Subjunctive Mood introduced by "Qui". 13

=

not the man to do that. Librum habeo quem lego, I have a book which I am reading, and Librum non habeo quem legam, I have no book to read. Misit legatos qui dixerunt, He sent ambassadors who said (qui et ii), and Misit legatos qui dicerent, He sent ambassadors to say (who were to say) (qui = ut ii). Cacus sum qui hæc non vidi, I, who did not see these things, am a blind man (so don't wonder that I did not see them), but Me cæcum, qui hæc non viderim! Blind man that I was not to see these things! Nemo est qui non laudat, would mean (if it meant anything), There is no one (somewhere), and he does not praise; but Nemo est qui non laudet, There is no one but (who does not praise) praises. So nihil tetigit quod non ornaret, He touched nothing that he did not adorn, where ornavit would be

nonsense.

This

In all these subjunctives the clause introduced by the relative is necessary to complete the sense of the whole passage. clause is not co-ordinate and capable of being separately stated by itself. It is subordinate, conjunctive or conjoined, not independent. Nor has the principal clause often any meaning without the subjunctive clause.

English is often very ambiguous, e.g., I met the general who told me that the army was routed, means, either (co-ordinate), I met the general, and he told me, &c., or (sub-ordinate), I met the (particular) general (defined), as being the one who told me, &c.

For the sake of convenience, the sentences introduced by qui, and followed by subjunctives may be classified as follows:

(1) Sentences that might be alternatively introduced by ut, and contain or imply in the principal clause a word like talis, is (such), tantus, &c. This is called by Roby-consecutive subjunctive. It is introduced by qui, ut, quin (= qui non).

Here are some examples, Sunt qui dicant, where there is really only one logical predicate their saying. The existence of the sayers is not emphatic; if it were so it would be Sunt quidam qui dicunt. The meaning is, Some go the length of saying-are so confident of their case that they say. So Quis est qui dubitet, Who is there that doubts? is quite different from quis est qui dubitat, which would mean, what is the name of the particular person who doubts; whereas the meaning of the subjunctive is,

=

Does any one doubt? Who is so sceptical as to doubt? And as this is negative, we find sentences like Nemo est qui dubitet, There is no one who doubts, where the indicative would be impossible in any circumstances, for if nobody is, exists, doubt is out of the question. Again Is non sum qui id faciam, I am not the man to do that-is one logical expression, not two, as the indicative would be qui facio, I am not the man who does some particular thing referred to. With the subjunctive is = talis, and qui ut ego, so with comparative, Sapientior est quam qui decipiatur, He is too wise to be deceived-where decipitur would mean, He is wiser than the man who is deceived.

=

2. Qui may introduce clauses with subjunctive where qui = ut with demonstrative pronoun, and which describe a purpose or result to be attained (final scntences).

=

Misit legatos qui pacem peterent, He sent ambassadors to sue for peace-where qui ut (purpose). Here the indicative would mean, "who asked," &c., not implying one logical idea, but two -i.e., their asking was a thing done on their own discretion, not part of their commission.

3. Qui may introduce clauses with subjunctive when qui = quum, &c., and which assign a reason; (causal sentences) but the reason is always closely connected with the principal clause. In fact, without the qui clause, the predicate would not be complete. Thus: O fortunate adolescens qui tuæ virtutis Homerum præconem inveneris! Happy youth to have found in Homer a herald of thy valour! Here the qui clause is the complement of fortunate. The indicative could hardly be used in any sense. If there were no interjection the distinction might be seen— e.g., Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas, &c., where referring to Lucretius in particular, Virgil calls him happy. subjunctive would not imply that any particular person had found out the secrets of nature, but only that whoever did so, would be happy. N.B.-Quippe often strengthens this qui in subjunctives.

The

4. Qui may introduce clauses with subjunctives where qui =licet, quum, quamvis (although). (Restrictive subjunctive.) As Nosmetipsi, qui Lycurgei a principio fuissemus, quotidie

demitigamur.-CICERO, ad Att. We ourselves though at first we had been strict followers of Lycurgus, are daily toning down. So quod sciam, as far as I know, in parenthetic sentences.

ORATIO OBLIQUA.

An account of a speech or thought may be given verbatim (oratio directa), or thrown into the third person by the historian or person who reports the speech (oratio obliqua). Thus: The general spoke as follows:-"I will give freedom to all of you that bring me the head of a slain foe" (direct). The general said that he would give freedom to all that brought him the head of a slain foe (indirect). Latin writers use either form, the direct being more vivid. Cæsar prefers the oblique (perhaps from modesty), Livy and Tacitus use either, often gliding from the one to the other without warning.

