Hand does. A difference in usage, analogous to that between supremus and summus, does not affect the identity of the root; as sup-rē-mus contains the whole of sup-ra, while sum-mus= supi-mus, or sub-mus, exhibits only the element common to sub and super (New Crat. § 179), so in-fi-mus contains only a part of infra, and im-mus exhibits this in a still further state of mutilation. Although in-f-ra involves in, it would not be a fair inference that immus is merely for in-imus. The meaning of the superlative is in-fer-rimus (cf. in-fer-ior), and the absorption of intermediate sounds is not greater than that in bruma for brevima, contio for conventio, cunæ for cubinæ, otium for opitium, prudens for providens, sublimis for sublevimis (Varron., p. 435, 2nd ed.). If, however, imo is the adverb of imus, there can be no doubt that it signifies 'in the lowest stage or degree;' for imus is opposed not only to summus, as in Horat. I. Carm. 34, 12: valet ima summis mutare,' but also to medius, as in the Auct. ad Herenn. iii. 18, 30: nihil nostrâ intersit, utrum a summo, an ab imo, an ab medio nomina eorum dicere incipiamus.' As, therefore, summum, or ad summum, involves a concession, as in Juven. III. 79:

Ad summum non Maurus erat, &c.

' at all events it must be allowed that it was not a Moor;' Cic. ad Att. xiii. 1: hodie aut summum cras,' 'or at all events to-morrow,' where it is equivalent to certe, and is therefore affirmative; imo must mean 'in the lowest degree in accordance with what has been said,' and thus Hand is quite right in rendering it e contrario, im Gegentheil, au contraire, or quin potius, in all of which there is a comparative negation. Such a passage as the following clearly shows that this is the proper meaning; Terent. And., iii. 5, 11.: 'PA. Expedies? D. Certe, Pamphile. PA. Nempe ut modo. D. Immo melius spero,' where the corrective immo is in direct contrast to the concessive certe: You will deliver me?' 'Yes, certainly.' 'No doubt, as you did just now.' 'On the con

trary, better, I hope.' Of all the absurdities, which have been written on the subject of immo, the most gratuitous is that which is published by Mr. George Long in the Classical Museum, No. ix. pp. 291, sqq. And it deserves special exposure, because it proceeds from a man of ability, who, after having spent many intervening years in the useful, but miscellaneous and distracting labour of editing the Penny Cyclopædia, or in endeavouring, invitá Minervá, to appropriate and naturalize the juristic system of Savigny, has returned at the eleventh hour to the Latin language, which he had never properly learned, or had entirely forgotten,*

*That this is not too sweeping a deduction may be shown by many proofs in addition to that in the text. (1) He is utterly ignorant on the important subject of Roman Gentile names. In an introduction to the Verrine orations he says confidently that there are no reasons to prove that Verres was a Cornelius, and that he probably had no name but C. Verres! Every one knows that while Verrius and Asinius are Gentile names, even a plebeian would no more acquiesce in the single name Verres or Asina, than in that of Bestia. (2) He does not understand the first principles of derivation and Wort-bildung, for in the same edition of the Verrine orations, he says that arcesso is derived from arcieo, in the same way as facesso is from facio. Now all derivations in -sso, or rather -isso, are of the first conjugation; these are of the fourth or consonant form, and the perfect -sivi shows that they involve sino, (see Varron. pp. 352, 394. 2nd ed.) (3) He cannot translate a piece of Latin prose without mistaking the meaning. Thus in the article Tacitus (Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography,' iii., p. 969) we have the following translation of Pliny Ep. ii. 1: 'and it was the completion of the felicity of Rufus to have his panegyric pronounced by so eloquent a man.' The Latin is: nam hic supremus felicitati ejus cumulus accessit laudator eloquentissimus, and however difficult it may be to make the English language equal the Latin in point and terseness, it is clear that the meaning is: 'for his good fortune received this last and crowning addition, that his praises were spoken by the most eloquent of men.' At any rate, no one, who had more than a school-boy knowledge of Latin, would give such a bald version as that which I have quoted above, and which not only omits supremus, but overlooks the force of the superlative eloquentissimus, on which the whole sentence depends: for Pliny had said just before that the legal and political oratory of the age had derived great honour from the funeral of Virginius Rufus-Hujus viri exsequiæ magnum ornamentum-foro et rostris attulerunt. The translation of such a passage is a good test of scholarship.

