentio ipsa mutatur de vetere ad novum, ut iam non quisque intendat accipere carnalem, sed spiritalem felicitatem, XVII, 7. post aliquot dies quod audierunt mente retineant et vix quisque reperiatur illorum, XXII, 8. (/?) Si quisque for si quis. An vero tarn insulsa perversitas cor evertit et a consideratione veritatis avertit, ut, si se quisque interimere debet, I, 27. 5. Uterque. In the Classical period uterque meaning “ each ” is used of two individuals and its plural utrique for two sets or parties. Augus¬ tine adheres strictly to this distinction. Cf. I, 8, 28; II, 11, 14; III, 13, 14; VI, 6; IX, 4, 13; XII, 1; XIV, 26; XV, 10, 13; XVII, 4, 44; XVIII, 43; XIX, 4, 17. Classical usage 12 does not allow the combination uterque uterque. The joining of alius alium, alter alteri, and uter utri in the com¬ bination of double questions is regular as: Ut diiudicari posset, 12 Schxnalz, 627. 3 C 34 uter utri anteferendus videretur, Caes. B. G. 5, 44, 14. No doubt the doubling process of these pronouns was extended to uterque. One passage with this irregularity occurs in the D. C. D., thus: An uterque utrumque implet, IV, 10. vi. Pronominal Adjectives. 1. Tantus, quant us, tot, quot. The meanings of the pronominal adjectives tot, “ so many/* quot, “how many/’ tantus, “so great” and quantus, “how great ” were strictly followed by the writers of the Classical period. As early as Propertius, 13 however, a variation in the meaning of the pronominal adjectives appears, and we see the plural of quantus being used for quot. Down through the Empire and in the Ecclesiastical period, the change in meaning was gradually extended, and we find Augustine, in his Sermons, Letters and D. C. D. frequently using tarn magnus for tantus, quam multi for quot and tarn multus for tot, thus: (a) Tam magnus for tantus. Merito certe laudant virtutem tarn magna infelicitate maiorem, I, 15. quo Roma tarn magna facta est, IY, 9. et ex illorum numero erat, cuius tam magnam divinamque sen- tentiam . . . X, 25. quod a nullo coepit . . . sed tam magna spatia, quanta ilia summa comprehendit annorum, XII, 13. Cf. also IY, 13, 15; X, 21; XII, 21; XIII, 17; XY, 14; XYI, 18; XVII, 13, 18; XIX, 7, 23; XX, 28, 30; XXII, 6, 7, 12, 24, 25; passim. (/?) Quam multi for quot. Yides quanta hinc dici et quam mult a possent, III, 13. ilia itidem ingens pestilentia, quamdiu saeviit, quam multos pere- mit! Ill, 17. quam multa ad hostem oppida defecerunt, quam multa capta et oppressa! Ill, 19. Cf. also IY, 11; YI, 2; XIY, 15; XY, 27; XXII, 8, 11, 24; passim, (y) Tam multi for tot. 13 Sehmalz, 620. 35 iam praesidibus atque tutoribus vix post tam multos annos ab Urbi condita . . . Ill, 9. qui tam multa legit, ut aliquid ei scribere vacuisse miremur; tam multa scripsit, YI, 2. Cf. also III, 12, 13, 15, 17, 29; IV, 13, 20, 25; V, 2, 6; VII, 35; X, 3, 8, 19, 32; XII, 21; XY, 5, 8, 12, 13, 14, 20, 27; XYII, 8, 13; XVIII, 13, 22; XIX, 1; XX, 2, 20, 24; XXI, 7, 12, 18; XXII, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12; passim. Alter and Alius. Alter is related to alius as the comparative is to the superlative. Alter meaning “the other” or “one of two” and alius meaning “ other ” or “ another,” where more than two are thought of, are both used as substantives and adjectives in classical Latin. The writers of the Classical period except in a few instances in Caesar 14 and Cicero 15 were very careful to keep the meaning of these two words sharply defined. In colloquial Latin, however, a confusion arose. Alius is used for alter and alter for alius. This usage ex¬ tended to the literature, and we find it frequently in Augustine and in other ecclesiastical writers. 16 The following are from the D. C. D.: (a) Alius for alter. Numquid hoc dicitur, quia uno ambulante alius sedebat, et alio dormiente alius vigilabat, et alio loquente tacebat alius, Y, 4. At enim alius est ille, alius iste, quamvis eodem nomine nuncu- pentur, VIII, 26. ex eis duo filii Abrahae, unus de ancilla, alius de libera, XIII, 21. Cf. also III, 14; IY, 3; XI, 33. (/?) Alter for alius. sed quam quaeque pars habet vitam a ceteris separatim, si praeter alteram irasci altera potest, IY, 11. cum omnes occupati sint officiis et operibus propriis, nec alter inruat in alterius? IY, 13. quod tria genera theologiae dicit esse, id est rationes quae de diis explicatur, eorumque unum mythicon (appellari), alterum physicon, tertium civile? YI, 5. Cf. also XY, 16; XYI, 3, 38; XYIII, 36; XIX, 2; XX, 5. 14 b. a. l, i, l. 15 Brut. 325. 16 Schmalz, 629; Goelzer (1), 417; Goelzer (2), 673; Bonnet, 278. / CHAPTER IY—ADVERBS. The fundamental function of the adverb is to modify verbs, adjectives and more rarely other adverbs. In all the periods of the language this function is largely sta¬ tionary. Slight variations from classical Latin which occur in the Christian period are: a more frequent and extended use of adverbs, and certain changes in their meaning. This was brought about by the greater need felt for expressing new shades of meaning. Frequently unde is used for igitur as in Jerome, unde obsecro te ignoscas tarditate meae . . . Ep. 99, 2; adhuc for etiam turn, as in Arnobius, adhuc parvi nutricum sub alimonia constituti, VII, 42; undique for apud omnes as in Avitus, Satis undique constat vitali indicio praecedere saepe timorem, IY, 353; and so on. Augustine in the D. C. D. in common with other writers 1 of the period shows similar examples. i. Adverbs of Place. Frequently in ecclesiastical Latin unde is used with the value of quo modo. The point of view evidently changed from that of source to one of manner. In the following twenty passages Augus¬ tine uses unde for quo modo, thus: Unde ergo stetit Minervae simulacrum? Ill, 8. unde hoc accidere potuit, cum eorum conceptus diversum tempus habere non possit? Y, 5. Hoc autem malum esse unde demonstrant? XXII, 25. unde dicebat, si non prophetabat, XVII, 4. quod unde fieri potest . . . hoc est ipsam voluntatem malam? XII, 6. Unde enim apud Vergilium pius Aeneas laudabiliter dolet hostem etiam sua peremptum manu? Unde Marcellus Syracusanam civitatem recolens eius paulo ante culmen et gloriam sub manus suas subito concidisse communem cogitans condicionem flendo miseratus est? Ill, 14. Cf. also III, 2, 17; IY, 20; Y, 5; XII, 6; XIY, 4, 8, 18; XIX, 5, 8; XXI, 3; XXII, 5, 8, 29. 4 1 Goelzer (1), 424; Goelzer (2), 681; Gabarrou, 164; Bayard, 272. 36 37 Augustine, in his use of demonstrative adverbs, conforms to classical Latinity more frequently than when using the corre¬ sponding pronouns. 2 Instances of this regularity in the D. C. D. are to be found in I, 4, 28; II, 26; VII, 17 etc. In the two following passages Augustine deviates from classical usage: Illuc . . . spolia portabantur, . . . hue . . . reportatum est. Ibi (= illic) amissa, hie servata libertas; ibi (= illic) clausa, hie interdicta captivitas; ibi possidendi a dominantibus hosti- bus premebantur, hue liberandi a miserantibus ducebantur, I, 4. Uterque quidem de semine Abrahae; sed ilium genuit demonstrans consuetudo naturam, ilium vero dedit promissio significans gratiam; ibi (= illic) humanus usus ostenditur, hie divinum beneficium commendatur, XV, 2. n. Adverbs of Time. In classical prose adhuc means “to this moment,” “up to this time.” In the poets and even in Cicero we meet adhuc with the value of etiam turn, thus: Nemo adhuc docuerat, Acad. 2, 2. Augustine uses adhuc in the sense of etiam turn in the following passages of the D. C. D.: Haec Cicero fatebatur, longe quidem post mortem Africani, quern in suis libris fecit de re publica disputare, adhuc tamen ante adventum Christi, II, 21. adhuc tamen ante adventum Christi, II, 21. Adhuc autem meliorem partium civilium Sulla dux fuit, adhuc armis rem publicam recuperare moliebatur, III, 7. Deinde in illo populo cum adhuc nemo regnaret, XVII, 4. Cf. also IV, 23; VII, 23; IX, 5; XVII, 7, 8; XVIII, 3, 6, 7, 10, 15; XIX, 3, 4, 6, 13, 22; XX, 2, 29; XXI, 4, 13; XXII, 8, 27; passim. hi. Adverbs of Manner. Ceterum means “ for the rest,” “ otherwise,” in classical Latin. It took over the restrictive sense of “ but ” in the Imperial epoch. Augustine uses it in this sense in the D. C. D. in the twelve fol¬ lowing passages: 3 Cf. Chapter III on Pronouns. 38 ad vocem anseris cito redierunt, lit saltern Capitolinum collem, qui remanserat, tuerentur; ceterum ad alia defendenda serius sunt redire commoniti, III, 8. Ceterum quis ferat dici atque contendi deos illos, YI, 1. Ceterum absit a mente Christiana, I, 25. Ceterum qui futuri sint pro meritis praemiorum etiam gradus honorem atque gloriarum, XXII, 30. Ceterum eos, qui putant minaciter potius veraciter dictum, XXI, 24. Cf. also II, 20; X, 11; XII, 4, 10; XX, 26. Scilicet in classical Latin means “ certainly,” “ naturally.” Later on it was used with the meaning of id est , as in Jerome, hie locus in Genesi multo aliter invenitur, quod scilicet Abraham emerit . . . speluncam duplicem, Ep. 57, 10; and in Arnobius, medietas ergo quaedam et animarum anceps ambiguaque na- tura locum philosophiae peperit et causam cur appeteretur invenit, dum periculum scilicet ex malis iste formidat ad- missis, alter concipit spes bonas, II, 31. In the D. C. D. Augustine uses scilicet to mean id est in the following passages. unde intellegitur totam eius theologian, earn ipsam scilicet natura- lem, cui plurimum tribuit, VII, 5. quoniam acutissimi homines atque doctissimi, a quibus ista con- scripta sunt, ambas improbandas intellegebant, et illam scilicet fabulosam et istam civilem, YI, 8. Haec igitur duo incredibilia, resurrectionem scilicet nostri corporis in aeternum et rem tarn incredibilem mundum esse credi- turum, XXII, 5. Abdias . . . omnium brevissimus prophetarum, adversus Iduma- eam loquitur, gentem scilicet Esau, XVIII, 31. Cf. also I, 27, 30; III, 28; V, 12; X, 6, 16; XI, 1, 29, 30; XIII, 10, 21; XIY, 20; XV, 17, 20, 22, 23; XYI, 32, 41; XVII, 7; XX, 6; passim. iv. Adverbs of Quantity. Magis in classical Latin means “more.” It is the comparative of action or quality. In ecclesiastical Latin it is used to a great extent for potius which also means “more,” and “rather” or “ sooner.” Magis attributes a higher degree to one of the objects compared, whereas potius actually prefers it. 39 In the D. C. D. Augustine uses magis for potius in the following passages: Proinde ista omnia, (id est) curatio funeris, conditio sepulturae, pompa exequiarum, magis sunt vivorum solacia quam subsidia mortuorum, I, 12. Talis enim ab eis Lucretia magis credita est, quae se nullo adul¬ ter ino potuerit maculare consensu, I, 19. quamvis et ea ipsa plerique magis naturae corporalibus causis quam operibus divinae mentis adsignent, XII, 24. Cf. also I, 22; II, 13, 20, 23, 25, 27; III, 15; V, 9; VII, 26; XIY, 7; XY, 27; XYII, 4; XX, 24; passim. Valcle in classical Latin means, “intensely,” “greatly,” “exceed¬ ingly.” Frequently in Christian Latin 3 it is used to intensify a comparative and often to accompany a superlative. In two passages in the D. C. D. Augustine uses valde in an unusual sense. In the first, valde is used with a positive for a superlative; and in the second a superlative is intensified still more by means of valde, thus: Qui cum ei protectionem mercedemque promitteret valde multam, XYI, 23. Sunt enim inter se valde proximi patres et filii, XX, 29. v. Adverbs of Modality. 1. Interrogative Adverbs. In classical Latin the particles ne and num not utrum are used to introduce a single indirect question. A confusion arising between the particles used for alternative questions led to the use of utrum for ne or num. Thus in Jerome we read, in potestate nostra est, utrum velimus esse perfecte, Matth. Ill, 19, 21. In the D. C. D. we find the following passages containing single indirect questions introduced by utrum instead of ne or num: TJtrum autem honi Patris et boni Filii Spiritus sanctus, quia com¬ munis ambohus est, recte 'bonitas dici possit amborum, non audeo temerariam praecipitare sententiam, XI, 24. quaero utrum in aliqua natura fuerit, XII, 6. *Schmalz, 613. 40 satis diximus; de amore autem, quo amantur, utrum, et ipse amor ametur, non dictum est, XI, 28. cum quaeritur utrum sit nocens, XIX, 6. Hoc quippe in saeculo isto prorsus latet, quia et qui videtur stare, utrum sit casurus, et qui videtur iacere, utrum sit surrecturus, incertum est, XX, 7. Unde merito quaeritur, utrum recte fecerint Saguntini, XXII, 6. Cf. also I, 9, 21, 22, 26; III, 4, 12; IY, 3, 23; YI, 1, 2, 9; YII, 3, 5, 23; VIII, 3, 10, 11, 24; IX, 1, 4, 5, 7, 14; XII, 16, 21; XIII, 3, 16, 22, 23; XIY, 7, 8, 22; XY, 15, 16, 22, 23; XYI, 8; XVIII, 38, 43; XX, 8; XXI, 3; XXII, 2, 6, 8, 12, 24, 29; passim. In alternative questions asking which of two things is true, utrum . . an, ne . . . an, or an is used in classical Latin. In¬ stead of these combinations we find utrum . . . aut, and utrum . . . vel as follows in the D. C. D.: Sed utrum potuerit Venus ex concubitu Anchisae Aenean parere vel Mars ex concubitu filiae Xumitoris Romulum gignere, in medio relinquamus, III, 5. Nee ad causam, quam nunc agimus, interest, utrum hoc fieri Romulus iusserit aut Romulus fecerit, III, 6. The interrogative adverbs cur and quare are frequently replaced in ecclesiastical Latin by ut quid. Thus in Jerome we read, Ut quid mihi ieiunatis? Ep. 22, 37. The following is a total list of the passages from the D. C. D. containing ut quid for cur or quare: vel eis quos diligunt prosunt, ut quid coluntur, ut quid tanto studio colendi requiruntur? II, 23. Ut quid ergo constituit Romanis deos Ianum, Iovem, Martem, Picum, Faunum, Tiberinum, Herculem et si quos alios? Ut quid Titus Tatius addidit Saturnum, Opem, Solem, Lunam, Vulcanum, Lucem et quoscumque alias addidit, inter quos etiam deam Cluacinam, Felicitate neglecta? Ut quid Numa tot deos et tot deas sine ista? IY, 23. Cf. also I, 18; IY, 18, 19; Y, 18; YII, 22; XVIII, 30; XXII, 24. 2. Negative Adverbs. (a) ne for non. In classical Latin the negative particle with the hortatory and jussive subjunctive is usually ne. 41 Three passages occur in the D. C. D., one containing a hortatory subjunctive and two containing jussive subjunctives with non for ne, thus: Quae cum ita sint, non tribuamus dandi regni atque imperii potestatem nisi Deo vero, . . . V, 21. si fabulis non credunt, non obtendant Troiana periuria, III, 2. Ignoscant autem qui haec legunt et cuncta ilia noverunt, et de his quae fortasse firmiora me praetermisisse vel intellegunt vel existimant, non querantur, XVII, 19. (/?) nec . . . quidem for ne . . . quidem. One passage occurs with nec for ne — quidem, thus: Non solum enim non erit tale, quale nunc est in quavis optima valetudine, sed nec tale quidem quale fuit in primis hominibus ante peccatum, XIII, 20. (y) aut . . . vel for aut . . . aut. In classical Latin aut . . aut excludes one of two ideas. In the following passage either the fire did not know Metellus or the goddess of the fire was present, hence aut . . aut should be used. Neque enim vel ipsum ignis agnovit, aut vero erat ibi numen, quod non etiam si fuisset, fugisset, III, 18. Augustine, in the D. C. D., without changing the meaning of the adverbs tantummodo — “ only,” utique — “ certainly,” omnino — “ altogether,” “ entirely,” propterea —“ therefore,” “ on that ac¬ count,” seems to have a peculiar fondness for their use. Their frequent recurrence and their occasional use in a meaning more emphatic than is usual in classical Latin is a special characteristic of Augustine’s style. CHAPTER V—VOICE AND TENSE. i. Voice of the Verb. The functions of the active and passive voice of the verb, as found in classical Latin, have, in general, been preserved intact in the Ecclesiastical period of Latin literature. 