that Antipho is in fault, equivalent to si Antipho culpam admisit; Horat., Epist., i., 12, 2, non est ut copia major a Jove donari possit tibi. The same occurs in the following passages of Cicero: Orat., 59, est autem ut id maxime deceat, non id solum; p. Coel., 20, quando enim hoc factum non est? quando reprehensum? quando non permissum? quando denique fuit ut, quod licet, non liceret? i. e., quando non licuit, quod licet? de Off., ii., 8, haec est una res prorsus ut non multum differat inter summos et mediocres viros; i. e., haec una res non multum differt. But est ut, instead of est cur, is of a different kind. See § 562.

The same circumlocution is also made, though very seldom, by means of est with the infinitive; e. g., Propert., i., 10, 13, Ne sit tibi, Galle, montes semper adire, equivalent to ne adeas; Tibull., i., 6, 24, At mihi si credas-non sit mihi oculis timuisse meis, that is, non timeam or non timebo. Also, in Sallust, Jug., 110, 3, Fuerit mihi eguisse aliquando amicitiae tuae; i. e., eguerim, may I have been in want of your friendship.

[§ 753.] 15. Coepi with the infinitive is very often nothing else than a descriptive circumlocution of the verbum finitum, though always implying temporary duration; e. g., Cic., in Verr., iv., 29, Rex maximo conventu Syracusis, in foro, flens atque deos hominesque obtestans, clamare coe pit, candelabrum factum e gemmis-id sibi C. Verrem abstulisse; in Verr., ii., 22, Primo negligere et contemnere coepit, quod causa prorsus, quod dubitari posset, nihil habebat, that is, negligebat et contemnebat aliquamdiu. Similar passages are of frequent occurrence. Incipere is more rarely used in this way; as in Verr., ii., 17, cogere incipit eos, ut absentem Heraclium condemnarent, it took place, but not till after some delay; iv., 66, retinere incipit, he did his part in retaining. Compare § 500, note 1.

[§ 754.] 16. Another kind of pleonasm in Latin is the ase of two negatives instead of an affirmative; in English this does not occur, except where a negative adjective; as, unlearned, unskilful, unfrequent, acquires an affirmative meaning by the addition of the negative "not;" as, not unlearned, &c. In Latin this use extends much farther, for not only does non before a negative word; as, nemo, nullus, nihil, nunquam, nusquam, nescio, ignoro, render this word affirmative, but also the negative conjunction neque obtains the affirmative sense of et, by means of a negative

word following in the same proposition; e. g., neque haec non evenerunt, and this took place indeed; neque tamen ea non pia et probanda fuerunt, and yet this was right and laudable; Cic., de Fin., iv., 22, Nec hoc ille non vidit, sed verborum magnificentia est et gloria delectatus; de Nat. Deor., ii., 33, Nec vero non omni supplicio digni P. Claudius, L. Junius consules, qui contra auspicia navigarunt. The sentence preceding is, auspicia ad opinionem vulgi retinentur; Nep., Att., 13, Nemo Attico minus fuit aedifi. cator: neque tamen non imprimis bene habitavit. As to ne non, for ut, see § 535, in fin.

Note.-Two negatives, however, do not mutually destroy each other in the case of non being followed by ne-quidem; e. g., non fugio ne hos quidem mores; non praetermittendum videtur ne illud quidem genus pecuniae conciliatae, in Cicero, in Verr.; farther, when the negative leading proposition has subordinate subdivisions with neque neque, neve-neve, in which case these negative particles are equivalent to aut-aut. Thus we very frequently find, e. g., Cic., ad Att., xiv., 20, nemo unquam, neque poëta, neque orator fuit, qui quemquam meliorem quam se arbitraretur; ad Att., ix., 12, non medius fidius prae lacrimis possum reliqua nec cogitare, nec scribere; de Leg., ii., 27, eam ne quis nobis minuat neve vivus neve mortuus. Respecting ne non, we may add that after vide (see § 534), it must be rendered in English by "whether;" e. g., Cic., de Divin., ii., 13, multa istiusmodi dicuntur in scholis, sed credere omnia vide ne non sit necesse, but consider whether it is necessary to believe it all; ii., 4, vide igitur ne nulla sit divinatio, therefore consider whether divinatio exists at all.

