there is scarcely a single remark upon them that will repay the reader for his time, and there are many observations which appear to us even erroneous. One of the chief causes of the confusion, which runs through Dr. Crombie's remarks upon these words, seems to be an ambiguous use of the term demonstrative. He has not attended to the distinction between real and verbal demonstratives, if we may use the terms, between the physical inclination of the head or finger, so as to indicate external objects, and the mere logical reference to the preceding or ensuing words of the speaker.

An attention to this distinction will tend to remove some of the difficulties in the use of these words. Thus is, it will be found, is merely a logical demonstrative referring solely to the words of the speaker or writer. Iste, on the other hand, is limited to the indication of objects external to the speaker, and among these it is again limited to what concerns the party addressed*. It is, as Valla long ago observed, strictly and solely the demonstrative of the second person. Hic and ille have a double duty to perform. On the one hand, like iste, they are physical demonstratives, and the three together embrace every possible object, hic being solely applicable to that which is near or concerns me, the party speaking; iste, as we have already said, referring to the second person; and ille, including all that is remote from both the party addressed and the party addressing. Hic and ille again are demonstratives of time as well as place, the former embracing the recent and the present, the latter alluding to what is remote, whether in the past or future. Lastly, hic and ille being thus serviceable in distinguishing external objects, the speaker or writer has availed himself of their power to discriminate between the different words that form the subject of discourse. Here they appear to invade the province of the merely logical demonstrative is. Yet though some ground is common to both hic and is, and even to ille with is, they have for the most part all three their separate domain. Thus, in the first place, hic and ille may both refer to what precedes. The former, however, is limited to what immediately precedes, and must occupy a very early, if not the first place in its sentence; ille, on the contrary, is applicable to any thing preceding, provided it did not immediately precede. To justify the use of ille, there must always be an intermediate object to which hic is applicable. There is no limit, however, on the other side to

*The Eton grammar contains the same doctrine, but it is expressed in Latin; it is learned merely by rote, and the thousands who are compelled to gabble it, are therefore entirely ignorant of the rule they have repeated some hundred times.

the distance of the object, provided, of course, that when it is very remote, it possess an importance in itself sufficient to bring it readily to the reader's notice, when thus indistinctly referred to. As ille is referable to so great a compass, it is essential to perspicuity that the magnitude of the object should be proportioned to the distance; a demonstrative can only point at what lies in conspectu mentis. Again, while hic, we are still speaking of logical demonstration only, is referable to what has just come from the pen, ille may be opposed to it in another direction, and introduce some new matter. Cicero makes great use of these two words in his letters in a transition from one subject to another-speaking of what he is quitting under the form hic, introducing the new subject by ille. Thus, in the letter to Appius, 3. 6., he concludes one complaint thus:- Horum ego sermone non movebar,' and then introduces another, Illud (vere dicam) me movet, in tanta militum paucitate abesse tris cohortes,' &c. Lastly, hic itself may refer to what follows: but then it must descend from its prominent position at the commencement of the sentence to occupy a place equally emphatic, either at the very end of the sentence, as (Att. 5. 8.) Summa erit hæc statues, &c.' or near the end of it, as, (Att. 5. 10.)

6

(

6

Sed tu aliquid de me ipso scire fortasse mavis: hæc sunt: Adhuc sumptus, &c.,' or (Cæsar, B. G. 3, 7.) Ejus belli hæc fuit caussa. In short, the sentence will be in the inverted form, the whole predicate, or a considerable portion of it, preceding the demonstrative and the verb.

6

6

Having thus considered hic and ille as opposed to one another, it remains to contrast the use of them with that of is. One of the main duties of this little word is to act as a mere antecedent to the relative. In such case ille can never perform the part of a substitute; and the employment of hic for this purpose must be confined to those cases where the relative clause precedes, so that here, too, hic supports its ordinary character of referring to what has just been mentioned. Thus Cæs. B. G. 7. 77. Quid aliud volunt, nisi invidia adducti, quos fama nobiles potentesque bello cognoverunt, horum in agris considere?' We could not say, horum in agris considere quos fama nobiles cognoverunt,' at least not if a mere antecedent to the relative be intended. For it is not pretended that hic and ille are never used in connexion with a relative; thousands of passages would contradict this; but that when so used, they have a. meaning independent of the relative, which is not the case with is. Thus, if it be worth while to illustrate so simple a matter by examples (and it is worth while when so many,

'

otherwise good, scholars err in this point), is qui pugnat' means the combatant,' or 'a combatant' (accordingly as he has been mentioned, or not mentioned before); while hic qui pugnat,' ille qui pugnat,' signify respectively this combatant,' yonder combatant.'

6

Although we have dwelt on this subject at a greater length than many may think suited to the importance of the question, yet having gone so far, we will venture upon a few more remarks, to meet some objections that will arise in the minds of those who observe and think for themselves. In the first place, it should always be kept in view that the text of the very best edited Latin author necessarily contains many errors, which, in the course of so long a period, must have crept even into the best MSS., to say nothing of that large class of errors which are due to the neglect of the modern editor. With other words this point may sometimes be disregarded without danger; but when words occur many thousand times, as must be the case with the pronouns, if we include only the best writers of Latinity, it cannot but have happened that some of these passages have undergone the common fate of corruption. The only safe way then of examining the present question is to be guided, not by solitary instances, but by the ordinary usage. Above all, particular care must be observed in reference to the nominatives and datives plural of is. Our grammars furnish ii and iis; but it is very questionable whether such words were ever used by the best writers. At any rate, it is certain, as Zumpt✶ has observed in his grammar (sixth German edition, p. 122), that in nine places out of ten, where our editions give these forms, the MSS. have hi and his. The two i's were certainly not pronounced separately by the Romans, and if a contraction be allowed, the form of the nominative at least becomes a little ridiculous. It seems not unlikely therefore that the two cases were borrowed from hic. Thus in B. G. 2. 1. Cæsar has, a potentioribus atque his, qui ad conducendos homines facultates habebant, &c.,' where his has simply the power of is, ea, id, being a mere antecedent. At the beginning of the very next chapter, where the text of Oudendorp has iis, the note is this; his MSS. plerique.' But in this last case the meaning of the word is such that hic or is may occupy the place. On the other hand, in B. G. 7.77., we find, Si illorum nunciis confirmari non potestis, iis utimini testibus;' where the strong antithesis between illorum and the word before utimini renders his