1. Use of the Passive Voice. In the ecclesiastical Latin we find the passive system much more frequently used than it was in classical times. The frequent use by Christian writers of the impersonal passive forms is a definite proof of the vitality of the passive conjugation during the Ecclesi¬ astical period. The following are representative passages from Augustine’s D. C.D.: r Hoc si aegre ferendum est, omnibus, qui in hanc vitam procreati sunt, utique commune est, I, 11. Quid autem interest, quo mortis genere vita ista finiatur, quando ille, cui finitur, iterum mori non cogitur? I, 11. Advertendum est igitur duas res promissas abrahae, XVI, 16. et cum in Iudaea atque Samaria plurimi credidissent, et in alias gentes iturn est, XVIII, 50. Inde ad me curritur, XXII, 8. Cf. also I, 13, 19, 20, 21; III, 5; IV, 18; VII, 19, 24, 33; VIII, 15, 23, 25; IX, 4; XIV, 10; XV, 18; XVI, 10; XVII, 6; XX, 20; XXII, 8. iSometimes we find a passive infinitive in the D. C. D. where we would expect a substantive clause of result, especially after facere, thus: ut ilium primo faceret mirabiliter vinci (=ut vinceretur) V, 23. qui se colendos pro ipsis mortuis, quos deos putari (== ut puta- rentur) fecerant, VII, 35. ubi et Romanos et Graecos et Aegyptios, qui de sapientiae nomine gloriati sunt, fecit intellegi (= ut Romanos et Graecos in- tellegeremus), VIII, 10. 42 43 Cf. also XV, 1; XVI, 5, 32; XVIII, 25; XXI, 25; XXII, 8. Especially frequently does the passive infinitive occur with im¬ personal verbs, thus: quod in eos belli iure fieri licuisset, II, 2. magis interpretibus ut possunt seu volunt dubia coniectantibus credi solet , III, 17. solet enim et una res duobus nominibus appellari, IV, 18. Cf. also II, 27; V, 9; VI, 6; XI, 25; XV, 3, 27; XX, 20, 30; XXII, 8; passim. 2. Transitive verbs taken absolutely. As a general rule, transitive verbs in Latin are followed by their direct complements in the accusative case. It happens in all lan¬ guages that a transitive verb may be used intransitively, and then we consider the action signified by the verb as independent of an object on which it might be exercised directly. Thus in Latin are amare, potare, facere etc. sometimes used. We say these verbs are used absolutely. By no means is this usage extended to all transi¬ tive verbs, but in the writers of the Christian period this usage is somewhat extended. For example, in Jerome we see: postquam epistolam tuae sancitatis accepi, confestim, accito notario, ut acciperet impetravi, Ep. 36, 1; in Avitus, Librantis pondere verbi, I, 14; in Arnobius, quibus ex causis pili nigrorem ingenitum ponant neque omnes pariter sed paulatim adiciendo, II, 7. The following occur in the D. C. D.: qui nolunt advert ere de quanta . . . liberet, IV, 31. Cf. also V, 7; VII, 1, 29; XIII, 24; XIX, 1; XX, 13; XXI, 26; XXII, 30. Suscepit enim Philus ipse disputationem eorum, qui sentirent sine iniustitia geri non posse rem publicam, purgans praecipue, ne hoc ipse sentire crederetur, II, 21. sed ad Iohannem in Aegypti eremo constitutum . . . misit atque ab eo nuntium victoriae certissimum accepit, V, 26. Nee movere debet ad hoc non credendum, XVII, 14. 3. Deponent verbs used in a passive sense. The confusion which arose from deponents -being used passively already existed in clasiscal Latin. We find in Cicero the participle of the deponent verb metiri used as a passive, thus: Mensa spatia conficere, N. D. 227. 44 Deponents used passively are found in Jerome/ Avitus, 1 2 Arnobius 3 and Cyprian. 4 One passage in the D. C. D. occurs containing a deponent used in a passive sense, thus: et ligna eius omnes utiles disciplinas et lignorum fructus mores piorum et lignum vitae ipsam bonorum omnium matrem sapi- entiam et lignum scientiae boni et mali transgressi mandati experimentum, XIII, 21. In several instances we find Augustine deviating from classical usage in the forms of coepi and desinere. Regularly the passives of coepi and desinere are used with a passive infinitive. In the D. C. D. the following active forms with passive infinitives occur: ilia atque ilia insula incoli coeperit , XII, 10. hoc est esse in morte, ex quo in illo agi coeperit ipsa mors, XIII, 10. quod promitti coepit his verbis, XVI, 16. quod usque adeo fieri iam desierat . . . XVIII, 24. Cf. also XVII, 8; XVIII, 6, 16, 20, 25; XX, 8. ii. Tenses. 1. Tenses in independent clauses. In ecclesiastical Latin, the tenses in general retained the origi¬ nal value which they had in the Classical period. Certain varia¬ tions in usage, however, crept from colloquial Latin into the litera¬ ture of all periods. Very frequently we note the present taking the place of the future. This usage 5 appears in a greater or less degree in all writers. Thus we read in Caesar, tuemini castra, ego reliquas porfas circumeo et castrorum praesidia confirmo, B. C. 3, 94, 6; in Cicero, quid me auctor es? advolone an maneo? Ad. att. 40, 2; in Avitus, Talis in argento non fulget gratia, I, 252. We also find the perfect infinitive used for the present, the pluper¬ fect tense for the perfect or imperfect, frequent irregularity of tense sequence, and often in the compound tenses, fui, fuero , fueram used for sum , ero , emm. The latter phenomenon is due to the 1 Goelzer (1), 351. 2 Goelzer (2), 20. 3 Gabarrou, 128. 4 Bayard, 220. 8 Schmalz, 484. 45 fact that the perfect passive participle has come to be felt merely as a passive participle without any connotation of time. The temporal idea accordingly has to be expressed in the auxiliary. The frequency of the above variations from classical norms may be seen in Gregory/ Cyprian/ Avitus, 6 7 8 Arnobius, 9 Prudentius 10 etc. In the D. C. D. the following variations from classical Latin appear: (a) Future perfect tense for the simple future. In the Pre-classical period, especially in Plautus and Terence, the future perfect is frequently used for a simple future, thus: Bene merente bene profuerit, Plautus, Capt., 315. Occasionally we find it even in the Classical period. In Caesar we read: Ego certe meum officium rei publicae praestitero, B. G. 4, 23, 3; and in Cicero, Tu invita mulieres ego accivero pueros, Att. 5, 1, 3. A revival of this usage is found in the Imperial epoch, and it occurs frequently in Christian Latin. We find many occurrences of its use in the D. C. D., thus: Q,uis hoc negaverit ? II, 4. Dixerit aliquis; Itane tu ista credis ? Ill, 4. Et cetera, quae sequuntur in verbis praenuntiantis Dei, nullus dubitaverit ad Israeliticum populum pertinere, XVI, 24. Cf. also V, 19, 24; VII, 6; XII, 16; XV, 13; XVII, 15; XVIII, 1, 35; XIX, 1; XX, 1, 30; XXI, 1; passim. (ft) Perfect infinitive for present. We find the perfect infinitive fuisse, in the D. C. D. used for the present in compound tenses where we would expect to find esse. quae dementia est existimare his tutoribus Eoman sapienter fuisse commissam et nisi eos amisisset non potuisse vastari? I, 3. ut hoc miserae Troiae facerent eamque Graecis diruendam exuren- damque relinquerent, adulterio Paridis fuisse commotos. III, 15. 6 Bonnet, 634. 7 Bayard, 225. 8 Goelzer (2), 22. 9 Gabarrou, 134. 10 Lease, 12. 46 in templo in lecto in convivio inopinate atque impie fuisse truci- datmn! Ill, 22. Cf. also I, 3; V, 5; VIII, 5; X, 32; XI, 6; XII, 14, 22, 28; XIII, 3; XV, 11, 12, 17, 27; XVI, 15; XVII, 5, 17; XX, 19; XXI, 8; passim. (y) Plnperfect nsed for the perfect or imperfect. A marked feature of the influence of colloquial Latin on the literature of the Christian period is the use of the pluperfect tense for either the perfect or imperfect, and this is evident not only in the active but especially in the passive. Schmalz 11 says that Caesar and Cicero avoided this usage, although we find it in rare instances even there, e. g., qui turn oppido praefuerat, G. B. 2, 6, 4. Augustine in the D. C. D. is very free with this use of the plu¬ perfect, thus: Verum ista opportunius alio loco diligenter copioseque tractanda sunt, nunc, quod institueram de ingratis hominibus dicere, I, 3. Pramiseram etiam me demonstraturum, IV, 2. Cf. also IV, 2, 29; XVI, 10; XXII, 8, passim. non iam vitiosam, sicut pridie fuerat disputatum, II, 21. qui pro defuncto Lucretio suffectus fuerat, III, 16. Cur enim similiter eodemque tempore . . . sicut nati fuerant, quia utique simul nasci ambo non poterant? V, 5. Cf. also II, 2, 19, 21; III, 7, 9, 13, 14, 17, 18, 22, 25, 28, 30; IV, 20, 29; V, 12, 23, 26; VIII, 11; X, 17, 21, 32; XI, 4; XIII, 20, 24; XIV, 11, 15, 27; XV, 6, 8, 11, 15, 23; XVI, 1, 35, 43; XVII, 2, 5, 8, 13, 21, 44; XVIII, 1, 2; XX, 18; XXI, 27; XXII, 8, 24. In the perfect passive subjunctive, Augustine with a similar freedom, substitutes the forms fuerim and fuissem for sim and essem, thus: adflictionem vero eius, quamcumque iste tempore superbia delici- aeque eorum perpessae fuerint, II, 19. quae forma militi visa fuerit, II, 24. antequam eorum sacrificia prohibita fuissent, IV, 2. Cf. also I, 36; IV, 2; VI, 2; VII, 1; X, 17, 21, 25; XI, 5; XII, 10; XIII, 2, 12, 23; XIV, 8; XV, 7, 16, 20, 21; XVI, 11; 11 Schmalz, 487. 47 XVII, 4; XVIII, 2; XIX, 6, 9, 11; XX, 7, 14, 25, 26; XXI, 16, 17, 18, 24, 25, 27. 2. Tense in dependent clauses. The time of dependent subordinate clauses which take the sub¬ junctive is usually relative, that is, it is either contemporaneous, antecedent or subsequent to the tense of the independent clause. This is what is commonly known as the law of “ sequence of tenses.” In classical Latin, the present or perfect subjunctive, or a future participle with sim, is used in sentences subordinate to a present, future, definite perfect and future perfect indicative. The im¬ perfect, pluperfect or future participle with essem is used in sen¬ tences subordinate to an imperfect, historical perfect and pluperfect indicative. In the writings of all periods of the language we find variations from the above usage. However, such variations are very rare in classical Latin. Augustine, with the writers of the Christian period, has numer¬ ous deviations from this rule, more perhaps than in any other phase of syntax. The following are irregularities found in the D. C. D.: quos dicunt, ut hoc miserae Troiae facerent eamque Graecis . . . Ill, 15. Et lie ipsi quoque sine coniugibus remanerent , additur Neptuno Salacia, Plutoni Proserpina, IV, 10. in Italiae compitis quaedam dicit sacra Liberi celebrata cum tanta licentia turpitudinis, ut in eius honorem pudenda virilia colerentur , VII, 21. Qui profecto incontaminabilis Heus absit ut contaminationem timer et . . . IX, 17. Cf. also I, 2, 10, 20, 28; II, 3, 5, 6, 16; III, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 24, 29; IV, 23; V, 12, 14, 16, 18; VI, 3; VIII, 10, 11; IX, 15; X, 10, 23, 30; XI, 15; XIII, 9; XIV, 2, 5, 10; XV, 13, 17; XVI, 1, 4, 15; XVII, 7; XVIII, 9, 27; XIX, 15; XXII, 8; passim. CHAPTER YI—MOODS. The attitude of mind toward a fact, command, or wish is mani¬ fested in language by means of mood. This is the function assigned to mood by the Greeks. The Romans had the Greek con¬ ception of mood, with this difference, that the Latin subjunctive performs the two functions which the Greeks assigned to the optative and subjunctive respectively. From the viewpoint of syntax, the infinitive functions as a verbal noun. In the development of the language, however, it received tense forms and certain modal characteristics, and is often used as a substitute for finite moods. In the periods of the Latin language subsequent to and even preceding the Classical Age, variations in mood usage existed. It is towards the end of the Augustan period that the confusion in moods began to be very evident, due chiefly to a change in the attitude of mind of the people. Among the variations of the use of mood in the Ecclesiastical period may be mentioned the use of the indicative for the sub¬ junctive in indirect questions. 1 Classical usage adheres strictly to the subjunctive, although in the colloquial Latin of that time the indicative was used. Once even in Cicero’s letters we find the indicative in an indirect question instead of the subjunctive, thus: Yides, propinquitas quid liabet, Att. 13, 18; also in Plautus, Most. 829, Specta, quam acte dormiunt ; and in Propertius; 2, 16, 29, Aspice, quid Eriphyla invenit. In the Ecclesiastical period the indicative in indirect questions appears frequently, but even here it by no means displaces entirely the classical use of the subjunctive. Other deviations from classical Latin, as found in Christian writers, are: the use of the indicative for the subjunctive in clauses of characteristic, and in subordinate clauses in indirect statements; the indicative or subjunctive with quod , quia and quoniam after verba sentiendi et declarandi instead of the accusa¬ tive and infinitive; infinitives after verbs where in classical Latin we find a substantive clause introduced by ut with the subjunctive, etc. 1 Cf. Kaulen, 189; Goelzer (1), 355; Bonnet, 675. 48 49 We shall here take the moods in order and present the variations from classical usage as found in the D. C. D. i. Imperative. The imperative presents no irregularity of any kind. ii. Indicative. 1. In indirect questions. In six passages in the D. C. D. Augustine uses the indicative for the subjunctive in indirect questions, thus: Utrum volunt , eligant, III, 20. quaerendum est quando erit moriens, XIII, 11. Sed utrum primus homo vel primi homines (duorum erat quippe coniugium) habebant istos affectus in cor pore animali ante peccatum, . . . non inmerito quaeritur, XIY, 10. quis non videat quantum rerum eapere ilia potuit magnitudo? XV, 27. Sed utrum videbunt et per oculos corporis cum eos apertos habe- bunt, inde quaestio est, XXII, 29. 2. In relative clauses of characteristic. Relative clauses of characteristic or description which express cause and concession as well as those with indefinite antecedents, take the subjunctive in classical Latin. It is not unusual to find the indicative in Christian writers. Although relative clauses of characteristic with the subjunctive greatly predominate in the D. C. D., yet the indicative exists in instances where we would expect the subjunctive. Approximately in eight hundred passages, clauses of characteristic occur, only about twenty of which take the indicative, thus: neque hoc tarn ipsis quam illis utile est, quibus regnant, IV, 3. et si qui alii sunt, qui quoquo modo corporis bonum summum bonum esse hominis opinati sunt, XIV, 2. Cf. also I, 9; II, 1, 20; IV, 9, 23; V, 26; VII, 3, 5, 23; VIII, 24; XI, 5; XIV, 13, 20; XXI, 24; XXII, 5, 23. An interesting example is the following where the classical and non-classical constructions appear in the same passage without any evident difference in meaning. 4 C 50 Yerum tamen vix quisquam reperitur deorum non selectorum, qui aliquo crimine faman traxit infamem; vix antem selectorum quispiam, qui non in se notam contumeliae insignis acceperit, YII, 4. 3. The indicative instead of the subjunctive in subordinate clauses in indirect statements. In classical Latin the indicative is used in subordinate clauses in indirect statements 3 if the clauses are explanatory or if they contain statements which are true, independent of the quotation. Of thirteen passages in the D. C. I), in which Augustine uses the indicative in indirect statements, he conforms to this classical usage in all except one, thus: Eandem terram Cererem, eandem etiam Yestam volunt, cum tamen saepius Yestam non nisi ignem esse perhibeant pertinentem ad focos, sine quibus civitas esse non potest, et ideo illi virgines solere servire, IY, 10. 4 * Cf. I, 26; II, 8; IY, 7, 10, 26; Y, 12; YII, 5, 11; VIII, 21; IX, 7; X, 25; XII, 8; XIX, 24. 4. Quia and quod with the indicative for the accusative and infinitive. After verba sentiendi et declamndi the accusative and infinitive construction is used in classical Latin. Quod 5 with the subjunc¬ tive is found in Petronius, Pliny the Elder, Tacitus, Suetonius, Floras etc. Petronius, however, is the first to use quod with the indicative for the accusative and infinitive. This use of quod was still further extended and became very general in the Romance languages. In Christian writers we find quia, quod and quoniam with the indicative used very frequently. Augustine 6 gives pre¬ ference to the quod construction. One instance of quia and a great number of quod and the indicative occur, thus: (a) quia. Xec mirandum est, quia Domini omnipotentis angelus dictus est Christus Iesus, XVIII, 35. 