ΙΙ. Οf πάσχω and ὀφείλω.

Пox is frequently rendered by facio, not that it loseth its natural signification, but because we consider it more proportion. ably to our language (the French) which generally translates the passive by the active. Thus when we say, od te waoyu, perinde facit, the proper sense is, simile quid patitur, he is in such a disposition, eodem modo afficitur. In like manner, rí äv nai wáła; what should I do? that is to say, in what situation should I be? what would become of me? what should I not suffer? And in Dem. μηδαμῶς μηδὲν ἀβέλτερον ὑμεῖς πάθοιτε, videte ne quid stulte fqciatis, that is to say, do not let yourselves be surprised, let nothing amiss befal you.

Even when it is rendered by accidit, it still preserves its natural force; as Пáoxeo Teтo Midi, accidit id Medis, that is to say, the Medes suffer this, are in this situation, in this disposition. Whence it is evident, that the grammarians do not express themselves properly, when they say that wow signifies sometimes patior, and on the contrary, sometimes ago.

The imperfect ώφειλον, and the second aorist ὤφελο», or Ionic, without the augment, opeñor, which grammarians place among the adverbs, are real verbs, though they are rendered by utinam through all the persons: pedov, utinam ego; psh.85, utinam tu; peine, utinam ille. But we must understand here ï0s, or aïts, which answers to utinam. Thus when Herod says, un oedov vnär, it means 'pλov xv, utinam non vicissem, would to God I had not overcome, or I wish that I had not vanquished. Likewise in Eurip. μήποτ' ὤφειλε τὸν βεκόλον οἰκῆσαι, would to God this cow-herd had never lived there. And in Dem. ἐπειδὴ δὲ, ἃ μήποτ' ἄφελε, συνέβη since those things are come to pass, which it were to be wished never had.

This explication is so very probable, that we frequently find this optative particle expressed; as in Hom. ae' por preval waga Quinnrooi, Od. j. utinam mansissem, that is to say, utinam debuissem manere, or oportuisset me manere, would to God I had staid among the Phaocians. And opλor is so far from being an adverb there, that we even meet with it in this signification in the first aorist; ws wgi ~λλ' amoλéoba, utinam prius periissem, or perire debuissem, I wish I had died before.

But what chiefly occasions this mistake, is, that this peo also joined with the optative: but in that case it is the neuter participle, and the phrase must be resolved by an ellipsis, as in this example produced by Budæus, όφελον κατευθυνθείησαν αἱ ὁδοὶ μα, το φυλάξασθαι τὰ δικαιώματά σε, Psalin cxviii. utinam dirigamur vig mea ad custodiendas, justificationes tuas, we must understand, and resolve it thus, εἴθε κατευθυνθείησαν αἱ ὁδοί με, κατ ̓ ὄφελον, περί τη φυλάξασθαι τὰ δικαιώματα σε! Ο that my ways were directed, α they should be, to keep thy statutes! Likewise when Gaza says, λον ἡ ἀξία τῆς ὑμῶν ὑπολήψεως, qua utinam digna essent vestra opi nione atque sententia, we must resolve it thus,àia rüs iμão imonń↓ews, üç öpanor, as it should be, as we could wish.

T

CHAP. IX.

That we must consider the Nature of the Tenses.

It is very proper also to consider the nature of the tenses, which when perfectly understood, says Henry Stephen, contributes vastly to an adequate knowledge of the Greek and French languages; and, on the contrary, the want of understanding it causeth great obscurity in many passages.

The difference of the three preterites, the imperfect, the perfect, and plu-perfect, is the same in Greek as in Latin; but there remains some difficulty with regard to the aorists.

I. Of the first Aorist.

Sanctius gives the name of aorist to the second only, which seems to be more undetermined than the first, inasmuch as it is oftener put than the first for different tenses, present, past, or future; and as for the first, he calls it wagenλubas, as much as to say, leviter præteritus, just now past; which is agreeable to the explication of Casaubon in his Exercitations on Baronius's Annals, where treating of the coming of the wise men, he says, that 'Inde yerlivros, Christo nato, denotes a much later time, than if he had put yɛyeruire, which would signify that it happened a long time since. This is also the opinion of Vossius in the last edition of his Greek grammar, and in his Dissertation de anno natali Christi: which they seem to have learned of H. Stephen in his book of the conformity between the Greek and French languages. This writer had been formerly of opinion, that the Greek aorist is the same with the French perfect indefinite, when we say, je fis, j' allay, je lûs, wherein he agrees with Budæus in his Commentaries; but afterwards he began to question it: and, without coming to any decision, he takes notice of a very common application of this Greek aorist, which is to express the time lately past, and agreeably to these expressions, as soon as he feels the heat, he presently melts; if I do but hear the noise of a mouse, I am immediately awake; and such like: as we may see in this verse of Homer,

Ος κε Θεοῖς ἐπιπείθηται, μάλα τ' ἔκλυον αὐτό, Hom.