The Oratio Obliqua is a species of noun-sentence occupying the place of subject or object after a verb like say, think, blame, &c. Thus: The king said that the army had been conquered. Here subject The king, predicate said, object the rest of the sentence. This sort of complex sentence may have an adjective or adverbial clause explanatory of some word in its subordinate member. Thus The king said that the army which was encamped at Veii had been destroyed. Here subject The king, predicate said, object the rest of the sentence. But this object itself contains a principal and subordinate clause. In future remarks on this subject, by principal and subordinate clauses are meant the two parts of the noun sentence.

The great point to remember is that the subordinate clause of the noun-sentence is in indirect speech put in the subjunctive mood.

The chief differences between Oratio Directa and Obliqua may be given thus:

Subjunctives (mostly historical, imperfect, and pluperfect, and in 3rd person).

Infinitives (se velle loqui).

Subjunctive (mostly imperfect and 3rd person).

Interrogative clauses, which are real Subjunctive (mostly historical tenses

questions, expecting an answer (mostly 2nd person). Interrogative clauses, which are mere rhetorical artifices, and expect no answer (1st or 3rd person). Adverbs nunc, hodie, &c., hic (present time).

So pronouns like hic and iste become

EXAMPLES:

and in 3rd person).

Infinitive (generally).

Tum, eo, die, illic (past time).

ille, is.

Ego nunc volo tecum agere would be Se velle (imperfect infinitive) tum cum eo agere.

Si veteris contumelia oblivisci possim, num possum etiam recentium injuriarum memoriam deponere, in Oblique will be Si veteris contumelia oblivisci posset, num posse etiam, &c.

Tum imperator;

"Præmium iis propono, qui primi murum ascenderint" (future-complete), in Oblique will be Se proponere

ascendissent.

"Abi," inquit, "et tecum reputa quis sis," will be Abiret, et secum reputaret quis esset.

Ego," inquit, "tibi dabo omnia quæ habeo," will be Se illi daturum esse omnia quæ (ipse) haberet.

Si," inquit, "ante kalendas Januarias venero, equum istum emam" = Se si ante kal. Jan. venisset, equum illius emturum esse. "Si," inquit, "urbem capere potuissem, civibus pepercissem" Se si urbem capere potuisset, civibus parsurum fuisse.

=

Omnia fecisti quæ volui will be Eum omnia fecisse quæ ipse voluisset.

Regnum meum repeto, et persequi ingratos cives volo. Ferte opem, adjuvate; vestras quoque veteres injurias ultum ite, &c., will be Se suum repetere regnum, et persequi ingratos cives velle. Ferrent opem, adjuvarent; suas quoque veteres injurias ultum irent.

(Dictator literas ad senatum misit)—“ Meis consiliis Veii jam erunt in potestate populi Romani, Quid de prædâ faciendum censetis," will be Suis Veios

censerent?

fore

Hocine patiendum fuit si ad nutum dictatoris non respondit vir consularis? Fingite mentitum ante, atque ideo non habuisse quod tum responderet. Cui servo unquam mendacii pœna vincula fuerunt?" will be Hocine patiendum fuisse si . . . . responderit ? Fingerent, &c. Cui pænam vincula fuisse?

"Quid montes proderunt, quid tractum in æstatem aliam bellum ?" will be Quid montes profuturos, quid tractum in æstatem, &c.

"Quid tibi vis, cur in meas possessiones venisti?" will be Quid sibi vellet, cur in suas possessiones veniret.

Clauses introduced by relative pronouns and relative conjunctions (qui, ubi, quum, quod) take subjunctive in Oratio Obliqua; but if the clause is no part of the statement of the speaker, but an explanatory, parenthetical clause, it will remain in Indicative: He said that he came to the Don, which you know is in Scythia, where he fought with the enemy and defeated them-Dixit se ad Tanaim pervenisse, quem scitis in Scythiâ esse, ubi collatis signis hostes fuyaret.

OTHER FORMS OF NOUN-SENTENCE.

I. Besides the ordinary form of noun-sentence consisting of a clause in the infinitive and one in the subjunctive, the infinitive may be superseded by quod and the subjunctive after certain verbs like laudo, queror, gaudeo. In many of these cases, as well as with the clause in the infinitive, the sentence is what has been called semi-oblique, i.e., it expresses a thought, not a fact, e.g., "laudo puerum quod ita fecerit," is= dico puerum