3 Riemann et Goelzer, 718; Lane, 1729. 4 According to Angus, Sources of the First Ten Books of St. Augustine, Princeton 1906, this is a quotation from an unknown source. 6 Schmalz, 540. 0 Dokkum. 51 (/?) Quod. Miror Apollinem nominatum divinatorem in tanto opificio laborasse nescientem quod Laomedon fuerat promissa negaturus, III, 2. Hoc dico, quod ipsum Komanum imperium iam magnum multis gentibus subiugatis ceterisque terrible acerbe sensit, IY, 5. nequaquam tamen dicere et scribere dubitaret, quod hi, qui populis instituerunt simulacra, et metum dempserunt et errorem addi- derunt, IY, 9. Cf. also YII, 3, 11, 20, 28; IX, 16, 21; X, 8, 10, 27; XI, 2, 8, 13, 23, 26, 31; XII, 1, 2, 7, 10, 19; XIII, 16; XIY, 9, 14, 23; XY, 5, 23, 27; XYI, 3, 26, 29, 32; XX, 30. In the two following passages, we note that Augustine, while using quod with the indicative is mindful of the classical con¬ struction, since the accusative and infinitive construction imme¬ diately follows: Laudat idem Sallustius temporibus suis magnos et praeclaros viros, Marcum Catonem et Gaium Caesarem, dicens quod diu ilia res publica non habuit quemqnam virtute magnum, sed sua memoria fuisse illos duos ingente virtute, diversis moribus, Y, 12. Sed, o homo acutissime, num in istis doctrinae mysteriis illam prudentiam perdidiste, qua tibi sobrie visum est, quod hi, qui primi populis simulacra constituerunt, et metum dempserunt civibus suis et errorem uddiderunt, castiusque deos sine simu- lacris veteres observasse Romanos f YII, 5. 5. Forsitan, fortasse and fortassis. In classical Latin forsitan 7 is regularly used with the subjunc¬ tive (potential). The indicative with forsitan becomes frequent in Minucius Felix, Jerome, Sulpicius Severus and other Christian writers. In the D. C. D., forsitan occurs in eleven passages, six of which have the indicative with forsitan, thus: Utrisque igitur ... si nec hostium violentia contrectata esset, forsitan poterant, ... I, 28. (quod incredibile forsitan erit, . . . I, 32. adstabat forsitan et maritus, YII, 24. si eos facillimos habent, sic forsitan habent, XXI, 4. 7 Schmalz, 481. 52 An erit forsitan quisquam, XXI, 24. non redarguo, qnia forsitan verum est, XXI, 26. A confusion appears in the use of forsitan and fortasse or for- tassis. Fortasse or fortassis always take the indicative in pre- classical Latin. Cicero uses them with the subjunctive, and from his time on they appear both with the indicative and subjunctive. In the D. C. D. we find them used in fourteen passages with the indicative, and in nine passages with the potential subjunctive. Cf. for the indicative, III, 8, 15; IV, 6, 25; VIII, 27; X, 29; XIV, 9; XV, 12; XVI, 20; XVII, 20; XX, 26; XXI, 4, 8, 27; for the subjunctive, I, 9, 30; II, 17; III, 9; XII, 20 (twice) ; XIII, 18; XIV, 8; XXII, 29. 6. In causal relatives. When a causal relative 8 is introduced by quippe, as quippe qui, the subjunctive is used in classical Latin. Cicero always uses the subjunctive with quippe qui with one exception. Plautus and Terence preferred the indicative. Tacitus and Nepos always used the subjunctive and Livy used either mood. From Apuleius 9 on, the indicative becomes more common. Many instances of quippe qui and the indicative are found in Jerome. 10 This causal relative occurs in the D. C. D. only four times, and always with the indica¬ tive, thus: ad rem quippe quae agitur multum pertinet, III, 20. Ea quippe quae non in specie, sed in eius privatione sciuntur, si dici aut intellegi potest, quodam modo nesciendo sciuntur, ut sciendo nesciantur, XII, 7. Patitur quippe qui afficitur, XII, 18. Alia sunt quippe quae de quibusque rebus sine concubitu ita nascuntur, XV, 27. hi. Subjunctive. 1. In prohibitions. In prohibitions the present and usually the perfect subjunctive with ne is confined to poetry in the Classical period. In the prose 8 Schmalz, 534. °Draeger, 491. 10 Goelzer (1), 356. 53 of this period prohibitions in the second person are usually ex¬ pressed by noli or nolite with the infinitive. In the D. C. D., Augustine conforms to classical usage with one exception, where he expresses a strong prohibition by non with a present subjunctive; thus: Non audias (= nolite audire) degeneres tuos Christo Christiansive detrahentes et accusantes velut tempora mala, II, 29. For the regular form of a prohibition, cf. II, 9, 29; passim. 2. With cibsit. In the D. C. D. Augustine makes a very special and frequent use of the third person singular of the present subjunctive of ah sum, i. e. absit. He seems to assign to it a two-fold function. (1) Absit appears with the force of an optative subjunctive with utinarn, expressing, however, much more feeling on the writer’s part than the ordinary expression of a wish. (2) Absit appears as an equivalent of tantum abest ... ut . . . ut of classical prose, the subjunctive differing in nowise from the indicative of tantum abest. Frequently however, Augustine sees fit to use but one ut clause after absit. The following passages illustrate the different uses of absit in the D. C. D.: (a) As an intensive optative subjunctive: Ceterum absit a mente Christiana, I, 25. Unde, quia sunt ambae similis turpitudinis absurditatis, indigni- tatis falsitatis, absit a veris religiosis; ut sive ab hac sive ab ilia vita speretur aeterna, VI, 9. Cf. also IY, 10; YI, 6; XI, 9; XII, 9; XY, 7; XX, 22; XXI, 15. (l3 ) As the equivalent of tantum abest: Absit, inquam, ut ante omne peccatum iam ibi fuerit tale peccatum, ut hoc de ligno admitterent, XIY, 10. sed tamen absit, ut quis ita desipiat, ut existimet in numero humanorum digitorum errasse Creatorem, XYI, 8. Absit ergo ut Salomonis tempora in hac promissione praedicta esse credantur, XYII, 13. Cf. also II, 5; III, 15; IY, 23; Y, 26; YI, 9; YIII, 7, 15, 27; IX, 17, 23; XII, 14, 19; XIII, 23; XIY, 10, 21, 26; XY, 8; XYI, 20, 34; XVIII, 41; XIX, 4; XXI, 14, 26; XXII, 20, 25, 29. 54 Two instances occur where Augustine uses an infinitive with absit for an ut substantive clause with tanturn abest, thus: Unde absit a nobis eius negare praescientiam, V, 10. Absit hoc credere, XVI, 3. 3. Concessive clauses with quamquam. (Concessive clauses with quamquam generally take the indicative in classical Latin. Cicero has several passages with quamquam and the subjunctive but in each case the subjunctive is due to attraction/ 1 mood assimiliation, or to some other evident reason. We see quamquam with the subjunctive in the Augustan poets, always in Juvenal, rarely in Livy, usually in Pliny and Tacitus. In Christian writers 12 the subjunctive seems more prevalent than the indicative. We can account for the prevalence of the subjunctive with quam¬ quam by its analogy to quamvis, which always takes the subjunctive. Quamvis, in turn, by its analogy to quamquam, tends to be used with the indicative. The indicative with quamquam occurs ten times, and the sub¬ junctive twenty-four times in the D. C. D. (a) quamquam with the subjunctive. Quamquam enim non esset de alia tribu Samuel, XVII, 5. Quamquam et sine additamento praepositionis quaerere intellegatur . . . XVII, 6. Christus autem quamquam sit caelestis et aeternae conditor civi- tatis, XXII, 6. Cf. also I, 28; III, 17, 20; IV, 3; V, 3; VIII, 13; X, 9, 31; XI, 27, 34; XII, 1; XIV, 22, 25; XVII, 11; XVIII, 8, 21; XIX, 7; XXI, 14. (/?) quamquam 'with the indicative. For quamquam and the indicative cf. I, 19, 22; III, 2; IV, 7, 28; V, 6; VII, 31; X, 20; XX, 29; passim. 4. Concessive clauses with quamvis. The indicative with quamvis occurs twenty times in the D. C. D., but the subjunctive, regular in classical Latin, appears one hun¬ dred twenty-four times, thus: u Schmalz, 554. 12 Kaulen, 298; Bonnet, 687; Goelzer (2), 336; Bayard, 226. (a) quamvis with the indicative. Quid si enim . . . quamvis iuveni violenter inruenti etiam sua libidine inlecta consensit . . . I, 19. sine qua omne quamvis laudabile ingenium superbia vanescit et decidit, II, 5. Quamvis non solum qui sunt apertissime separati . . . non absurde possunt videri . . . XVI, 2. Cf. also II, 14, 22; VII, 16; VIII, 24; XVIII, 24; XIX, 12; passim. (yd) quamvis with the subjunctive. For quamvis and the subjunctive cf. I, 8, 12, 14; II, 5, 14, 22; III, 22; IV, 28; V, 9, 12, 19, 21; VI, 8; VII, 2, 15; XIX, 1, 6, 7, 8, 12, 19; passim. 5. Quia, quod and quoniam with the subjunctive instead of the accusative and infinitive . We have stated above 13 that quia, quod and quoniam with the indicative are used after verba sentiendi et declarandi for the accu¬ sative and infinitive. A still more frequent use of these same particles with the subjunctive in such circumstances appears in the D. C. D. Augustine manifests a special fondness, as with the in¬ dicative, for quod over quia and quoniam. Xo instance occurs of quia and quoniam with the subjunctive for the accusative and infinitive but quod and the subjunctive in such circumstances ap¬ pears very often. (a) quod. Ilia quern virum iam fide media retinebat . . . puto quod non culpabiliter fleverit, III, 14. Manifestum est autem, quod igni tribuat caeli locum, VIII, 11. nimirum hoc intellegi voluit, quod Spiritus sanctus non tantum sit Patris, verum etiam ipsius ITnigeniti Spiritus, XIII, 24. Cf. also II, 22, 24; III, 10; IV, 10, 17, 22, 29, 37; V, 20, 23, 26; VI, 4, 7, 8; VII, 3, 4, 17; VIII, 9, 11, 26; IX, 4; X, 6, 11, 21; XI, 4, 6, 10, 13, 14, li, 24; XII, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 19, 23; XV, 1, 11, 17, 18, 23; XVI, 11, 13, 16, 21, 24, 32, 36, 40; XVII, 5, 8, 12; XVIII, 9, 13, 15, 41; XIX, 1, 23; XX, 3, 5, 9, 24; XXI, 9, 24, 27; passim. 13 Cf. section on indicative mood. 56 iv. Infinitive. 1. Infinitive as subject. Properly speaking the infinitive is a verbal nonn. It is used very frequently in place of a substantive, rarely however, modified by an adjective or its equivalent. When using the infinitive as a substantive Augustine usually conforms to classical requirements. In three instances, however, we find him modifying the substantive infinitive with a pronominal adjective. He is not alone in this, as even Cicero has a few instances of the same, thus: hoc non dolere solum voluptatis nomine appellaret, Fin. II, 18; cum vivere ipsum turbe sit nobis, Att. XIII, 28, c. In Minucius Felix we read, nec hoc obsequi fuit aut ordinis aut honoris, Octavius, 4, 6; in Avitus, Suum nasci illi malum erat, qui tradidit nobis bonum, p. 26, 7. The following three are from the D. C. D.: Xam et sumus et nos esse novimus et id esse ac nosse diligimus, XI, 26. Ibi esse nostrum non habebit mortem, ibi nosse nostrum non habebit errorem, ibi amare nostrum non habebit offensionem, XI, 29. et cum ibi sunt, ubi esse per naturae ordinem debent, quantum acceperunt, suum esse custodiunt, XII, 5. 2. Purpose expressed by the infinitive. In classical Latin, the infinitive may be used to express purpose only in poetry. Ecclesiastical writers 14 make free use of the in¬ finitive to express purpose especially after verbs of motion where we would expect a supine. In the D. C. D. of Augustine, ten instances occur where the in¬ finitive is used to express purpose, thus: Quid ergo dicit iste, qui venit adorare sacerdoti Dei et sacerdote Deo? XVII, 5. Quis enim non videat non potuisse utrumque tunc dici a propheta, 14 Kaulen, 280; Bayard, 241; Goelzer (1), 370; Goelzer (2), 230; Bon¬ net, 646. 57 qui missus fuerat terrere comminatione inminentis exitii civitatem? XVIII, 44. non contrivit, non extinxit, quia pepercit eis, qui nondum venerat eos iudicare, sed iudicari ab eis, XX, 30. Cf. also VII, 30; XIV, 9, 12; XVII, 6; XVIII, 44; XXI, 7, 27. 3. Infinitive with adjectives. In many instances Augustine uses dignus, indignus, idoneus with a relative clause and the subjunctive as in classical Latin but he is just as liable to use an infinitive or ut with the subjunctive. The infinitive after dignus appears only once in Cicero, but it becomes frequent after his time. Thus, Vergil, Et puer ipse fecit cantari dignus et ista, Eel. 5, 54; Quintilian, legi dignus, 10, 1, 96; Arnobius, dignus . . . est tantorum ob numerum gratiam Deus did, L, 38. In the D. C. D. we find the following: (a) Dignus. ut nec temporalia pro eis mala perpeti se iudicent dignas, I, 9. quod vere digni erant pati, XXI, 18. 0 hominum corda doctorum! 0 ingenia litterata digna credere ista de Christo! XVIII, 53. Cf. XXI, 24. ((d) Indignus. An indigna est praeferri etiam universae naturae hominum pars aliqua deorum? VI, 4. Cf. also VIII, 18; X, 30; XI, 5. (y) Idoneus. quod videlicet potentia deorum suorum multos potius sit idonea conservare quam singulos, I, 15. nullus deus ex ilia turba vel quasi plebeiorum vel quasi procerum deorum idoneus est regna mortalia mortalibus dare, VI, 1. nec per nos ipsos nosse idonei sumus, XI, 3. Cf. also XII, 4; XXII, 30. Other adjectives construed with the supine (u) in classical Latin are followed by the infinitive in the Imperial epoch. Of these Augustine uses the following in the D. C. D. 53 Facile est enim cuiquam videri respondisse, qui tacere noluerit, v, 26. qui nondum mortui sunt, sed inminente morte iam extrema et mortifera adflictione iactantur, explicare difficile est, XIII, 9. For similar examples, cf. II, 24; III, 3; IV, 23, 31; VII, 5, 13; IX, 23; X, 23, 25; XIV, 1, 12, 13, 23, 24; XVI, 1, 8; XVIII, 9, 53; XXI, 6, 7, 27; XXII, 29; passim. 4. Infinitive with verbs. In all periods of the Latin language the infinitive is regularly used after verbs of “willing” and the like. From the Imperial epoch on other verbs have taken on a like usage which were not known to take an infinitive in the Classical period. This usage extended through the Christian period. Among these verbs the following are to be found in the D. C. D.: Abesse. Two instances of absit with an infinitive 15 occur. Facere. The infinitive with facere in the sense of “ to cause to ” is chiefly colloquial and is frequent in Christian writers. 16 In the D. C. D. we note the following: ut in sepulcro suo scribi fecerit , II, 20. sed angelum suum et faciat vincere quern voluerit, IV, 17. Cf. also IV, 27; VII, 3, 24, 35; VIII, 10; XI, 8; XII, 6; XIV, 3, 25; XVI, 5, 32; XVIII, 26; XIX, 25; XXI, 5, 7; XXII, 8, 24, 30; passim. Compellere is not used in classical Latin with an infinitive. This construction is met with for the first time in Ovid. It was in general use from that time on, especially among the Chris¬ tian writers. It occurs in the D. C. D. thus: Deinde Titum Tatium regem Sabinorum socium regni Romulus ferre compulsus est, III, 13. Cf. also II, 25; III, 17; IV, 26; VII, 13, 35; VIII, 24; XII, 21; passim. Quaerere. The infinitive with quaerere is poetic in the Classical period, but is taken over into the prose of the Empire, and subsequent times. In the D. C. D. the following examples occur: 15 Cf. section on subjunctive mood. 18 Kaulen, 278; Goelzer (1), 373; Goelzer (2), 248; Bayard, 238; Ga- barrou, 135. 59 Quorum sacra Yarro dum quasi ad naturales rationes referre canatur, quaerens honestare res turpes, VII, 34. Cf. also XII, 7; XIV, 14; passim. Dare. In classical poetry the infinitive is used as a substantive object after dare . This usage is taken over extensively by Christian writers of prose. In the D. C. D. we find the fol¬ lowing : immo vero sub specie mirantis et causas rerum talium requirentis dat intellegi, illos haec agere spiritus, X, 11. Cf. also XY, 7; XXI, 7; passim. Dub it are. After negative expressions of doubt, the subjunctive with quin is regularly used in classical Latin. Beginning with Xepos and continuing through Livy and later writers, the infinitive with the accusative is used instead. Evidently dubito began to be conceived as verbum sentiendi. In the D. C. D. about forty passages occur with dubitare, meaning “to doubt,” taking the infinitive and accusative. Dubitare meaning “to hesitate” occurs about thirty times with the infinitive, as in classical Latin. The following are passages from the L. C. D. with dubitare “ to doubt ” followed by the accusative and infinitive: Yerum tamen istum, quern appellat semideum, non heroibus tantum, sed etiam diis ipsis praeferendum esse non dubito, II, 14. immo ideo non dubitatur ipsum peccare , cum peccat, Y, 10. Quis enim dubitet multo esse melius habere bonam mentem quam memoriam quantumlibet ingentem? VII, 3. Cf. also VIII, 8, 19; IX, 19; XI, 33; XII, 16, 17, 18; XIII, 17; XY, 8, 9, 13, 16; XYI, 8, 24, 29; XVII, 3, 7, 20; XVIII, 40, 47; XX, 19; XXI, 9, 26; XXII, 8, 26; passim. The subjunctive with ut or ne after verbs expressing fear, anxiety or danger is regularly used in classical Latin. Cicero, however, sometimes uses vereri and timere with the infinitive. 