There are some few passages where two negatives in the same proposition do not destroy each other, but strengthen the negation. In Greek this is a common practice; but in Latin it can be regarded only as a rare exception, apparently derived from the language of common life. See my remark on Cic., in Verr., ii., 24, in fin.

It must be observed, however, that the use of non before a negative word does not merely restore the affirmative sense, but generally heightens it. The meaning depends upon the whole tenor of the speech, but usually it is merely a formal softening of the expression; e. g., homo non indoctus, instead of homo sane doctus; especially with superlatives, non imperitissimus,, not the most inexperienced, that is, a very experienced man. In like manner, non semel is equivalent to saepius, non ignoro, non nescio, non sum nescius, to "I know very well;" non possum non, to necesse est; e. g., Cic., ad Att., viii., 2, non potui non dare litteras ad Caesarem, quum ille prior ad me scripsisset; de Fin., iii., 8, Qui mortem in malis ponit, non potest eam non timere; ad Fam., iv., 7, Nemo potest non eum maxime laudare, qui cum spe vincendi simul abjicit certandi etiam cupiditatem.

[§ 755.] 17. The words nemo, nullus, nihil, nunquam,

have a different sense, according as the non is placed be fore or after them.

Ron nemo,

some one; nemo non,

non nulli, non nihil,

some;

nullus non,

something; nihil non,

every one (subst.). every (adject.). everything. nonnunquam, sometimes; nunquam non, at all times.

So, nusquam non, everywhere; but nonnusquam is not in use, alicubi being used instead of it. Non-nisi acquires the meaning of "only" (see the examples in § 801), and modo non and tantum non, that of "almost." See above, § 729.

[§ 756.] 18. Et seems to be pleonastically used after multi when another adjective follows, for in English the adjective many is put, like numerals, before other adjectives without the copulative "and." In Latin, however, we frequently find, e. g., multae et magnae res, multa et varia negotia, multi being used like other adjectives, and et, also, supplying the place of et is, introducing a more accurate description (see § 699); e. g., Cic., in Rull., ii., 2, versantur enim in animo meo multae et graves cogitationes, quae mihi nullam partem neque diurnae neque nocturnae quietis impertiunt.

The conjunction vero is used pleonastically in the apodosis to indicate that it contains an answer; see above, § 716. At is similarly used to express opposition, especially after si and its compounds; e. g., Terent., Eunuch., v., 2, 25, Si ego digna hac contumelia sum maxime, at tu indignus qui faceres tamen; Liv., x., 19, Bellona, si hodie nobis victoriam duis, ast ego templum tibi voveo. Also, after quoniam; as, Liv., i., 28, Quoniam tuum insanabile ingenium est, at tuo supplicio doce, humanum genus ea sancta credere, quae a te violata sunt.

[§ 757.] 19. A kind of pleonasm, which, however, partakes of the nature of an anacoluthon, and is, therefore, beyond our limits, consists in the repetition of a conjunction, when a sentence has grown too long, or has been interrupted by parenthetical clauses. This is the case most frequently with si and ut; e. g., Terent., Phorm., i., 3, init., Adeon' rem redisse, ut, qui mihi optime consultum velit, patrem ut extimescam, where Ruhnken's note is to be compared; Cic., in Verr., v., 11, ut quivis, quum aspexisset, non se praetoris convı ium, sed ut Cannenser pugnam

nequitiae videre arbitraretur; Liv., iii., 19, si quis vobis humillimus homo de plebe-si quis ex his; Cic., de Divin., i., 57, Quid est igitur, cur quum domus sit omnium una, eaque communis, quumque animi hominum semper fuerint futu rique sint, cur ii, quid ex quoque eveniat, et quid quamque rem significet, perspicere non possint? An interrupted construction here may be taken up again by the particles mentioned above, § 739.

CHAPTER LXXXVI.