Whosoever submits to the Gods, they presently hear him. And he observes that I am immediately awake, is taken for I awake; and the latter implies an habit, or facility in awaking. Likewise in Demosthenes, μικρὸν πταῖσμα ἀνεχαίτισε καὶ διέλυσε πάν ra, a very small accident in war ruins and destroys every thing.

This use of the aorist instead of the present, frequently happens in the imperative and the infinitive, in the middle as well as the active, but more seldom in the passive, except when the active is disused, as the grammarians observe: but herein there is no distinction made between the aorists, as Sanctius would fain have it; ánd it is unquestionable, that they are frequently put for one another, as well as the futures, though Sanctius calls the second futurum remotius, as I have observed in the beginning to treat of the verbs, P. 93.

II. Of the Perfect and the Aorists.

1. The first aorists passive of the verbs in quz, which have no active voice, are generally taken actively, and sometimes passively; as Saxiya, I discourse; dixon, I have discoursed, or spoke; laopa, I cure; izobeig, one that cures, or is cured; wagadiyouan I receive; wxgxdexbus, one that receives, or is received; Jedoμzı, I consider, I contemplate; ibrálny, contemplatus sum, I have considered, or lustratus sum, I have been considered, or observed.

In like manner dataveis for daños, one that has squandered all, διαλεχθῆναι for διαλέξασθαι, to have discoursed; εὐλαβήθην, Γα ther than the middle bancán, I behaved well, with circumspection; igyaobis for igyzoúmeros, one that has done, or performed; Siavonbeis for diavonoάuevas, qui excogitavit, one that has contrived, or invented; and such like.

The perfect passive is also used in the same manner; as digi mai, I have discoursed; ivdiduymas, I have shown; wetoinpzi, I have done; hurgimiopa, I have disposed; magadesypal, I have reeeived and it is these that properly correspond to the Latin verbs common, because they have both significations under a passive ter mination, which is not always the case of the middle verb, for this in several tenses retains the active termination.

The verbs passive that have two aorists, oftener use the second than the first; as wλýrroμai, inλńyry, I have been beaten, rather / than επλήχθην. In like manner ἐῤῥάγην, I have been broke; ἧςπάyou, I have been taken away; irgάan, I have been changed, or I have taken fight, from the verbs ῥήγνυμι, ἁρπάζομαι, τρέπομαι, and

the like.

III. Of the middle Aorists.

Among the middle aorists the first is commonly used in both. significations, but the second is oftener met with in the active sense: for example, aigiouzi, sixówny, I have taken, I have chosen, more usual than I have been taken, or chosen, as the author of the Idiotisms observes.

That we are to consider the Nature and Disposition of the Moods.

I. Of the Indicative, the Subjunctive, and the Optative.

HE disposition of the moods, which I have followed in the third book, putting the indicative, the subjunctive, the optative, the imperative, and the infinitive, one after another, is certainly the most natural; for as the imperative and the infinitive are not properly moods, the best way is to place them at the end of the verb: and whereas the subjunctive has a much greater affinity. with the indicative, than the optative has, as may be seen in Apoll. book iii. chap. 29. it is very proper it should follow next to it

As the first aorist of this mood marketh also the time to come, one might imagine at first, that it would be better to form it from the fut. indicat. as Tu↓w, ns, ņ from row, 15, 84. But this cannot be, as Apollon. observcs in the same place, not only because the changes that are made in the aorist indicat. though not in the fut, are communicated to this tense in the subjunctive; as viμw, to pasture, fut. u, first aorist, a, subjunct. viuw; hw, to sing, Jada, I'↓nax, Jhaw; but moreover, because the changes that are made in the fut. and not in the aorists, are not communicated to the subjunctive, as ouí?w, to think, fut. vouśow, Alt. ropiâ, aor. ivóμioa, subjunct. iow, but never vi, as in all appearance the Attics would have made it, had they taken it from the future.

Now though the moods are not to be rejected ictirely, yet their signification is sometimes so very arbitrary, that they are frequently put for one another through all tenses. This we have proved in our remarks in the Latin method, and we have also the authority of Budæus in his Commentaries, page 948. of Robert Stephen's edition, and it may be further confirmed by the fol lowing examples: παρ' ἐμοὶ ἐδεὶς μισθοφόρος ὅσις μὴ ἱκανός ἐσιν ἴσα wo poi, Xen. apud me nullus mercenarius est qui non idoneus est (for sit) eadem facere, quæ abs me fiunt, I have no one soldier in my pay that is not able to do what I can do myself: where we say is in the present instead of in the subjunctive, or as ŋ in the ? optative.

Εἰ γὰρ τὴν αὐτὴν παρεχόμεθα ἡμεῖς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν προθυμίαν, Dem. for if we had discovered the same resolution in our own cause, si enim eamdem in nostra ipsorum causa alacritatem ostendissimus, &c. where we see an indicative for a subjunctive, viz. waguxiuba for παρασχώμεθα.