17 With the poets of the Empire, this usage became more frequent until finally in the Christian period it was taken over by the writers 18 of prose. 17 Sehmalz, 423. 18 Goelzer (1), 368; Goelzer (2), 23S. 60 In the D. C. D. we find the three verbs, vereri, timere, and metuere nsed with the infinitive thus: (a) Vereri. qui in eum crediderant et verebantur palam confiteri, ait evan- gelista, V, 14. Cf. also V, 19; VI, 6. (/?) Metuere. Si igitur irascuntur, qui non singillatim coluntur, non metuunt paucis placatis toto caelo irato vivere? IV, 11. Cf. also V, 20; VI, 8; VII, 18; X, 32; XIV, 9; XVIII, 13. (y) Timere. Certe hie minime timuit hominis interitum dicere, III, 15. Cf. also IV, 23; V, 20, 24; VII, 34. In the list of verbs given above, we have enumerated the prin¬ cipal ones which show variations from classical norms. Beside those quoted, there are in the D. C. D. a number of causative verbs which take an objective infinitive. These are but representatives of a type of verb which so occurs in a greater or lesser degree in almost all periods of the language. Among them are the following: amare, ardere, audere, certare, cogere, desinare, gaudere, instituere, po score, recipere, studere, persuadere, vetare, valere, niti, etc. etc. CHAPTER VII—SUBSTANTIVE AND ADJECTIVAL FORMS OF THE VERB. i. Participles. Participles according to Schmalz are adjectival forms of verbs. In classical Latin they unite all the functions of adjectives with those of the verb. As adjectives they agree with their substantives in gender, number and case. The nature of participles being verbal, they may like verbs have tense and voice, may be modified by adverbs and often take an object. A varied use of participles, especially as substantives, is char¬ acteristic of Christian Latin. This variation was caused mainly by the translation of the Bible from Creek, since Latin, in its lack of participial forms as compared with Greek, tended to use the participles existent more extensively than they were used in the Classical period. The variations from classical Latin which occur in ecclesiastical Latin in the use of participles are the following: 1. Present. (a) Participles as substantives. Participles in ans and ens are of frequent occurrence in Chris¬ tian Latin either as adjectives or substantives. In general, classical Latin admits only the neuter of adjectives 1 and participles as substantives in the nominative and accusative plural. From Livy on, a considerable freedom in the use of participles as substan¬ tives is evident. Christian writers extended even this use of par¬ ticiples, and used them as substantives in all cases and both number. Thus in Cyprian we read: Adorans . . . nec illud ignorat quem- admodum . . . publicanus oraverit, etc. 26, 9, 23; in Arnobius, sequentium se millia quinque, I, 46; in Avitus, sed capiens manibus pomum letale retractat, III, 210; in Gregory, signa multa faciens se deum esse declarat, h. F. 1. 20 p. 43, 22; in Jerome, sed mihi crede nemo mentiens plorat, Ep. 117, 3. Augustine is no exception to the writers cited; he uses participles in ans and ens as substantives in all the ways cited above, thus: 1 See chapter II on adjectives. 61 62 (a) Nominative singular. Ecce, ubi decolorans Christum Indaeos praeposuit Christianis, confttens quod Iudaei suscipiant Deum, XIX, 23. Cf. also II, 18; IV, 23; IX, 3; XI, 24; XII, 9; XIII, 21; XIY, 2, 4, 11, 26; XY, 7, 9, 13; XYI, 2, 5, 19, 25, 41; XVII, 4, 16; XVIII, 9, 18; passim. (/?) Nominative plural. et in caelo habitantes terrena animalia nesciremus, XXII, 4. Cf. also I, 16, 26, 28; IY, 21; Y, 8; VIII, 8, 26; XIII, 11, 15; XIY, 2, 3, 9, 17, 20, 21, 28; XY, 1, 4, 5, 11, 15, 20, 23, 27; XYI, 2, 11, 29, 40; XVII, 4, 10, 16, 20; XVIII, 52; XXI, 6; passim. (y) Genitive singular. Et in hoc quidem libro, cuius nomen est apocalypsis, obscure multa dicuntur, ut mentem legentis exerceant, XX, 17. Cf. also I, 16, 25; II, 26; Y, 6; XIII, 6; XIY, 8, 10, 24; XY, 7; XYI, 6, 11, 23, 26, 30; XVIII, 32; XXII, 20; passim. (S) Genitive plural. Sed haeo in usum cedunt proficientium, iuxta illud apostoli, XYI, 2. Cf. also I, 22; II, 1; III, 22; IY, 23, 29; Y, 19; XIY, 10, 20; XY, 20, 23; XYI, 1, 17; XVII, 5, 7; XVIII, 31; XIX, 15; XXII, 8; passim. (c) Dative singular. quia veniens transiturus est; venienti quippe ibitur obviam, non manenti, XX, 20. Cf. also I, 15, 21; IY, 18; V, 12; YI, 10; XIY, 8, 11; XY, 7, 11, 23; XYI, 35, 39; XVIII, 38; XXII, 8; passim. (£) Dative plural. Similiterque interrogantibus, quando eum viderint in horum in- digentia constitutum, XX, 5. Cf. also I, 9, 13, 22, 28; II, 1, 2, 4; IY, 34; XI, 16; XII, 17; XIY, 6; XYI, 23; XVII, 4; XVIII, 2, 12, 43; XIX, 15; XXI, 20; passim. (77) Accusative singular. Sed si ita dicatur, non exprimit comminantem, XYI, 6. 63 Cf. also II, 17; III, 15; XIY, 8, 9, 20; XV, 6, 17, 18, 26, 27; XVI, 37; XXI, 27; XXII, 8; passim. (6) Accusative plural. quibus vult esse consultum, ut et perterreat superbientes et excitet neglegentes et exerceat quarentes et alat intellegentes, XV, 25. Cf. also IV, 26, 33; VI, 10; XI, 29; XV, 25; XVI, 2; XVII, 7; passim. (i) Ablative singular. sed utrumque simul currit isto quasi fluvio atque torrente generis humani, malum quod a parente trahitur, et bonum a creante tribuitur, XXII, 24. Cf. also I, 7; XIV, 10; XV, 2; XVI, 37; XXII, 24; passim. (k) Ablative plural. Ut enim esset desideratus expectantibus , prius oportuit eum dilec- tum esse credentibus, XVIII, 35. Cf. also I, 20; II, 2; IV, 21; V, 9; VIII, 19; XIV, 9, 21; XV, 14; XVI, 6, 37; XVII, 8, 9; passim. (b) As predicate with copula. About fifteen instances of the present participle as a predicate with a copula verb occur in the D. C. D. This usage is prevalent throughout the colloquial language, and is thus found also in the writers 2 of pre-classical times. The following are from the D. C.D.: non simplex, sed propter suam invictissimam voluntatem, qua potens est (= potest) facere, ut nec orta occidant nec conexa solvantur, XIII, 16. tamquam ad eos pertinens, qui sunt spe gaudentes (=gaudent) in tribulatione patientes (= patiuntur) XVIII, 32. quanto magis Deus potens est (= potest) facere . . . XXI, 7. Cf. also II, 24, 25; IV, 10; XII, 6, 7; XIII, 9, 11, 17; XX, 20; XXII, 24. (c) Present participle instead of postquam clause. In classical Latin the present participle is used to denote action contemporaneous with the action of the main verb. In ecclesi¬ astical 3 Latin the present participle is used frequently for a post- 2 Plautus, Poen. V, 2, 78; Terence, Andr. 508. 3 Schraalz, 450; Kaulen, 228; Bonnet, 561; Goelzer (2), 289. 64 quam clause equivalent to the Greek aorist participle, which denotes action antecedent to that of the main verb. In the Acts of the Apostles we read: Ascendens autem frangensque panem et gustans, satisque allocutus usque ad lucem sic profectus est, XX, 11. In the D. C. D. very few certain examples occur but the fol¬ lowing may be noted: Itaque et in Aegypto didicit quaecumque magna illic habebantur atque docebantur, et inde in eas Italiae partes veniens, ubi Pythagoreorum fama celebrabatur, quidquid Italicae philoso- phiae tunc florebat, auditis eminentioribus in ea doctoribus facillime comprehendit , YIII, 4. Cf. also X, 24; XII, 9; XIV, 7; XY, 9; XIX, 23. (d) Present participle for ablative of the gerund. The present participle so frequently employed by Augustine and by many other Christian writers, is used also instead of the abla¬ tive of the gerund, implying in a general sense the idea of means or instrument, thus: Bellum erat, ut qui feriebatur, si posset, feriret; pax autem, non ut qui evaserat viveret, sed ut moriens (= moriendo) non repugnaret, III, 28. Saepe multumque Plotinus asserit sensum Platonis explanans (= explanando), X, 2. facit Deus alia in contumeliam vasa irae, alia in honorem vasa misericordiae, illis reddens (= reddendo) quod debetur in poena, istis donans (= donando) quod non debetur in gratia, XY, 21. Cf. also II, 21; IY, 16, 30; XI, 33; XIY, 3; XIX, 23; passim. 2. The verbal adjective in urus. (a) As attributive adjective and substantive. In Ciceronian Latin, we find only futurus and venturus used as attributive adjectives. 4 From the Imperial epoch, the future par¬ ticiple is used both as an attributive adjective and a substantive. This usage passed on to ecclesiastical Latin and occurs frequently in writers of that period. Augustine, in common with the writers of his age, uses the future participle both as an attributive adjec¬ tive and a substantive. In the D. C. D. the following occur: * Sohmalz, 453. 65 (a) As adjective. Marcus Mareellus, qui Syracusas urbem ornatissimam cepit, refer- tur earn prius flevisse ruituram et ante eius sanguinem suas illi lacrimas effudisse, I, 6. Sed quaedam, inquiunt, sanctae feminae tempore persecution^, ut insectatores suae pudicitiae devitarent, in rapturum atque necaturum se fluvium proiecerunt ... I, 26. et terras vitae praesentis ornaret sua felicitate res publica, et vitae aeternae culmen beatissime regnatura conscenderet, II, 19. Cf. also II, 5, 24; VIII, 23; XIV, 23; XX, 20; passim. (/?) As substantive. Quocirca nullo modo cogimur aut retenta praescientia Dei tollere voluntatis arbitrium aut retento voluntatis arbitrio Deum (quod nefas est) negare praescium futurorum, V, 10. Si ergo pro libertate moriturorum et cupiditate laudum, V, 18. Cf. also I, 13; II, 5, 24; VII, 17; XII, 21; XIII, 19, 23; passim. (b) To designate purpose. The future participle used to express purpose after verbs of motion occurs for the first time in C. Gracchus as quoted by Gellius. It appears once in Cicero and Sallust and some times in the poets. The writers of the Empire used it more extensively, and its use increased until it became frequent in the writers of the Christian period. The following are instances of the future participle ex¬ pressing purpose in the D. C. D.: Et tamen si in harenam procederent pugnaturi inter se gladiatores, III, 14. Hie ostendit, quod in ea carne veniet iudicaturus, in qua venerat . . . XX, 6. quando Christus venturus est vivos iudicaturus et mortuos, XX, 20. 3. Participle in tus. In general we find all Christian writers conforming to Classical norms when using the perfect passive participle. They have a tendency, however, to make an extended use of this participle with habere , 5 a construction rarely found in the Classical period. This construction seems to be analagous to thax of the present participle 6 Schmalz, 462. with esse, and forms as it were a periphrastic conjugation. In¬ stances of this are met with in all periods of the language. This usage becomes the rule in the Eomance languages in the formation of compound tenses. Thus in Plautus we read: immo omnis res relectas habeo, Stich, 326; in Cicero, Sic habuisti statutum cum animo ac deliberatum, Yerr. II, 3, 95; in Arnobius, aliquos numeros cotidianis habet ex usibus notos, II, 24; in Gregory, habemus scriptum in cannonibus, h. F. 6, 15 p. 259, 5. In Augustine’s D. C. D. the following examples occur: quamdiu sub terra essent, praepositam voluerunt habere deam Seiam, IV, 8. Aut certe istam mali colant, qui nolunt habere merita, quibus dea possit Felicitas invitari, IV, 18. habebat adiunctum, VIII, 14. effectum habere non potuit? XVII, 6. Quas moras ille suspectas habens multumque formidans, XXII, 8. n. Gerund. The gerund is a neuter verbal substantive used only in the oblique cases of the singular. It corresponds to the articular infinitive in Greek and to the participial substantive in English. Schmalz 6 calls it a declined infinitive. It expresses the incomplete action of a verb. In classical Latin, whenever an object depends on a transi¬ tive verb, the gerundive construction is used. In all Latin litera¬ ture exceptions to the above take place, and gerunds of transitive verbs are sometimes found with a substantive object, and regularly so with neuter pronouns and neuter plural adjectives. 1. Genitive of the gerund. In classical Latin there are instances where the genitive of the gerund takes an dbject but this is limited as stated already to neuter pronouns and neuter plural adjectives. This is met with often in Plautus, very seldom in Cicero and Caesar, frequently in Livy, more so in Christian writers. But it is interesting to note that among the latter, some, notably Cyprian, are remarkable for their adherence to classical norms, and manifest a decided pre¬ ference for the gerundive construction. Augustine in his D. C. D. 6 Schmalz, 440. 67 has numerous instances of an object with the genitive of the gerund, thus: se non subtraxerunt, dando eis licentiam male tractandi homines quos liberet, IV, 28. Xumquidnam saltern mediocriter eos dixii errasse, ut hanc artem invenirent faciendi deos, VIII, 24. Cf. also I, 18; IV, 28; X, 11; VIII, 23, 24; XIV, 15; XVIII, 51; XIX, 6, 17. 2. Accusative of the gerund. The accusative of the gerund with ad is frequent in all periods of the literature. A direct complement 7 accompanying the accusa¬ tive of the gerund with ad is non-classical. This construction is exceptional in pre-classical Latin. The first example known is in Varro, EH. I, 23, ad discernendum vocis figuras. It is rare in the Imperial epoch, but becomes frequent in ecclesiastical Latin. Gregory 8 uses it frequently, but Cyprian seldom. It occurs in Avitus only once, and not one instance appears in the D. C. D. 3. Ablative of the gerund. It is not unusual to find in all periods of the Latin language the ablative of the gerund taking an object. Christian Latin offers a striking contrast to classical Latin in the frequency of its use. Classical waiters 9 are careful, however, not to use a direct com¬ plement after an ablative gerund governed by a preposition, al¬ though some instances do exist in classical Latin, even in Cicero, thus: a nimis intuendo fortunam T, D. 3, 20. In Varro we read, in supponendo ova, r. r. 3, 9, 12; in Livy, in parcendo uni, IV, 44, 9. Only two instances occur in the D. C. D., thus: ut mortalitate transacta et ex mortuis faceret inmortales, quod in se resurgendo monstravit, IX, 15. Xam eum terrenorum corporum, sicut onera in gestando sentire consuevimus, XIII, 18. Many instances of the ablative of the gerund, where the idea of 1 Schmalz, 441. 8 Bonnet, 655. 9 Schmalz, 442. 68 means is weak or non-existent and where accordingly we would expect a present participle, are met with in the D. C. D. In gen¬ eral, it may he stated, that this is a usage common to all Christian writers. 10 The following are instances from the D. C. D.: Sequitur tamen et ea velut inquirendo commemorat, X, 11. Hoc quippe arguendo interrogavit dicens: XV, 7. ad patriarcham Sem recapitulando revertetur et orditur inde gene¬ rations usque ad Abraham, XVI, 10. Cf. also I, 3, 9, 17, 34; IV, 10; VII, 24, 28; VIII, 17; X, 32; XII, 24; XIV, 11, 13; XV, 7, 23; XVII, 2, 12, 17, 19; XVIII, 32, 34, 43; XX, 29; passim. hi. Gerundive. The gerundive, 11 a verbal adjective, expresses, in an adjectival form, the incompleted action of a transitive verb, which action is exerted on a substantival object. The substantive stands in the case required by the context and the gerundive agrees with it. Besides using the gerundive as Classical writers did, the Chris¬ tian writers made the following extended uses: 1. They gave it a pure participial value, often assigning it the place of a subordinate clause, as in Avitus: Quocirca volumen per vas temperatius in- gerendum . . . p. 73, 7. Augustine in the D. C. D. uses the following with the force of a subordinate clause. Romanus imperator non ex civibus dolendam, sed ex hostibus laudandam victoriam reportaverat, I, 24. Illi habeantur dii veri, qui hanc adipiscendam populis procuraverint adeptamque servaverint, II, 20. An aliter stat adorandus in locis sacris, quam procedit ridendus in theatris? VI, 7. Sed absit ut vera sint, quae nobis minantur veram miseriam num- quam finiendam, sed interpositionibus falsae beatitudinis saepe ac sine fine rumpendam , XII, 21. Cf. also I, 3, 6, 24; II, 8, 20, 27; III, 10, 15; V, 12; VI, 2, 7, 8; VII, 27, 30, 35; VIII, 1, 10, 19; IX, 5; X, 5, 11, 32; XV, 21; passim. 