=

and has undertaken, with great contempt for those who have really studied the subject, to deal with the most difficult questions in Latin philology, concealing his want of knowledge and research by an affectation of bluntness and simplicity. Mr. Long's conjecture is that immo is an abbreviation of in modo. His reasons for this supposition are-that we have the forms admodum, propemodum, postmodum, and postmodo ; that in modo is supported by the analogy of illico in loco; that modo, as a separate particle, must often be read as a monosyllable in Terence; and that immo really means 'in a manner, in a degree, in a sort, in a kind.' This theory is overthrown on every side by an objection fatal to the Latin scholarship of its author. (1.) The particle modo, though pronounced as one syllable in the comic metres, is always written at length both by the comedians and by the other writers; and the same is the case with all other words abbreviated in the pronunciation, including admodum, &c., if these were so pronounced. (2.) Although we say in loco, whence illico (as dulce est desipere in loco), modus is one of those nouns which expressly and especially reject the preposition in with their ablative, and every good Latin scholar knows that in modo would be a gross solecism. (3.) Even if in modo were a possible expression, it would not correspond in meaning to immo. For in modo must amount to a qualified concession; but immo is always expressive of objection and correction, which are the reverse of concession. In the passage in which Mr. Long says that his sense of immo is pretty clear (Terence Heaut. Tim. I. 2, 10), no Latin scholar can fail to see that immo objects rather than concedes, and immo ille fuit senex importunus semper, must mean, as Coleman gives it-' Nay, but he ever was a cross old man;' and the same remark applies to Hor. I. Serm. iii. 20

Quid tu ?

Nullane habes vitia? Immo alia et fortasse minora—

which is not an admission as to having faults, but a denial

of the supposition that he had no faults. 'Have you no faults?' 'On the contrary, I have faults, but they are different, and perhaps less than those of Tigellius.' From all this we see that Latin philology is a dangerous subject for those who have been long engaged in other pursuits, and that a student of the language, to whom in modo is still a possibility, has everything to learn himself, and cannot be safely intrusted with the publication of new editions of Cicero and Cæsar. For our present purpose the example is valuable with reference to our next subject-the importance of learning the use of the Latin Cases, and the extent to which they require or repudiate the aid of prepositions.

(c.) Cases.

When an Englishman, who is accustomed to oblique cases distinguished by prepositions only, has to write Latin, his great difficulty is to know when to acquiesce in the mere inflexion, and when to aid it by a prepositional adjunct; and his difficulty is materially enhanced by convergences of form in the Latin cases. Nothing can be really more different than the original meaning of the dative, as the case of accession, or immediate proximity, and that of the ablative, as the case of ablation, which denotes the origin of motion or action; and yet in both numbers of the second declension, and in the plural of all nouns, these cases are represented by the same form in -bus or -is. Then, again, the locative, which originally ended in -in or -im, has passed through i, the form of the dative, which it sometimes retains in prose (for we have Karthagini'at Carthage,' in good MSS. of Livy), into the same form as the ablative in e in consonant nouns; and while in all plural nouns it is identical with the dative and ablative, it bears an outward resemblance to the genitive in the singular of vowel nouns. The rules for the distinct use of the cases without prepositions are grouped together in the

Lat. Grammar, art. 128, Rules IV.-IX., and the practised scholar is not very likely to violate them. The merest tiro could hardly fail to see that in the following passage (Cic. de Orat. II., 10 § 170), ferro is the ablative of the instrument, but that cum gladio cruento indicates an accompaniment : 'si et ferro interfectus ille, et tu inimicus ejus cum gladio cruento comprehensus es.' But an eminent school-master lately proved to me that he could not see the difference between the mere ablative of manner, and such constructions as the following:-'Magnâ cum curâ atque diligentiâ scripsit;' cum veniâ facito, quisquis es, ista legas;' both of which indicate not the manner, but the adjunct or accompaniment of the action. If a man says 'magno cum metu incipio dicere' (Cic. pro Cluent. c. 8), his meaning clearly is that the commencement of his speaking is attended by great fear; but metu without the preposition must have signified the cause, the manner, or the instrument, as in metu exanimari, territare, trepidare, &c. Similarly in Pliny H. N., vii. 20, 19: vehicula cum culeis onusta does not mean carts loaded with sacks,' but 'loaded carts together with sacks,' marking an addition to the weight which the athletic Vinnius Valens was accustomed to support; and while magná curá curari would express merely the manner, magná cum curá illum curari volo (Plaut. Men., v. 4, 14) implies 'I wish him to be cared for, and in addition I wish great care to be used.' With regard to the prepositions in general, they must be considered in the same light as other particles; and while all good grammars contain the necessary explanation of their use with different cases, it is only by familiarity with the best writers that a student can get into the habit of employing them in his own composition without any great risk of

error.