ELLIPSIS.

§ 758.] 1. ELLIPSIS is the omission of one or more words which are necessary for the completeness of a construction, or, at least, appear necessary to us who are not Romans, inasmuch as we are inclined to consider the complete expression of a thought, where no word is wanting, as the regular and original one. But it is manifest that grammar cannot notice all kinds of ellipsis, as a speaker or writer very often begins to express a thought, and after having used some words, drops it, being satisfied with having merely suggested it; as in Virgil, Aen., i., 139, Quos ego! where we see from the connexion what is to be supplied, "I will teach you how to conduct yourselves," or something of a similar kind. To explain the reasons of such arbitrary omissions made by the speaker for the sake of emphasis, and to illustrate the practice by examples, is the province of rhetoric, which considers it as a rhetorical figure, called aposiopesis. Grammar has to treat only of things which often recur, and are customary under particular circumstances, and grammatical omissions of this kind alone will be the subject of the following remarks.

[759.] Note.-The ellipsis occurring in proverbs cannot be taken into consideration here, for it is the custom of all languages to indicate wellknown sentences only by a few words, and to leave it to the hearer to supply the rest; e. g., fortes fortuna; scil. adjuvat; nec sibi, nec alteri, scil prodest, in Cic., de Off., ii., 10. Of a similar kind is the expression in drinking the health of a person, bene te, scil. valere jubeo. Tibull., ii., 1, 31; Ovid, Fast., ii., 637.

[§ 760.] 2. Respecting the omission and addition of the personal pronouns when forming the subject of a sentence, see § 693. The indefinite homine (people) is also

omitted, whence the expressions dicunt, tradunt, ferunt, putant, vocant, &c. (see § 381), frequently with the addition of vulgo (commonly). The expression "so-called" is, by means of the same ellipsis, rendered by quem, quam, quod or quos, quas, quae vocant or vocabant. (See § 714.)

[§ 761.] 3. Proper names of persons are sometimes joined with the genitive of the father's name, the words filius or filia being omitted; e. g., Faustus Sullae, in Cic., p. Cluent., 34, Caecilia Metelli, Čic., de Divin., i., 46; but more especially in the case of foreign names, it being customary in Greek; e. g., Hannibal Gisgonis, Seleucus Antiochi, see Ruhnken on Vell. Pat., ii., 5. An omission more common in Latin than that of filia is that of uxor with the name of the husband; hence we not unfrequently find Terentia Ciceronis, Metella Crassi, Marcia Catonis, and Fabia Dolabellae, Domitia Passieni, in Quintil., vi., 3, 73; Apicata Sejani, Tacit., Ann., iv., 11; Hectoris Andromache, Virg., Aen., iii., 319; Elissa Sichaei, Ovid, Heroid., vii., 193.

[§ 762.] 4. Aedes or templum is frequently omitted, the name of the divinity alone being expressed in the geni tive, but a preposition is always added; e. g., Liv., i., 41, habitabat rex ad Jovis Statoris; Cic., ad Fam., xiv., 2, Valerius mihi scripsit quemadmodum a Vestae ad tabulam Valeriam ducta esses; Philip., i., 7, pecunia utinam ad Opis maneret!

[§ 763.] 5. Other particular ellipses are those of the words tempus, in the expressions ex quo, ex eo, and ex illo (since that time), and brevi (shortly); pars, with adjectives, as in English; tertia (a third), decuma (a tenth), quinquagesima (the fiftieth part), and in the plural, partes (parts performed by an actor), with the adjectives primae and secundae; febris, with the adjectives tertiana and quartana; aqua, with frigida and calida; caro, with the adjectives ferina, agnina, bubula, canina, porcina, &c., is very common; mare, with altum; castra, with hiberna, aestiva; praedium (an estate), with adjectives derived from the names of neighbouring towns; as in Pompeianum properabam, in Tusculano eram, ex Formiano scripsit; ordo, in the expression in quattuordecim sedere; i. e., to sit on one of the fourteen rows of benches set apart for the equites; pecuniae, in the name of the action of repetundae; i. e.,