10 Schmalz, 447. 11 Sohmalz, 466; Lane, 399. 69 In classical Latin, ad, seldom another preposition, was fre¬ quently joined to the gerundive construction to express purpose; but from Livy on the use of other prepositions combined with the gerundive were similarly used. Thus in the Christian writers we meet several different prepositions with the gerundive to express purpose. Augustine in the D. C. D. uses pro, propter and ob, besides ad, thus: 1. Pro with the gerundive. Omnes enim qui sic offerunt, profecto in peccatis sunt, pro quibus dimittendis offerunt, . . . XX, 25. non nobis esse peccata, pro quibus dimittendis debeamus orare et eis, XXI, 27. sed laudabiliter toleratur pro tenendo vel adipiscendo bono, XIII, 8. Cf. also I, 6, 29; II, 23; III, 16; Y, 18, 24; VI, 1. 2. Propter tuith the gerundive. Ad haec addunt mulieres adtributas Libero et vinum propter libi- dinem concitandam, VI, 9. ut nec ipsi, propter quos liberandos mediator effeetus est, IX, 15. Propter hoc et de venia in vicem danda multa praecipiuntur et magna cura propter tenendam pacem, XV, 6. cuius apostolus meminit propter Dei gratiam commendandam, XVI, 23. 3. Ob with the gerundive. Ceterum illos, quibus conversatio cum diis ad hoc esset, ut ob in¬ veniendum fugitivum vel praedium comparandum, X, 11. iv. Supines. The supines are verbal substantives which are used in place of the infinitive in certain situations. The use 12 of the supine in um was quite frequent in the pre-classical period until the time of Caesar and Cicero. Then the gerund with causa or gratia was preferred. The supine construction seems never to have gained favor with Latin authors. In some, it is totally absent. Prudentius, the Christian poet, contemporary of Augustine, used 12 Schmalz, 465. 70 it but once in his writings. In the D. C. D. Augustine uses the supine in urn once and then according to classical usage, thus: et misit ad Apollinem Delphicum sciscitatum quid intellegendum esset quidve faciendum, XVIII, 9. The supine in u, used generally after the adjectives facilis, diffi- cilis, iucundus, and the like is also not a favorite construction with authors. Stock expressions such as the “ mirabile dictu ” and " visu ” of Virgil are retained. Schmalz says that in general the poets of the Classical and Augustan periods and writers of later ages prefer the infinitive with these adjectives. 13 13 For the use of this construction in the D. C. D., cf. section on infinitives. CHAPTER VIII—PREPOSITIONS. In the early history of the Latin language, many prepositions were not distinguished from adverbs in form or meaning. With the development of the language, however, prepositions took on the definite function of determining more clearly the direction of an action expressed by a verb. In the Classical period the functions of the prepositions were clearly defined and the cases which they governed were definitely established, but later on as the language spread through the pro¬ vinces, there arose an uncertainty as to the case following the prepositions or a greater variety in the cases so used. To this extension of usage in ecclesiastical Latin, and especially in the E. C. D., our attention is directed in this chapter. The order of treatment is first, prepositions construed with the accusa¬ tive, then those with the ablative, and finally those construed with both accusative and ablative. i. Prepositions with the Accusative. 1. Ad. The preposition ad assumes even in classical Latin various sig¬ nifications, i. e., it has a local and temporal meaning, and is used with persons as well as things. Ad means, “to,” “toward/’ “ near,” “ at.” The variations from classical norms in the use of ad as found in the D. C. D. are the following: (a) Ad with names of towns to designate limit of motion. Two instances of ad with the names of towns, contrary to classi¬ cal usage, appear, thus: Aesculapius autem ab Epidauro ambivit ad Romam, III, 12. cum Loth filio fratris et Sarra coniuge perrexit in terram Chanaan et pervenit usque ad Sichem, XVI, 18. From the classical use of the preposition ad to designate end of motion, Christian writers 1 extended it to ad hoc meaning “ to this 1 Bonnet, 585; Goelzer (2), 149. 71 72 point ” “ to this effect.” This recurs occasionally in the D. C. D. The total list of passages in which ad hoc occurs is as follows: Ad hoc enim speculators, I, 9; also IX, 15; X, 11; XI, 22, 24; XIY, 16; XV, 27; XVI, 11; XVIII, 42, 46; XIX, 14; XX, 1, 6, 7, 11, 21; XXI, 22, 27; XXII, 8, 12, 22. Beginning with Terence 2 who was the first to use usque as a preposition with the accusative of names of places to determine motion towards, usque alone and usque ad are employed by classical writers notably Cicero, thus: usque ad Xumantiam; Ep., Ill, 8, 4, usque ad Iconium. In the D. C. D. is found an interesting ex¬ tension of ad reinforced by usque. It is applied to persons con¬ sidered as being the end to which the movement signified by the verb tends, thus: Benedictus igitur duobus filiis Xoe atque uno in medio eorum maledicto deinceps usque ad Abraham de iustorum aliquorum, qui pie Deum colerent, XVI, 2. Denique sicut illic enumeratis supra generationibus usque ad Noe . . . XVI, 12. Cf. also III, 9; IV, 2; XII, 13; XVI, 24, 43; XVIII, 1; passim. (b) Ad with adverbial expressions. Classical Latin admits adverbial expressions in combination with ad as ad hunc modum, ad similitudinem, ad hunc morem, ad rationem etc. In the use of such phrases Augustine conforms to classical usage, but we find in the D. C. D., other expressions formed by analogy with these, containing the accusative neuter singular of an adjective and ad, which are peculiar to ecclesiastical Latin, thus: Xon mihi autem videtur posse ad liquidum colligi, VIII, 3. donee ad perfectum sanetur . . . XI, 28. quandoque ad initium ilia detractio perducetur, XII, 13. Cf. also I, 9; XIII, 15; XVI, 12; XX, 30. (c) ad after adjectives. Ad and the accusative depending upon an adjective is an ante- and post-classical usage, although not entirely unknown in Cicero¬ nian Latin. We meet it in the Tusculan Disputations, Chrysippi 2 Schmalz, 410. 73 ad veritatem firmissima est, ad tempus aegritudinis difficilis, III, 79. Augustine in the D. C. D. uses a similar construction in the following passages: Ad altare ... ad Dei honorem cultumque constructum, VIII, 27. Deinde testamentum factum ad Abraham terram Chanaan proprie manifestat . . . XVI, 24. Ad aliquid enim emortuum corpus intelligere debemus, XVI, 28. universam Asiam, quae totius orbis ad numerum partium tertia dicitur, ad magnitudinem vero dimida reperitur, XVIII, 2. (d) Ad with verbs. Aptare in classical Latin takes the dative. Livy however uses it with ad and the accusative, thus: Aptanda ad pugnam classe, XXI, 49, 11. In this idiom it passed through various authors into Christian Latin. In the D. C. D. we meet the following: et soli nervi in citharis atque huius modi vasis musicis aptantur ad cantum, XVI, 2. The use of ad with the accusative after verbs compounded with ad such as: adaugere, adcurare, addubitare etc. is characteristic of both colloquial and ecclesiastical Latin. 3 In the D. C. D. the following occur: Ad haec addunt mulieres . . . VI, 9. sunt qui ad vadimonia sua deos advocent, VI, 10. quoniam rex Aegyptus Ptolomaeus eos ad hoc opus asciverat, XV, 13. quantum ad prosperitatem adtinet temporalem, XVII, 2. cum ad eum aspexerint . . . XX, 30. Cf. also V, 1; VII, 6; VIII, 2; XVIII, 25. 2. Apud. (a) Apud with accusative for a locative case. The preposition apud was used more extensively in colloquial language than in the diction of literature. Irregularities in use accordingly occur even in Tacitus and Suetonius, and especially 3 Sohmalz, 394. 74 in Christian Latin, which was greatly influenced by the colloquial speech. In Tacitus we find apud with the accusative for a locative case: dum vigebat aetas, militari laude apud Germanias floruit, Hist. I, 49; and in Suetonius, apud Iudaeam, Yesp. 5; in Jerome, cui apud Antiochiam debeam communicare, Ep. 15, 5; in Avitus, apud Lugdunum, 66, 4. Augustine uses this construction in eight passages in the D.C.D.. thus: si apud Romam erant, . . . fortasse apud Ilium erant, III, 8. nobis apud Karthaginem dicebatur, Y, 23. Apud Hipponem Zaritum est homo . . . XYI, 8. ut omittam qua apud Antiochiam facere coeperat, XYIII, 52. evenit ut apud Carthaginem . . . XXI, 4. Apud Carthaginem autem quis novit . . . XXII, 8. Apud Hipponem Bassus quidam Syrus . . . XXII, 8. Nondum est autem biennium, ex quo apud Hipponem regium coepit esse . . . XXII, 8. The following passages contain apud with the accusative for the locative ablative. Hoc insitum habuisse Romanos etiam deorum apud illos aedes indicant, Y, 12. qui suas futuras poenas apud sanctorum martyrum memorias 4 inminere maerebant, YIII, 26. Offero tibi sacrificium Petre vel Paule vel Cypriane, cum apud eorum memorias offeratur Deo, YIII, 27. (b) For in or cum. Eight instances occur where apud is used with pronouns and the accusative of animus or its equivalent to signify an idea, which would be rendered in classical Latin by in or cum with the ablative thus: quae mala civitas ilia perpessa sit ab origine sua sive apud se ipsam sive in provinciis sibi iam subditis, II, 2. quam naturalem vocant, apud meliores animus inveniret locum, YI, 8. 4 In Christian Latin the word memoria took on a new meaning, viz., a shrine, especially a monument to a martyr. In this sense it is used here. 75 In se quippe habebant quod non videbant, et apud se imaginabantur quod foris viderant, VIII, 5. ac per hoc Dens, inquiunt, rerum quas facit omnium finitarnm omnes finitas apud se rationes habet, XII, 18. retento apud se praecepto Dei, XVI, 15. quae pro malo aureo adipiscendo apud iudicem Paridem de pulcri- tudinis excellentia certasse narrantur . . . XVIII, 10. cum ipse apud se ipsum maneat idem qui fuit, XXII, 2. meque gaudente et apud me Deo gratias agente ingreditur . . . XXII, 8. In citing an author apud is regularly used in classical Latin: in citing a particular work in is used. Augustine, in tracing the history of the Septuagint, uses apud and in for both translations. No distinction in the use of these two prepositions is evident, thus: quidquid est in Hebraeis codicibus et non est apud interpretes septuaginta, noluit ea per istos, sed per illos prophetas Dei iSpiritus dicere. Quidquid vero est apud Septuaginta, in Hebraeis autem codicibus non est, XVIII, 43. 3. Ante. As a preposition, ante in classical Latin means “ before,” “ in front of,” and it may be considered as stationary in meaning through all the periods of Latin literature. The use of ante as an adverb occurs rarely in classical Latin and then usually in the poets. As an adverb, it is found sometimes in Livy, but few authors later so used it. About thirty instances of ante with its adverbial force occur in the D. C. D. thus: qui rem publicam ingratam et a Veientibus ante defendit . . . Ill, 17. Ubi certe agnoscendum est, quod ante promiseram, XVI, 10. Cf. also I, 6, 7; III, 29; V, 17; VII, 8, 19; X, 5, 17, 25; XI, 32; XII, 18, 21, 26; XIII, 23; XIV, 18; XVI, 4, 28, 39; XVII, 4, 5, 18; XVIII, 45; XIX, 11; XX, 6, 7, 14; XXII, 20, 29. 4. Post. Post meaning “ after ” is one of those prepositions which like ante presents no change in meaning throughout the history of the language. In common with ante it retains an adverbial force, which has no greater patronage of writers in general than ante. 76 The following are the passages from the D. C. D. wherein post is used as an adverb: Unde tanto post ex Abrahae semine carne suscepta de se ipso ait ipse Salvator, X, 32. Nam ubi tenebrae inculpabiles sunt . . . non ante, sed post in- fertur, XI, 20. Cf. also III, 26, 30; IV, 6; V, 12; VI, 10; VIII, 23; X, 25; XIII, 11; XIV, 2, 11; XVII, 17; XVIII, 31, 33, 42, 45, 54; XX, 5, 7, 8, 15, 23; XXI, 23; XXII, 6, 8. Post frequently occurs in ecclesiastical Latin with a substantive and a perfect passive participle, where we would ordinarily expect an ablative absolute in classical Latin. Thus in Gregory we read, qui post creata mundi totius elementa glebam adsumens limi hominem plasmavit, h. F. 1, lp, 35, 7; in Avitus post denuntiatum poematis finem p. 274, 6; in Cyprian, post episcopatum non ex- ambitum, 630, 11. In the D. C. D. we find the following: Nempe post perpetrata facinora nec quemquam scelestum indem- natum impune voluistis occidi, I, 19. Ex hoc iure ac bono post expulsum cum liber is suis regem Tar- quirmm, II, 17. Cf. also II, 16, 18, 19; XII, 21; XV, 11, 13; XVIII, 19; XX, 18. 5. Iuxta. Iuxta as a preposition is used especially in the Classical period with the local meaning of “ near/ 5 Livy 5 is the first to vary its meaning, and give it the value of secundum. Ecclesiastical writers use it also in the sense of secundum, “ according to.” With this meaning Augustine uses iuxta in his Letters and Sermons, and it occurs in eight passages of the D. C. D. as follows: iuxta id dicitur, XIV, 11. cutn quibus et ipsi dii erant iuxta illud psalmi, XV, 23. Sed haec in usum cedunt proficientium, iuxta illud apostoli, XVI, 2. Cf. also XIV, 9; XVII, 7; XX, 24; XXI, 22; XXII, 26. 6 . 01 ). Plautus 6 and Terence used ob with hoc to express cause. Caesar and Cicero did not favor its use. In the historians Sallust, Livy B Schmalz, 397. 6 Schmalz, 3C9. 77 and Tacitus, it was revived and it became common in ecclesiastical Latin. Augustine with the writers of the period used it frequently. The following is a complete list of the passages in which ob hoc is used in the D. C. D. qui ob hoc etiam ipse Africani cognomen invenit, III, 21. ut per hanc oporteat eis constellationes fieri diversas propter di- versum horoscopum et ob hoc diversos omnes cardines, Y, 5. Cf. also Y, 18; VIII, 12, 15, 21; IX, 15; X, 30, 32; XI, 1, 10, 27; XII, 6; XIY, 24; XVII, 10; XVIII, 2, 4, 38, 43; XIX, 1; XX, 24. 7. Propter. Propter with its causal meaning in the Classical period retains the same force in ecclesiastical Latin and is used quite frequently therein. The combinations propter quod and propter quae are non-classical. The former occurs for the first time in Columella and the latter appears not earlier than the period of Quintilian. In the D. C. D. propter quod occurs about thirty-five times and propter quae four times, thus: (a) propter quod. propter quod eis dicunt . . . VI, 9. propter quod vetus dicitur testamentum, X, 25. ITnde sequitur illud, propter quod et cetera de eodem psalmo di- cenda visa sunt, X, 25. Cf. also XIII, 23; XV, 7, 11, 16, 21, 22; XVI, 28; XVII, 4, 7, 9, 11, 16, 20, 24; XVIII, 35, 38, 44; XIX, 1, 4, 5, 8, 19, 26, 27; XX, 6, 17, 22; XXI, 4, 5; XXII, 8, 29, 30. (b) Propter quae. propter quae non audent offendere homines, I, 9. propter quae isti si'bi . . . deos multos falsosque fecerunt, VII, 30. propter quae significanda historia ipsa conscripta est, XVIII, 44. propter quae dicis esse fugiendam, XIX, 4. 8. Circa. In classical Latin circa with the accusative means “ around/’ “ about.” In the Silver period this preposition is used with a figurative meaning, of de, in or ad. We see it thus used in Tacitus, Ann. 11, 15; in Pliny, 29, 1, 5; in Suetonius . . . Caes. 45; in Cyprian, 303, 2; in Arnobius, V, 10; in Jerome, Ep. 9. 