J

Εἰ μὲν περὶ καινᾶ τινος πράγματος προτίθετο λέγειν, Dem. instead of @goronta, if he designed to speak of any new subject,

Again, εἰ μὲν γὰς ὑφ ̓ ἡμῶν πεισθέντες ἀνείλοντο τὸν πόλεμον, Id. for

To, si enim à nobis persuasi bellum hoc suscepissent, if they had undertaken this war by our persuasion.

Οὐδὲν πώποτε αὐτὴν ἔτ ̓ εἶπα, ὅτε ἐποίησα, ἐφ ̓ ᾧ ἐσχύνθη, Xen. nihil unquam ei vel dictum abs me, vel factum est, quo erubuit for erubuerit, I never said, or did any thing to her to make her blush. Where the aor. indicat. ησχύνθη is for the optat. ἂν αἰσχυνθείη.

Ἡ κάμηλος ἀπὸ τῶν ποταμῶν ἐ πίνει πρότερον, η συνταράξει, Arist. camelus è fluviis non bibit, antequam eos conturbabit, for conturbarit; the camel troubles the river water before he drinks of it: for ἂν συνταράξεις in the opt. or συνταράξη in the subjunc. Which is very common with the Attics, even when they put the conjunction before it; meg tiç iμîv wgoségei toy ver, Dem. Olynt. 1. si quis vobis mentem adhibebit, for adhibuerit: if any body will listen to you with attention.

The OPTATIVE is also put for the indicat. Λύσανδρος δὲ Φιλοκλέα πρῶτον ἐρωτήσας, ὃς τὰς Ανδρίας καὶ Κορινθίας κατακρημνήσεις, τί εἴη aos wabei, &c. Xenoph. Lysander cum ex Philocle, qui Andrios & Corinthios præcipites egerat, quæsivisset, quâ pœna dignus esset, &c. Lysander having asked Philocles, who had ordered the Andriaus

the Corinthians to be tumbled from a precipice, what punishment he deserved. Where we see xxтagnusnoeie, aor. Æol. opt. for xatxxgnux, the plu-perfect indicative.

Likewise in Plato, ἔλεγες ὅτι Ζεὺς τὴν δικαιοσύνην πέμψειε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, where πέμψει is for ἔπεμψε, a Jove dicebas immissam hominibus justitiam fuisse, you said that Jupiter had sent justice among mankind. Which is very common, when there happens to be a particle, as ότι, ὡς, ὅσπες, ὅςτις, ὅσοι, ὅτε, &c.

II. Of the Imperative and the Infinitive.

The imperative, as we have observed Book III., may pass for a future: and it is ridiculous, says Apollon. book i. chap. 30. to think otherwise, since it is not customary to command things past, or present, but only those that are to be executed after being commanded, and of course things to come.

Wherefore the Hebrews have made it their first future, and the Greeks use it frequently to express the time to come: 50' dearo, Eurip. for dedos, scis ergo quid fac, for quid facturus sis; do you know what you are to do ? Οἶσθ ̓ ὅτι ποίησον, Men. for ποιήσεις, scio te facturum, I know you will do it. As, on the contrary, they often use the future for commanding.

But the author of the Idiotisms is mistaken in saying, that the imperative is put for the infinitive. For in the example which he gives from Dem. δεηθηὶς ὑμῶν τοσᾶτον· ἐπειδὰν ἅπαντα ἀκέσητε, κρίνατε, μὴ πρότερον προλαμβάνετε : where he pretends that κρίνατε is for κρίνειν, and προλαμβάνετε for προλαμβάνειν : the sentence is abso lute, id à vobis unum precatus: postquam omnia audieritis, judicate, nullumque præjudicium afferte. For his request commences there absolutely, indar, postquam. Begging only this one favour of you, viz. not to judge before you have heard every thing, nor to let yourselves be swayed by any sort of prejudice.

It is equally a mistake to say that the infinitive is put for an imperative, according to the doctrine of some grammarians: μaerugins ψευδῆ φεύγειν, τὰ δίκαι' ἀγορεύειν, Phocil, for we must understand xen, oportet, it is necessary; or woont, convenit, it is proper, or some such thing: we should avoid bearing false witness, und say nothing but what is true.

The present of the imperative, says Apollon. book i. chap. 30. denotes only the commencement of the action : σκαπλέτω τὰς ἀμπέ 285, let him begin to work in the vineyard. But the aorist implies the future action accomplished : σκαψάτω τὰσἀμπέλες, let him have work ed or dug in the vineyard. Wherefore Ramus, and those that have followed him, as Sylburgus and others, call these aorists, as also the perf. imperat. futures perfect, that is to say, which denote the future thing accomplished, partaking at once of the future and the perfect. III. That the Infinitive is never put for the Subjunctive.

It is also a mistake, which the author of the Idiotisms has given into, to imagine that the infinitive is put for the subjunctive, when Dem. says, το ψήφισμα τότο γράφω πλεῖν ἐπὶ τὰς τόπες, ἐν οἷς ἂν ἡ φίλιππος. For πλεῖν makes here an absolute sentence, and ought to be considered as a noun, according to what we have