"

6

*This does not appear in Mr. Kenrick's translation; perhaps because it is only found in the later German editions.

necessary; yet, if we may trust the silence of Oudendorp, every MS. supports the text; but that critic is not always careful to mark the varieties in regard to these little words. See B. G. 1. 21. Again, there are passages where ille appears to be used in a sense which would require the nearer demonstrative pronoun. We have a passage of this kind in the 83rd chapter of the same book:His copiis Vergasillaunum, propinquum Vercingetorigis, praeficiunt. Ille ex castris, &c., where the pronoun refers to Vergasillaunus; but there is, in fact, a change of subject. The four commanders-in-chief entrust the command of this expedition to Vergasillaunus. Upon this the person so appointed,' &c. The use of ille to represent the new subject is precisely in accordance with its power; and it is the word invariably used by Virgil, in his beautiful similes and elsewhere, where attention is turned to the opposite party, corresponding almost precisely to our phrase, the other.'

6

6

To return to the Gymnasium, we find in the first volume (p. 38) a special article on the distinction between hic and ille when referring to two things already named. While Dr. Crombie assents to the ordinary and correct doctrine, that ille refers to the more remote, and hic to the nearer object, he adds, this distinction however is not uniformly observed by classic writers;' and he supports this by a number of references, beginning with Vidi Hectorem et Achillem, hunc Trojanum, illum Græcum. Cic. pro Rosc.' On first reading this sentence, it appeared to have but little relation to either of the speeches, pro Roscio Am.' or ' pro Rosc. Com.' The fact accordingly is, that neither contains the passage. Dr. Crombie has been misled in his examination of Sanctius, by whom the above passage is quoted (wherefrom, we pretend not to say); and immediately after it a passage from the pro Roscio comoedo.' The reference lying between the two quotations belongs to the second, as may be seen by attention to the punctuation. But had the doctor given the real passage from Cicero, there would still have been no difficulty. The passage is this, Quid est quod negligenter scribamus adversaria? Quid est quod diligenter conficiamus tabulas? Qua de causa? Quia haec sunt menstrua, illae sunt aeternae: haec delentur statim, illae servantur sancte, &c.' The explanation is simply this, it appears, from the context, that Cicero was calling for the tabulae (ledger) of C. Fannius, who would only offer his adversaria or day-book for inspection. The book of adversaria then was possibly in Cicero's hands, or at least in court, the other was kept back; hic and ille therefore are here physical, not logical

JAN. APRIL, 1832,

Y

6

6

demonstratives. The next quotation, from Hannibal's speech to Scipio, in Liv. 30, 30, is of the same nature. The pax in Scipionis manu' may be considered as present when compared with the sperata victoria in Deorum manu.' Dr. Crombie gives a second reference to Liv., viz. 23, 29; but we cannot find the passage alluded to. There is not time, however, to go farther we will simply observe, that the distinction between hic, ille, iste, in p. 41, requires some better proof than what is there produced; and the statement, made in many parts of the book (vol. i., p. 163—vol. ii., pp. 23, 35), that qui has the power of et ille, is at variance with the power of ille. It should be et is.

6

We will now proceed to the second subject in our classification; viz., the laws of construction, and especially the use of the moods and tenses. In this department we could not point out writer who has done more to facilitate the progress of the Latin student than Dr. Crombie. His merit, in this respect, is so well known, that it would be idle to refer to any particular parts of the Gymnasium in proof of it. Nearly all that he has written on the subjunctive mood, appears to us at once both correct and valuable; but when we say this, we must make a reservation in reference to the use of the subjunctive with si, utinam, and other particles of a like nature. The section beginning in the 325th page of the second volume, is expressly upon the mode of rendering 'would' and would have'; and the very first example quoted Si reliquissem, iniqui dicerent' is translated, If I had left him, malicious men would say;' whilst, in the same page,- quamobrem uteretur eadem confessione T. Annius-is expressed in English thus :- Milo, therefore, would have made the same confession, &c.' And still farther on, What would you do, having such a slave?' is given as the translation of Quid facias, talem sortitus servum?' There is an inconsistency in such translations, which is a sufficient proof of inaccuracy. It is scarcely likely that the English term 'would' may be rendered indifferently by the present or imperfect subjunctive. It is equally improbable that the Latin tense in eret may at one time be expressed by would,' at another by would have.' There are many other passages besides those quoted above, in which Dr. Crombie has translated with the same disregard of the tense; for instance, legerem' (p. 24), 'tenerem' (p. 26), ‘clamarem' (p. 229), vellesne' (p. 283), 'iremus' (vol. ii., p. 118), 'esset' (p. 340), legerem' (p. 335). We are aware that all our ordinary school grammars err in this point; and we should not have been so much surprised at finding Dr. Crombie in

"

6

6

6

6