78 In Augustine’s D. C. D. there are nine passages containing circa eight of which are used with this figurative meaning, thus: quae maxime circa corporum est occupata naturam, VII, 5. Cum enim dixisset proavos suos multum errantes circa deorum rationem, VIII, 26. ceterum circa ea, quae vere bona sunt, X, 11. Of. also XV, 24; XVI, 34; XXI, 18; XXII, 21. 9. Secundum. Secundum in classical Latin marks a relation in space and means “ immediately after,” “ next to.” In a figurative sense it is much used with the meaning “ according to ” and in this sense it is used in Christian writers. Augustine uses it about one hundred fifty times in the D. C. D. with this figurative sense only, thus: Enitar enim suo loco, ut ostendam secundum definitiones ipsius Ciceronis, II, 21. nec fortuita est nec fatalis secundum eorum sententiam sive opini- onem, V, 1. Cf. also VIII, 8, 10, 19, 26; IX, 5, 10; X, 13, 21, 29; XI, 10, 21, 27; XII, 23; XIV, 7, 8, 9, 11, 21, 28; XVI, 5, 15, 21, 24; XXII, 2, 11, 14, 21, 27, 29; passim. 10. Per. In classical Latin per indicates motion in space as well as in time, and means “ through,” “ over.” From the idea of space implied in its use were developed instrumental and modal, as well as causal and less clearly defined uses. Of all the prepositions construed with the accusative, per after ad is most frequently used in Christian Latin. In classical Latin, when cause is expressed by a preposition, ob or propter with the accusative is regularly used, hut from the Augustan Age on, we frequently find cause expressed by per and the accusative. (a) Expressing cause. We read in Quintilian, per hoc quod for propter, 2, 17, 30; in Elorus, per hoc, 3, 12, 9; in Apuleius, ac per hoc, Met. 9, 16; in Cyprian, ac per hoc, 729, 14. Augustine in the D. C. D. has a remarkably frequent use of this expression. The total list of passages in which it occurs is as follows: 79 Ac per hoc qui Domino suo monente oboedierant, I, 10. Ac per hoc et Xeptuno et Plutoni, II, 15. Ac per hoc si tam celeriter alter post alterum nascitur, V, 2. Cf. also 1,14, 17, 20; IV, 5, 31; V, 13; VI, 1, 6; VII, 9, 14, 16, 21; VIII, 1, 5, 6, 16; IX, 8, 13, 15, 21; X, 1, 5, 6, 25, 32; XI, 4, 10, 13, 23, 29, 34; XII, 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 13, 16, 18; XIII, 5, 9, 11, 14; XIV, 1, 8, 10, 11, 13, 19, 23, 27; XV, 3, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 27; XVI, 3, 15, 28, 32, 36, 41; XVII, 4, 6, 12, 16; XVIII, 18, 21, 27, 37, 54; XIX, 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 21, 28; XX, 2, 8, 9, 11, 13, 20, 26; XXI, 1, 5, 18, 22, 25, 26, 27; XXII, 2, 4, 11, 19, 23, 27. (b) Expressing means. The use of per with the accusative taking the place of the abla¬ tive of means is not foreign to classical literature, where it is used in a figurative sense with persons. In ecclesiastical Latin we note a general tendency in the use of per and the accusative, not only of a person, but of a thing, to replace the ablative, a step towards the meaning which it is to have later in the Romance languages. Many instances of this are met with in the D. C. D., thus: suo recusans esse subditus creatori et sua per superbiam velut privata potestate laetatus, XI, 13. Illi quippe angeli sancti non per verba sonantia Deum discunt, XI, 29. qui cum coniuge ac tribus filiis totidemque nuribus suis meruit per arcam vastatione diluvii liberari, XVI, 1. Cf. also VII, 3, 5, 14, 22; VIII, 15, 22, 23, 27; IX, 9, 15; X, 10, 15, 26, 32; XI, 13; XII, 21, 24; XIV, 11, 13, 21; XV, 3, 8, 22, 23; XVI, 2, 4, 24, 30, 43; XVII, 2, 4, 7, 20; XVIII, 3, 18, 19, 21, 45, 46, 47, 48; XIX, 12, 14, 22, 27; XX, 1, 9, 17, 22, 23, 25; XXI, 2, 9, 21, 36; XXII, 1, 8, 9; passim. ii. With the Ablative. 1. a or db. In classical Latin ab means “ away from,” “ from,” “ off from ” with the ablative case and determines direction in space. Out of this local meaning, the Augustan poets, Ovid in particular, devel¬ oped an instrumental meaning. The use of this instrumental meaning of a or ab with the ablative became prevalent in Chris- 80 tian times. The variations from classical usage in the writers of this period are due to analogy, to poetic or colloquial influence. (a) ab with the ablative for the dative of agent. The dative of agent, in classical Latin, is used with the gerundive to designate the person on whom the obligation rests. A or ab with the ablative is used instead of this regular dative as follows in the D. C. D.: Quoniam constat . . . et ideo nullum deum colendum esse ab hominibus, V, preface. si aliquid ab his ad ilia similitudinis adferendum est, VIII, 8. qua nos ab illo adiuvandos esse credamus, XIX, 4. When treating of persons not of things, classical Latin requires the ablative of agency with a passive verb accompanied by a or ab. In the D. 0. D. Augustine in three instances uses ab with things. This is due probably to an apparent personification of the words, thus: Xeque enim homines a simulacro, sed simulacrum ab homnibus servabatur, I, 2. quod et alius ante Christi nomen temporibus ei contigit ab ilia est adflictione recreatum, IV, 7. fulmina, quae aurea fuissent . . . et se ab eis fulminari velle dis- centibus hilar iter benigneque donavit, V, 26. (b) Ab with verbs. sanare takes the accusative of the thing as well as of the person in classical Latin. It occurs with ab and the ablative of the thing in the three following passages of the D. C. D.: ut totum, quo constat homo a peccatorum peste sanaret, X, 27. Cf. also X, 24; XXII, 8. 2. De. De in the Classical period has several meanings. Locally it means, “ down from/ 5 “ from ”; figuratively it means, “ con¬ cerning,” “ about,” “ of,” besides having several idiomatic uses. Ecclesiastical Latin in general has extended the use of this preposition and it takes the place of two or three others. It is the favorite particle in colloquial Latin and it takes first rank among 81 the prepositions of the Romance languages. Augustine in the D. C. D. makes use of the following variations from classical Latin in the use of de. (a) With verbs. De instead of ab (a) or ex with verbs compounded with ab or ex marking the point of departure. Auferre. quam sepultam de monumento putabat ablatam, XIV, 2. Cf. also XXI, 11; XXII, 8. Egredi. quando egressus est de Charra, XVI, 15. Cf. also XVI, 16; XX, 20. Emicare. incendia de nubibus emicasse, IV, 2. Erumpere. quando de fontibus Israel in eis literis . . . pro- phetiae flumen erupit, XVIII, 37. Cf. also XX, 11. eiicere. et de possessis hominum, corporis eiciuntur, VIII, 26. Cf. also XVI, 31; XX, 26; XXII, 22. excludere. ad dissociandum atque excludendam de corpore animam . . . XIX, 12. exire. Xachor frater Abrahae exisse de regione Chaldaeorum . . . XVI, 13. Cf. also XVI, 3, 15, 16; XVII, 18; XX, 15, 20; XXI, 15, 25. exorire. Unde apparet de progenie Sem exortos fuisse, XVI, 3. exsculpere. qui potuerint illic de quacumque re gesta sen sum. in- tellegentiae spiritalis exsculpere, XVII, 3. avellere. quibus avulsis de sedibus propriis et propter hoc testi¬ monium toto orbe dispersis Christi usquequaque crevit ecclesia, XVIII, 47. avert ere. de via recta conantur avert ere, XII, 18. expectare. quam de illo expectabat, X, 25. Verbs compounded otherwise, followed by de instead of the classical ab or ex and the ablative. redire. quod ei redeunte de proelio victori primitus occurrisset, I, 21. recedere. et de rure proprio non recedit, V, 6. Cf. also XXII, 22. perire. nec de ipso corpore perit sanctitas, I, 18. Verbs not usually found with de in classical Latin. fidere is followed by the dative or ablative without a preposition in 6 C 82 classical Latin. One passage with de and the ablative occurs in the D. C. D., thus: si de adiutorio Dei fideret bonus homo, XIV, 27. gandere takes the ablative alone in classical Latin. It occurs here with de, thus: quo modo de veritate gaudebat? X, 30. nasci generally takes the ablative alone, ab or ex with the ablative and rarely de with the ablative in classical Latin. The following instances occur in the D. C. D. with de: natus quippe fuerat et ipse de Adam pro illo, quem frater occidit, IV, 8. Cf. also XV, 13, 23, 27; XVI, 1, 12. liberare takes the ablative without a preposition in classical Latin. In the D. C. D. we find the following passages with de: per quem populus idem de servitute Aegyptia liberatus . . . XVII, 2. Cf. also XVIII, 4, 7, 21; XXII, 23. orire in classical Latin takes the ablative alone. It may take ab but not de. We find the following in the D. C. D.: tanta de rebus prosper is orta mala continuo subsecuta sunt, I, 30. Cf. also VI, 7. (b) de with the ablative, expressing cause. In expressing cause in classical Latin the ablative without a preposition is used as well as other constructions such as ob, per, propter and the accusative. In the D. C. D. Augustine uses de and the ablative in about twenty-five passages to express cause, thus: nisi . . . vitam, de qua superbiunt, invenirent, I, 1. ne civitatem, cui serviebant, de conditore eius offenderent, XXII, 6. Cf. also I, 28; III, 31; IV, 10; V, 2, 20; VIII, 27; XVIII, 10, 39, 45; XIX, 27; XXI, 27; passim. (c) Origin expressed by de and the ablative. Origin in classical Latin is usually expressed by the ablative alone, sometimes with ex and ab and rarely with de. 7 About seven instances of de and the ablative to express origin occur in the D. C. D., thus: 7 Cf. nasci, above. 83 Nam hunc Homerus de stirpe Aenae, III, 2. de qua omnia fierent, YIII, 2. Of. also XVII, 9; XVIII, 21, 23; XXII, 8, 11. (d) Means expressed by de and ablative. Means is usually expressed by the ablative alone in classical Latin. Three instances of de with the ablative to express means occur in the D. C. D., thus: tantum quod plebs ilia, quae suos agros non haberet, de publico viveret, V, 17. Verum illud, quod de abscisorum consecratione Mater deum coli meruit, VII, 26. Iam hinc tempore consequuntur filiorum Abrahae, unius de Agar ancilla, alterius de Sarra libera, de quibus in libro superiore iam diximus, XVI, 25. (e) Partitive de. In classical Latin de with the ablative is sometimes used with a partitive signification instead of the partitive genitive. It is limited, however, to a few recognized expressions as unus de multis, homo de plebe, etc. In ecclesiastical Latin, it is used much more frequently, being extended to things as well as to persons. Augustine in the D. C. D. uses the partitive de in the following passages: populum suum in Aegypto de paucissimis multiplicavit . . . IV, 34. Hieremias propheta de maioribus est, XVIII, 33. ne quid eis contingat mali de tantis malorum aggeribus huius saeculi, XIX, 8. Cf. also IX, 13; XIII, 21; XVIII, 29, 33, 42; XX, 30; XXII, 8, 13; passim. 3. E or ex. E or ex in classical Latin means “ from,” “ out of.” In the previous sections we have noted that ab and de have in many in¬ stances taken the place of ex. Nevertheless, ex like ab and de, has a variety of uses in late Latin which are rare in the Classical period. A general tendency, very evident in ecclesiastical Latin, is a con¬ fusion in the use of prepositions in general, but especially with ab, de and ex. 84 The extension and variations in the nse of e or ex found in the D. C. D. of Augustine are the following: (a) With verbs. accipere usually takes ab in classical Latin. It occurs in the D. C. D. with ex, thus: quae Israelitae sali tunc ex omnibus gentibus acceperunt, XVII, 4. Cf. also VII, 13. recipere in classical Latin may be construed with the accusative, dative, and with de and the ablative. The following occurs with ex: Quam vult ergo intellegi animae liberandae universalem viam non- dum receptam vel ex aliqua verissima philosophia ex earum gentium doctrinis, X, 32. timere in classical Latin may take de, ab and pro with the ablative. Here it occurs once with ex, thus: Deus absit ut contaminationem timeret ex homine quo indutus est, IX, 17. gaudere takes the accusative or ablative alone in classical Latin. It occurs in the following passage with ex: sed proclives ad libidinem nisi ex voluptatibus . . . gaudere nes- ciunt, XIV, 2. (b) Partitive ex. Ex like de is used in classical Latin with a partitive signification, and like de, also, is limited to certain expressions as quidam ex his, units ex multis, etc. This construction is used more frequently in ecclesiastical Latin. In the D. C. D. the following occur: consulens ex his duobus elegit liberum voluntates arbitrium, V, 9. Omnes hi ex illis sunt, VII, 2. et eorum quos ex Iudaeis praedestinavit vocavit, XXI, 24. Cf. also III, 26; IV, 8, 11; VI, 12; VII, 1, 10; VIII, 1, 12, 14; IX, 7, 27; X, 12; XI, 13; XII, 12; XIV, 13; XV, 3; passim. 4. Cum. In the use of cum as a preposition Augustine usually conforms to classical usage. In many instances, however, cum and the ablative of a substantive is used with the force of an adverb. 8 8 Cf. Chapter I on substantives. 85 5. Absque. Classical writers did not use the preposition absque . 9 Plautus and Terence used it with pronouns only, as absque me, te, . . . esset, absque eo esset. Its use as a preposition was revived by Apulieus and Aulus Gellius who used it as a synonym for sine. It was used frequently in the sermo familiaris and is characteristic of African Latin. It occurs often in Jerome, not at all in Arnobius and Cyprian. It appears occasionally in Augustine, both in his Letters and Sermons. Three instances occur in the D. C. D., thus: quanto magis absque culpa est in corpore non consentientis, si absque culpa est in corpore dormientis, I, 25. sine morte media beatam inmortalitatem absque ullo termino con- sectus, XII, 22. In this last passage, sine and absque are used with apparently the same meaning. hi. Prepositions with Accusative and Ablative. 1. With the accusative. (a) in. The preposition in is used in classical Latin both with the accu¬ sative and ablative. With the accusative it has a local meaning, "till.” "until,” besides its idiomatic uses. With the ablative it means "in,” "on,” "among.” In ecclesiastical Latin the prepo¬ sition in forms no exception to the other prepositions in frequency as well as extension of use. The following are the variations from classical usage which we find in Christian writers 10 in general and in Augustine in par¬ ticular. (a) With verbs. The following are verbs from the D. C. D. with in and the accu¬ sative, which do not conform to classical usage: Adtrahere takes ad and the accusative in classical Latin. Here it occurs with in: °Schmalz, 411. 10 Bonnet, 591; Goelzer (1), 348; Bayard, 144; Gabarrou, 113; Kaulen. 239. 86 quod salutus diabolus seductas gentes toto orbe terrarum adtrahet in bellum adversus earn, XX, 8. Cf. also XX, 11, 12. credere takes the dative in classical Latin. It occurs in about twenty-eight passages in the D. C. D. with in and the accusative, thus: id est ex Iudaea credentes in Christum, XVIII, 31. Cf. also IV, 20; V, 14; VII, 33; VIII, 24; XVI, 39; XVII, 5, 12, 16; XVIII, 28, 33, 45, 48, 50, 54; XX, 6, 21, 29, 30; XXII, 4. dominari in classical Latin takes in with the ablative. Here it occurs with in and the accusative, thus: Mortis autem regnum in homines usque adeo dominatum est, XIV, 1. sperare usually takes the accusative without a preposition in classi¬ cal Latin. Here it occurs with in, thus: quo modo earn perficit sperantibus in eum . . . qui sperant in eum? XXI, 24. Cf. also XVII, 12. (ft) In to designate end of motion. Sometimes in classical Latin we find in to express end of motion, although ad with the accusative is preferred. We read in Cicero, Venerat in funus, ad. Att. 15, 1; in Caesar, neu se . . . hastibus in cruciatum dedant. B. G. 7, 71, 13. From Tacitus on through the Christian period we are impressed with the frequency of its use, thus: Min. Felix, aliquem in exemplum praedicare, 36, 8; in Cyprian, homo acciditur, in hominis voluptatem, 6, 13; in Arnobius, labem machinantur in mutuam, II, 43. In the D. C. D. we find: Unde quidam hoc praeceptum etiam in bestias ac pecora conantur extendere, I, 20. ne in luxuriam flueretis, I, 33. Mirandum in honorem Christi processit exemplum, I, 33. Cf. also I, 9, 10, 12, 24, 27, 28, 36; II, 5, 10, 29; III, 15, 17; IV, 1, 2, 3, 4, 10; VIII, 19; XI, 7; XII, 14, 23; passim. (y) In with adjectives. The use of adjectives of the third declension taken substantively 87 and depending on a preposition as in commune is an idiom taken over from the Greek. Sallust 11 is the first to introduce the ex¬ pression in maius. In Livy we read, Marii virtutem in maius cele- brare, IV, 1, 5. By analogy to in maius the following expressions in melius, in deterius etc. were used especially by Christian writers. In the D. C. D. the following similar expressions occur: In deterius, XIV, 1; XVII, 4. In commune, XIII, 23. In peius, XVII, 4; XV, 5. In melius, XVII, 4; XX, 16; XXI, 24, 27. In sempiternum, XXI, 11. In proximum, XXI, 27. In pervisum, XXI, 24. 2. With the ablative. No clearly marked use of in with the ablative at variance with classical usage occurs in the D. C. D. 11 Brenous, 431. CHAPTER IX—CONJUNCTIONS. Conjunctions like prepositions are closely allied to adverbs. Originally, conjunctions as well as prepositions and adverbs were cases of nouns or pronouns which became fixed with a special form and meaning. Almost throughout the literary period of the lan¬ guage, the consciousness of any characteristic of the noun was lost. In the Imperial epoch, from Livy on, arbitrary uses of con¬ junctive particles are very evident, and variations not only in use but also in meaning begin to appear. The writers seem gradually to lose the exact values which were assigned conjunctions in the Classical period. The variations from classical Latin, which evolved during the Imperial epoch, passed into Christian 1 literature whose authors show the following peculiarities: i. Quod, quia and quoniam. Of all the uses of quod , quia and quoniam which appear in ec¬ clesiastical Latin, the most interesting is that wherein the con¬ junctive clauses, whether with indicative or subjunctive mood, begin to replace the classical use of the accusative and the infinitive for indirect statements. 2 1. Quod for quin after dubitare. Ammianus Marcellinus, an historian of the fourth century A. D., is the first 3 to use quod for quin after dubitare. This construction was not favorably accepted, although it secured a place in the language. With the verb dubitare which occurs about seventy times in the D. C. D., Augustine does not use quin once. The classical con¬ struction of the infinitive after dubitare , meaning “ to hesitate,” has been already treated. 4 However, quod for quin occurs in the four following passages: 1 Goelzer (2), 329; Bayard, 158; Gabarrou, 167. 2 Cf. Chapter VI on moods. 3 Schmalz, 342. 4 Cf. Chapter VI on Moods (Section on Infinitive). 88 89 Cum vero et ilia vera atque certa sint, quis dubitet quod eorum, cum amantur, et ipse amor verus et certus est? XI, 27. Absit itaque ut dubitemus, quod ei notus sit omnis numerus, XII, 19. certe fides Christiana de ipso Salvatore non dubitat, quod etiam post resurrectionem . . . cibum ac potum cum discipulis sumpsit, XIII, 22. Licet enim iustorum ac piorum animae defunctorum quod in requie vivant dubitare fas non sit, XIII, 21. 2. Non quod , non quia, introducing a reason. In Plautus, an untenable reason is introduced by non eo quia; in Terence by non eo quo; in Cicero usually by non quod or non quo , seldom by neque or non eo quo. Non quia 5 is rarely used in classical Latin, but it occurs frequently from Livy on, and becomes common in ecclesiastical writers; also from the Imperial epoch on, quia begins to replace quod. Out of seventeen instances where Augustine introduces an un¬ tenable reason, he uses non quia twelve times, non quo three times and non quod twice. He conforms to the classical usage in the use of mood, viz., the subjunctive, but if the clauses contain a fact, even though the fact be denied as the reason, they are construed with the indicative. (a) Non quia with the subjunctive. Haec autem propter senarii numeri perfectionem eodem die sexiens reptitio sex diebus perfecta narrantur, non quia Deo fuerit necessaria mora temporum . . . sed quia per senarium nu- merum est operum significata perfectio, XI, 30. (b) Non quia with the indicative. Flagellantur enim simul, non quia simul agunt malam vitam, sed quia amant temporalem vitam, I, 9. Tunc iam deminuto paululum metu, non quia bella conquieverant, sed quia non tarn gravi pondere urgebant, III, 17. Unde et spiritalia erunt, non quia corpora esse desistent sed quia spiritu vivicante subsistent, XIII, 22. Cf. also I, 23; XI, 27; XII, 14; XIII, 20, 22, 23; XIV, 4; XVI, 6; XIX, 6. 6 Schmalz, 545; Rletman and Goelzer, 462. 90 (c) Non quo with the subjunctive. Sed a contrario martyres nostri heroes noncuparentur, si, ut dixi, usus ecclesiastici sermonis admitteret, non quo eis esset cum daemonibus in aere societas, sed quod eosdem daemones, . . . vincerent . . . X, 21. ad cumulum a nobis commemorari potest; non quo necessarius sit etiamsi desit, sed quia non incongrue creditur fuisse, . . . XVIII, 47. audiatur timeatur impleatur, ne inoboedientes eradicato conse- quatur . . . “ Sacrificans,” inquit, . . . non quo rei egeat alicuius, sed quia nobis expedit, XIX, 23. (d) Non quod with the subjunctive. Ex illis autem quattuor rebus Varro tres tollit, voluptatem scilicet et quietem et utrumque; non quod eas inprobet, sed. quod primigenia ilia naturae et voluptatem in se habeant et quietem, XIX, 2. (e) Non quod with the indicative. Qui vero pro aliquo grandi crimine morte multatur, numquid mora qua occiditur, quae perbrevis est, eius supplicium leges aesti- mant et non quod eum in sempiternum auferunt de societate viventium? XXI, 11. 3. Quod with a finite mood after persuadere. The classical constructions with persuadere are (1) comple¬ mentary final clauses introduced by ut, and (2) the accusative with the infinitive in some authors, notably Terence, Lucretius and Virgil. Quod is non-classical. One instance of quod and the subjunctive with persuadere occurs in the D. C. D., thus: Quibusdam vero vitia eorum aliquanto adtentius et diligentius intuentibus non potuerunt persuadere quod dii sint, VIII, 22. II. Quamdiu. Quamdiu in classical Latin meaning “ as long as ” 6 is not found in all writers, e. g. Tacitus and Floras do not use it at all, while others, such as Pliny the Elder, use it in preference to dum. Cicero uses the perfect tense with quamdiu when the verb of the main 8 Schmalz, 553. 91 clause is perfect, thus: quorum quamdiu mansit imitatio, tamdiu genus illud dicenti vixit, D. 0. 2, 94. Once in the D. C. D. Augustine uses, with no apparent reason, the subjunctive with quamdiu meaning “as long as,” thus: Nec saltern potuerunt unam Segetiam talem invenire, cui semel segetes commendarent, sed sata frumenta, quamdiu sub terra essent, praepositam voluerunt habere deam Seiam, IV, 8. In Silver Latin quamdiu, the equivalent of donee meaning “until” and followed by the subjunctive is used for the first time by Javolenus Priscus. 7 Among the exponents of this usage are: Salvius Julianus, Domitius Ulpianus, Cyprian, Spartian and Cassian. The first to use quamdiu for donee, meaning “ until,” is Ammianus Marcellinus. Augustine uses quamdiu with the value of donee, “ until ” with the subjunctive but once in the D. C. D., thus: Cui non sufficere videretur ilia Segetia, quamdiu seges ab initiis herbidis usque ad aristas aridas pervenerit? IV, 8. hi. Quamvis and quamquam. Quamvis and quamquam have both retained their classical mean¬ ing in ecclesiastical Latin. Variations, however, in the use of these conjugations do appear in Silver and in Christian Latin. These are discussed in Chapter VI on moods. iv. Dum. Rare instances of dum with the value of cum (circumstantial) occur in the Augustan literature. 8 In Livy we read, Dum intentus in eum se rex totus averteret, alter elatam securim in caput deiecit, I, 40, 7; in Virgil, Ilia quidem, dum te fugeret per flumina prae- ceps, G, IV.; in Phaedrus, Canis per flumen, carnem dum ferret, notans vidit simulacrum suum, I, 4, 2. This construction is un¬ known to the writers of the Silver age. It does not occur in Tacitus or Suetonius, or Plorus or even Apulieus. It reappears in the fourth century of the Christian era in Aurelius Victor and Ammianus iMarcellinus, and occurs also in Jerome, Gregory, Arnobius. The following instances occur in the D. C. D.: 7 Sohmalz, 553. 8 Schmalz, 558. 92 Et saepe universi exercitus, dum pro terrena patria morerentur, nbi postea iacerent vel quibus bestiis, esca fierant, I, 12. Iam mult os moverat, quod miles quidam, dum occiso spolia de- iraheret, fratrem nudato cadavere agnovit ac detestatus bella civilia se ipsum ibi perimens fraterno corpori adiunxit, II, 25. Quod enim conantur efficere de intervallo exiguo temporis, quod inter se gemini dum nascerentur habuerunt, Y, 2. An forte quia diverso horoscopo nati sunt, aut ille in masculum, dum nascerentur, aut ilia in feminam commutata est? Y, 6. Quo damnato et occiso, utrum nocentem an innocentem nesciens occideret torsit; ac per hoc innocentem et ut sciret torsit, et dum nesciret occidit, XIX, 6. Xam et de caelo novo ac terra nova iam supra dixerat, dum ea, quae sanctis promittuntur in fine, saepe ac multiformiter dicer et, XX, 21. Dum ergo requireremus quid factum fuerit, unde ille strepitus laetus extiterit, ingressi sunt cum ilia in basilicam, XXII, 8. Cf. also Y, 2; XXII, 17. Exceptionally rare, in any period of the Latin language, is the use of dum with the pluperfect subjunctive. It is however found in Cassiodorus and Ammianus Mar cell inus of the fourth century, A. D. One instance of dum for cum circumstantial, with the pluperfect subjunctive occurs in the following passage of the D. C. D.: Dum enim rotam figuli vi quanta potuit intorsisset, currente ilia bis numero de atramento tamquam uno eius loco summa celeri- tate percussit, Y, 4. v. Ut. In classical Latin the particle ut is used as a conjunction in a great number of complementary clauses. Such clauses are called substantive or logical complements and include two main divisions, (i) clauses which are complements of certain verbs manifesting volition or activity, (2) clauses which are subjects of certain im¬ personal expressions. Ut is also used in pure final and consecutive clauses. The principal deviations from classical Latin which Chris¬ tian writers show in the use of ut are the following: 1 ut non for ne in negative clauses of purpose. 2 ut for quo in clauses containing a comparative expression. 93 3 ut with the subjunctive for the accusative and infinitive after verba sentiendi et declarandi. k ut non for ne after verbs of preventing. 5 ut with the subjunctive after verbs and expressions (not included under 3) which usually take the infinitive in classical Latin. Examples of each of these categories appear in the D. C. D. as follows: (1) Ad hoc enim speculators, hoc est populorum praeposite; con- stitut i sunt in ecclesiis, ut non par cant obiurgando peccata, I, 9. Mulier autem virorum pretiosas animas captat, ut ille magnae indolis animus hoc velut divino testimonio sublimatus et vere se optimum existimans veram pietatem religionemque non quaereret, II, 5. Et certe si Eortuna loquitur, non saltern muliebris, sed virilis potius loqueretur, ut non ipsae, quae simulacrum dedicaverunt, putarentur, IV, 19. Uec deus Spiniensis, ut spinas ex agris eradicaretur, nec dea Eobigo, ut non accederet, rogaretur, IV, 21. Ut autem aliter annum tunc fuisse computatum non sit incredibile, adiciunt quod apud plerosque scriptores historiae reperitur, XV, 12. Longitudinem fugio, ut non haec per multa demonstrem, XVIII, 44. nihil ei nocere permittitur, cui procul dubio et rebus prosperis consolatio, ut non frangatur adversis, et rebus adversis exer- citatio, ut non corrumpatur prosperis, XVIII, 51. Ut enim in Christi nativitate huius rei non ponamus initium . . . procul dubio tunc innotuit per eius corporalem praesentiam doctrina et religio Christiana, XVIII, 54. 2. Hoc ut facilius diiudicetur, non vanescamus inani ventositate iactati, IV, 3. The following passage also contains quo for ut, Unde tres modios anulorum aureorum Carthaginem misit, quo intellegerent tantam in illo proelio dignitatem cecidisse Eoma- nam, ut facilius earn caperet mensura quam numerus, III, 19. 3. For this construction, cf. Chapter VI on Moods. 4. Ego autem ut hoc non ita faciam, sicut videtur ipsa expectatio postulare . . . copia quam incopia magis impedior, XVII, 15. 94 Verum si hoc ad resurrectionis formam, in qua erit unusquisque, referendum esset, quid nos impediret nominato viro intellegere et feminam, ut virum pro homine positum acciperemus? XXII, 18. 5. sed ilii iubent ut sacrificio serviamus, X, 16. nec iubent , ut sacrificium faciamus, X, 32. quae postea iussit ut redderet, XXI, 27. iubente sancto episcopo Aurelio etiam ut veniret Carthaginem fecimus, XXII, 8. sinamus, ut ea, quae vere vitia sunt virtutes vocentur, XIY, 9. tamen uteumque conatus est , ut . . . ratio deleniret, VII, 33. ita ut iussisse perhibeatur, ne saltern mortuo in ingrati patria funus fieret, III, 21. vi. Licet. Licet was not used as a conjunction until after Cicero. Properly- speaking it was a verb in the present tense meaning “ it is granted and took the usual sequence of tenses. When licet was first used as a concessive conjunction it retained its original verbal force and the present or perfect subjunctive was construed with it by classical writers. Juvenal uses it more frequently than quamvis as a con¬ cessive conjunction. Tacitus uses it only in his Annals and History. In the jurists from Julianus on it becomes more and more fre¬ quent, until in the third century A. D. it is employed oftener than quamvis. In the L). C. D. Augustine uses licet with the imperfect sub¬ junctive in the three following passages: Xon solum enim non erit tale, quale nunc est in quavis optima valetudine . . . quale fuit in primis hominibus ante peccatum qui licet morituri non essent, XIII, 20. Quae licet senio non veterescerent, XIII, 20. licet in corpore animali esset, XIV, 12. One instance of licet and the pluperfect subjunctive occurs, thus: ab hoste provocatus iuvenali ardore pugnaverat, licet, vicisset, occi- dit, Y, 18. VII. Quamlibet. The indefinite adverb quamlibet was first used as a synonym for the concessive conjunction quamvis by the poets. The writers 8 9 Schmalz, 555; Riemann and Goelzer, 484; Goelzer (2), 337; Bonnet, 325. 95 of the Christian period took it over and we find it replacing quamvis and the subjunctive. Ammianus Marcellinus even used the indicative with quamlibet. Two passages occur in the D. C. D. where quamlibet is used with the subjunctive with the force of a concessive conjunction. Sed quod pertinet ad praesentem quaestionem, quamlibet lauda- bilem dicant istam fuisse . . . II, 22. Quamlibet enim de quacumque re propriae sint atque manifestae propheticae locutiones, necesse est ut eis etiam tropicae mis- ceantur, XVII, 16. vm. Si. Conditional sentences. Classical writers have at all times permitted themselves much liberty in the use of mood and tense in conditional sentences. Accordingly, grammarians exhibit considerable latitude and variety in their explanations of the underlying principles. Lane has no less than eighty-eight combinations of conditional periods taken from classical literature, which indicates the difficulty involved in trying to classify the conditional sentences of any author as classical or non-classical. The forms assumed by such sentences depended rather upon the individual viewpoint of the writer than on any recognized and restricting set of rules. In general Augustine in the D. C. D. conforms to the common classical constructions in his use of conditional periods. In Chap¬ ter V on Voice and Tense, a confusion of time, resulting from the complex forces influencing the language at that period, is noted. This confusion exists no less in the tenses of the conditional sen¬ tences. Augustine uses a large number of contrary to fact con¬ ditional sentences, and among these the imperfect subjunctive appears frequently for the pluperfect and vice versa. In contrary to fact conditional sentences, classical writers rarely confused the tenses. The pluperfect subjunctive is used in both protasis and apodosis for past action, the imperfect subjunctive in protasis and apodosis when the statement refers to present time. The imperfect subjunctive might also denote past time of repeated action or action continuing into the present. In this type of conditional sentence, viz., contrary to fact, varia¬ tions from classical Latin appear as follows in the D. C. D. of Augustine. 96 1. Past contrary to fact with the imperfect subjunctive in both protasis and apodosis. quae omnia procul dubio nobis tribuerent, si iam vel illis clareret nostra religio, vel ita eos a sacris sacrilegis prohiberet, I, 36. Illas theatricas artes diu virtus Romana non noverat, quae si ad oblectamentum voluptatis humanae quaererentur, vitio morum inreperent humanorum, II, 13. Tunc enim tota Urbe in hostium potestatem redacta solus collis Capitolinus remanserat, qui etiam ipse caperetur, nisi saltern anseres diis dormientibus vigilarent, II, 22. Aliud adicio, quia, si peccata hominum illis numinibus displicerent, ut offensi Paridis facto desertam Troiam ferro ignbusque donarent, magis eos contra Romanos moveret Romuli frater occisus, III, 6. Si ergo tutores essent Romanae felecitatis et gloriae, tarn grave ab ea crimen Saguntinae calamitatis averterent, III, 20. quae ilia civitas pertulit vel ad eius imperium provinciae perti- nentes, antiquam eorum sacrificia prohibeta fuissent; quae omnia procul dubio nobis tribuerent, si iam vel illis clareret nostra religio vel ita eos a sacris sacrilegis prohiberet, IV, 2. Cur ipse Romulus felicem cupiens condere civitatem non huic templum potissimum struxit nec propter aliquid diis ceteris supplicavit, quando nihil desset, si haec adesset? IV, 23. Cf. also I, 36; II, 2; III, 15; IV, 7, 15, 28; VI, 2; VII, 27; XVI, 11; XVII, 4, 12. The following passage 10 is a good illustration of the imperfect subjunctive in protasis and apodosis designating repeated action in past time, and action continuing into the present: Xeque enim utrumque demonstraretur in omnibus, quia, si omnes remanerent in poenis iustae damnationis, in nullo apparet misericors gratia; rursus si omnes a tenebris transferrentur in lucem, in nullo appareret veritas ultionis, XXI, 12. Cf. also XVII, 11. 2. Past contrary to fact conditional sentence with protasis in the imperfect instead of the pluperfect subjunctive, si humanum genus ante bella Punica Christianam reciperet dis- ciplinam et consequeretur rerum tanto vastatio, quanta illis 10 Dod’s translation lias this noted as a pluperfect subjunctive. bellis Europam Africamque contrivit, nullus talium, quales nunc patimur, nisi Christianae religioni mala ilia tribuisset, III, 31. In the following passage the protasis still comes under (2) but the apodosis is that of a past simple condition: nostrum fuit utique . . . attendere et videre nequaquam illos ad hanc artem perventuros fuisse, qua homo deos facit, si a veri- tate non aberrarent, si ea, quae Deo digna sunt, crederent, si animum adverterent ad cultum religionem divinam, VIII, 24. 3. Past contrary to fact conditional sentences with apodosis in the imperfect subjunctive. Classical Latin permits the combination of pluperfect subjunc¬ tive in protasis and imperfect in apodosis, provided present time is designated by the imperfect. Past time, however, is clearly ex¬ pressed in the following: Si autem a diis suis Romani vivendi leges accipere potuissent, non aliquot annos post Romam conditam ab Atheniensibus mutua- rentur leges Solonis, II, 16. Quam si tacuisset, aliter hoc factum eius ab aliis fortasse defende- retur, YI, 4. Nam parasitos Iovis ad convivium eius adhibitos si mimus dixisset, utique risum quaesisse videretur, YI, 7. Nullam Iacob legitur petisse praeter unam, nec usus plurimis nisi gignendae prolis officio, coniugali iure servato, ut neque hoc faceret, nisi uxores eius id fieri flagitassent, XYI, 38. 4. Present contrary to fact conditional sentences with pluperfect subjunctive in the protasis. Classical Latin permits the combination of imperfect subjunctive in apodosis and pluperfect in the protasis, provided the time ex¬ pressed by the protasis is past. In the following passage, present time is clearly indicated by the pluperfect subjunctive: Hoc si nostris temporibus accidisset, rabidiores istos quam sua illi animalia pateremur, III, 23. In the following passage Augustine uses the pluperfect for past action still continuing into the present: 11 11 No such example is presented by Lane. 7 C 98 si Christianis temporibus accidissent, quibus ea nisi Christianis hominibus tamquam crimina obicerent? Ill, 31. In a contrary to fact conditional sentence in classical Latin, verbs denoting necessity, propriety, possibility, duty, and the sec¬ ond periphrastic conjugation, when used in the apodosis, may be put in the imperfect or perfect indicative. Augustine, in the apodosis of a contrary to fact conditional sentence, uses the second periphrastic conjugation with the plu¬ perfect indicative for the imperfect, thus: Virtutem quoque deam fecerunt; quae quidem si dea esset, multis fuerat praeferenda, IV, 20. 5. Future simple conditional sentences. Rarely in classical Latin do we find the present tense of the apodosis combined with a future in the protasis. In general the future appears in both protasis and apodosis. Augustine in two passages uses the future in the protasis and the present in the apodosis, thus: Timor vero ille castus permanens in saeculum saeculi, si erit et in futuro saeculo . . . non est timor exterrens a malo quod acci- dere potest . . . XIY, 9. Quibus si respondebimus esse animalia profecto corruptibilia, quia mortalia, . . . aut nolunt credere . . . XXI, 2. x. Nisi. Nisi forte introduces an objection or exception, usually an ironi¬ cal afterthought. It was rare before Cicero’s time and regularly took the indicative. In the D. C. D. four instances occur of nisi forte introducing an ironical thought with the subjunctive, thus: Nisi forte quispiam sic defendat istos deos, ut dicat eos ideo man- sisse Romae, III, 15. Nisi forte quis dicat more spongiarum vel huiusce modi rerum mundare daemones amicos suos, IX, 16. nisi forte inde se nobis auderent praeferre Platonici, X, 30. Nisi forte quis dicat id, quod Dominus ait de diabolo in evangelis, XI, 13. CHAPTER X.—'SUMMARY. Ecclesiastical Latin, as we have said before, has for its basic content the sermo plebeius of the Roman people, and we accord¬ ingly expect to find therein many of the similarities and variances in style and syntax which distinguish the language of the common people from the language of classical Latin literature. The variations have been overestimated however. On examina¬ tion, ecclesiastical Latin is found to varv from the Latin of the classics in no more marked degree than the works of the poets and prose writers of the Imperial epoch. From this syntactical study of the D. C. D. we find that Augus¬ tine represents the characteristics of African Latinity of the fourth century A. D. In summary, the variations from classical Latin as found therein are the following: In the gender of substantives Augustine shows a strict adherence to classical norms. In some instances he uses a plural for a sin¬ gular term and vice versa. Like the writers of his age Augustine is fond of abstract terms using them sometimes instead of par¬ ticiples, at other times for adverbs.. In case usage of nouns he deviates from classical norms, but no more so than the writers of the Empire. Augustine differs from classical authors to a similar degree in his use of adjectives. While his irregularities in the use of comparison are few, they exist sufficiently to mark him as a writer of ecclesiastical Latin. Very frequently Augustine uses unus for alter, an irregularity, common in Christian Latin, which shows lack of precision in the use of the language of the period. Pronouns appear much more frequently in the D. C. D. than in classical prose. The fineness of discrimination in regard to pronouns, so prevalent in classical Latin, is lacking. Is, hie, ille, and ipse are used indiscriminately and confusion exists in the use of iste . . . ille, . . . ille . . . ille, and ille . . . iste for hie . . . ille in contrasts. The indefinite pronouns are used interchangeably. Aliquis the indefinite pronoun of affirmative sentences occurs in negative statements, and quisquam the indefinite of negative propo¬ sitions appears in affirmative statements. The pronominal adjective tantus, tot and quot are replaced by tam magnus, tam multi and quam multi. Besides unus, as noted above, alius is frequently substituted for alter, and alter for alius. In the use of adverbs, Augustine in the D. C. D. does not differ from other writers of the 99 100 Christian period. He uses unde for quomodo; adhuc for etiam turn; ceterum for sed ,; scilicet for id est; magis for potius; utrum for ne or num and nec . . . quidem for ne . . . quidem. In our study we find in the verb more than in any other part of speech the greatest number of irregularities. Classical precision is notably absent in the use of the tenses. The future perfect is substituted for the simple future; the perfect infinitive is sub¬ stituted for the present infinitive; the pluperfect is used for the perfect or imperfect and in many instances tense sequence is ne¬ glected. Augustine conforms to classical Latinity in his use of the imperative mood. He uses the indicative in indirect questions; in relative clauses of characteristic; after quod and quia for the accusative and infinitive in indirect statements; and with forsitan, quamvis and in causal relative clauses. One instance of the sub¬ junctive with non occurs for a prohibition. He uses the third person singular subjunctive of at sum with unusual force, first as an intensive optative subjunctive, and second as an equivalent of tantum abest . . . ut. The subjunctive is also used with quam- quam,, and with quod and quia for the accusative and infinitive in indirect statements. Augustine also uses a modifying adjective or its equivalent with a substantive infinitive. The infinitive is used to express purpose; with adjectives which regularly take a supine in classical Latin; instead of the genitive of the gerund; and with verbs which were not known to he so used in the period of classical literature. In the use of participles, Augustine in the H. C. H. allows him¬ self much liberty. The present participle appears in all cases and both numbers as a substantive; it occurs as a predicate with a copula; it takes the place of a postquam clause; and is used in place of the ablative of the gerund. The future participle is used as a substantive and as an. attributive adjective; in some instances it designates purpose. The perfect passive participle form, as it were, a periphrastic conjugation with the verb habere. The gerund and gerundive are much favored by Augustine in the D. C. D. as well as by other ecclesiastical writers, and are used with a much greater frequency than in classical Latin. As for conjunctions, Augustine does not hesitate to substitute one for another, wherever there is a general similarity of meaning. In many instances prepositions appear where a single case form would suffice; an extension in the use of the preposition, as well as a change of meaning is very evident. 101 From this study it is very evident that St. Augustine, at least in the De Civitate Dei, comes closer to classical requirements than any other writer of the same period. While deviating to a certain extent, principally for psychological reasons, yet on the whole he very closely approaches classical Latin. GENERAL INDEX. a or ab, 79, SO. abesse, 5S. ablative, 10, 17. absit, 53. abstract terms, 9. absque, 85. absum, 53, 100. accusative, 11, 12. ad, 12, 71, 72, 73. ad extremum, 19. adhuc, 36, 37, 100. adjectives, 19. advena, 5. adverbs, 36. aliquis, 31, 32. alius, 32, 33, 35, 99. alt are, 7, 8. alter, 24, 35, 99. alterutrum, 27, 2S. amare, 43. amicus, 19. ante, 75. apud, 73, 74. aut, 40. aut . . . aut, 41. aut . . . vel, 41. benedicere, 11. bestia, 19. bonus, 19. capillus, 6, 7, 9. cases, 10. catacombs, 2. causa, 69. cavere, 11. ceterum, 37, 38, 100. characteristic clauses, 49. circa, 77. comparison, 23. compellere, 5S. concrete terms, 7. conditional sentences, 95. conjunctions, 8S. consulere, 11. consularis. 19. creatrix, 6. credere, 11. crimen, 17. crinis, 6, 7, 9. cum, 10, 74, 84. cur, 40. dare, 59. dative, 15. de, 80, 81, 82, S3, de cetero, 19. difficilis, 70. dignus, 57. dubitare, 59. dum, 91. e or ex, 13, 83, S4. eram, 44. ero, 44. esse, 3. essem, 46, 47. etiam turn, 36, 37, 100. facere, 42, 43, 58. facilis, 70. felix, 14, 15. fera, 19. fidelis, 19. forsitan, 51, 52, 100. fortasse, 51, 52. fortassis, 51, 52. fueram, 44. fuerim, 46. fuero, 44. fui, 44. fuisse, 45. fuissem, 46. fungi, 11. future perfect, 45. futurus, 64. genitive, 12, 13, 14. gerund, 66, 67. gerundive, 68, 69. gratia, 69. habere, 3, 65, 100. hie, 26, 28, 29, 30. 37, 99. honestum. 19. huius modi, 12. ibi, 37. idoneus, 57. igitur, 36. ille, 26, 28, 29, 30, 99. imperative, 49. in, 12, 74, 85, 86, 87. in proclive, 19. indicative, 49. indignus, 57. indulgere. 104 infinitive, 56, 57. propter quae, 77. inludere, 11. propter quod, 77. inter nos, 27. inter se, 27. purpose, 56. inter vos, 27. - quamdiu, 90. interdicere, 11. quamlibet, 94. invicem, 27. V quam multi, 34, 99. is, 28, 30, 99. quia, 3, 48, 50, 55, 88, 89, 100. iste, 26, 28, 29, 30, 99. quaerere, 58. iucundus, 70. quam, 34. iustus, 19. 1 quamquam 54, 91, 100. iuxta, 76. quamvis, 54, 91, 100. latere, 11. quantus, 34. licet, 94. quare, 40. locus, 6. quicumque, 32, 33. quippe qui, 52. magis, 38, 39, 100. quis, 31. magnus, 34. 1 quispiam, 32. memoria, 74. quisquam, 31. mendicare, 11. quisque, 33. mirabile dictu, 70. quisquis, 33. moderatrix, 5. quo, 90, 93. mood, 48. t quod, 3, 48, 50, 55, 88, 89, 90, 100. multus, 24. quo modo, 36, 100. quoniam, 3, 48, 50, 55, 88. ne, 39, 41, 52, 59, 100. ne . . . quidem, 41, 100. quot, 34, 99. nec . . . quidem, 41. reddere, 15. nisi forte, 98. redire, 15. noli, 53. 1 restituere, 15. nolite, 53. reus, 17. nomen, 17. non, 53, 100. rider e, 11. num, 39, 41, 100. numerals, 24. , scilicet, 38. secundum, 78. sed, 100. ob, 69, 76. sequence of tense, 47. oblivisci, 11. sermo urbanus, 1. omnino, 41. -s. sermo plebeius, 1, 2. omnis, 24. si, 95. sim, 46, 47. participle, 10, 61. r similis, 15, 16. passive, 42. sine, 32. paucus, 24. • -y singulus, 24. peccatrix, 5, 6. sordes, 6, 7, 8. per, 10. substantives, 5. perfect infinitive, 45. sum, 44. persuadere, 11. - supine, 57, 69. plenus, 16, 17. plurimus, 24. supplicare, 11. * post, 75. tarn magnus, 34. 99. postquam, 63, 100. tarn multi, 34, 99. pot are, 43. tantummodo, 41. potius, 38, 39, 100. tantum abest, 53, 54, 100. prisca latinitas, 1, 2. tantus, 34, 99. pro, 69. tense, 44, 47. prohibitions, 52. timere, 59, 60. pronouns, 26. propter, 69, 77. * tot, 34, 99. propterea, 41. ullus, 31, 32. unde, 36, 100. undique, 36. unus, 24. ut, 48, 59, 92, 93, 100. ut quid, 40. uterque, 33. utique, 41. utrum, 39, 40, 100. utrum . . . an, 40. 105 valde, 39. vel, 40. venturus, 64. vereri, 59, 60. verum, 19. victrix, 5. visu, 70. voice, 42. VITA. The author of this dissertation, Sister Mary Columkille Colbert, was born March 16,1884, in Cappoquin, County Waterford, Ireland, and pursued her elementary and intermediate studies in her native town under the direction of the Sisters of Mercy. In 1900 she entered the Congregation of the Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio, Texas. She received her A. B. degree from the Catholic University of America in 1912 and in the same year began graduate work, receiving the M. A. degree in 1913. While pursuing graduate work she attended the lectures of Dr. Deferrari, Dr. Wright and Dr. Bolling, in Latin and Greek literature; Dr. Shields in education; and Dr. Turner in philosophy.